Pentagon Taps Anti-Christian Extremist for Religious Tolerance Policy
Pentagon Taps Anti-Christian Extremist for Religious Tolerance Policy.
“Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.”
Those words were recently written by Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), in a column he wrote for the Huffington Post. Weinstein will be a consultant to the Pentagon to develop new policies on religious tolerance, including a policy for court-martialing military chaplains who share the Christian Gospel during spiritual counseling of American troops.
Weinstein decries what he calls the “virulent religious oppression” perpetrated by conservative Christians, whom he refers to as “monstrosities” and “pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers,” comparing them to “bigots” in the Deep South during the civil rights era.
He cites Dr. James Dobson—the famous Christian founder of Focus on the Family—as “illustrating the extremist, militant nature of these virulently homophobic organizations’ rhetorically-charged propaganda.” Regarding those who teach orthodox Christian beliefs from the Bible, Weinstein concludes, “Let’s call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters.”
Weinstein then endorses the ultra-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), who publishes a list of “hate groups.” Alongside truly deplorable organizations like the KKK, the SPLC’s list includes a host of traditional Christian organizations (for their support of traditional marriage) and Tea Party organizations (for supporting limited government). Weinstein says SPLC correctly labels them all as “hate groups.”
Floyd Lee Corkins—the first person ever convicted of domestic terrorism in federal court under the laws of Washington, D.C.—told the FBI that he chose his intended shooting spree targets from the SPLC website’s map. Corkins was arrested at the offices of the Family Research Council (FRC) after shooting a security guard in August 2012. His court documents state that Corkins intended to kill as many people as possible.
Weinstein also supports Lt. Col. Jack Rich, the Army officer who wrote to subordinate officers that soldiers who hold traditional Christian beliefs agreeing with organizations on SPLC’s “hate group” list are incompatible with “Army values” and should be carefully watched and excluded from military service.
According to Weinstein, “We should as a nation effusively applaud Lt. Col. Rich.” He adds that the nation should “venture further” than Rich’s recommendations, saying, “We MUST vigorously support the continuing efforts to expose pathologically anti-gay, Islamaphobic, and rabidly intolerant agitators for what they are: die-hard enemies of the United States Constitution. Monsters, one and all. To do anything less would be to roll out a red carpet to those who would usher in a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, nationalistic militarism, and superstitious theocracy.”
Many media outlets are silent on this disturbing new alliance between fanatical secularists and leaders in the Pentagon appointed by President Barack Obama and Secretary Chuck Hagel, under which the U.S. military would officially consult with someone with such foaming-at-the-mouth passionate hostility toward traditional Christians, including Evangelicals and devout Catholics. The military—America’s most heroic and noble institution—includes countless people of faith, and this represents a radical departure from the U.S. military’s warm embrace of people of faith in its ranks.
Yet the little coverage this story is getting is positive, such as this Washington Post columnthat somehow manages not to carry any of these frightening quotes from Weinstein and instead actually endorses the Pentagon’s meeting with him. Sally Quinn’s Post column also approvingly quotes MRFF Advisory Board member Larry Wilkerson as saying, “Sexual assault and proselytizing, according to Wilkerson, ‘are absolutely destructive of the bonds that keep soldiers together.’”
Did you get that? They say having someone share the Christian gospel with you is akin to being raped. Weinstein makes sure there are no doubts, being quoted by the Post as adding, “This is a national security threat. What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs is to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.” Read the rest at: Pentagon Taps Anti-Christian Extremist for Religious Tolerance Policy.
Dividing Society or Condoning Sin
Are certain segments of Christianity exempt from God‘s laws simply because they don’t like them or find them offensive?
Should we as follower of Christ separate people into different classes in order to keep from offending them if what they practice as daily like if against the law of God even if they are approved by current society?
I think to most Christians the obvious answer would be no! We would not except murderers, thieves, or even gluttons into accepted categories of sin. Sin is sin and it is something that we are all guilty of. True murderers and thieves are breaking the law of man as well and if convicted of their crimes, face a mortal court and a punishment here on earth for their crimes. That does not mean that they will not face judgment when they stand before the Lord!
But judgment is not our job, we are specifically warned against judging. But spreading the truth of God’s word is what we are required to do. Sitting silent and letting those who are committing acts that are a violation of the law that God set forth fail to reach out to God and repent or change is our responsibility. We can not make them, they have free will. What they choose to do is their own responsibility. If we do not do God’s will and warn them that they are committing a sin, we will face God’s judgment ourselves.
We are in a time where certain acts are favorable with those in power, murder of innocents in abortion, homosexuality, the sexual abuse of children, stealing money from those who earned it, violence against those who are different color, nationality, faith, or even a different political position. We are living in an increasing violent world where drones are being used to kill people whom some have judged guilty without a trial, where those who disagree with those in power are bullied and shamed regardless of the truth or rightness of their beliefs. Where wars are encouraged because those in power think that some other leadership would do a better job.
A. W. Tozer said:
“Another kind of religious leader must arise among us. He must be of the old prophet type, a man who has seen
visions of God and has heard a voice from the Throne. When he comes (and I pray God there will be not one but
many), he will stand in flat contradiction to everything our smirking, smooth civilization holds dear. He will
contradict, denounce and protest in the name of God and will earn the hatred and opposition of a large segment
of Christendom. Such a man is likely to be lean, rugged, blunt- spoken and a little bit angry with the world. He
will love Christ and the souls of men to the point of willingness to die for the glory of the One and the salvation
of the other. But he will fear nothing that breathes with mortal breath.”
Jesus told us to pick up our cross and follow Him, he never said it was going to be easy. He told the woman accused of adultery: ”And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” John 8:11 We don’t condemn those who are practicing sin, we simply inform them of God’s word and that they can come to Jesus and be saved.
Society may accept any type of behavior that they choose. It is shameful that they accept the things that they do. However we knew the world would come to this point. It has to for prophecy to be fulfilled. We may not like to live in it, we are already being persecuted for our beliefs. This does not negate our responsibility to do God’s will and spread the Word to the world. Explaining what sin is and giving people an opportunity to repent, is what God wants us to do.
If we fail to tell someone that abortion is murder in God’s eyes or that homosexuality is indeed a sin, not only will they lose the opportunity to change, but we will lose the opportunity to do what God wants us to do and we will lose as well. Their blood will be upon our heads:
Ezekiel 33:8-9
King James Version (KJV)
8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
This is something that is the responsibility of all followers of Christ. It is up to all of us. It is not just for the Pastors, we are all ministers in the eyes of the Lord. We minister in what we say, what we do and how we act. We don’t stand for ourselves, we stand for Jesus, we don’t live for what the world thinks is right, we live for what the Lord wants.
I have read several posts this morning about Louie Giglio and his disinvite from giving the benediction at President Obama’s second inaugural ceremony and it is simplistic to look at the words spoken on both sides of the issue as simply representing peoples opinion. It is so much more than that. It is a further degradation of the ability of Christians to speak in public in a country that was founded upon the principles of Religious Liberty. It is also a sign that evil is more and more prevalent in our society and that the final conflict is getting closer. It is a warning to all who can see that we must be prepared and we much choose on which side we intend to stand. There is no middle ground.
From Red State
Having to Choose
an excerpt: “
But twenty years ago he gave a sermon that could be considered prophetic. He told Christians of the coming pursuit of an aggressive homosexual agenda and that they must not stick their heads in the sand and let happen what happens. You can hear that bit here.
He went further than that. He admonished Christians that, in dealing with the issue, they must do so without hate, but with love. They must not condemn, but lead to Christ. But he also said they must stand their ground.
In the sermon, Louie made clear that the secular world is against Christians on this issue. But most controversially, he said that gays can be saved from their sin by embracing Jesus Christ, through whom all things are possible. Listen to his statement. Louie Giglio’s grievous and offensive sin is that he dares to believe in sin.
His statement is one of orthodox Christianity. Over time, many Christians have accepted that people can be born gay and that it may not be a choice as you or I might perceive it. If we are all born into sin and homosexuality is a sin, which it is, then it seems to fix Christian orthodoxy that one can be born gay. The problem is that, for orthodox Christians, it is still a sin and the world is increasingly hostile to the idea that any sexual sin should be treated as sin. The world is opposed to moral truth and standards and demands intolerance in the name of tolerance.”
“2 Timothy 4:3-4 notes, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” Secularists peddling a secular agenda in the name of tolerance have declared Truth to be myth and myth to be truth. They hear what they want to hear and condemn what they do not understand as intolerance.”
From Albert Mohler:
“Anyone who teaches at any time, to any degree, that homosexual behavior is a sin is now to be cast out.
Second, we should note that Pastor Giglio’s sermon was, as we would expect and hope, filled with grace and the promise of the Gospel. Giglio did not just state that homosexuals are sinners — he made clear that every single human being is a sinner, in need of the redemption that is found only in Jesus Christ. “We’ve got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me. … It’s not easy to change, but it’s possible to change,” he preached. He pointed his congregation, gay and straight, to “the healing power of Jesus.” He called his entire congregation to repent and come to Christ by faith.
