A. J. MacDonald, Jr. - The World Perceived - Blog

Ron Paul - 2012 - FEAR NOTHING

2012-02-11T10:00:00.000-08:00

US war with Iran around the corner?

2012-02-08T17:25:00.000-08:00

The Case Against Abortion: Personhood

2012-02-08T13:30:00.000-08:00

The changing face of US regime change

2012-02-01T16:53:00.000-08:00

Abortion doctors charged with murder

2011-12-30T16:54:00.000-08:00

Fracture Drilling - Environmental Disaster / Documentary Video

2011-12-29T20:47:00.000-08:00

American Girl Target of Extremist Jews in Israel

2011-12-26T09:51:00.000-08:00

Are the political parties destroying American politics?

2011-12-22T19:40:00.000-08:00

'Occupy' Protesters Take Time to Reflect Over Holidays

2011-12-22T18:28:00.000-08:00

Peru's cocaine industry skyrockets

2011-12-19T11:47:00.000-08:00

Peru snuffing out drug crops

2011-12-19T11:46:00.000-08:00

9/11 Meet The Press With Dick Cheney NBC September 16, 2001 10:30am - 10...

2011-12-05T05:54:00.000-08:00

9/11 WTC 7 Demolition - Penthouse Collapse Close Up, Flashes, And Gas Ej...

2011-12-04T18:28:00.000-08:00

9/11: WTC1 "spire" (NIST FOIA - Richard Peskin #25)

2011-12-04T18:18:00.000-08:00

9/11: Stabilized WTC2 Video (NIST FOIA - Luigi Cazzaniga)

2011-12-04T18:17:00.000-08:00

The US WMDs-News Analysis-11-28-2011

2011-11-29T08:47:00.000-08:00

The Judge What If...

2011-11-22T15:19:00.000-08:00

Ukraine's Orange Revolution: a sombre seventh anniversary

2011-11-22T13:31:00.000-08:00

The derivative market will come unglued when other "MF Globals" appear i...

2011-11-22T10:25:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul Interview On DeFace The Nation 11/20/11

2011-11-22T08:20:00.000-08:00

CANVAS - The Revolution School

2011-11-22T07:23:00.000-08:00

Army against genuine change in Egypt

2011-11-21T05:07:00.000-08:00

The Secret Service and JFK

2011-11-19T06:06:00.000-08:00

video platform video management video solutions video player

Occupy Movement & American Awakening-News Analysis-11-11-2011

2011-11-12T11:05:00.000-08:00

Portland Among Cities Grappling With How to Handle 'Occupy' Protesters

2011-11-11T23:40:00.000-08:00

F. William Engdahl: Arab Spring a western ploy to control Eurasia

2011-11-05T19:33:00.000-07:00

Occupy Rome Rioter Smashes Virgin Mary Statue

2011-11-02T10:33:00.000-07:00

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at the National Press Club

2011-11-02T06:38:00.000-07:00

Chalmers Johnson - Speaking Freely

2011-11-01T16:26:00.000-07:00

Dorothy Day on Christopher Closeup, part I

2011-11-01T08:30:00.000-07:00

Coffee shop serves comfort to troubled vets

2011-10-26T18:34:00.000-07:00

Maafa 21 - Black Genocide in the 21st Century

2011-10-23T21:10:00.000-07:00

9-11: Secondary Explosions on 9/11 at the WTC

2011-10-23T13:50:00.000-07:00

The US Military Knows Israel Did 9/11

2011-10-22T11:22:00.000-07:00

The Revolution Business - Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-20T07:25:00.000-07:00

LISTEN by Jordan Page

2011-10-09T09:13:00.000-07:00

2011-09-17T06:06:00.000-07:00

2011-09-17T05:57:00.000-07:00

Between the Lines

2011-09-01T09:58:00.000-07:00

Architects and Engineers on WTC Building 7

2011-08-28T11:36:00.000-07:00

Press TV Interview with Dr Alan Sobrosky PhD USMC

2011-08-26T12:14:00.000-07:00

Dr. Alan Sobrosky PhD (USMC): It is 100% Certain Israel Perpetrated 9/11

2011-08-25T11:19:00.000-07:00

The Mena Connection

2011-08-24T16:57:00.001-07:00

Dorothy Day on Christopher Closeup, part I

2011-08-21T03:28:00.000-07:00

Mexico's drug wars spill into US

2011-08-21T02:58:00.000-07:00

Borderland Beat: US Border Town Corrupted by Drugs Trade

2011-08-21T02:57:00.000-07:00

Borderland Beat: US Border Town Corrupted by Drugs Trade: By Rob Reynolds Aljazeera Columbus, N.M., Police Chief Angelo Vega, shown here, along with the mayor and a town trustee were arrested by f...

2011-08-11T11:47:00.000-07:00

Summer of Justice - 2012 - DC

COMANDO ARMADO EN CREEL CHIHUAHUA VIDEO GRABADO COMETIENDO MASACRE

2011-08-11T10:13:00.000-07:00

Israel did 9/11 - All the Proof in the World

2011-08-11T10:08:00.000-07:00

On America, Protesting, Flag Burning, and How the Left and the Right Need to Come Together, Now.

2011-08-09T19:07:00.000-07:00

I was in the crowd, in Washington, D. C., when the American flag was burned at the March 20, 2010 protest against America’s ongoing wars. When the flag was burned, a collective GROAN went up from EVERYONE around me. Most of whom were on the Left, not the Right.

I was also locked-up in the DC Jail with the guy who, although meaning well, was unwise enough to burn the flag that day. We argued the point (i.e., is flag burning wise or foolish?) from that Saturday afternoon until we appeared in court on Monday afternoon.

I know he meant well but burning the American flag is like shooting yourself, and your movement, in the foot, I told him. We don’t want to DESTROY the symbol of America because America has become evil, we want to RESTORE honor and dignity to America and to it’s national symbol as well. There’s a HUGE difference. He also burned his hand pretty badly, which is terrible, and hurts like anything, but, considering what he did, I thought it was God’s way of letting him know that what he did was a very unwise thing; sort of a painful reminder, for a few days, to give him pause, so that he could think about his actions that day.

I’ve told him, since then, that I know why he did what he did and that I respect him for doing so, because he was being true to himself, at the time, and he could not have done otherwise. He was angry and, understandably, very frustrated. I’ve done a lot of foolish things too in my life, especially when I’ve been angry and frustrated, so I am certainly in no place to cast stones at him or anyone else for acting foolishly. We all live and learn from our many mistakes, if we are wise enough to do so.

I hope that he and others on the Left realize how counter productive flag burning actions are and that they will not repeat this man’s mistake, because we don’t have the time, now, for such foolishness. We need to come together, Left and Right, before it’s too late and we have no nation left to restore.

Don't fall for Washington's tricks. They want us pitted against one another, because they know we will beat them when we come together, so they do their best to set us at each other's throats. I believe the Right and the Left agree more than we realize. When we unite against Washington, the American People will win America back. Unless we unite we never will take America back. America will continue to spiral out of control, fueled by more hate, more anger, and more violence, until we plunge into the dark abyss of chaos and anarchy.

We need to stop name calling and start getting to know one another, because we are more alike than we are different, and we can all learn from one another, can we not?

As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, once said ““Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.”

Anti-War protest flag burning in Washington, D. C. on March 20, 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3W2ZyvMMa0

On symbolism and the American flag: http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/america-symbolism-and-revolution/

On how the Left and the Right need to come together, now, so that we can learn from one another: http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/america-why-the-left-and-the-right-need-to-come-together-and-learn-from-one-another/

An Urgent Appeal From Prof. Bill Quigley: Our brother, Father Roy Bourgeois, needs your immediate solidarity!

2011-08-08T08:37:00.000-07:00

From: Bill Quigley, Attorney for Father Roy Bourgeois, Quigley@loyno.edu

7214 St. Charles Avenue, Campus Box 902, New Orleans, LA 70118

August 8, 2011

Dear Friends:

Our brother, Father Roy Bourgeois, needs your immediate solidarity. The Maryknoll community has taken another step towards expulsion of Father Roy for speaking out in favor of the ordination of women priests. Father Roy has said that, as a matter of conscience, he must speak out against the exclusion of women from the priesthood both because it defies faith and reason and because the exclusion is rooted in sexism. Despite the threats to expel him, Father Roy refuses to recant.

It is time for people of good will to take action. Please contact Father Ed Dougherty, the Superior General of Maryknoll, and ask him not to expel Father Roy Bourgeois for advocating for women priests. Here is how to contact Father Dougherty:

Father Edward Dougherty

Maryknoll Fathers

PO Box 303

Maryknoll, NY 10545-0303

Fax: 914.944.3600 or Phone: 914.941.7590

Email: mklcouncil@maryknoll.org

I am one of the lawyers on the team working with Father Roy. Below is a link to the letter Father Roy recently received from Maryknoll. It is the official second and perhaps final notice threatening to immediately expel him from the community.

Below is a link to Father Roy’s response to Maryknoll. You can read it and see where he stands. His letter is a simple direct invitation to dialogue about inclusion of women in the priesthood and a call for the protection of conscience – key foundation principles in any institution which respects human dignity. Contrast his letter with one from Maryknoll and judge which best reflects the spirit of hope, justice, respect and love.

Father Roy's Letter to Maryknoll:

https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/727/images/FatherRoy.pdf

Maryknoll Letter to Father Roy:

https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/727/images/Maryknoll.pdf

Father Roy has been a priest for 39 years and a member of Maryknoll for 44 years. We cannot allow Maryknoll, pushed hard no doubt by fundamentalist forces of the institutional church in Rome, to silence a prophetic voice of conscience and justice. Galileo was silenced by the church in 1633 for saying the earth revolves around the sun and they did not admit their error and apologize until 360 years later in 1992. Truth and justice cannot be expected to wait that long. Hundreds of priests already publicly support Father Roy’s right to speak his conscience. Thousands more women and men across the world support this issue and Father Roy as well. Maryknoll cannot and should not be party to a modern day silencing.

Thank you for your action and solidarity. Please send me a copy of what you sent Maryknoll and I will make sure Father Roy knows of your support.

Peace and justice,

Bill Quigley

------------------------

See this PBS video documentary regarding Fr Roy Bourgeois and the School of the Assassins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhgBvG1SDzM

The US Government is Criminal; Therefore Illegitimate

2011-08-06T06:12:00.000-07:00

The US Congress does not represent the People, it represents special interests. Period. There is no democracy in America. Our vote counts for nothing. In fact the voting system itself is rigged, from special interest monies to electronic voting machine fraud. We have been disenfranchised and there is nothing we can do about it except abolish the current government and institute new government, as per the Declaration of Independence. Today's headline states we have lost our triple A credit rating and I am not at all surprised. Things will only get worse before they get better and things will only get better when good people stand up to the evil–and there is no other word for this but evil–in Washington and take our nation back for the people.

For example, there is PLENTY of work to be done in America, despite what Washington says. Cut off trade with China and make our products at home. Light manufacturing in the USA would be a boon both to blighted urban ghettos and dying rural towns. Our highways, roads, and bridges are in desperate need of repair but all Washington needs to do is to federalize all US and Interstate highways and hire the crews (at prevailing, living, wages) to get the job done. The reason Washington won’t do this is because they use the federal highway funding to the states as a way to extort the states to do their will regarding issues not related to highways at all. End the wars, which cost $1 billion per day, according to what I have been told, personally, by a US Army colonel at the US Army War College.

People have completely lost faith and confidence in the US government and it is beginning to show. This, too, will only grow worse. The truth about 9/11 is coming out, that our own government along with Israel (Washington’s most special interest “group”) perpetrated 9/11 and blamed it on the Muslims. This, too, we have from a source at the US Army War College, and it is 100% certain. Washington is collapsing and we need to prepare for the worst.

Please see: http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/an-urgent-warning-the-situation-in-washington-is-far-worse-than-i-imagined/ - as well as - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Summer-of-Justice-2012-DC/223664350994440?sk=wall - as well as - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBb00PQR1zo&feature=share - as well as - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUbTe50UUgM

*Legal Disclaimer: Because the Montgomery County, Maryland Police, as well as the Pennsylvania State Police and the US Marshals have already expressed an interest in and a concern with me due to my past and because of my ongoing involvement with the Summer of Mercy and our ongoing work to drive late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart out of business in Germantown, Maryland, the image accompanying this brief paper should in no way be interpreted as a threat of violence against Carhart or anyone else. The image is simply one that came up when I did a Google image search for “criminal government”. I have never endorsed shooting or killing abortionists and I never will. As far as the US government and treason goes, federal law says traitors hang. Personally, I am consistently prolife, meaning I am against all unjust killing, especially state sponsored killing, which includes unjust wars, abortion, and capital punishment.

America - Why the Left and the Right Need to Come Together and Learn From One Another

2011-08-03T10:37:00.000-07:00

I predicted the so-called “debt crisis” to be the final death blow to the TEA Party and I was wrong about that, but I was correct about the whole debt ceiling "crisis" being all about the TEA Party, which it was. But where I thought the TEA Party would fail it has succeeded, which all Americans should take note of.

Although some, few, high profile TEA Partiers may take government assistance, the vast majority of Americans and TEA Partiers do not and people are sick of being fleeced, or robbed, of their hard earned money. Sick unto death. This fact cannot and should not be ignored, especially by the Left.

There are good reasons for why TEA Party people are so angry. Most are working class folks, which the left SAY they support. How many prominent leftists are white rather than blue collar workers? How many leftists live in urban as opposed to rural America? Rural America is, for the most part "America" itself. I know, because I have travelled the entire nation many times over. Large urban areas are few and far between, except for the Northeast.

If the Right is 50% correct on issues and 50% wrong the Left has the 50% correct which the Right needs and the Right has the 50% correct which the Left needs. For the most part, the most vocal of the Left hate Jesus, hate (traditional) America, especially the flag, and hate life (i.e., pro-abortion). This is a losing "strategy" for the Left to cling to. Period. America will never become the socialist utopia the far Left hopes for. No utopias exist and it's dangerous to presume that they can (think: Communist China, today).

The Right, especially the religious Right, needs to listen to the wisdom of the Left on many issues, especially the issue of America's ongoing wars. The Pentagon and its ongoing wars is where most of our tax monies are currently going. The Left tells us the truth but the Right refuses to listen: the entire “War on Terror” is a sham and we should not allow ourselves to be taken by media/government propaganda that blames “Islamofacism” for creating terror and for perpetrating 9/11. Israeli Mossad, with US government assistance, did that and it’s foolish for otherwise intelligent people to believe the official--and officially unscientific--government mythology of 9/11.

Our troops are losing more than life and limb fighting the “War on Terror” overseas, they are losing theirs souls and their humanity, which is far worse. A man can be fitted for an artificial limb but not for an artificial soul. Science can't fix that, and neither can the VA. It's up to us, the American people, to demand an end to the misuse and abuse of our troops; to bring them home and keep them home, now.

The Right needs to listen to Left on the issue of caring for the needs of others as well. Although the Right is correct that it’s not the federal governments job to bail out bankrupt citizens any more than bankrupt banks the Right needs to listen when the Left tells us that we need a better vision for the future of America; a vision of hope and progress, not a “vision” of continued despair and maintaining the status quo or worse: regressing toward become an even less humane society. It’s true that a man should be willing to “pull himself up by his own bootstraps” but this tired shibboleth presupposes the man has a pair of boots to begin with, doesn’t it?

On 9/11, please see: http://www.ae911truth.org/ -http://www.scribd.com/doc/58318030/US-Military-Knows-Israel-Did-9-11-Alan-Sobrosky-USMC - as well as: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVKGRB3cygg - or simply Google: “the military knows”

On Communist China today, please see: http://laogaimuseum.org/

On soldiers losing their souls during times of war, please watch this film in its entirety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCmlOhsIwBk&feature=share

America - On Coming Together As A Nation

2011-08-01T13:17:00.000-07:00

Americans need to unite for a purpose. A purpose we can all agree upon. Left or Right, Catholic or Atheist, TEA Party or Socialist, all Americans do agree, I think, upon one thing, at least: That the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. led a successful movement for positive social change in America, which was founded upon fundamental American principles, that increased liberty, freedom, and dignity for black Americans.

Dr. King chose to establish his social movement upon the bedrock of American principles, which are outlined in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” See: http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm

“In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” See: http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html

Is there anyone in America, on the Left or the Right, who disagrees with what the Declaration says, here? Is there anyone in America, on the Left or the Right, who disagrees with Dr. King’s having used this most fundamental of American principles?

To watch Dr. King’s speech: “I Have a Dream”, please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk&feature=player_embedded

To read my many essays concerning Dr. King’s use of the Declaration of Independence and its Natural Law foundation, please see: http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/tag/martin-luther-king-jr/

To read an excellent book, which is relevant to this subject, The Abolition of Man, by C.S. Lewis, please see: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm

Establishing Peace and Justice in America

2011-07-30T04:34:00.000-07:00

When it comes to protests, especially protests against the wars, I have two (2) MAJOR concerns, which I see NO antiwar or social justice group addressing: 1) what to do the day after the protest; and 2) the issue of abortion.

The second issue first. It's illogical and irrational to accept that anyone or any group who supports abortion really cares about ending the wars. Unjustified killing, whether it be in Iraq or Afghanistan or an American mother's womb is, after all, murder; and if such people and groups wish to continue the brutal, unjustifiable slaughter of the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us then they have absolutely no intellectual footing upon which to stand and no moral high ground whatsoever from which to preach against the brutal, unjustifiable slaughter that is America's ongoing wars. Period. The problem, as I see it, is that, for these people and these groups, JUSTICE has been REMOVED from the PEACE equation, yet America can never be restored to peace and safety without addressing the issue of justice first and foremost.

The first issue, regarding what to do the day after the protest, should the protest succeed, is crucial. Does the protest movement have any plans concerning what to do the day after the protest succeeds? And what, exactly, does the protest movement consider success? Should a large direct action protest in Washington ever succeed in pushing those in power OUT of power this group needs detailed plans concerning what to do next. We don't want to end up like Egypt, without a plan, and there is A LOT to plan regarding this.

The Summer of Justice 2012 - DC addresses BOTH of these important issues, although the details of the first issue are being worked out now. Justice means exactly what Dr. King said it means: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". Abortion is the grossest of all injustices and until it's dealt with, properly, justly, there is NO HOPE of saving America or of ending the unjust wars. Period.

A Simple, Biblical "End Times" Timeline

2011-06-26T14:10:00.000-07:00

A Last Days (End Times) Timeline According to the Bible

According to the Bible, at the first coming of Christ, Satan was cast down from heaven to the earth (see: Revelation 12:1-12). Jerusalem is overthrown (70 A. D.) and the temple destroyed (just as Christ predicted it would be in Luke 21:20) by the Roman armies, which surrounded Jerusalem (i.e., “the abomination that makes desolate” and compare Luke 21:20 with Matthew 24:15). Upon the execution (by the Romans) of this final, official, covenantal rejection of Israel by Christ (see: Revelation 18:1-24 and Matthew 23:38) Satan is bound for 1,000 years (Greek: “a long time”; like us saying: “a gazillion years” see: Revelation 20:1-6) and the kingdom is taken away from Israel and given to the Gentiles, who will bring forth fruit (see: Matthew 21:43-44), until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled and Jerusalem is to be “trodden underfoot by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled (Luke 21:24). The time of the Gentiles is fulfilled only when the gospel has gone into (saturated) all the earth (see: Matthew 24:14 and Habakkuk 2:14) and the Gentiles have turned away from and rejected Christ. Then Satan will be loosed in order to deceive all the Gentile nations and gather them together against the only “people of God” who remain on earth “the Jews” who, because they have faithfully kept their scriptures and traditions, await their soon-coming messiah (see: Romans 11) who will appear and destroy those nations that have been deceived to gather against God’s chosen ones, the heirs of the promise God made to Abraham (see: Genesis 12: 1-3 and Revelation 20:7-10). The living will be changed and the dead will rise (see: 2 Thessalonians 2) to be judged at Christ’s return and the Final Judgment occurs (see: Revelation 20:11-15). The old earth and heaven pass away and a new heaven and a new earth appear (see Revelation 21) much like a seed that must first die before it can become what it is ultimately supposed to be (see Romans 8).

Conclusions:

1) Present-day Israel is NOT the “camp of the saints” the “nations of the world” gather against in the book of Revelation, neither is present-day Israel now awaiting God (alone) to destroy their enemies (i.e., “the nations of the world”), which gather against them, as the Bible says God himself does: “And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:7-10, emphasis added). Present-day Israel (along with “Christian” America) is destroying Israel’s enemies now, today, NOT God. Israel’s enemies today, unlike Revelation 20, are not ALL the Gentile nations but only SOME of the Gentile nations (Palestinians/Muslims).

2) Satan is cast down to the earth at the first coming (birth) of Christ (see: Revelation 12). Satan is clearly the “accuser of the brethren” in the book of Job who goes to and fro both in heaven and on earth (see: Job 1) until he is cast down to the earth by Michael and his angels (see: Revelation 12). Satan is finally bound and cast into the bottomless pit so that he might deceive the nations no more (see: Revelation 20: 1-6). Christ, at his resurrection, defeated Satan and put him to an open shame (see: Colossians 2:8-15). Satan is loosed only for “a little while” (Greek: “mikron”) so that he might deceive the nations once more and gather them together against God, Christ, and God’s chosen people (the Jews, or Israel).

3) Our mission, as Gentiles who follow Christ, is to “Christianize” the Gentile world and to provoke the Jews (Israel) to envy or jealousy (see: Romans 11:14).

An Urgent Warning: THE SITUATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IS FAR WORSE THAN I IMAGINED!

2011-06-24T00:51:00.001-07:00

An Urgent Warning: THE SITUATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IS FAR WORSE THAN I IMAGINED!

Washington, D. C. 6/21/2011

A.J. MacDonald, Jr.

I am familiar with a newspaper called The Epoch Times, which publishes a special Washington, D. C. edition, from my visits to D. C. The Epoch Times is a group of good, Chinese people dedicated to liberating the people of their great nation and restoring it to its former greatness, which comes only when people follow both God and Nature. To the Chinese people, this is the Tao. To the American people, this is Natural Law, which I, Dr. King, and the Declaration of Independence speak of as THE ONLY WAY TO RESTORE OUR ONCE GREAT NATION.

I WAS ALREADY WELL AWARE THAT THE WASHINGTON POLITICIANS WERE IN BED WITH COMMUNIST CHINA, BUT AFTER READING THIS EDITION OF THE EPOCH TIMES, WHICH FILLED IN THE MISSING DETAILS REGARDING JUST HOW BAD THINGS NOW ARE, I NOW REALIZE THAT WASHINGTON WAS TAKEN OVER, LONG AGO, BY COMMUNISTS: OUR POLITICIANS OF BOTH PARTIES.

Please READ EVERY WORD of the front page "A section" of this DC Newspaper. This paper is published by good people who are trying to liberate the Chinese people by telling the truth about Washington politicians of BOTH parties BEING IN BED WITH THE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT OF CHINA. I know this is hard to believe but Washington politician of both parties are now and have been for years subverting the US Constitution by arranging crooked deals with Communist China. I knew things were bad, but THINGS ARE FAR WORSE THAN I IMAGINED. I got this newspaper in DC. The paper is available and the paper's "truth telling" is common knowledge on Capitol Hill (both parties). THE WASHINGTON POLITICIANS ARE TRYING TO SHUT THEM UP BY SHUTTING OFF THEIR RADIO BROADCASTS TO CHINA. READ EVERY WORD OF THIS ARTICLE AND THINK ABOUT IT. ASK YOURSELF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MANY ARTICLES THAT EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION AND TREASON OF THE WASHINGTON POLITICIANS.