That is the quintessential Christian Gospel. That is undiluted biblical truth. Those words are the consensus of the Church for over 2,000 years, and the firm belief held by the vast majority of Christians around the world today.
The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment. By its newly articulated standard, any preacher who holds to the faith of the church for the last 2,000 years is persona non grata. By this standard, no Roman Catholic prelate or priest can participate in the ceremony. No Evangelical who holds to biblical orthodoxy is welcome. The vast majority of Christians around the world have been disinvited. Mormons, and the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism are out. Any Muslim imam who could walk freely in Cairo would be denied a place on the inaugural program. Billy Graham, who participated in at least ten presidential inaugurations is welcome no more. Rick Warren, who incited a similar controversy when he prayed at President Obama’s first inauguration, is way out of bounds. In the span of just four years, the rules are fully changed.
The gauntlet was thrown down yesterday, and the axe fell today. Wayne Besen, founder of the activist group Truth Wins Out, told The New York Timesyesterday: “It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on LBGT people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues.”
And there you have it — anyone who has ever believed that homosexuality is morally problematic in any way must now offer public repentance and evidence of having “evolved” on the question. This is the language that President Obama used of his own “evolving” position on same-sex marriage. This is what is now openly demanded of Christians today. If you want to avoid being thrown off the program, you had better learn to evolve fast, and repent in public.
This is precisely what biblical Christians cannot do. While seeking to be gentle in spirit and ruthlessly Gospel-centered in speaking of any sin, we cannot cease to speak of sin as sin. To do so is not only to deny the authority of Scripture, not only to reject the moral consensus of the saints, but it undermines the Gospel itself. The Gospel makes no sense, and is robbed of its saving power, if sin is denied as sin.”
Related articles
Judge Dismisses Obama Admin Lawsuit Harassing Pro-Lifer | LifeNews.com
Judge Dismisses Obama Admin Lawsuit Harassing Pro-Lifer | LifeNews.com.
Adam Smith — A Man who Saw the Future
Source: political-humor.org via lau on Pinterest
I find it fascinating to go back and read the words from people who were influential in our history. Adam Smith is one that is often quoted and he was a well respected man from his time. What I find truly interesting is how some of things that he wrote are so applicable to what we are seeing today. In the following statement, he could be talking about liberals democrats and even to President Obama himself. I wish I could say that he also gives us an answer on how to deal with the problems that come along with the “man of the system” that we see now. I wish I could totally agree with him that most of them are benevolent. What I see with so many of those who wish to impose their own system upon us, is that they are so fanatic, that they don’t care if they bring down everything in order to apply what they think upon everyone. This type of fanatic is destructive and will destroy everything in order to have his own way.
Amidst the turbulence and disorder of faction, a certain spirit of system is apt to mix itself with that public spirit which is founded upon the love of humanity, upon a real fellow–feeling with the inconveniencies and distresses to which some of our fellow–citizens may be exposed. This spirit of system commonly takes the direction of that more gentle public spirit; always animates it, and often inflames it even to the madness of fanaticism. The leaders of the discontented party seldom fail to hold out some plausible plan of reformation which, they pretend, will not only remove the inconveniencies and relieve the distresses immediately complained of, but will prevent, in all time coming, any return of the like inconveniencies and distresses. They often propose, upon this account, to new–model the constitution, and to alter, in some of its most essential parts, that system of government under which the subjects of a great empire have enjoyed, perhaps, peace, security, and even glory, during the course of several centuries together. The great body of the party are commonly intoxicated with the imaginary beauty of this ideal system, of which they have no experience, but which has been represented to them in all the most dazzling colours in which the eloquence of their leaders could paint it. Those leaders themselves, though they originally may have meant nothing but their own aggrandisement, become many of them in time the dupes of their own sophistry, and are as eager for this great reformation as the weakest and foolishest of their followers. Even though the leaders should have preserved their own heads, as indeed they commonly do, free from this fanaticism, yet they dare not always disappoint the expectation of their followers; but are often obliged, though contrary to their principle and their conscience, to act as if they were under the common delusion. The violence of the party, refusing all palliatives, all temperaments, all reasonable accommodations, by requiring too much frequently obtains nothing; and those inconveniencies and distresses which, with a little moderation, might in a great measure have been removed and relieved, are left altogether without the hope of a remedy.
The man whose public spirit is prompted altogether by humanity and benevolence, will respect the established powers and privileges even of individuals, and still more those of the great orders and societies, into which the state is divided. Though he should consider some of them as in some measure abusive, he will content himself with moderating, what he often cannot annihilate without great violence. When he cannot conquer the rooted prejudices of the people by reason and persuasion, he will not attempt to subdue them by force; but will religiously observe what, by Cicero, is justly called the divine maxim of Plato, never to use violence to his country no more than to his parents. He will accommodate, as well as he can, his public arrangements to the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people; and will remedy as well as he can, the inconveniencies which may flow from the want of those regulations which the people are averse to submit to. When he cannot establish the right, he will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong; but like Solon, when he cannot establish the best system of laws, he will endeavour to establish the best that the people can bear.
The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess–board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess–board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess–board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder. Read more at Online Library of Liberty
Oh, by the way, he killed Bin Laden
Barack Obama at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Presidential Health Care Forum, March 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
As President and the Leader of the country, I would hope that any one who would have had that responsibility would have done the same thing. I respect the fact that Mr. Obama did so! However I have found little else to respect in the actions of Mr. Obama.
Healthcare in this country was the best that was available in the world before Mr. Obama and the Democrat‘s took control of this country. It was against the law to turn anyone with a legitimate emergency away and hospital emergency rooms took care of those who needed the help. I realize that the wait was often long and people abused the services, but that is a minor problem if you consider the services available or not available in the rest of the world. If you were not happy with the way your insurance company was doing business, you had a right to go somewhere else, or you could appeal to the state and bring your case before the public. You had the opportunity to change things. If the Healthcare bill is not struck down by the Supreme Court, and the government has control, you will no longer be able to change anything. Every health care issue you face will be decided by appointees of politicians who only owe their loyalty to those who appointed them. A prime example is the forcing of Christians to provide abortion and the morning after pill which triggers an abortion in the woman taking the pill.
This is another example of the way that this administration feels about life. It seems to feel that there is nothing that man should not do in order to do what they think is the right thing. If it is killing thousands of people with drones, becoming involved in more and more wars, refusing aid to countries unless they are willing to sacrifice their morals and provide abortions, or denying those who find the killing of babies to be morally repugnant or against the principle of their faith.
But it is not just this that bothers me, although it is a major factor and the reason that I did not vote for Mr. Obama in the first place. I had voted Democrat most of my life, but hearing Mr. Obama stand before the Illinois house and defend killing babies that were aborted and yet born alive, shocked me to my core. I was naive enough to believe a lot of Democrats who stated that they would like to see less abortion, but here was a man who wanted to see babies born alive, killed!
Another thing that bothers me is the way that Mr. Obama uses drones to kill those whom he thinks are enemies to our country. It bothers me considerably that one man would think that he has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. It truly would bother me even if there was a panel that made that decision, but not nearly to the extent that having one man make that choice, does. We see examples of one person making the decision that others do not have the right to live all the time. Sometimes they base that decision upon their “religion” or their “race”, or even how much money they have. We don’t applaud these people, we often have names for them such as serial killers, or terrorists. Does being the leader of a country make a difference?
Mr. Obama himself doesn’t seem to think so, he has denounced people like the former leaders of Egypt, Libya, and the current leader of Syria.I I am not saying that Mr. Obama is the same as them, but he seems to be headed in that direction and it doesn’t seem to bother him or his followers. When do you go past the point that killing is justified and begin killing just because you can? Does each time make the next one easier?
We have also seen Mr. Obama turn a blind eye to the killing of the Christians in the Middle East. Not only has he very often failed to even condemn those who are committing the murders, he has, in some cases, embraced those very ones who have done the killing.
You have to judge a leader by their actions and every chance Mr. Obama has had to make a decision that would lead to embracing life, he has chosen death instead. When he has had the chance to show respect for those who do choose life, he has chosen to mock and denigrate their choices. When he has the opportunity to lead by example, he chooses to absent himself from the process and leave it to surrogates that he knows will push death over life, and yet he can pretend that it is not really his choice.
Even in the choices that he has made in the matter of the economy or our independence, he has made choices that lead to a decrease in our material wealth, and to a further dependence on both the government and on the decisions of those who would rather see us cease to exist. We are becoming enslaved and dependent on the good will of other countries under the policies of Mr. Obama.
So, when I hear someone who is promoting the reelection of Mr. Obama say, “Oh, by the way, he kill Bin Laden,” I find it very troubling. It makes me wonder at the intelligence of these people who seem to find it so wonderful. Do they truly believe that this is the major factor in the reelection of a leader? Or do they believe that we are so ignorant that nothing else but this would matter to us? Or does he think that this makes him look strong?