ONLY TWO (2) POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON ARE TRYING TO HELP THIS GROUP: US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and US Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA)

I AM, AND HAVE BEEN, SAYING THE SAME THING THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE THIS NEWSPAPER SAY: NATURAL LAW (THE TAO) IS OUR ONLY HOPE. JUST AS DR KING AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE SAYS.

READ, ESPECIALLY, THE ARTICLE ABOUT SENATOR JOHN KERRY'S LATEST CROOKED PLAN TO SWINDLE AMERICANS ALONG WITH THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE WASHINGTON POLITICIANS KNOWING AND WILLINGLY AID THE COMMUNIST CHINESE GOVERNMENT (CCP) IN DEFRAUDING THE US TAXPAYER. SEE, TOO, THE ARTICLE ON CHINESE PROPAGANDA RECENTLY, INTENTIONALLY, PRINTED IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. AS YOU WILL READ FOR YOURSELF, THE SITUATION IN WASHINGTON IS FAR WORSE THAN EVEN I HAD IMAGINED!

WE NEED, NOW, TO ORGANIZE. WE NEED TO WORK TO LIBERATE OUR NATION FROM THE CRIMINAL TRAITORS IN WASHINGTON WHO HAVE BOTH SOLD AMERICA OUT TO COMMUNIST CHINA AND HELPED THE ISRAELI MOSSAD BLOW-UP THE THREE WTC BUILDINGS IN NYC (BLAMING IT ON MUSLIMS) AND THE PENTAGON.

See: Dr. Alan Sobrosky’s (Colonel, USMC Retired) article concerning the high level US military brass being aware, now, that Israel blew-up those buildings in NYC and DC. I TOLD A LOT OF HIGH LEVEL BRASS MYSELF YESTERDAY AT THE PENTAGON. The military is loyal to the US Constitution and the Washington politicians are not. ALL MILITARY SERVICE MEMBERS SWEAR AN OATH TO PROTECT, UPHOLD, AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUION FROM ALL ENEMIES—FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. WE HAVE THREE (3) ENEMIES OF THE US CONSTITUTION: ISRAEL, CHINA AND WASHINGTON POLITICIANS. My fear is that the military will take things into their own hands (i.e., a coup d’ etat) and wipe Israel—the innocent (most) along with the guilty (few)—just as we did and are doing with Afghanistan and Iraq. WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! WE MUST SEEK JUSTICE NOT REVENGE! ONLY A NONVIOLENT MOVEMENT, SUCH AS THE ONE WE HAVE STARTED (Summer of Justice – 2012 – DC), CAN HEAD THIS OFF! I AM ALSO VERY CONCERNED THAT MANY AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BEGIN TO BLAME ALL JEWISH PEOPLE FOR THE CRIMES OF A FEW. WE CANNOT ALOW THIS TO HAPPEN!

We are facing a CRISIS OF EPOCH PROPORTIONS AND WE NEED YOU TO BE INVOLVED IN HELPING RESTORE OUR GREAT NATION! PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION I AM POSTING, FOLLOW THE LINKS, THINK ABOUT WHAT WE ARE SAYING, AND JOIN US! GET BUSY WORKING AND SPREADING THE WORD! AMERICA WILL BE FREE, GOOD, AND GREAT AGAIN, VERY SOON!

Peace, Alex

A. J. MacDonald, Jr

Treason and Sedition in US Federal Law - Why It Is Time NOW For A Revolution In America

2011-06-15T23:36:00.001-07:00

The following may help to clarify your understanding of treason and sedition under US federal law.

I am very familiar with federal law (i.e., the US Code), having violated federal law before (e.g., Title 18, U.S.C., Section 248), and I always like to keep-abreast of the fed's latest definition of the words: "treason" and "sedition".

As men who were both treasonous and seditious (against England) the Founder's also made certain that NO ONE IN AMERICA EVER BE ALLOWED TO DO WHAT THE FOUNDERS THEMSELVES HAD DONE: THROW OFF A TYRANNICAL, OPPRESSIVE, AND MURDEROUS GOVERNMENT!

Well, WE aim to do just THAT. Non-violently, of course.

WE DARE THE FEDS TO FIRE THE FIRST SHOTS AT NONVIOLENT PROTESTERS IN AMERICA WHO BELIEVE IN THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO THROW OFF BAD GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTE A GOOD GOVERNMENT IN ITS PLACE SO THAT WE MIGHT LIVE IN PEACE AND SAFETY!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

A "Clear and Present Danger"

After the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Americans pulled together. But Americans still speak out voicing many different opinions. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. And most Americans support the idea of free speech. But since the First Amendment became part of the Constitution in 1791, American citizens have sometimes gotten into trouble with the government for speaking out. This has happened when a speaker was considered "too unpatriotic," "too radical," or "too dangerous."

Who should have freedom of speech? Should it apply only to those who voice opinions most people agree with? Or, should it be for everyone, even for those who hold opinions that most Americans hate?

Also, what does freedom of speech really mean? Does it mean that someone should be able to say whatever he or she wants at any time or place? Or, should speech sometimes be limited by the law?

Sedition Act of 1798

Just a few years after the First Amendment was added to the Constitution, the federal government passed a law restricting freedom of speech. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act. War seemed likely between the United States and its former ally France. Members of Congress were convinced that people sympathetic to France would try to stir up trouble for the new nation.

Congress and President John Adams believed that the Sedition Act would help control pro-French troublemakers by forbidding criticism of the federal government. "Sedition" generally means the incitement of violent revolution against the government. The Sedition Act of 1798, however, went far beyond this. It required criminal penalties for persons who said or published anything "false, scandalous, or malicious" against the federal government, Congress or the president.

Twenty-five American citizens were arrested under the Sedition Act. Among them was a Congressman who was convicted and imprisoned for calling President Adams a man who had "a continual grasp for power." Another citizen was convicted for painting a sign that read, "Downfall To The Tyrants of America." Still another man was found guilty of sedition for saying that he wished that the wadding of a cannon fired in a salute to President Adams would hit him in the seat of the pants.

Despite the arrests and convictions, many people spoke out against the Sedition Act. The state of Virginia even threatened to secede from the United States over this issue. The act was never legally challenged before the Supreme Court. Instead, it simply expired in 1801. By that time Thomas Jefferson, a bitter political opponent of President Adams and the Sedition Act, had been elected President. He pardoned all those convicted under this law.

"Clear and Present Danger"

Another major attempt to regulate freedom of speech occurred during World War I. In 1917, Congress passed the Federal Espionage Act. This law prohibited all false statements intending to interfere with the military forces of the country or to promote the success of its enemies. In addition, penalties of up to $10,000 and/or 20 years in prison were established for anyone attempting to obstruct the recruitment of men into the military. In 1918, another law was passed by Congress forbidding any statements expressing disrespect for the U.S. government, the Constitution, the flag, or army and navy uniforms.

Almost immediately, Charles Schenck, general secretary of the American Socialist Party, violated these laws. He was arrested and convicted for sending 15,000 anti-draft circulars through the mail to men scheduled to enter the military service. The circular called the draft law a violation of the 13th Amendment's prohibition of slavery. It went on to urge draftees not to "submit to intimidation," but to "petition for repeal" of the draft law.

The government accused Schenck of illegally interfering with military recruitment under the espionage act. Schenck admitted that he had sent the circulars, but argued that he had a right to do so under the First Amendment and was merely exercising his freedom of speech.

The issue found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It was the court's first important decision in the area of free speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion of the unanimous Court, which sided with the government. Justice Holmes held that Mr. Schenck was not covered by the First Amendment since freedom of speech was not an absolute right. There were times, Holmes wrote, when the government could legally restrict speech.

According to Justice Holmes, that test is "whether the words...are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger." Holmes said that in Charles Schenck's case the government was justified in arresting him because, "When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."

In the Schenck case, the highest court in the nation ruled that freedom of speech could be limited by the government. But Justice Holmes was careful to say that the government could only do this when there was a "clear and present danger" such as during wartime. While settling one legal issue, however, the Supreme Court created others. For example, what does a "clear and present danger" specifically mean, and when should it justify stopping people from speaking?

The Angry Crowd

Another important free-speech case took place after World War II. It was only a few years after thousands of American soldiers had given their lives to defeat Adolf Hitler and the German Nazis. Arthur Terminiello was speaking before an audience in Chicago. His message was hate. He said that Hitler was right in what he did. He claimed that Democrats, Jews, and communists were all trying to destroy America.

An angry crowd gathered outside the hall where Terminiello was speaking. Bricks and bottles soon rained through the windows as his oratory continued.

Arthur Terminiello was later arrested, tried, and convicted for disturbing the peace with his provocative harangue. Like Charles Schenck 30 years earlier, Terminiello appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court (Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1). He claimed that he should not have been arrested since his speech was protected by the First Amendment. The city of Chicago, however, argued that the things Terminiello raved about in his speech so angered people that a "clear and present danger" to the safety of the community had occurred.

In 1949 the Supreme Court reversed Terminiello's conviction. (Four of the nine justices dissented.) In the majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "it is only through debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people...." Justice Douglas stated that in a democracy free speech must occur even if it causes disputes, unrest, or "stirs people to anger."

Thus, according to Justice Douglas, "freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest."

See: The Constitutional Rights Foundation

US CODE TREASON AND SEDITION

US CODE: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385

§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

The Declaration of Independence (1776)

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

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute

Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a

Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

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

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

A Christian American Patriot Manifesto Against the United States Federal Government (2011)

NEWS/PRESS - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – ALL MEDIA

AS OF JULY 4, 2011 - 12 P.M. Noon - the United States Federal Government, Washington, D. C., is hereby on notice. The aforementioned has ONE (1) YEAR from said date (July 4, 2011 – 12 P.M. - Noon) to establish Justice by turning America around, or We the People will (see: the Declaration of Independence for our Right to do so).

TO: United States Federal Government, Washington, D. C.

BE ADVISED:

God has numbered the days of your rule and has brought it to an end; you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; your rule is ended and is returned to this People.

Then Justice will be established, though not without cost. Much innocent blood of the righteous has been shed by you wicked lot, and you will not escape the coming judgment. The People of America deserve justice and God demands it, now. No more will good peopleallow you to reign over us. We have seen you for what you are and we refuse to tolerate any longer your murderous and lying ways. Like your father the Devil, who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning, God will soon destroy you with the breath of his mouth.

Certain Crimes of the Federal Government in Washington, D.C.

Murder - World War II (Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and many additional offenses)

Murder - Support of Israel (1946 – present) (many additional offenses)

Murder - Vietnam War (1962 – 1975) (many additional offenses)

Murder – JFK

Murder – U.S.S. Liberty (many additional offenses) Israel also charged with Murder and many additional charges

Murder - MLK

Murder - RFK

Murder - Federalized Abortion on Demand

Murder - Central and South America during 1980’s – SOA (many additional offenses)

Murder - Iran-Contra (also: Conspiracy, Illegal Drug-trafficking, Illegal Arms Trafficking, Robbery, Theft, Running a Criminal Enterprise)

Murder – The War on Drugs (also, narcotics and weapons trafficking, kidnapping, robbery, theft, et al.)

Murder - The First Gulf War (many additional offenses)

Murder – Ruby Ridge

Murder – Waco, Texas

Murder - The Oklahoma City bombing

Murder - The First World Trade Center Bombing

Murder - The Embassy Bombings

Murder - 9/11

Murder - The War in Afghanistan (many additional offenses)

Murder - The War in Iraq (many additional offenses)

Murder - The War in Libya (many additional offenses)

Theft - Wage-Earner Income Taxes

Theft - Shipping-Out Our Jobs

Theft - Stealing Our Resources (giving them to the corporations)

Theft - Stealing our money (e.g. the IRS, the Fed, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, et al)

Dereliction of Duty – Congress

Dereliction of Duty – President

Dereliction of Duty – Supreme Court

Violations of numerous (ALL) Articles of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution

We, the People, are DONE!

July 4, 2011

SUMMER OF JUSTICE - 2012 - D.C.

Beginning July 4, 2012

Noon

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, D. C.