If this is their thinking, they are sorely mistaken. We have a whole book of things to make our decision on the future of Mr. Obama. If the killing of Bin Laden was a single outstanding use, or even a very limited use, of our ability to use drones and keep our men and women safe, that would be a good thing. The excess to which the drones are being used is very troublesome. The fact that Mr. Obama wants to, and has involved us in even more warfare, is another mark against choosing him for a repeat of what he has already done. The negligence in which he has treated the safety and security of our country, the contempt that he has for the beliefs and wishes of the people that he was elected to serve, and the continuing enslavement of the American people by policies that dramatically increase their cost of living are also heavy weights against him.
I would like some of his supporters to point to anything that he has really done that is promoting life in some form or another. Everything that I have seen is promoting death. This to me, is simply unacceptable. I cannot do anything other than stand against such a person.
We are told not to judge others, that it is up to God to judge, and I cannot tell what Mr. Obama believes or what his followers believe. But contrary to what a lot of people who are not followers of Christ, believe, we are not told to act as if the actions of a person have no difference in how we consider them. The very opposite is true, we must consider their actions, because if we do not, by our very silence we are condoning those same actions. We are instructed this way:
“Therefore be followers of God, as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;
neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
Therefore do not be partakers with them. Ephesians 5:1-7
So for all those who would try to deceive us with empty words, it is ignorance on your part to think that we will not take into consideration the actions of the man who was elected to lead our country out of the ugliness that we were in. Do not think that we will accept the empty words that you preached in Mr. Obama’s first election. People were so needy then, and wanting the “hope and change” that was promised, that they forgot that there was a man behind the words. Since that time, we have learned what kind of man that Mr. Obama is.
No longer will we be swayed by promises and empty words. The promises were just as empty as the words and the only change we have gotten is for the worse. Please do not treat us as if we were ignorant and gullible.
So for those that are still undecided on whether to vote for Mr. Obama or not in the coming election, let me say this, I will be voting for life and this administration promotes death! I will be voting for change that allows me to practice my faith and doesn’t try to decide what my faith should be. I will be voting for hope and the promise of a country that believes in it’s people and does not think that we should bow down to every other religion and faith in order to gain respect. We gain respect for standing for our principles. The only thing that giving up your principles gets you, is contempt from those that you bow down to.
Related articles
- Obama Tell Us “What really happened to Bin Laden” (grumpyelder.com)
- Obama’s Back-up Plan had the Bin Laden mission failed (grumpyelder.com)
Choose God
English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
He who keeps the commandment keeps his soul, But he who is careless of his ways will die. Proverbs 19:16
Life is filled with choices, we make them everyday. Sometimes our choices lead us along the wrong path, but sometimes we are forced to make choices where we know one way is the wrong path, and would lead to willful and knowing disobedience to God‘s will. Such a choice is the HHS mandate on paying for and/or providing the abortifacient.
Obama and many others who have no problem with this, tell up that it is okay, we are deciding this. It isn’t your responsibility and we will even put a hedge between you and it, so that the insurance companies do the actual providing. This is supposed to be salve for our conscience so that we can stand before God and say, “it wasn’t me Lord, it was them.” My friends, you know and I know that God is going to look at us and say take responsibility for your actions as well as your inactions. We are condemning ourselves if we let ourselves be deceived in this way.
There is no middle ground here! You are making the choice for life or for death. And for all those who proclaim their right to make that choice, I would like to remind them that God does not care whether you think that you have a right or not, either way, to Him it is murder. If you are so egotistic to think that for some reason just because it is growing in your body that it is not life, you need to go take some science classes. And if you recognize that it is life and still think that you have the right to end it because it is not human until it reaches a certain point, at which point does it become magically human? It is at the start or it never is.
Or possibly you are one of those who think that you have the right to decide who lives or dies anyway, what makes you different from any other murderer out there? Aren’t they making the same decision? Your selfishness leads to destruction but that truly is your choice to make.
I am not going to try to change anyone’s mind about abortion, if you do not know that it is wrong, you will find out in God’s time. What I am trying to do is remind those who follow Christ, those who accept that he died for our sins that if we make a deliberate choice to condone and promote an evil such as this, we are saying that we accept the evil and we are denying Him. You cannot serve two master’s, and this time is either God’s or it is against Him.
This is not a time to be silent on this issue. This is a turning point! Allowing harm and condoning the death of the least of God’s people is one of the worst violations of His law there is. You know this! It is time for all of Christ’s followers to make it clear that when it comes to choosing, we choose Christ!
The story I have an excerpt from below is an excellent example of other times that God’s people were forced to make a choice. Please read it. God bless
From Life News.com
Obama HHS Mandate Wasn’t Just About Contraception
by Michael Stokes Paulsen
An ancient example of resistance to a tyrant’s attempt to coerce violations of religious conscience provides an interesting perspective on resistance to the Obama administration’s recent healthcare coverage mandate.
“Contraception” is not exactly the right term. The HHS mandate implementing Obamacare requires insurance plans of religious employers to provide not just contraception but also sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs–”morning-after” (and even “week-after”) pills designed to cause the death of a conceived human embryo rather than prevent conception. The technical term for such drugs is abortifacient, though they often are called, euphemistically, “emergency contraception.”
“Cram-down”is a perfect term for HHS’s policy, however. The whole point, it seems, is to override religious objections to such a policy to the maximum extent politically possible, out of an intense ideological commitment to contraception and abortion as “preventive health care.” It is vital, the ideologues say, to prevail over religious objections precisely in order to advance, and permanently entrench, this particular ideology and, further, to vindicate the power of government to impose such policies on everyone. Religious objections must be overcome, in part for the sake of overcoming religious objections.
The Obama administration’s HHS policy–and even more so the sham “modification” of it announced on February 10–recalls a memorable story recounted in certain Greek manuscripts traced to the ancient Jewish communities of the Mediterranean, in what is known as the book of Fourth Maccabees. (Some Protestants, like me, treat such inter-testamental religious literature not as scripture, but with respect as part of the “Apocrypha.”)
Read the rest at Life News. com
Obama Executive Order: Peacetime Martial Law!(via Before It’s News)
Hattip: A BIN reader. This article may be freely reproduced in its entirety provided a link is provided back to the original BIN story.
Obama Executive Order: Peacetime Martial Law!
This Executive Order was posted on theWhiteHouse.gov web site on Friday, March 16, 2012, under the name National Defense Resources Preparedness. In a nutshell, it’s the blueprint for Peacetime Martial Law and it gives the president the power to take just about anything deemed necessary for “National Defense”, whatever they decide that is. It’s peacetime, because as the title of the order says, it’s for “Preparedness”. A copy of the entire order follows the end of this story.
Under this order the heads of these cabinet level positions; Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Defense and Commerce can take food, livestock, fertilizer, farm equipment, all forms of energy, water resources, all forms of civil transporation (meaning any vehicles, boats, planes), and any other materials, including construction materials from wherever they are available. This is probably why the government has been visiting farms with GPS devices, so they know exactly where to go when they turn this one on.
Specifically, the government is allowed to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate. They decide what necessary or appropriate means.
UPDATE: BIN reader Kent Welton writes: This allows for the giving away of USA assets and subsidies to private companies: “(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and (c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.”
What happens if the government decides it needs all these things to be prepared, even if there is no war? You likely won’t be able to walk into a store to purchase virtually anything because it will all be requisitioned, “rationed” and controlled by the government. Construction materials, food like meat, butter and sugar, anything imported, parts, tires and fuel for vehicles, clothing, etc. will likely become unobtainable, or at least very scarce. How many things are even made here in the USA any more?
A bit of history… During WWII, price stabilization didn’t begin until May of 1942, which froze prices on nearly all every day goods and rationing started in 1943. Why would the government want to control everything before a war?
Here’s what some gas ration cards looked like during WWII. Will there be rationing under this kind of system? What better way to control the movement and actions of the populace…
WWII era gas ration cards via Old Chester PA. You couldn’t go on vacation without a “vacation pass”.
Under this new Executive Order, cabinet heads are authorized to loan money, offer loan guarantees and even subsidize payments at above market rates (no bid contracts?) for whatever they need. This could make Solyndra or Halliburton look like Junior Achievement. Nothing like a war will generate these kinds of huge profits for the corporate “partners” and you can bet the bankers and contractors are already lining up for this one — because under this order no war is even required!
In a crisis situation, the government will be able to take whatever they need, print money to get whatever they want and distribute it as they see fit….for the benefit of a “war effort” or the politically connected corporations and individuals. All other contracts except those for employment are superseded by this executive order, it’s all here in black and white.
Specifically, it orders:
“to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness
EXECUTIVE ORDER
NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
PART I – PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).
Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.
Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;
(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and
(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.
Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(1) advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;
(2) provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and
(3) report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.
(c) The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:
(1) in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and
(2) prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).
(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:
(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and
(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.
PART II - PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.
(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President’s approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.
Sec. 202. Determinations. Except as provided in section 201(e) of this order, the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:
(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;
(b) by the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and
(c) by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.