In loving memory of JFK, MLK, RFK – American Martyrs for Justice

SUMMER OF JUSTICE – 2012 - D.C.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Summer-of-Justice-2012-DC/223664350994440?sk=wall

Public Document

published via Scribd June 11, 2011 4:54 PM EDT

Jesus - The Resurrection and the Life

2011-04-23T22:27:00.001-07:00

According to the Gospel of Saint Luke (7:12-17), he [Jesus] drew near to the gate of the town [Nain], and behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and a considerable crowd from the town was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.” Then he came up and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” And the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother. Fear seized them all, and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and “God has visited his people!” And this report about him spread through the whole of Judea and all the surrounding country.

In Mark’s Gospel (5:22-43), a man named Jairus, one of the rulers of the synagogue, seeing Jesus, falls at his feet and implores him, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live.” And he went with him . . . There came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?” But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.” And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James. They came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and Jesus saw a commotion, people weeping and wailing loudly. And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why are you making a commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but sleeping.” And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her,“Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” And immediately the girl got up and began walking (for she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement.And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

The Gospel of John (chapter 11) tells us that a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”

Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.” After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died, and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” So Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off, and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother. So when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, but Mary remained seated in the house. Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”

When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying in private, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him. When the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. Now when Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. And he said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” Jesus wept. So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man from dying?”

Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. Jesus said,“Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.”He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.

Jesus therefore no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there to the region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and there he stayed with the disciples.

Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic Three (3) Blocks from the White House

2011-04-19T04:15:00.001-07:00

As I've mentioned before, there's a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic located at 16th and L streets NW in Washington, DC, which is only three (3) blocks from the White House. One can see the Washington Monument while standing in front of the abortion clinic. I was born in Washington, DC, about thirteen years before Roe v. Wade, when Planned Parenthood abortion clinics like this one didn’t exist—a time when people had greater respect and reverence for life.

I usually park somewhere in this area of DC if I drive there for a protest or something, because it's near the White House. On my walk to the White House from where I usually park on 16th street I pass the National Geographic building, some office buildings, an abortion clinic, fancy hotels, a Starbucks, a fancy restaurant, a couple of church buildings, and the American Enterprise Institute. Somehow, for me anyways, an abortion clinic simply doesn't belong on Main (or 16th) Street, along with every other legitimate business. Killing babies is not the same as selling coffee and renting out hotel rooms. At least it shouldn't be.

Where are the liberal Democrats on the life issue? Are they not in full support of human rights for all peoples? of whatever age? wanted or unwanted? planned or unplanned? If the Democrats would ever pick up the human rights banner again by supporting life and denouncing abortion they would win every election. The Republicans would go back to being their big-business, fat-cat, country-club (minority) selves. so why are THEY the ones who are trying to defund (=close down) the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic three (3) blocks from the White House? And why are the (so-called) liberals NOT? Do liberals not agree human children---born or not-yet-born---have human rights?

Human life? Human dignity? Human respect? Human rights? Equal justice under law? “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (MLK)?

It all sounds very liberal, and very simple, to me . . .

If you cannot see the injustice of abortion . . . and how important it is not to make any exceptions when it comes to granting rights to all human beings regardless of race, religion, age, economic status, ethnicity, gender, whatever, then I cannot help you. I would say “you have eyes to see yet cannot see . . . ears to hear yet cannot hear” (Jesus).

Dudley’s Dud (of a book)

2011-03-27T04:51:00.001-07:00

Have you seen this new theology book yet? Talk about being the exact opposite of what a theology book should be . . . . just read this excerpt from the Amazon product description of Jonathan Dudley’s new theology book: Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics,

“Arguing against absolutism on abortion and opposition to embryonic stem cell research, Dudley shows that most Christian theologians throughout history, including Augustine, Aquinas, and even American evangelicals up until the 1980s, have believed that life does not begin at conception. He argues that evangelical opposition to gay marriage has more to do with allegiance to socially conservative cultural values than allegiance to the Bible. He demonstrates that traditional Christian valuations of science, as well as scientific evidence itself, should lead evangelicals to accept evolution and reject both creationism and intelligent design. And he surveys how evangelicals are changing their minds about environmentalism, and how this development supports a new way of thinking about the Bible.”

Contrast that description with the Amazon product description of my theology book: The World Perceived: A Theological and Phenomenological Approach to Thinking, Perceiving, and Living In-The-World,

“By exploring the epistemological bases of both science and theology as forms of knowledge along with the assumptions implicit within both worldviews, The World Perceived invites the reader upon an intellectual journey into the world of phenomenal reality. The author makes a strong case for the validity of the biblical description of the world and reality by demonstrating how the modern scientific description of the world and reality are in no way superior to the biblical description.”

I haven’t yet read Mr. Dudley’s book, and I doubt that I will, but I wouldn’t mind debating these issues with him on campus sometime (in fact, I would love that), but I imagine that HE is the one who is misusing (“breaking”) words. There are certain things one expects from ALL books of theology, including Mr. Dudley’s and my own. Things like remaining faithful to the ancient teachings of the Church by making them relevant to our lives today. The goal of the theologian is to provide the community of faith--the people of God--with the scriptural teachings that are necessary for them to be able to live their lives in ways that would be pleasing to God.

I don’t believe God is pleased with abortion, which is the intentional destruction of a healthy, living, growing human being, so I can’t imagine how Mr. Dudley’s book is of any good to anyone. He’s actually about as off-track as a theologian can get (Go Yale!). As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Dudley’s new book is a dud.

~~~~~~~~~~

Here’s the links to the various free ebook editions of my books, which are on Scribd:

Wake up from your nightmare . . . and other sociopolitical essays (2011 - US Politics/Social Issues)

Broken Government: A Call to Action and Other Essays (2010 - US Politics/Social Issues)

The World Perceived: A Theological and Phenomenological Approach to Thinking, Perceiving, and Living In-The-World (2009 – Philosophy/Theology)

Life, Society, Law, and Language

2011-03-17T19:49:00.001-07:00

We (people) tend to be very pragmatic when it comes to law in our societies. We tend toward an overwhelming majority of the group being in complete agreement on many, if not most, basic points of law. Sort of a “lowest common denominator” approach to legal and social theory.

Regarding life issues, I am consistently prolife, because I believe that a more just society would outlaw: capital punishment, abortion, war, and euthanasia.

I was involved in a discussion, not long ago, during which I found myself having to define the most basic of words to the person with whom I was having this discussion; words such as: life, death, law, justice, etc. The discussion involved abortion on demand, which means abortion for any reason whatsoever. I was unsure, at first, whether I should be taking this person seriously, because the definitions of such basic words are, well, pretty basic. But, apparently, when it comes to the issue of abortion, even the simplest words are distorted to represent and symbolize something that they were never intended to represent or symbolize, and that’s a real problem, because societies depend upon language to write their laws and language is simply a system of signs or symbols.

I’ve written a very simple law, which should be easy enough for anyone to understand, designed to protect all human beings within our society from being killed, intentionally and unjustly, by other human beings within our society (with the sole exception being made for self-defense and the defense of innocents). And because people do like to quibble about the meanings of words, especially when it comes to abortion, I’ve also included the proper definition of each word I’ve used, as well as the word’s part of speech.

If, after reading this law, you still doesn’t understand what I’m saying, or if you don’t agree with what I’m advocating, or if it happens to be your desire that abortion on demand would continue to be legal throughout the US for the foreseeable future, then please write me and explain to me why you believe this and tell me what sorts of arguments you are using to defend your prochoice position, because I’ve yet to hear a sound argument that proves why abortion is NOT a moral evil and I doubt that you or anyone can make such an argument.

Law:

“The intentional, violent destruction of a human being of any age is not permitted by law. Deadly force is permitted only when exercised directly in defense of innocent human life.”

This law is as simple as I could possibly write it. As I see it, the law would prohibit the following: murder, all forms of homicide or manslaughter committed with malicious intent, capital punishment, abortion, war, and euthanasia (when the natural, biological death process has yet to begin).

The law would permit: deadly force when used in self-defense, defense of others (i.e., innocents), war (in defense of direct attack) and the prescription of pain relief medications (as the individual, family, and physician sees fit) to dying people once the (natural, biological) death process has begun.

Words used: 25 (distinctly different) words used; 29 total words (3 words are used twice: “human”, “is”, “permitted”; and one word is used 3 times: “of”).

“the”: definite article; used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect; used to refer to specific or particular nouns.

“intentional”: adjective; done with intent or on purpose;; modifies nouns (modify meaning “to change in some way”).

“violent”: adjective; acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force.

“destruction”: noun; the act of destroying or state of being destroyed.

“of”(3x): preposition; used to indicate distance or direction from, etc.

“a”: indefinite article; any; a single.

“human”: noun; being human, a member of the human family; consisting of members of the family Hominidae.

“being”: noun; existing; a particular, existing member of the human family.

“of”(3x): preposition; used to indicate distance or direction from, etc.

“any”: adjective; one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification.

“age”: noun; length of time during which a thing (e.g., human being) has existed.

“is”(2x): verb; to exist, happen, occur; 3rd person singular present indicative of be.

“not”: adverb; negation, denial, refusal.

“permitted”(2x): verb; to allow to do something.

“by”: preposition; through the agency or authority of.

"law" : noun; principle and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in their form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

"deadly": adjective; causing or tending to cause death; fatal; lethal; aiming to kill or destroy.

“force”: noun; power to influence, affect, or control (e.g., the force of law).

“is”(2x): verb; to exist, happen, occur; 3rd person singular present indicative of be.

“permitted”(2x): verb; to allow to do something.

“only”: adverb; alone, solely.

“when”: adverb; at what time, under what circumstances.

“exercised”: noun; a putting into use, action, or effect.

"directly": adverb; at once; without delay; immediately.

“in”: preposition; used to indicate limitation or qualification, as of a situation, relation, manner, action, etc.

“defense”: noun; resistance against attack; protection.

“of”(3x): preposition; used to indicate distance or direction from, etc.

“innocent”: adjective; free of moral wrong.

“human”(2x): noun; being human, a member of the human family; consisting of members of the family Hominidae.

“life”: noun; the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual or individuals (= lives).

The End of the Nation-State?

2011-03-09T08:59:00.001-08:00

Although you hardly ever hear anyone talk about it, the most promising hope for our political future, as human beings living on planet earth (an oasis of life in the middle of lots and lots (and lots more lots) of space), is the coming demise of the (already out-dated) concept of the nation-state.

This may sound drastic, or unbelievable, because we are so accustomed to the concept of the nation-state, but the nation-state is, historically speaking, a rather recent political phenomenon. And time is telling as to whether or not this particular concept is progressive (as opposed to regressive) or even practical. So far, I think, the verdict is that the nation-state is the bloodiest concept yet devised by the mind of man, which doesn’t bode well for its future, as a concept. The nation-state is like tribal warfare but on a much grander scale. Not very progressive, but frighteningly more efficient, especially at propagandizing and killing (even genocide).

If you are interested in why I am thinking along these lines, or wonder whatever gave me the idea that nations, as we know them, now, could, someday, soon, exist no more, simply read, study, and contemplate (as I have) the (over 2,000 year) history of political theory, which can be found in George H. Sabine’s (nearly 1,000 page):

A History of Political Theory

As far as what’s next, politically speaking, who knows. The continuation of the nation-state, for the foreseeable future? Balkanization? Global government? Hemispherical Unions? I tend toward favoring localized government, which is similar to balkanization—but with cooperation rather than hostility—existing between people-groups. For the Americas, I actually prefer a hemispherical (North, South, Central American) union, on some level, so long as localized governments throughout the Americas are re-empowered to a much greater extent too. State governments throughout the Americas should have much more power and there should be much less federal power throughout the Americas. Federal power should always be kept to a minimum, focusing mainly upon international, I mean, cross-cultural exchange (i.e., trade, or commerce). The Americas could be much more efficient (as well as self-sufficient), economically, as well as being more locally controlled when it comes to just about everything other than cross-border commerce. (This same economic factor: cross-border commerce, was the driving force behind the adoption of the US Constitution over the states’ old Articles of Confederation.)

No more standing armies either, or international, overseas, conflicts (wars). The US DOD could stand (close) down. And we could use their (our tax) money for housing, health care, and education. Right?

Something else to consider too: redrawing the state lines on a map of the US. Drastic, but necessary, eventually, I think. Funny how most people think we can’t do things like that, but people can do such things; in time. The US is still very young, as a nation-state, and time will tell what becomes of it, and what it is to become. Imagine the possibilities.

The Day I was DONE with Israel and the US Government – 3/30/2002

2011-03-07T11:50:00.001-08:00

I was DONE with Israel on March 30, 2002, which was Holy Saturday that year, when the Israeli military (IDF) was shooting Palestinian fighters who had taken refuge in the Church of the Nativity. On March 29, 2002, which was Good Friday that year, the IDF began Operation “Defensive Wall” (or Defensive Shield) in the West Bank by arresting Palestinian leaders, imprisoning PNA Chairman Yassar Arafat in the "Mukata" compound in Ramallah, and besieging militants in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

The photograph I chose for this article is not random. In fact, it holds much meaning for me. The photo was taken March 29, 2002 in Palestine, just outside Yassar Arafat’s compound in Ramallah. The men in the photo are two of Arafat’s security guards, one of whom has just been mortally wounded by an IDF sniper. The photo appeared in the newspaper (where I lived) the following day, March 30, 2002, and it was obvious to me that the man in the photo had been mortally wounded at the instant the photo was taken, because I could see that he had let go of his rifle, which he would never have done unless he were already dead. When I looked at that photo that morning; and I saw that Palestinian fighter, who was not a young man; I put myself in his place, fighting many years for the freedom of my homeland; freedom from the invaders and the oppressors: Israel.

Along with the photo came the story, of how the IDF were besieging Palestinian fighters in the Church of the Nativity, in Bethlehem, and were doing their best to kill Arafat in his compound, in Ramallah. As this occurred not long after 9/11, war-fever was in the air. The US had invaded Afghanistan in order to go after al Qaeda (Operation “ENDURING FREEDOM”), and Israel was using the toxic atmosphere to go after their enemies: Arafat and the Palestinians.

Killing people who were fighting for their freedom, holed up in the Church of the Nativity, on Holy Saturday? I was DONE with Israel.

I had been very suspicious about who was behind the events of 9/11 since the day they occurred, because I had seen no evidence that what the US government said concerning American Airlines flight 77 having crashed into the Pentagon was true. I had seen no evidence that a large jet aircraft had hit the Pentagon, and I still haven’t seen any evidence of such to this day.

For me, the notion that rogue elements of the US government might, in fact, be responsible for the terror attacks of 9/11 was not off-the-wall, nor was it off-the-table as a possible, even probable, explanation for who was actually responsible for the murder of over 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. The Oklahoma City bombing had occurred April 19, 1995, almost seven years prior to March 30, 2002, and I was well aware of the fact that the ATF had had advance knowledge of the bombing, which was to occur that day, and had allowed it to go forward (killing 168 people, including 19 children, and injuring 680). I was also aware of the fact that the 1993 plot to bomb the World Trade Center in New York City had been monitored by the FBI and allowed to go forward as well (killing six people and injuring thousands more).

DONE with the US government? I was DONE!

And that was many years ago. How DONE do you think I am NOW?

9/11 is, in fact, a thirty-year conspiracy, which was carried out by rogue elements of our own government (with the assistance of rogue elements within the government of their ally: Israel). Do you doubt this? Former Senator Bob Kerrey, who was also a member of the 9/11 Commission, has said, on video, that 9/11 was a thirty-year conspiracy (watch video here). Excuse me? The conspiracy to commit the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 goes back thirty years? I want Kerrey subpoenaed. I want to know what he knows. I will gladly grant him immunity if his testimony will put Rumsfeld and Cheney, who I suspect to be the guilty masterminds of the terrorist operation, in the dock. Peter Lance, an investigative journalist, has documented the thirty-year timeline of events that surround the terror attacks of 9/11. What happened thirty years ago that could lend credibility to claims of a there having been a thirty-year conspiracy behind 9/11? Hmm . . . let me think . . . oh, I know: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney came into power with the Regan Administration! Iran-Contra, continuity of government, al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, the Mujahideen, CIA cocaine smuggling, Governor Clinton, Mena, Arkansas? Sure, I remember all of that.

Did I say was DONE with the US government?! I am SO DONE!

When we march against the wars on March 19, 2011, you can be sure that I am protesting a lot more than the wars . . . I am protesting my corrupt and murderous government, which has no legitimacy whatsoever, with the hope that one day Americans will wake up, get motivated, and take this country back from these criminals for the People.

Photo credit: © 2002 AP/Nasser Nasser “A Palestinian gunman [above] lets go of his rifle the moment he is fatally shot by an Israeli sniper during fighting in the West Bank city of Ramallah Friday, March 29, 2002. Sporadic gunfire and tank shell fire was heard as Israeli forces entered Ramallah Friday. Israeli forces surrounded Yasser Arafat's compound and occupied some buildings within” [source: link]

* AN IMPORTANT BIBLICAL REFERENCE CONCERNING ISRAEL FOR ALL CHRISTIANS *

For those of you who are Christians, as I am, I have some very important questions for you:

1) Have you ever read the Bible?

2) Do you understand what your reading?

3) Do you understand that, according to Jesus himself, God rejected Israel over 2,000 years ago, because Israel, as a nation, rejected God’s only begotten Son, Jesus?

4) Do you know where, in the Bible, this rejection of Israel by Christ (and God, the Father) can be found?

5) Do you believe in (and act upon) what Jesus said (and did)?

*** ANSWERS ***

Christ proclaimed Israel’s rejection by God for Israel’s rejection of himself as God’s Messiah in the Gospel of St. Matthew, see: MT 23:38.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” Matthew 23: 37-39 (ESV)

Jesus—and God, his Father—was DONE with Israel – more than 2,000 years ago, according to Jesus and the Bible, so when will YOU decide to start believing in (and acting upon) what JESUS said, and STOP SUPPORTING ISRAEL?

Jesus on Israel – Bible Study: Matthew 23:38

The context for Matthew 23:37-39 – Matthew Chapter 23: Christ’s “Seven Woes” to the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees:

http://esv.scripturetext.com/matthew/23.htm

English text of Matthew 23:38

http://esv.scripturetext.com/matthew/23-38.htm

Original Greek text of Matthew 23:38

http://biblos.com/matthew/23-38.htm

Greek-English Interlinear text of Matthew 23:38

http://interlinearbible.org/matthew/23-38.htm

The Greek word: "aphiémi", "desolate" or "abandoned", found in original Greek text of Matthew 23:38

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/863.htm

Why I am SO DONE with Alex Jones - Egypt, Libya, Israel, and Charlie Sheen (an open letter to Mr. Jones)

2011-03-05T13:27:00.001-08:00

More so than anyone else, Alex Jones appears to be seeking the truth behind government cover-ups, especially 9/11, which is very appealing to those of us who believe that the current and corrupt regime that has reigned in Washington for over thirty-years (Democrat and Republican) needs to go. And I’m not talking about throwing the bums out in the next election, I’m talking about the American people marching on Washington in order to run those murderous, lying, thieving, criminal, snakes out of their House and Senate office buildings in Washington, D. C. (non-violently, of course), just like the people are trying to do in Egypt and Libya to those who have ruled over them so poorly for the past thirty-to-forty years.