Sec. 203. Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies. The authorities of the President under section 101(c)(1) (2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(1) (2), are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, with the exception that the authority to make findings that materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential, as described in section 101(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(2)(A), is delegated to the Secretary of Energy.
Sec. 204. Chemical and Biological Warfare. The authority of the President conferred by section 104(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2074(b), is delegated to the Secretary of Defense. This authority may not be further delegated by the Secretary.
PART III – EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY
Sec. 301. Loan Guarantees. (a) To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, as defined in section 801(h) of this order, is authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, to guarantee loans by private institutions.
(b) Each guaranteeing agency is designated and authorized to: (1) act as fiscal agent in the making of its own guarantee contracts and in otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act; and (2) contract with any Federal Reserve Bank to assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.
(c) Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The guaranteeing agency is authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe: (1) either specifically or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection therewith.
Sec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
Sec. 303. Additional Authorities. (a) To create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, to make provision for purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical technology item for Government use or resale, and to make provision for the development of production capabilities, and for the increased use of emerging technologies in security program applications, and to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.
(b) Materials acquired under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, that exceed the needs of the programs under the Act may be transferred to the National Defense Stockpile, if, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, such transfers are in the public interest.
Sec. 304. Subsidy Payments. To ensure the supply of raw or nonprocessed materials from high cost sources, or to ensure maximum production or supply in any area at stable prices of any materials in light of a temporary increase in transportation cost, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(c), to make subsidy payments, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
Sec. 305. Determinations and Findings. (a) Pursuant to budget authority provided by an appropriations act in advance for credit assistance under section 301 or 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, and consistent with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (FCRA), 2 U.S.C. 661 et seq., the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the determinations set forth in sections 301(a)(2) and 302(b)(2) of the Act, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order; provided, that such determinations shall be made after due consideration of the provisions of OMB Circular A 129 and the credit subsidy score for the relevant loan or loan guarantee as approved by OMB pursuant to FCRA.
(b) Other than any determination by the President under section 303(a)(7)(b) of the Act, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the required determinations, judgments, certifications, findings, and notifications defined under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order.
Sec. 306. Strategic and Critical Materials. The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, are each delegated the authority of the President under section 303(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(a)(1)(B), to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.
Sec. 307. Substitutes. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(g) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(g), to make provision for the development of substitutes for strategic and critical materials, critical components, critical technology items, and other resources to aid the national defense.
Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:
(a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;
(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and
(c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.
Sec. 309. Defense Production Act Fund. The Secretary of Defense is designated the Defense Production Act Fund Manager, in accordance with section 304(f) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2094(f), and shall carry out the duties specified in section 304 of the Act, in consultation with the agency heads having approved, and appropriated funds for, projects under title III of the Act.
Sec. 310. Critical Items. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(b)(1), to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency. Appropriate action may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.
Sec. 311. Strengthening Domestic Capability. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(a), to utilize the authority of title III of the Act or any other provision of law to provide appropriate incentives to develop, maintain, modernize, restore, and expand the productive capacities of domestic sources for critical components, critical technology items, materials, and industrial resources essential for the execution of the national security strategy of the United States.
Sec. 312. Modernization of Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, in accordance with section 108(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b), may utilize the authority of title III of the Act to guarantee the purchase or lease of advance manufacturing equipment, and any related services with respect to any such equipment for purposes of the Act. In considering title III projects, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense shall provide a strong preference for proposals submitted by a small business supplier or subcontractor in accordance with section 108(b)(2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b)(2).
PART IV - VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Sec. 401. Delegations. The authority of the President under sections 708(c) and (d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(c), (d), is delegated to the heads of agencies otherwise delegated authority under this order. The status of the use of such delegations shall be furnished to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 402. Advisory Committees. The authority of the President under section 708(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(d), and delegated in section 401 of this order (relating to establishment of advisory committees) shall be exercised only after consultation with, and in accordance with, guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.
Sec. 403. Regulations. The Secretary of Homeland Security, after approval of the Attorney General, and after consultation by the Attorney General with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall promulgate rules pursuant to section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e), incorporating standards and procedures by which voluntary agreements and plans of action may be developed and carried out. Such rules may be adopted by other agencies to fulfill the rulemaking requirement of section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e).
PART V - EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL
Sec. 501. National Defense Executive Reserve. (a) In accordance with section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), there is established in the executive branch a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government (except full time Federal employees) for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue necessary guidance for the NDER program, including appropriate guidance for establishment, recruitment, training, monitoring, and activation of NDER units and shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the NDER program. The authority of the President under section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), to determine periods of national defense emergency is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(c) The head of any agency may implement section 501(a) of this order with respect to NDER operations in such agency.
(d) The head of each agency with an NDER unit may exercise the authority under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153, to employ civilian personnel when activating all or a part of its NDER unit. The exercise of this authority shall be subject to the provisions of sections 501(e) and (f) of this order and shall not be redelegated.
(e) The head of an agency may activate an NDER unit, in whole or in part, upon the written determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security that an emergency affecting the national defense exists and that the activation of the unit is necessary to carry out the emergency program functions of the agency.
(f) Prior to activating the NDER unit, the head of the agency shall notify, in writing, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism of the impending activation.
Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.
PART VI - LABOR REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:
(1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;
(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;
(3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;
(4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs; and
(5) develop and implement an effective labor management relations policy to support the activities and programs under this order, with the cooperation of other agencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the National Mediation Board, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
(b) All agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Labor, upon request, for the purposes of this section, to the extent permitted by law.
PART VII - DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT COMMITTEE
Sec. 701. The Defense Production Act Committee. (a) The Defense Production Act Committee (Committee) shall be composed of the following members, in accordance with section 722(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(b):
(1) The Secretary of State;
(2) The Secretary of the Treasury;
(3) The Secretary of Defense;
(4) The Attorney General;
(5) The Secretary of the Interior;
(6) The Secretary of Agriculture;
(7) The Secretary of Commerce;
(8) The Secretary of Labor;
(9) The Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(10) The Secretary of Transportation;
(11) The Secretary of Energy;
(12) The Secretary of Homeland Security;
(13) The Director of National Intelligence;
(14) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;
(15) The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;
(16) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
(17) The Administrator of General Services.
(b) The Director of OMB and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall be invited to participate in all Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role. The Chairperson, as designated by the President pursuant to section 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171, may invite the heads of other agencies or offices to participate in Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role, as appropriate.
Sec. 702. Offsets. The Secretary of Commerce shall prepare and submit to the Congress the annual report required by section 723 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2172, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, Defense, and Labor, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other agencies as appropriate. The heads of agencies shall provide the Secretary of Commerce with such information as may be necessary for the effective performance of this function.
PART VIII - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:
(a) “Civil transportation” includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities. “Civil transportation” also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership. “Civil transportation” shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.
(b) “Energy” means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.
(c) “Farm equipment” means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.
(d) “Fertilizer” means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for use as a plant nutrient.
(e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.
(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transportation thereof).
(g) “Functions” include powers, duties, authority, responsibilities, and discretion.
(h) “Head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense” means the heads of the Departments of State, Justice, the Interior, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the General Services Administration, and all other agencies with authority delegated under section 201 of this order.
(i) “Health resources” means drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.
(j) “National defense” means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.
(k) “Offsets” means compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government to government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq., and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. 120.1 130.17.
(l) “Special priorities assistance” means action by resource departments to assist with expediting deliveries, placing rated orders, locating suppliers, resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders, addressing problems that arise in the fulfillment of a rated order or other action authorized by a delegated agency, and determining the validity of rated orders.
(m) “Strategic and critical materials” means materials (including energy) that (1) would be needed to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States during a national emergency, and (2) are not found or produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet such need and are vulnerable to the termination or reduction of the availability of the material.
(n) “Water resources” means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements, except “water resources” does not include usable water that qualifies as “food resources.”
Sec. 802. General. (a) Except as otherwise provided in section 802(c) of this order, the authorities vested in the President by title VII of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2151 et seq., are delegated to the head of each agency in carrying out the delegated authorities under the Act and this order, by the Secretary of Labor in carrying out part VI of this order, and by the Secretary of the Treasury in exercising the functions assigned in Executive Order 11858, as amended.
(b) The authorities that may be exercised and performed pursuant to section 802(a) of this order shall include:
(1) the power to redelegate authorities, and to authorize the successive redelegation of authorities to agencies, officers, and employees of the Government; and
(2) the power of subpoena under section 705 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2155, with respect to (i) authorities delegated in parts II, III, and section 702 of this order, and (ii) the functions assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury in Executive Order 11858, as amended, provided that the subpoena power referenced in subsections (i) and (ii) shall be utilized only after the scope and purpose of the investigation, inspection, or inquiry to which the subpoena relates have been defined either by the appropriate officer identified in section 802(a) of this order or by such other person or persons as the officer shall designate.