I think we all know that if the American people were ever to get serious about this, and actually do it, our “leaders” in Washington would gun us down too. You know they would, just as the corrupt regimes in Egypt and Libya and Bahrain have done. And if that were to happen, all bets would be off as far as non-violence goes. I would be doing my best to rally the 30,000,000 good-ole boys who live throughout rural America (with their pick-ups and their rifles) to head to D. C. for the fight. I would also expect the police and the military to switch sides in order to defend the American people against our corrupt thirty-year old regime, just as they have in Libya. If that were ever to happen, I can assure you that Alex Jones would be in his studio in Austin, Texas, at his microphone, calling us all dupes of the New World Order . . . blah, blah, blah . . . .

Do you realize why Obama and Clinton were so hesitant to back the people of Egypt when the Egyptian people had had enough of Mubarak’s corruption and murderous ways? Because they knew the same exact thing could happen here, which is very unsettling to those in power. Like Obama and Clinton, Alex Jones, rather backing the Egyptian people right away, as I did, chose to label the Egyptian people’s revolution a New World Order (NWO) conspiracy, and he basically considers the Egyptian and Libyan peoples to be dupes of the NWO. Excuse me Mr. Jones? People in Egypt and Libya are willingly risking their lives and losing their lives striving to be free of the tyranny that oppresses them; everything you say you support.

What a hypocrite. Alex Jones is great until things get serious, then he wants to take you off on a rabbit trail that leads to nowhere and will accomplish nothing. The supposed New World Order is far too nebulous a “thing” for the People to fight, it’s more like boxing the air than it is throwing out the current regime, literally. What is Alex Jones’ plan for the future? What will he do to help free us from tyranny? Call for a march on Washington to run those crooks out of town? NO. His plan, I suppose, is to bullhorn the Bilderburg Group for the next thirty years. What a waste of energy. The people who listen to Jones everyday would gladly march on Washington if he would call for it, but he never will. NEVER. What a lying hypocrite Mr. Jones is.

Think about this, if YOU had the opportunity Mr. Jones does to be on-air with such a large audience, would you not be broadcasting live from in front of the White House calling for non-violent regime change? Or would you be 1,500 miles away ensconced in your studio, which you're enlarging, talking about the NWO ad nauseam?

I am so DONE with Alex Jones . . . he didn't support the people of Egypt, he will not support the people of Libya, he supports the Zionist "two-state" solution, and he USED Charlie Sheen and his current manic state to further his own pathetic career. What a hypocrite. (Him and his "V" campaign . . . people are flashing the "V" sign ALL OVER Egypt and Libya and do you think he shows ONE video of it? No.)

Now is the time to strike, while the iron is hot. Now is the time to push, push, and keep on pushing. Anyone who has thought about this, and is sincerely seeking the truth, freedom, and justice, knows this and would be pushing too. But not Alex Jones . . . he will only push so far, and no farther. The biggest political problem we have in America is that Israel owns our Washington politicians lock, stock and barrel, and our politicians are using us and our children to fight Israel’s battles for them. Yet Alex Jones SUPPORTS Israel and the Zionist two-state solution (?!). I wonder what Alex would do if the Mexicans took over a large area of south Texas by force? Call for a two-state solution?

And Alex Jones is supposedly going somewhere is his quest to uncover government corruption and cover-ups? Right.

The first time I learned about the Rockefellers, the Rothchilds, the Bilderburg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc . . . was, oh, let me think . . . THIRTY YEARS AGO!!

Is there some truth to all of that NWO conspiracy stuff? Of course there is, and I’m glad that Alex Jones is waking people up to what’s really going on, because (Lord knows) the American people need to wake-the-hell-up. Alex Jones himself says that his calling is to wake people up. In other words, he is not the one who will lead people to act. All of which is fine, yet, on the other hand, Mr. Jones is undermining those of of us whose calling IS to act and who ARE acting (i.e., the Egyptian and Libyan peoples, at the present time). And we (they) don’t need that. If you’re not going to help Alex, then at least shut up and stop saying the Egyptian and Libyan peoples who are fighting for liberty and freedom are dupes of the NWO. You and your tired, going nowhere, NWO rabbit-trail, which does nothing but dissipate Patriot energies . . . are you just screwed up? Or are you doing this intentionally? Why not start backing the People instead of the corrupt, murderous, established orders Mr. Jones? Do you have a problem with that? You say you believe in liberty and freedom, but you sure as hell don’t act like it.

As for the Charlie Sheen fiasco, Mr. Jones, who says he’s Charlie’s friend, allowed Mr. Sheen to destroy his career live on the Alex Jones Show; much to Jones’ delight. Charlie’s friend? Are you kidding me? I was listening to Alex’s broadcast that day, and I knew five minutes into the show that Mr. Sheen did NOT belong on air. Had Alex truly been Charlie’s friend, he would have known, immediately, as I did, that Charlie was in no mental condition to be talking on air, and he would have ended the interview at that point:

“Ok everyone, we’re going to a break now . . . stay tuned . . . “ [off air] “Charlie, you’re out there man. . . you can’t go on air and talk like that . . . I know, I’m manic-depressive too, I’ve been there, you’re flying! [laughing] . . . we’ll do this in a few months when you come down dude, and please don’t go on any more radio shows, okay? Go to the beach, for a month or two . . . just chill and take a break man, you’ll love it, forget all about this crap for a while, life is too short . . . if I let you keep talking on air like you are you’ll ruin ruin yourself, you’ll never work in Hollywood again man, you don’t want that, or need that . . . and your sure as hell not going to ruin your career on my show buddy! [laughing] I love you too much! hey, tell me what island you decide to visit and I will TOTALLY be there to visit for a week or so. I need to forget about my own crap and chill for a while!” [on air] “We’ve lost Charlie’s connection, and can’t seem to get it back . . . so, I’m thinking we’ll make todays broadcast like an open-line Friday and take listeners calls for the rest of the show. Last we spoke, Charlie’s headed for some well deserved rest and relaxation somewhere in the Caribbean and we wish him well . . . Okay, Robert from Oklahoma, what’s on your mind today?”

But did Alex say this to Charlie? Or something like this? No. What he said and did was just the opposite. Charlie’s friend? Bullshit. More like he knowingly took advantage of Charlie’s current manic state in order to further his own career. I wish I lived in Austin, or had the money to fly to Austin, I’d punch Alex Jones right in the mouth for what he did to Charlie. DONE with Alex Jones?! I was DONE when he didn’t back the Egyptian people. Taking advantage of and USING Charlie Sheen and his current mental state in order to further his own pathetic career? A fist in his big f-ing mouth is what Alex Jones needs. Big blowhard. And if Charlie’s still alive (and doesn’t kill himself) six months from now and doesn’t punch him in the mouth himself, I will gladly do it for him.

Re: Nine Dead Boys in Afghanistan - 3/3/2011

2011-03-03T23:03:00.000-08:00

Re: Nine dead boys in Afghanistan - 3/3/2011

I think this is more OUR fault than the soldiers . . . we, the People, have done our service men and women a great disservice by allowing them to be used for evil purposes . . . many of them have had their hearts broken, and many of them have had their hearts and conscience become calloused to the killing of innocent peoples . . . some soldiers have even been arrested for killing innocent people for sport . . . and the blood is on our hands, because our "leaders" are using them to kill in our name. If the American people still want revenge for 9/11, they should start by putting Cheney and Rumsfeld on trial for the murder of over 3,000 people on 9/11, because it is they who are the guilty parties.

See video

Choose Life – March for Life 2011

2011-01-23T12:46:00.001-08:00

It’s time again for the annual March for Life, which is a peaceful pro-life (anti-abortion) march (protest). The March for Life commemorates, in memoriam, the 1973 US Supreme Court decision (in Roe v. Wade) which legalized abortion on demand throughout all fifty states. This year marks its thirty-eighth year and I wonder how much longer it will take for America to become a nation that loves and promotes life rather than one that loves and promotes death.

A recent news story confirmed something that I wrote not long ago: the dirty little secret about abortion and the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is that legalizing abortion simply allowed the back-alley butchers to move onto Main Street (or, in this case, Lancaster Avenue). Perhaps the Philly House of Horrors will be a wake-up call for many? For many people, however, such as myself, the house of horrors in Philly was no surprise, because we’ve been awake to this issue for quite some time. An abortionist is usually a lousy doctor—much better at killing people than at healing them—often having graduated at-or-near the bottom of their medical school class, who makes a living killing babies.

On Monday January 24, 2011, tens of thousands of Americans will march in Washington, D.C. to demonstrate their support of a culture of life, one in which the intentional, violent destruction of a human being of any age is not permitted by law. Choose life, and justice for the unborn.

Rachael Maddow's Faulty Gun-Control Argument

2011-01-14T14:53:00.001-08:00

On a recent broadcast, Rachael Maddow said that it's extremist for one to believe that an armed citizenry prevents government tyranny.

I believe that an armed citizenry prevents tyranny, which is exactly why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

I suppose the British and their supporters in the colonies thought the Founders were extremists too?

Rachael’s argument that, if the above interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct, then citizens must (should) be allowed to buy any and all types of weaponry, is, I think, a good one (my personal favorite: the reductio ad absurdum) but she starts off with a faulty premise: that US citizens would need to be able to defeat (she says "destroy"), on the battlefield, the US military. This premise is faulty because US citizens don't need to defeat (or destroy) the US military; all we need to do is to make life miserable for the US military, which is what the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, and the Afghanis have done.

(Ever heard the terms "asymmetric warfare" and "insurgency" Rachael? I can remember when the US invaded Iraq and a $12,000,000 Apache helicopter was shot down by an Iraqi insurgent using an AK-47 and 20 cent bullets!)

And, in case Rachael has forgotten, the US did fight a Civil War. The Battle of Gettysburg was fought only 15 miles from where I live, and the town that I live in has the distinction of being the only Union town to have been burned by the Confederates (in this case, in retaliation for the Union's earlier decimation of Virginia's Shenandoah Valley).

Thousands of men have already fought and died resisting federal tyranny Rachael, in case you've forgotten. If federal tyranny ever does need to be resisted again it will be resisted by men with arms that have been legally obtained and possessed. We will not need nukes, rocket launchers, and tanks, as you say, to defeat the US military, because we don't need to defeat it; we only need to harass it, continually, until they give up (or should I say: switch sides?).

Perhaps Rachael's real concern should be with those who are in the US military and those who are in our many local, state, and federal police departments? Many of these people take the US Constitution---and the oath they've sworn to defend it---very seriously. And why shouldn't they? After all, these folks are US citizens too. Just like Robert E. Lee was.

Several Quotes taken from the (extremist) Founders concerning an armed citizenry

Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny --Thomas Jefferson

"And what country can preserve it's liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take up arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. Smith, 1787

"The Constitution of most of our states, and the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves: that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

Samuel Adams

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." --Samuel Adams

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams, 1776

Benjamin Franklin

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1755 <>

Noah Webster

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." --Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

Tench Coxe

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" --Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe, in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

John Adams

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88

Alexander Hamilton

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Richard Henry Lee

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

Patrick Henry

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Every man who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry, During Virginia's ratification convention, 1788

James Madison

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist No. 46

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." --James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." --George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788

Thomas Paine

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them." --Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775

George Washington

"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." --George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790

"To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." --George Washington, The Federalist No. 53

Political Observations 2011 – US Government Illegitimate

2011-01-07T09:37:00.001-08:00

The US federal government has no legitimacy and many people are beginning to realize it. For many people my age, 9/11 was only the most recent, not the first, deadly federal terror attack upon the innocent American peoples. I remember incidents like Ruby Ridge, the World Trade Center bombing, Waco, and the Oklahoma City bombing.

Many people my age remember these events, and how the feds had become so murderously heavy-handed. Younger people, who have no memory of these events, should take notice of them.

At the time of the Oklahoma City bombing, many people suspected that explosives had been planted in the Murrah federal building long before the bombing occurred on April 19, 1995, because the damage to the building was so much greater than that which could have been caused by Timothy McVeigh’s (and others’ unknown) ANFO truck bomb. General Partin said as much at the time.

The Murrah federal building, it appeared to many, had been prewired with explosives. And, just as it was at Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, all evidence from the Oklahoma City bombing crime scene was appropriated by the feds and the crime scene itself destroyed. (The demolition of the Murrah building was entrusted to the establishment connected firm: Controlled Demolition; the same firm hired by the feds to clean up the WTC crime scene immediately after 9/11.) In short, the Oklahoma City bombing was an inside job.

The growing awareness that WTC building 7 was intentionally brought down by controlled demolition is causing many to conclude that if one building was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11, WTC building 7, then WTC buildings 1 and 2 must also have been brought down by controlled demolition. 9/11, too, was an inside job.

Thus the US federal government has, in the minds of many peoples, no legitimacy.

I, for one, have had it with the feds. I’m far beyond the belated anger of the TEA partiers . . . reform, in my thinking, is impossible. If reform means wasting valuable time and energy with the corrupted election system. The worst thing that ever happened to the TEA Party is that it went from being a good protest movement to being part of the Republican establishment.

Those who have lost loved ones in Oklahoma City and New York must deal with the fact that those responsible for murders of their loved ones are beyond the reach of law. Some parents in America live with this fact on a daily basis. As in Mexico, so it is in America: corrupt, rich, and powerful politicians get away with murder. Justice and the rule of law has given way to the will to power.

It’s up to us, the American People, to take our nation back from these thugs. To regain legitimacy for our national government as a government that governs by consent of its People.