(c) Excluded from the authorities delegated by section 802(a) of this order are authorities delegated by parts IV and V of this order, authorities in section 721 and 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2170 2171, and the authority with respect to fixing compensation under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153.
Sec. 803. Authority. (a) Executive Order 12919 of June 3, 1994, and sections 401(3) (4) of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, are revoked. All other previously issued orders, regulations, rulings, certificates, directives, and other actions relating to any function affected by this order shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent with this order or are subsequently amended or revoked under proper authority. Nothing in this order shall affect the validity or force of anything done under previous delegations or other assignment of authority under the Act.
(b) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 11858 of May 7, 1975, as amended, except as provided in section 802 of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended.
Sec. 804. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 16, 2012.
Related Stories: from Maggies Notebook
Obama: Executive Order 3/16/12 – National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order – Some EO History
“National Defense Resources Preparedness” executive order: Power grab or mere update?
From Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:
I’ve received a number of e-mails and comments about an Executive Order signed by Obama on Friday, titled National Defenses Resources Preparedness, and what it means.
It appears that this Executive Order is an update of prior Executive Orders signed in 1988 and 1994 which elaborate similar powers in time of war or national emergency. The 1994 Order in particular was not limited to national emergency:
Betrayer of Hope
Image via Wikipedia
When Barack Obama was elected to the office of the President of the United States of American in November 2008, it was with a sense of excitement, of hope, of promise that he was going to renew the faith of the American people. That politics were not going to be the same as they had been. That the world would be a safer place. That a new day was upon the world and the hope that Barack Obama was promising was truly inspirational to his followers.
Three years later, it is turning into ashes for those who have seen just the opposite from the man that is Barack Obama. The man that promised hope for renewal in our lives, has instead brought increased death and destruction across the world. The man that promised that with him as President, people across the world would like and respect us again. Instead the hatred is worse than at any other time in our history. And the respect has become almost non existent.
We have become more involved in violence that at any time since WWII and we seem to be on the verge of a new World War. Almost the whole of the middle east has become involve in civil wars of one kind or another. The same is happening in a good part of Africa. Unfortunately, much of this violence has been encouraged and assisted by Mr. Obama and his administration. Our enemies have came to power with the help of the man that is supposed to protect us.
Not only have they come to power, but Mr. Obama has been actively supporting and arming them. All on the promise of democracy and freedom. The democracy for the most part has not appeared, instead it is either a theocracy with Shariah rule, or just a new petty tyrant who wants nothing more than to control their people and threaten their neighbors.
In both instances, these people spew hatred toward us and have stated that they wish the total destruction of our one true ally, Israel. But here again, Mr. Obama does not seem to understand or care about the principles of the office that he obtained with the hope and promise of the American people. He insults and treats with disdain, the one friend that we have in the area.
While he brings the world to the brink of destruction, he puts both Israel and the United States at risk. He is rapidly destroying our ability to both defend ourselves and to help with the defense of our ally Israel. He is also encouraging the enemies of both of us to the point that Israel may be forced to act alone.
American Thinker has a very good article on this. Please take the time to read the whole thing. It will open your eyes and you will wonder why Mr. Obama has brought us to this place. You will ask what his goal is, and I hope that you begin to ask those who support him, whose side that they, and he, are really on!
Here Comes Obama’s 3 AM Phone Call
By James Lewis
In the next 60 days Obama’s presidential career will finally meet that concrete wall of reality. He will either fail or survive. Trouble is, he might take many innocent people with him if he fails.
So far, the most hyped-up and unqualified president in US history has shown no capacity at all to act, in the face of a do-or-die challenge. This is the ultimate test of character, the one that John F. Kennedy met well enough in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. This is the test that Jimmy Carter failed so miserably that Ronald Reagan beat him handily in the following election. This is the same test of reality that every single Democratic Administration has tried to avoid; it’s the reason why Bill Clinton refused to do anything about Osama Bin Laden when he had four separate chances to take him out.
This time, abject apologies to ranting Pakistani mobs will not make a smidgen of difference. Even Axelrod’s disinformation campaigns can’t save Obama now, because that 3 am phone call is almost sure to come by April Fool’s Day of 2012, when the real fool will stand revealed to the world.
On or about April 1 of 2012, that 3 AM phone call will reach the White House. We know what it will be — which is itself a sign of stunning incompetence in this White House. None of this information should ever be public. Ever.
But this administration has chosen its Secretary of Defense to publicly leak the most closely guarded secret of Israel’s back-against-the-wall defense against Iranian nuclear weapons.
Such public leaks amount to near treason in time of war. Imagine if someone leaked General Eisenhower‘s plans for the D-Day invasion in June of 1944. FDR would have fired them instantly, or if they were foreigners he would have felt justified to have them killed. Hundreds of thousands of American and Allied lives were at stake on D Day. In Israel today, hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives are at stake. Don’t expect countries fighting for their national survival to act any differently.
Read more: American Thinker
Related articles
Morning Bell: Obama Doctrine Failure
- Obama: Green Gobblin’ by Bob Mack (grumpyelder.com)
- New Docs Reveal How DOJ Kowtows to Muslim Brotherhood (via American Thinker) (loopyloo305.com)
- Obama OFFICIALLY Surrenders to Jihadists – 2 American Troops Murdered for Koran Burnings and Barack HUSSEIN Obama Apologizes for it!! (pumabydesign001.com)
- Obama Threatens To “Hold Accountable” U.S. Soldiers (grumpyelder.com)
- New Docs Reveal How DOJ Kowtows to Muslim Brotherhood (via American Thinker) (pumabydesign001.com)
- Obama’s Stealth Betrayal of Israel? (americanheirs.wordpress.com)
- From Obama, What Next? (socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com)
- Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter All Over Again (iamiranaware.wordpress.com)
The Destruction of a Nation
Obama has been literally doing everything that he can to weaken this country since he took office. He has lowered our defence’s along both borders, he has spent our treasure, he has betrayed our allies and lowered our standard of living.
Now he is going even further and giving away parts of our country. And not just any part, but valuable islands that would increase our oil production if drilling were allowed on them. And to make matters even worse, the state that he is taking this land away from is Alaska.
Read the story for yourself and start spreading the news. This man has betrayed this country in so many ways. How can anyone consider re-electing him unless they want this country to cease to exist?
Report: Obama Administration Is Giving Away 7 Strategic Islands to Russia
The Obama Administration is reportedly giving away Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta islands in Alaska to Russia. The federal government drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side
Former senatorial candidate Joe Miller broke this story at World Net Daily:
The Obama administration, despite the nation’s economic woes, effectively killed the job-producing Keystone Pipeline last month. The Arab Spring is turning the oil production of Libya and other Arab nations over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq is distancing itself from the U.S. And everyone recognizes that Iran, whose crude supplies are critical to the European economy, will do anything it can to frustrate America’s strategic interests. In the face of all of this, Obama insists on cutting back U.S. oil potential with outrageous restrictions.
Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin. Read the rest at: Gateway Pundit!
Related articles
What’s the Buzz on the Alaskan Islands Given to Russia?
Obama Gives 7 Oil-Rich Islands to Russia: Secret GiveAway – Alaska Not Consulted
What’s the Buzz on the Alaskan Islands Given to Russia?
The Destruction of a Nation
Obama Gives Alaska Away!
Did Obama Really Give Away 7 Oil Rich Alaskan Islands to Russia?
Outrage: Obama Gives Away Seven Oil Rich Alaskan Islands to Russia, Deal Negotiated in Secret
- Our Betrayer In Chief Back At It Again (loopyloo305.com)
- The Obama presidency, it just gets worse, and worse, and………….. (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
- Fox in the Henhouse: Obama’s Undermining of US Defenses Escalates (markamerica.com)
An Open Letter to President Obama via Christianity.com Daily Update
The White House
I understand from public reports that you taught a course in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago some years ago, though I have not seen a publication of your class syllabus for that course. I note, too, that you were graduated from Harvard University School of Law. I assume that you took a course in Constitutional law while attending Harvard, though a transcript of your Harvard course work indicating such a course has not been published.
News accounts during the past weeks report great controversy over a new requirement that religious institutions will soon be required to fund all medical requirements of their employees. I note with interest that you, too, have commented on it, apparently concluding that these institutions must pay for medical services just like all other institutions covered by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Liberty of conscience, especially in religious matters, certainly is at the heart of this dispute. It occurred to me that you would have a clear view of this issue, having taught Constitutional law for a time. Since your public statements give no indication that you are familiar with the Religion Clause, I wondered how that could be in light of your time teaching it. Then it occurred to me that you had the same experience as others of us who have taught at the college or university level — we do not always get to the end of our syllabi. In the case of the Constitution, that could mean that you did not get to the Bill of Rights in your course.
As everyone knows, the Founding Fathers placed freedom of religion in the first two clauses of the Bill of Rights (First Amendment). They did so because this issue was foremost in the public mind. Assuming that you did not get a chance to study the religion clause, and therefore, did not lecture on it at the University of Chicago, let me briefly sum up the essence of the matter. I believe that this could help you to understand liberty of conscience better.