I think those who have lost loved ones in this struggle are leading the way. And it’s time for us to follow their lead. To seek justice.

My Top Two People of 2010 - Marisela Escobedo Ortiz and Bob McIlvaine

2010-12-31T17:34:00.001-08:00

Seeking to know the truth about her daughter's murder, Marisela Escobedo Ortiz was herself murdered while protesting the release by Chihuahua state judges of a suspect in her daughter's 2008 slaying:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_16898169

Marisela Escobedo Ortiz

Bob McIlvaine seeks to know the truth about his son's murder at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNzRzG9_TSo&feature=related

Bob McIlvaine

Google and Amazon: An Author’s Business Partners in the New Digital Age

2010-12-17T03:55:00.001-08:00

According to Wikipedia, “Google runs over one million servers in data centers around the world, and processes over one billion search requests and about twenty-four petabytes of user-generated data every day'” while Amazon is “America’s largest online retailer”. The publishing industry is undergoing a technological revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen since the invention of movable type 500 years ago, and because I am a freelance writer and an author I have been drawn into business partnerships with both Google and Amazon as a result of this revolution.

Google is involved with the CIA while Amazon, until recently, has been hosting Wikileaks.

Amazon acquired a print-on-demand publishing company a couple of years ago and went into the printing/publishing business, in a big way (BookSurge and CreateSpace as: On-Demand Publishing LLC, a subsidiary of Amazon.com). Amazon’s CreateSpace features a no fee do-it-yourself approach; and for authors who are not able to do it themselves, Amazon’s BookSurge’s offers authors the opportunity to have their books designed and edited for a reasonable fee. Being able to have my book printed, distributed, and sold by “America’s largest online retailer” at no cost to me, through CreateSpace, was an opportunity that I was able to take advantage of.

Google has had its Google Books for some time now, but only recently opened its (long awaited) Google ebookstore. The benefit, to the author, of partnering with both Google and Amazon is that this enables the author to have a book available in various ebook formats (with Google) as well as print and Kindle ebook format (with Amazon). The cost-savings of the ebook technology is passed on to the book-buying consumer: ebooks are a lot cheaper than print, they’re available immediately, and there are no shipping charges.

The thing about this is that all of this—the new digital POD/ebook availability thing—really is very new.

As I’ve said before, the invention of the printing press and movable type (during the early sixteenth century) created a technological leap forward in the communication of information and causing the greatest proliferation of ideas that the world had ever seen. Ideas and information could now be communicated–written, printed, and widely distributed—more quickly and efficiently and this gave writers the ability to influence many people’s thoughts concerning the relevant issues of the day. Such mass influence was impossible before the technological development of printing with movable type, and it was the technological development of printing itself which fueled the societal changes that later occurred (e.g., the Reformation, the Renaissance) due to the widespread proliferation of ideas via the new print media.

Until the technological innovation of the telegraph (during the late nineteenth century), printed materials (e.g., books, pamphlets, newspapers, illustrations, political cartoons) were the best means by which to communicate ideas and information. The telegraph was able to provide information instantaneous and it was the combination of the telegraph wire’s instantaneous capabilities along with the already well established and widely circulated print media (i.e., newspapers) which brought about a revolution in both how and when the news would be reported from that point on.

I can remember when the network television news programs still had the sound of the teletype in the background, and the theme music to go with it. The teletype was a machine that printed-out—continuously—the latest news coming from the wire services and it was the means through which the networks gathered the news. The wire services owed their very existence to the technological innovation of the telegraph and its wire, which is why they were called wire services. Wire services, such as the Associated Press (the AP), still exist, and remain their primary sources for news gathering. And the latest technological innovation in communications—the internet—has now become a primary source for news gathering too.

The digital era is a time of momentous changes in communications technologies, which is reshaping the communications industries. It’s amazing what can be done digitally today. I was able to write a book and make it available to anyone with internet access—in both print and digital formats. And it’s cost me nothing, except for the technological tools I used to do this with: my laptop computer and internet access (I used free Wi-Fi). In the not-so-distant past it cost an author thousands of dollars to self-publish, now it costs nothing. The publishing industry is changing rapidly due to this revolution in communications technology, and it is struggling to find its new self. For instance, having worked for both a large newspaper (the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette) and a large paper company (International Paper) I have been expecting the crisis many newspapers are now facing: circulation and advertising is down, and the costs of printing the news on paper is very high . . . my local newspaper offers free mobile (iphone) related apps.

Two of my favorite publishing outlets are Scribd and the Internet Archive’s Community Books, which offer various ebook format editions of my book (including mobile) FREE. Scribd is, by far, my favorite publishing outlet . . . I get lots of reads daily on Scribd, and reads is what I, as writer, am most interested in: readers.

It’s a communication and information revolution and I suppose it was inevitable that Google and Amazon (or whatever else they may have been called) would become two of the main channels of the new digital information/communication revolution . . . who knows?

A World Without Nukes: Dream? or Nightmare?

2010-11-29T07:52:00.001-08:00

“A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare. We voluntarily disarm while the world's rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret.” Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post, 11/26/2010)

“A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare.” That’s a very strong statement which most people, I think, would strongly disagree with. I think most people hope, someday, to live in a nuclear weapon-free world. So what, exactly, is Krauthammer’s reason for making such a statement? Krauthammer’s a writer, and I’m a writer too. Writers write sentence by sentence, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a newspaper column or a book, so why does Krauthammer say that “A world without nukes would be an ultimate nightmare”?

Writers are also careful with the words they use. The words: “world”, “nukes”, “ultimate”, “nightmare” are packed with meaning and Krauthammer intends to pack a punch with them . . . to persuade his readers to follow his point of view, which is the establishment’s point of view. Writer’s, especially those, like Krauthammer, who are well paid to engage in social/political polemics on a regular basis, are likewise prone to misuse words in order to persuade those who disagree with their views. Their writings should always be read very carefully, with suspicion. For example, Krauthammer, here, equates a nuclear weapon-free world (many people’s hope/dream) with a nightmare. Worse yet: an “ultimate nightmare”.

The late (murdered) president John F. Kennedy once said:

“What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace - - the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living -- the kind that enables man and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - - not merely peace for Americans by peace for all men and women - - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by the wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations unborn.” John F. Kennedy, Commencement Speech at American University (06/10/1963)

I agree with Kennedy. And I find Krauthammer’s misuse of words regarding this subject repugnant. Krauthammer want’s to persuade his readers into believing that a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American (nuclear) weapons of war is our only hope/dream and tries to convince them, by a subtle equivocation of terms, that we are in mortal peril if we don’t have this Pax Americana. For Krauthammer, “a world without nukes” = “a world in which rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret”. But these two things, “a world without nukes” and “a world in which rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret are not the same, or equivalent.

Like Kennedy, I think it’s foolish—and very dangerous—for nations to arm for total nuclear war “in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War ”. What does this—an end to the nuclear arms race and disarmament—have to do with “rogues and psychopaths developing nukes in secret”? Surely Krauthammer knows there will always be rogues and psychopaths—or sociopaths—amongst us . . . why does he tell us we invite disaster—an “ultimate nightmare scenario”—if we choose to scale back or even lay down our national nuclear offensive/defensive capabilities? Kennedy’s dream of a nuclear-free world wasn’t/isn’t a nightmare, Krauthammer’s dream of a world with nukes, with the US enforcing a new Pax Americana, taking out rogue nations and psychopathic dictators, is the real nightmare.

If we’re looking for rogues and psychopaths (better: sociopaths) the world, especially since 9/11, has indeed been threatened by them. Two names, in particular, come to mind here: Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney.

I, for one, hope for and dream of a nuclear-free future, one in which generations unborn can be free of the threat of nuclear annihilation. Krauthammer, apparently, does not.

And I’m not the only one either . . . far from it, there is a global resistance of nuclear weapons.

9/11 - America's Open Wound

2010-10-04T12:18:00.001-07:00

9/11 – America’s Open Wound

I was accused, recently, in a letter to the editor of the Public Opinion, which was titled: Essayist's points make no sense (September 13, 2010), of making nonsensical points in an essay that I had written, which had been published previously in the Public Opinion (September 3, 2010). The point, which I made in the essay and which this letter-writer took issue with, was this: That I believe elements of our own government were responsible for the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

I realize this is not something one hears on the nightly news, but it’s hardly nonsensical. Consider the following news story, which concerns a recent press conference held by the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, that took place at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On Thursday September 9, 2010

1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition at World Trade Center on 9/11

Former US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) and Richard Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Discuss Scientific Findings - National Press Club, Washington DC, 2:00 pm, Thursday, September 9, 2010

“Gravel and Gage will host a central press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, presenting hard evidence that all three WTC skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, in NYC were destroyed by explosive controlled demolition . . . Senator Gravel notes, 'Critically important evidence has come forward after the original government building reports were completed.'"

Have you heard about this? I don’t think Gravel and Gage are talking nonsense. Do you? After all, architects and engineers are usually some of the most scientifically-minded and fact-based people that one would ever want to meet. They’re hardly the type of people given to making nonsensical statements, especially in public . . . at the National Press Club no less.

I think the real question we need to ask ourselves is: Why did they feel the need to do so in the first place? Because there’s a media blackout concerning the many questions surrounding the horrific events of 9/11 that still remain unanswered?

Peter Lance, a five-time Emmy award-winning journalist, answers this question for us, in great detail, in his book: Cover-Up: What the Government Is Still Hiding About the War on Terror (New York: Harper, 2005). Cover-Up is Lance’s second of three books that he has written on the subject of the 9/11 cover-up. Is he just writing nonsense too? Lance doesn’t go so far as to say that 9/11 was an inside job, although I think it obvious, Lance simply wants a new (real) investigation into the events of 9/11, allowing the chips to fall wherever they may, as do I.

I’m of the opinion that citizenship requires involvement and taking responsibility for government, not a blind obedience to government regardless of how corrupt that government has now become.

Is any of this making sense to you? Is it nonsensical? I think it’s not only sensible to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I think the inside job argument makes the most sense out of the plethora of information that we now have available to us about the terror attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. After all, our government has been known to have done this sort of thing before—staging “incidents” in order to gain public support for its latest military venture (e.g., the USS Maine, the RMS Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin).

9/11 is America’s open wound. The only way this wound can heal is for the truth to come out, no matter how ugly the truth about 9/11 turns out to be.

I’m not the only person in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, the US, or the world who believes this either . . . far from it.

There are numerous 9/11 Truth groups that can be found throughout all fifty states, and many, many more that can be found in nations throughout the world.

Nonsensical?

Rather, the American people are beginning to wake up from their government controlled, mass media induced slumber.

PENNSYLVANIA - 9/11 Truth

Chambersburg - Southcentral PA – A. J. MacDonald, Jr. – ajmacdonaldjr@gmail.com - http://theworldperceived.blogspot.com - Thomas Klein - 717.264.7158 - frthomas@embarqmail.com

Conshohocken- SW PA - Emerson Johnson - 610.828.2460 - favoritefactfinder@yahoo.com

Devon-: Philadelphia suburbs - Betsy Metz 610.293.8101 – emetz999@aol.com

Erie - Doug Dailey - ddailey741@ymail.com

Lancaster - South central PA - Stewart Bradley 717. 299.1248 – st0069@hotmail.com

Lehigh Valley - Meetup Organizer – lv911truth@mail.com - http://join911truth.com

New Kensington - Western Pennsylvania - Dwaine Moore - 724.351.3863 – http://www.bcmin.us

Philadelphia - Phyllis Gilbert - 215.732.9349 – peaceact@critpath.org

Philadelphia - Jonathan Gold - 610.322.3380 – gold9472@Comcast.net

How I Became A Liberal Communist Tree Hugger

2010-09-25T11:44:00.001-07:00

Actually, I haven't "become" anything but I've been called all of the above. I suppose that what those words actually mean is a matter of interpretation . . . isn't it? Perhaps the best way to analyze these words is to consider them as utterances, in the Bakhtinian sense, as words or phrases, written or spoken, that have originated within a particular social context. In this case, a sociopolitical context, or, as Bakhtin would call it: a sociopolitical speech genre. These are powerful, socially and politically created words (and situations!) that we've inherited from those who've preceded us; words that are intended to be persuasive. (Political speech, especially when it's a combination of words and images, is always propagandistic.)

Sociopolitical speech is almost, by definition, polarized. There are two sides to every debate and every story . . . polar extremes are to be expected. Even violent ones.

War is violent, by definition.

The warmongering and the fearmongering continue, unabated, in America . . . the Muslim fanatics are (supposedly) out to get us, you know.

I was accused of having been brainwashed recently, which is odd . . . considering that I haven't watched television news in many years. If I were to sit in front of the television set every night and watch, oh, say, Fox News perhaps, then one might say, accurately, that I may be allowing myself to become influenced by the media, or brainwashed, by Fox News. But considering that I never watch television, how can one say I'm being brainwashed? I do watch Alex Jones occasionally, but Alex has been around for years . . . and so have I.

I'm quite capable of discerning truth from error concerning Alex Jones. I would say that Jones is 98% correct, and it's encouraging just to know that he's out there . . . even if his broadcast is only three hours a day, five days a week, and two hours on Sunday. Compared to Fox News' 24/7/365 influence, Jones is a piker when it comes to being able to influence anyone; let alone brainwash someone. Brainwashing would require that someone have 24/7/365 access to every home in America . . . sort of like Fox News has . . .

Hmmm . . .

I'm hardly a Liberal, as anyone who has ever taken the time to read my writings knows. I'm a Libertarian with Christian moral convictions. And there's a BIG difference.

I'm also a Constitutionalist, with a strict interpretation; meaning that I believe the US federal government should be restricted to doing only that which is specifically outlined for it to do in the US Constitution, which is, after all, the whole point of the US Constitution to begin with; including, especially, the US Congress alone having the authority to wage war.

Hmmm . . .

And I'M brainwashed?

I'm no fan of the federal government, I can assure you. And I think a Liberal is, by definition, a fan of the feds. I am not a fan of the feds at all.

I've had my run-ins with the feds over the years, and I don't think they're a big fan of me either. I can't imagine they think of me as a Liberal. Heck, if you count my last run-in with the feds in DC, I've been arrested and locked up by them a grand total of six times now: three times by the US military, twice by the FBI, and once by the US Park Police.

Crazy . . . can you imagine, too, how many times I've been stopped and asked by the police to show my ID, so they could run me for warrants . . . I've lost count . . .

And I'm not a bad guy either, that's the thing. I just have that bad guy mystique . . .

Anyways, a Constitutionalist Christian Libertarian like me is far from being a Liberal or a Communist . . . and although I do love trees, I'm not a tree hugger. I used to work for a very large paper company and we had a saying: paper is a renewable resource. But I am against cutting old growth trees . . . . I think it's criminal for someone to do that.

When it comes to economics, I'm more a fan of Adam Smith than I am of Karl Marx, so I certainly can't be a Communist. I'm for Ending the Fed too, which is not exactly the political stance on the Federal Reserve that a good commie would take. Is it?

But I suppose that, since I am against the war(s), the Global War on Terror, the rise of the US police state, the failed War on Drugs, and suspect that rogue elements of our own government (and others) were behind the terror attacks of 9/11, this DOES make me a Liberal Communist, in the Glennbeckian sense of these terms.

On the other hand, there are good reasons for Beck and others considering me to be a Liberal and a Communist. I believe that being a Christian is a communal activity, not a personal affair. So yes, I believe in social justice, relieving the plight of the poor, having compassion on those who are less fortunate, working to build a more just society for all people, including those not-yet-born. I recently spent a week at the DC Catholic Worker House and God knows the Catholic Workers are considered Communist, even through the founder of the Catholic Worker Movement, Dorothy Day, had the same sociopolitical ideology that I have: social justice is the work of God's people, the Church, and not of the government.

All of which makes me an odd bird, politically speaking, I know. I mean, just what political category do I fit into anyway? The Liberals are mostly proaborts and the Conservatives are mostly warhawks (some of them chicken-hawks), so where does that leave me? I'm pro-life and I'm anti-war; two issues which need to become related in the minds of many people. I mean, have a heart people!

As I've said before, I don't know about you, but I've seen carnage—meaning: the bodies of human beings that have been torn into chunks of flesh, or meat, and it's always broken my heart to see this. Not right away, of course, but afterward. A person that someone loved torn into bloody pieces of meat. Killing someone requires justification; like self-defense. Preemptive killing is murder, and is considered such by the states and the federal government except, it seems, when it comes to our military adventures (in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan) and abortion. For us Americans, it's okay for us to tear people to shreds anytime we feel the need to do so, isn't it? I mean, what is justice? And who really cares about that anyway . . . ?

Do you?

The Future of America Depends Upon Justice for the Unborn

2010-09-20T12:56:00.001-07:00

The Future of America Depends Upon Justice for the Unborn

(photo: abortion - 10 weeks)

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King once said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Dr. Seuss once said: “A person’s a person, no matter how small.”

I agree.

Last month I was working with a fine young Christian man—the kind of young Christian person who inspires hope for the future and can be found across this great nation— who said something that really surprised me. He said something to the effect of, “I think abortion is okay as long as it’s right after conception (like via “the morning after pill”) or still very young/small.”

I think I said something like, “So all that matters is that we kill them when they’re small . . . preferably by chemicals, as opposed to scalpels. But the point here is that one has to have a justifiable reason to take a human life and to have an abortion is to intentionally destroy a human life. Simply not wanting a little someone around is not just cause for taking a human life, so matter how small/young it is.”

I also told him two stories from my own life-experience. The first was that, when we were young teenagers, my best friend got his girlfriend pregnant and, because they didn’t want her parents to find out they were having sex, they aborted the child. My friend and his girlfriend later married and had three kids. I think her parents figured out that they were having sex. This couple, especially the woman, always regretted having aborted their first, who would have been their oldest, child.

The second story is that of my ex wife. She got pregnant at 16 (not by me) and hid it from her mom until it was too late to get an abortion, which is what her mom (not my ex wife) wanted to do. She had the child, a boy, and she gave him up for adoption. He contacted her when he turned 18 and they have been corresponding ever since. He’s very happy to be alive, knowing he could have been aborted, he’s very happy with his life, and he’s also a very successful businessman.

And that’s a lot better than ending up in the toilet, or in the garbage can, isn’t it?

Life is unique; especially human life.

I once watched Bill Moyers interview Dr. Leon Kass, MD on PBS. Dr. Kass is one of the brightest thinkers in America, and he’s also a distinguished bioethicist (whose books I’ve read). The following is an excerpt from this interview,

BILL MOYERS: You mean down when we were mere cells?

LEON KASS: When we were--

BILL MOYERS: Or a cell?

LEON KASS: We were a very special kind of cell, Bill.

BILL MOYERS: Potentially.

LEON KASS: No, no. We were-- when you-- look, when-- R.G. Edwards created the first test tube baby, Louise Brown, 1978, he said, and he sort of stumbled over the truth. He said, "She was beautiful then and she is beautiful now." And by "then" he meant when she was a zygote, when she was a fertilized egg which he had fertilized.

What really struck me was just how little Bill Moyers thinks of human life in its earliest stages.

Just like the young man I worked with.

Dr. Kass is a wise man who is in awe of life, especially human life, and he realizes the continuity, over time, of our being. We were all zygotes once. I, the person who I am now, this body, was once as small as the period at the end of this sentence.

“We were a very special kind of cell, Bill.”

I suppose “the morning after pill” is a conscience relieving solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancy? Simply swallow a pill and your pregnancy is over!

Sounds like the modern, scientific, and merciful way to kill your unborn child. If they’re really small they won’t feel anything . . .

Mercy is one of the reasons the guy that I used to work with gave me for using “the morning after pill” or getting an abortion early: they don’t feel any pain.

But who are they?

They are the same kind as us: people.

“Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to ask for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee.” ~ John Donne

By saying this Donne is telling us much the same thing as Dr. King was telling us when he said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” What Donne is saying is that we’re a small part of a much larger human family and that we’re all mortal. When the bell tolls the death of anyone, it may as well be my own death, because sooner or later I will die. The death of anyone is a loss to the human family of a unique individual. In the case of abortion, the death of each human being via abortion is, in a sense, the death of us all, because the single, unwanted human zygote, embryo, or fetus is a microcosm of humanity. The unjust, intentional putting to death of a single, small, growing human being through abortion is the death of us all, because we turn our head and ignore, for the most part, the deathly matter.

Are YOU going to be the one to kill it? Whatever size it is? I’m not.

Not if it’s human, sorry.

And HUMAN it is; it being: the small person (people or them).

I realize that pseudo intellectuals like Peter Singer would have us (i.e., our society) allow for abortion and infanticide (i.e., the murder of infants up to two years of age) but I think Dr. King would really have issues with such inhumane and murderously brutal injustices as abortion and infanticide.

Wouldn’t he?

Abortion and infanticide are based, philosophically, upon a genocidal instinct that transcends ordinary classifications of hated, which becomes a hatred for the bodily existence of another person (however small). This (small) person’s nationality, religion, gender, and race are irrelevant; the intention of abortion and infanticide being to destroy a human life simply because it exists.

Notice how, in the dialogue above, Moyer’s use of potential life is summarily dismissed by Dr. Kass.

You weren’t a potential human life, or person, when you were a zygote Bill; you were you: a living, growing, human person . . . the same—although much more mature—unique human person that you are right now (e.g., same blood type, same unique DNA).

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, “The medical examiner's office received a total of 19,916 human remains, which included fewer than 300 intact bodies or torsos. It identified 10,190 body parts, some as small as a finger tip, primarily through DNA testing. About 9,726 remains remain unidentified.”

Although we don’t like to think about it, the finger tip of an unborn child who has been legally killed by an abortionist would also be identified as being “human remains.”

In short, this is indisputable scientific evidence that the unborn child is a human being. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

Isn’t that the point, after all, of killing it to begin with? Because it—a living, growing, human being—is; it exists here-and-now and we don’t want it to?

So we desire a humane way of being rid of this . . . human.

Better than carving it up into little pieces—not as ugly, or as brutal, in appearance.

Suffice it to say that, in this case—concerning Kass and Moyers—Dr. Kass comes across as much wiser than the average person which, in this case, is represented by Moyers.

Size (or age), in this case, doesn’t matter.

Injustice anywhere—like the unjust taking of a human life through abortion—is a threat to justice everywhere.

Ask not whom the abortionist kills, he’s killing you . . . he’s killing us all; in microcosm . . . the purest form of genocide (or specicide).

Believe it or not, the biggest obstacle to political reformation, now, is the abortion issue. Why? Because the Left, which is supposed to stand for human rights supports, for the most part, a woman’s right to choose to hire an abortionist, usually a man, and pay him to kill her child (unless of course she’s using the “more humane” morning after pill).

The Right, which has no history of supporting the oppressed, like the Left does, has picked up the human rights banner which the Left dropped (i.e., the banner of the smallest amongst us, the not-yet-born) and managed to gather most of the pro-lifers into its party. The Left, which perceives the abortion issue as irrevocably tied to the women’s rights issue could easily become the party of life and justice, thus transferring most of the pro-lifers from the Right into its own party, if the Left would simply acknowledge the truth: abortion is the intentional, violent destruction of an innocent human person.

Women have rights in our society. They have equal rights with men. But neither a man nor a woman has any right to kill an unborn person. Some jealous, angry husbands will always seek out their cheating spouse's lover in order to kill him. But this doesn't mean that the state (i.e., the government) should legalize such killings. Likewise, women (and men) will always seek to be rid of their unborn children. But that doesn’t mean that the state (meaning: the government) should legalize such killings.

What would Dr. King say . . . ? Can you imagine? And why is no one else, of any popular significance, saying it?

What’s happened to justice? Human rights cannot be in subjection to women’s rights, or to men’s rights. These rights are innate; inviolate, God-given.

And that was Dr. King’s whole point, wasn’t it? Equal rights for all people via Natural Law . . . as outlined for us in the Declaration of Independence?

I had a rather unique perspective of Glenn Beck’s recent rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D. C. I walked from Dupont Circle to the rally that morning and, as I was walking down 16th street, only a few blocks from the White House, I passed by the Planned Parenthood at 16th and L and, as you can imagine (or maybe you can’t) it was very busy, being a Saturday, which, apparently, is a good (i.e., popular, or common) day for the unborn to die.

Tens of thousands of pro-lifers were at the Beck rally . . . but not at the clinic, in order to protest. Hundreds of pro-choicers were at the anti-Beck rally, not far from the Lincoln Memorial, attempting to make Dr. King’s dream of a more just society a reality. But they weren’t at the clinic either. There was only a very small group of Catholics there, at the clinic, protesting.

“A person’s a person, no matter how small . . .”

It’s time for America, meaning the American people, to reconcile human rights to the abortion issue . . . to seek justice. If the Democrats would rethink the abortion issue through the lens of Dr. King’s Natural Law paradigm the Republicans would go back to being their old rich, fat cat, country club selves.

Support Life!

Consistently!

End war, end abortion, end poverty, end racism, end capital punishment . . . and seek instead to build a culture of life!

And Justice!

Natural Law in Perspective

2010-09-17T11:49:00.001-07:00

The perspective of this photograph is correct, philosophically speaking. The law, which is symbolized, here, by the US Capitol Building, is placed in subjection to Dr. King's philosophy of Natural Law, which is symbolized, here, by (both) Dr. King's words and image.

Unfortunately, Washington has things the other way around: Dr. King's (and America's) philosophy of Natural Law is placed in subjection to Positive Law (i.e., the wills of lawmakers on Capitol Hill).

I've written, extensively, on this subject before, and I will not rewrite what I've already written here. Suffice it to say that Natural Law trumps Positive Law; Natural Law is much more helpful in constructing—legally and philosophically—a more just society anyways . . .

And this (i.e., Natural Law) is no new idea either. It's only been around for the past 2,000 years or so . . .

In short, if it's good enough for Dr. King, it's good enough for me too.

In fact, Dr. King's entire philosophy is dependent upon Natural Law; and for one to deny the existence of Natural Law would be tantamount to denying the philosophical justification underlying Dr. King's call for equal rights for all peoples, regardless of race, creed, or color, as outlined for us in the US Declaration of Independence.

Hmmm . . .

But, like I said, I'm not going to rehearse this matter here. I only wish that all of the hulabaloo over Glenn Beck's recent rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington had been the catalyst for a much greater interest in Dr. King's Natural Law-based philosophy.

Perhaps this very brief essay this will do exactly that . . .

Shame and 9/11 Truth

2010-09-08T15:40:00.001-07:00

I was protesting the wars at the Pentagon a couple of weeks ago and, strangely enough, I felt ashamed; because I had chosen to hold a sign that read: "9/11: An Inside Job to Lead Us into War". But why did I feel shame for this? It's the truth. I think that what I was feeling was embarrassment, because it seemed as though virtually everyone who passed by me (and read the sign) was (probably) thinking I was a kook. And that's embarrassing. Or perhaps it was because I was ashamed at having to be there, at the Pentagon, to begin with . . . that I need to protest my own government, because of its crimes . . . like I was ashamed to be an American.

But I think, too, that my feeling had something to do with being at the