We all know that George Mason and Thomas Jefferson led the way towards religious liberty in Virginia in the 1770s. This resulted in the famous Virginia Statute on Religious Liberty in 1786. Before that, however, two important statements about religious liberty were promulgated. The first was the Constitution of the State of Virginia, published in 1776 including a “Bill of Rights,” the last section of which stated the following:
That religion, or the duty we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Months before the enactment of the 1786 statement on religious liberty, a second very important document appeared. It was James Madison’s famous argument, presented to the state legislature for enactment, against state support for churches and in favor of religious liberty based on liberty of conscience which was already enshrined in the state constitution — noted above. It had that odd title often used in the late 18th century: A MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE. In addition to the emphasis on liberty of conscience, defined in the Virginia Bill of Rights, Madison stressed a point that is significant for today’s arguments about liberty of conscience and proposed state action. Said Madison, “We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.” He continued, “If religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that (authority) of the Legislative Body.” Madison goes on to say rulers who encroach on the barriers between liberty of conscience and the power of civil society “are Tyrants.”
All other states by 1780 had provisions in their constitutions for liberty of conscience, each almost a mirror image of the others. It’s not surprising, therefore, that when it came time during the first session of Congress to draft a Bill of Rights for the federal Constitution, the first clause was a religion clause. That it was intended to mirror the liberty of conscience clauses of the state constitutions is evident in the developing drafts of the religion clauses by the Congress in the summer of 1789. Joseph Gales, comp., The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, 1834), pp. 434, 729, 766, records the following development of the religion clause:
(June 8) The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
(August 2) Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.
(August 15) No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.
(September 25) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof …
The September statement is the one that came back from the printer. After much study, my view is that since printers were also editors in that era, the reflexive “thereof” was an editorial change that did not change the standing practice of seeing “freedom of religion” and “liberty of conscience” as interchangeable phrases.
The point here, President Obama, is that Congress, in drafting the religion clauses of the Bill of Rights, was reflecting provisions found in all of the state constitutions at the time of the American Revolution — all providing for liberty of conscience. This reflected a common phrase in America, dating back a century and a half, namely, ”God alone is Lord of the conscience and has made it free from the doctrines and commandments of men.”
President Obama, let me make one more point that you probably might know about. The Constitution of the State of Illinois, dated December 15, 1971, begins with a preamble which states, “Grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing … we establish this constitution.” Then Section 3, entitled “Religious Freedom,” states: “The free exercise of religion and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination shall forever be guaranteed.” And it adds, “Liberty of conscience is hereby secured.” Last time I checked, most of the other states have the same or similar clauses in their constitutions as does your home state of Illinois.
President Obama, there seems to be only one conclusion that can be reached in a study of liberty of conscience clauses in American constitutions from the early days of the Revolution to the present hour. It is this: People’s religious views, excepting outrageous and unreasonable actions, cannot be infringed upon by anyone, especially not by the civil government (state).
It would seem to me that as America’s Chief Magistrate, after reviewing the development of liberty of conscience as outlined above, and having taught Constitutional law, you would be especially careful to support liberty of conscience when issuing executive orders or departmental regulations.
Finally, you may find that the liberty of conscience of citizens constrains or limits some things you may wish to do. That, however, is a condition of your office given the separation of powers in the Constitution.
Exercising my religious liberty, I pray for you often.
Sincerely yours,
L. John Van Til, Ph.D.
Dr. L. John Van Til is a fellow for law & humanities with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.
Publication date: February 16, 2012
Tyranny and Silencing Opposition by Intimidation
Is the Obama administration doing this? We have seen several examples of with one of the latest being their “truth squad” to counter any examples of what they consider wrong or misleading information. Never mind that they are constantly putting out wrong and misleading information…
They seem to think that they have the right to control what everyone does, thinks, says, or learns of in any type of media or even from one neighbor to the next. They are using the same tactics that were used in the Soviet Union in order to close down any type of dissent.
Obama (Photo credit: NatalieMaynor)
has a story that may just be another example of that. If it is it is another off the wall abuse of power by this administration and at some point in time, I sincerely hope that these people are held to some kind of accountability. Read it for yourself…..
IS OBAMA USING THE IRS TO SILENCE OPPOSITION VOICES?
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:56pm by
Mike Opelka
Many of us joke about being audited by the IRS because our views are not in sync with the White House. President Obama himself has even joked about it back in 2009, when a visit to Arizona State University caused many to speak up against the President receiving an honorary degree:
That was back in 2009. And it was a joke, right?
Or was it? Read the rest at at Blaze
Related posts:
Are Government Agencies Using Intimidation to Silence Opposition to Obama?
Obama’s Gamble and Our Loss
Image via Wikipedia
This is not good news for those of us who are pro-life. If we were looking for Catholics to turn against Obama because of the HHS ruling, it seems that we have been outfoxed by evil again. This is what happens when you make compromises for years. Then when the final push comes, people are so accustomed to compromising their values, that they see no problem in going the next step. God help us, because He is the only one who can. I pray that He intercedes for us as a country and enough people are willing to listen and understand the precipice that we are on. Because if they do not, the destruction of this country and the freedoms that we have enjoyed, will simply cease to exist for all practical purpose.
Obama, Sebelius declare war on religious liberty (via Liberty Counsel Action)
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
Mathew Staver, Chairman
Liberty Counsel Action
Dear Patricia,
President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Kathleen Sebelius, have put people of faith and religious organizations squarely in their crosshairs! The ObamaCare contraceptive and abortifacient mandate that has erupted into front-page news is an overreaching government intrusion into the lives of all Americans – and is patently unconstitutional.
Obama’s dictate has stirred up a firestorm of protest from religious organizations and is being likened to a slap across the face to people of faith.
Liberty Counsel Action has been in this war for many, many years, and we feel this latest eruption is unique. Make no mistake – we are wholeheartedly standing with other groups that are strongly opposing this outrage, but we have known for a long time where ObamaCare’s implementation was heading!
By coordinating with tens of thousands of deeply concerned patriots like you, we believe we can win not only this particular battle, but make substantial headway in turning back the entire ObamaCare law and further dismantling the Obama/Reid power base! Read my very important message below – Mat.
Patricia,
In a blatant assault on religious liberty, Barack Obama has ventured far out on a limb by openly challenging Christians and their institutions.
This escalating confrontation erupted over the unveiling of yet another unconstitutional “mandate” during the implementation phase of ObamaCare.
And, President Obama has yet again reneged on a promise made to get his healthcare “reform” bill through Congress two years ago: He is retracting an ObamaCare “conscientious exemption” for people of faith and religiously oriented institutions.
++ObamaCare’s contraceptive and abortifacient mandate assails the moral integrity of every American who holds religious convictions.
With this brazen (some would say “reckless”) policy announcement, the President has used ObamaCare to inflict even more damage on our Constitution.
He and Secretary Sibelius are now declaring that all employers, including nonprofit organizations, must adhere to an ObamaCare contraceptive and abortifacient mandate requiring employers to pay for birth control, contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs as supplied through their insurance providers.
The January 20th announcement, made by Sebelius but clearly speaking for the President, immediately provoked a firefight between the Obama Administration and religious organizations, especially the Roman Catholic Church.
But the over-reaching and inappropriate severity of the policy impacted EVERY believer in the nation and delivered a stark and chilling message:
“Your religious freedom and conscience protections are not as important as our statist initiatives and bureaucracies. Comply or suffer severe consequences.”
Obama and his Administration have so far refused to compromise.
After meeting resistance, President Obama circled his wagons.
Kathleen Sebelius has been on the media circuit with campaign-style rhetoric to make it sound as though the mandate is not as bad as it seems – and actually “respects religion.”
Nancy Pelosi called Obama’s decision “courageous.”
Liberal media outlets are characterizing people of faith opposed to this overarching mandate as “zealots” and are using the new leftist term for citizens who defend their constitutional rights, “sovereignty activists.”
But we are returning fire! Catholics, Baptists, and outraged Americans of all denominations are up in arms over the Obama Administration blatantly trampling on our religious liberties!
++Senator Marco Rubio jumps into the fray.
Senator Rubio (R-FL), a pro-life Catholic, scolded the Obama Administration and then offered a congressional counter attack…
“The Obama Administration’s obsession with forcing mandates on the American people has now reached a new low by violating the conscience rights and religious liberties of our people….
“Under this President, we have a government that has grown too big, too costly, and now even more overbearing by forcing religious entities to abandon their beliefs.”
Rubio’s countermeasure: The “Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012,” about which he says…
”This is a common sense bill that simply says the government can’t force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith because the government says so.”
Liberty Counsel Action stands in strong support of Senator Rubio’s bill. We began lobbying for such a bill the moment we realized the President had the audacity to try to force this new policy down America’s throat by using an administrative vehicle to circumvent the will of the people.
Now, we are calling on 100,000 pro-life, pro-faith, pro-family, and pro-liberty citizens to demand that Congress PASS THIS BILL NOW!
Please, click here to sign the LCA petition to stop Barack Obama’s intrusion on our religious civil liberties and to support the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012”:
http://www.lcaction.cc/660/petition.asp
++This is a call to action!
Liberty Counsel and Liberty Counsel Action would be among the employers forced into adhering to this most recent ObamaCare mandate.
Religious-based hospitals and healthcare providers would no longer have an “out” under Obama’s promised “conscience clause.” They would be required to comply – or pay stiff fines that would in all likelihood lead to their closing down.
The implementation of ObamaCare has turned out to be one socialist infringement of our personal liberties after another – and it must be stopped NOW!
Patricia, if our President honored his oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, our petition would be unnecessary. But ObamaCare and its mandates are blatantly unconstitutional and this “contraceptive mandate” is not only unconstitutional – it is a total violation of the conscience of the entire nation!
The two most likely methods to turn back this latest outrageous mandate: First, through the Supreme Court’s decision that ObamaCare itself is unconstitutional (and Liberty Counsel is filing two briefs at the High Court on this issue). Second, through the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012,” we can stop this most recent infringement on religious liberty.
That’s why I am urging all of my Liberty Counsel Action team to take one minute and add your name to this petition. PLEASE, click here to sign:
http://www.lcaction.cc/660/petition.asp
Mandi Campbell, Director of Public Policy for Liberty Counsel Action, wrote to Senator Rubio about his legislation. He published our letter in a press release:
“Liberty Counsel Action, on behalf of more than 750,000 members nationwide, would like to express support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012. … [W]e appreciate the exemption that your bill provides to secure the consciences of those with deep and sincere religious convictions opposed to the coverage of contraceptives (especially those that act as abortifacients) and sterilization, the provision of which is currently mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Thank you, Senator Rubio, for introducing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012.”
I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important and timely Senator Rubio’s bill is – and how urgent it is that we immediately endorse it with the signatures of at least 100,000 grassroots citizens. Right now, Senator Rubio has 21 Senate co-sponsors for the bill.
Please click here to sign our petition of support:
http://www.lcaction.cc/660/petition.asp
Thank you for taking immediate action on this critical issue!
God bless you,
Mathew Staver, Chairman
Liberty Counsel Action
P.S. The ObamaCare “contraceptive mandate” requires employers to pay for birth control, contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs as supplied through their insurance providers. This is unconstitutional and immoral! As a counter-assault, LCA is strongly endorsing Senator Marco Rubio’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012.” We are calling for 100,000 signers as soon as possible! Click here to add your name to the petition:
http://www.lcaction.cc/660/petition.asp
Say NO to ACTA – Patents
Be aware that President Obama has signed off on this trade agreement and is pressuring the Senate to confirm it. Also be aware that the Senate majority is still in Democrat hands. Please pass this on will the warning and alert included so that all American’s will know that this affects them as well and that they need to make sure that their own Senator knows that the citizens they represent are aware of this and do not approve of it.
2012 — Why Belief in God & Pro-life Matters
Image via Wikipedia
We have only to look at the example of Barack Obama to understand the importance of being pro-life and having a real belief and respect for God our Creator. And yes, I can and do question Barack Obama’s claim to believe in God and to be a Christian. Let me state the reasons why:
1) He is the most pro-abortion President that we have ever had and you simply can not so readily kill what God has created if you really believe in Him and the consequences of your own actions.
2) A belief in a Creator and a follower of Christ do bear a responsibility for their fellow man, you show that in how you value their lives and Barack Obama has now involved us in more conflict that is unnecessary to our security, and stirred up more violence throughout the Middle East since WWII.
3) As individuals we bear the responsibility of taking care of the poor, the disabled, and all those who are in desperate need, as individuals and as Churches. When government steps in to take that responsibility, they are taking the individual’s responsibility away. Jesus did not take this away from us, therefore, it is not our right to give to the government this responsibility. But with them taking our resources, it dramatically lowers our ability to do what we are called upon as individuals, therefore any government that requires this limits us as Christians, and Barack Obama has gone on record that it is his belief that this is a collective responsibility and therefore the governments place and not the individual.
4) Barack Obama is very adept at telling people what they want to hear if he agrees with them, even if what he is saying is so far from the truth that most people could not do this with a straight face. In God’s eyes this is called lying and it is very much against His teaching’s.
5) Forcing others to go against the what the Bible teaches and denying the supremacy of God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit while bowing down to a false God.
I could continue but I think that I have made the point on why I do not believe that Barack Obama believes in God. We have been warned that leaders would appear that try to teach us falsely, perhaps Obama is one of those that the Bible foretold. I will leave it to the scholar’s to make that claim. I will only state what anyone who bothers’ to read their Bible and truly believes in God can see. We are instructed to not make judgements, so I do not judge the man, but we are also told to look to their actions and point out when they are not what the Bible teaches. Perhaps no one has ever pointed this out to Mr. Obama. Perhaps he truly wants to follow God, but has not learned the right way. It is never too late and it is past time that someone showed him the way. If he really wants to be a follower of Christ, he will find God is willing to accept him as He is willing to accept all sinners.
The very actions that Barack Obama have taken and where he is leading us, are the greatest example that there is on why we need a leader that both believes in God, and follows the way of Christ, and is strongly pro-life. It can not be someone whose faith is on the back burner, it must be someone that is willing to put everything on the line in order to bring this country back from the brink of destruction, and to put the rest of the world on notice that evil and degradation will no longer have a place to nest in this country.
It is one thing to defend your country when it is attacked, it is another to willfully send men and women into danger and certain death, for nothing more than the possibility that the next leader that falls will usher in a democracy. Democracy is highly over rated if it leads to it’s people being forced to abandon their principles and faith, in order to serve at the behest of a minority, that has nothing more in mind that destroying another country that doesn’t pray to the same God that they do. And if we are willing to hand that ability to a President, we need to make sure that they value the lives of those that they are sending into battle.
Someone who truly believes in God the Creator, knows how precious life is. They know how valuable that they are to God. That He made the ultimate sacrifice in sending His Son to die for the world. Not just those who have been saved, but also those who will be saved. To a person who does not believe in God, life is a random accident of cells coming together to form intelligence. And with a belief that we are accidental, there is no appreciation for the complex structure that the Creation is.
Our people are our treasure, and if you don’t believe that they are valuable, you do not have the ability to value them. But how we spend our treasure is important too. It must be spent in ways that raise us all up, it can not be used simply to bring those that we disagree with down. And we must make the effort to educate and instill in our young that they are worthy, this can not be done by someone who does not believe that they are worthy.
A leader can not be someone who controls and pushes people into the position that he wants them to fill, as if they were simply pieces on a puzzle board that paints a picture that is pleasing to the one putting it together. A leader is one who inspires and shows the way, only someone who knows their own worth and the worth of those around them can truly inspire people to greatness and in doing so become great themselves.
We have only to look at the example of Egypt, Libya, and other places in the Middle East to see the results of having leaders that do not believe in God, or value human life. Suicide bombers who value no ones life, not even their own are a perfect example of the results of placing little of no value on life. After all, it is very easy to get rid of things that you believe are worthless.
The coming election is the rubicon, if you will, of our very future. It is the decision point on where we are going. It is the point of no turning back. If we do not choose someone who is willing to stand for what our founders intended us to be, we will fall along the road of destruction, and our history will be altered and changed to reflect a malicious desire to define us as a country of users and abusers, instead of a country of majestic builders with a wonderful vision.
I pray that we treat this winnowing process that we are going through with the gravity that it deserves, and not rush to judgement. We have time to make our decisions, and once they are made, there will not be any chance to do it over. Yes, we need someone that can beat Barack Obama, but that someone will be the one that is strongest in what we truly want in a leader. It will not be someone that we just settle for because someone else who has decided that they know best, tells us what we need. We have made the mistake in the past in listening to those who have an agenda, and want to make sure that everyone else is brought down, in order that their man can be raised up. If we are to not regret our past, we must make sure that the choice that we make is not one that we will forever regret!
Related articles
- Above The Law (loopyloo305.com)
- Pro-Life Resources (pjcockrell.wordpress.com)
- Over 400,000 March For Life In Washington DC (Pics and Videos) (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
- Mr. Obama and the ANTICHRIST (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
Above The Law
Image via Wikipedia
How far we have come in three years, from where we started when Barack Obama was elected. The promise that he offered to renew and restore America to the position of glory that she held, has turned into a nightmare of lawlessness and willful disobedience to the very Constitution that he swore an oath to protect.
Far from ending the wars that we were involved it, he has instead involved us in continuing conflict with no end in sight, with a promise of more at hand. We are now facing a future of uncertainty with diminished resources and increased insecurity. Instead of lifting America up, he has been busy trying to cut us off at our knees.
Many of us saw what kind of man that he was in 2008. We saw the man that did not respect human life and that believed that killing of infants after they were born alive was justifiable. Too many others believed his beautiful sounding rhetoric that was a empty as our pockets are now.
We are coming up to a new election and we have seen how little he regards the law and the judiciary system. We have seen him ignore rulings that he doesn’t like and interpret bills passed by the Congress in ways that are totally different than what they intended. What does the future hold? More of the same? Can we expect a man that has shown such little regard for the laws that he is supposed to uphold, to actually obey those very laws?
We have a court in Georgia that the President has declared that he has no obligation to obey, that as President he is above the laws of the state. And yet our very Constitution, of which he is supposed to be an expert, says quite the opposite. So the question has to be raised as to what laws will he obey? Will he obey the election laws?
Below is a very good article from WND that asks those same questions. Please take time to read the whole thing.
OBAMA ACCUSED OF DISRESPECTING COURT, STATE, AMERICANS ‘My belief is if Supreme Court held he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling(via WND)
By Dave Tombers
One of the attorneys who fought a court case over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court says he fears that even if the U.S. Supreme Court declared Obama unqualified, he’d simply ignore the ruling and continue issuing orders
But those who observed a court hearing today in Atlanta say it could be the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign, because of the doubt that could surge like a tidal wave across the nation.
The comments came today from Leo Donofrio, who led the pack in filing lawsuits over Obama’s 2008 election and his subsequent occupancy of the White House.
He was commenting on today’s hearing before a Georgia administrative law judge on complaints raised by several state residents that Obama is not eligible to run for the office in 2012. That hearing went on after Obama and his lawyer decided to snub the court system and refuse to participate. Read the rest at WND
New Docs Reveal How DOJ Kowtows to Muslim Brotherhood (via American Thinker)
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
This is a major breakdown in the American Justice system and a betrayal of the American people. It also raises questions on how far the Obama administration is going to cooperate with Muslims. What else are they sharing? Are they sharing secrets that they have no right to share? We have seen that Obama is willing to give secrets to Russia that can hurt us and our allies, do we really have any confidence that they would not do the same in every other instance that comes up? How much have they already given away?
New Docs Reveal How DOJ Kowtows to Muslim Brotherhood
In what promises to be an enormous document dump, I have received the first in a series of DOJ bundles in response to my FOIA request filed close to a year ago. Specifically, I asked for “records relating to the meeting of the ‘Monthly Outreach Meeting’ with Muslim and Arab groups at the Civil Rights Division. Specifically, include lists of attendees at each monthly meeting, the agenda of each meeting and any minutes or summary prepared subsequent to each meeting. Please also specifically note the meetings at which the Attorney General of the United States attended.”
The principal impact of reading through the material is the sheer bulk of it. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of emails, documenting nearly daily friendly contact, consultation, cooperation and collaboration between the DOJ and Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood groups. One thing is clear, the Muslim Brotherhood has fully infiltrated command and control at the Department of Justice civil rights division.
JUDGE WHACKS OBAMA IN ELIGIBILITY CASE (via WND)
by BOB UNRUH
A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.
WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.
“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order, released today.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.
“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’”
Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law. Read the rest at WND
JUDGE: WHITE HOUSE PERSECUTING PRO-LIFER (via WND Faith)
By BOB UNRUH
A federal judge says he doesn’t have enough evidence to sanction Barack Obama’s Department of Justice, but its prosecution of a Florida pro-lifer is suspiciously like persecution.
“It is rather curious that the Department of Justice was able to meet with the [Presidential Women's Center in West Palm Beach, Fla.] staff and police officers the very next day after the alleged violations occurred. It is also curious that the government failed to make any efforts to obtain the identities of the passengers who are the alleged victims in this case – the court finds it hard to believe that the government was completely unaware of the existence of the sign-in sheets and video surveillance system.” 
The comments come from U.S. District Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp on a decision granting summary judgment for Mary Susan Pine. She had been charged with a violation of the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances law and could have been subjected to an intimidating $10,000 fine.
“The court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the government and the PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct,” the judge wrote.
“If this is the case, the court would be inclined to sanction the government with, at a minimum, an adverse inference. Given the absence of further evidence substantiating the court’s suspicions, the court is not authorized to do so,” the judge wrote.
The judge’s 21-page ruling granting Pine a summary judgment and clearing her of the charges said the entire episode raised questions.
“The court is at a loss as to why the government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” Ryskamp wrote. “The record [is] almost entirely devoid of evidence that Ms. Pine acted with the prohibited motive and intent or that Ms. Pine engaged in any unlawful conduct. The government has failed to create a genuine issue for trial on all three elements of its FACE (Federal Access to Clinic Entrances) claim, and Ms. Pine is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Federal prosecutors under Obama’s pro-abortion agenda had accused her of stopping a car to talk to the occupants while they were going into a parking lot – and might or might not have been going to an abortion business, the evidence doesn’t include that. Read the rest at WND Faith
2 Brazilian Soldiers
Image by Getty Images via @daylife
The Dept of Defense briefed the president this morning. They told President Obama that 2 Brazilian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan.
To everyone’s surprise, all the color drained from Obama’s face. Then he collapsed onto his desk, head in his hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears.
Finally, he composed himself and asked,
‘Just how many is a brazilian?’
This is not surprising, since he obviously has no understanding of billion or trillion either.
Illegal Immigration is a CRIME! (via SecureArkansas.org)
Image via Wikipedia
Illegal Immigration is a Crime
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, “Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
- Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
- Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
- Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
Union Standoff With Administration Over Deportation Rules
The National ICE Council, the union representing 7000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, is facing a deadline late this month over whether or not to take part in training ordered by the Obama Administration aimed at reducing deportations of illegal aliens. This training was announced in a June 17th memo by ICE Director, John Morton setting out 31 factors that agency officers would use to decide whether to proceed with deportation.
Union President, Chris Crane, has been critical of Obama’s strategy, saying it amounts to orders for agents not to enforce the law. Shortly after the Morton memo was issued, Crane toldPRNewswire, ”Any American concerned about immigration needs to brace themselves for what’s coming. This is just one of many new ICE policies in queue aimed at stopping the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws in the United States. Unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, the Administration is now implementing it through agency policy.”
Crane also stated that agents, officers, employees and the Union had no input in these policies, “ICE and the Administration have excluded our union and our agents from the entire process of developing policies, it was all kept secret from us, we found out from the newspapers. ICE worked hand in hand with immigrants’ rights groups, but excluded its own officers.”
Naturally, all this has been ignored by the mainstream media, along with the 2010 no-confidence vote ICE agents gave Obama appointee, John Morton.
Just as concerning are the secret policies being implemented at ICE. Agents claim that DirectorJohn Morton always presents written policies for public consumption, but then makes “secret changes” to the policies which ICE refuses to put in writing. ICE knows the policy changes will create a political outcry or could place the public or ICE officers at risk. ”Our officers are already under orders not to make arrests or even talk to foreign nationals in most cases unless another agency has already arrested them. You won’t find that written in any public ICE policy.”
He also accuses the administration of changing the policies to win support of immigrant groups in the election.
“Law enforcement and public safety have taken a back seat to attempts to satisfy immigrant advocacy groups,” Mr. Crane told a House Judiciary subcommittee in October.
“I think the writing is on the wall for every person concerned about good government and effective immigration reforms – the things happening at ICE represent neither, said Crane.
We are asking everyone to please email or call your Congressman and Senators immediately and ask them to help stop what’s happening at ICE, we desperately need your help.”
Contact information for Arkansas Congressional Delegation:
Senator Mark Pryor (D- AR)
DC Phone202-224-2353
DC FAX 202-228-0908 http://pryor.senate.gov/publicindex.cfm?p=ContactForm
Senator John Boozman (R- AR)
DC Phone 202-224-4843
DC Fax 202-228-1371 http://boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me
Representative Rick Crawford (R – 01)
DC Phone 202-225-4076
DC Fax 202-225-5602 https://crawford.house.gov/Contact/default.aspx
Representative Tim Griffin (R – 02)
DC Phone 202-225-2506
DC Fax 202-225-5903
https://griffin.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
Representative Steve Womack (R – 03)
DC Phone 202-225-4301 DC Fax202-225-5713 https://womack.house.gov/Contact/default.aspx
Representative Mike Ross (D – 04)
DC Phone 202-225-3772
FAX 202-225-1314
https://ross.house.gov/Contact/default.aspx
A copy of the ICE Policy on exercising Prosecutorial Discretion can be found at
Securing the Blessings of Liberty.
SecureArkansasNetwork.org
Obama Supporters No More
Image via Wikipedia
It seems that Conservatives are not the only ones unhappy with Barack Obama’s Presidency! Some on the far left are going rogue. Even going so far as to claim he is not eligible.
Wonder who Obama has left to support him? Just the Unions? Is that the reason that they are taking such desperate lawless actions in appointing people to the NLRB that the Senate never even had time to look at, much less approve.
Watch the video and tell me, doesn’t this seem a little extreme to you? I mean, Obama and his supporters have been emphasizing the last few days how extreme the “Tea Party” are. Compared to this everyone else are. to use a very old phrase, “so square.”
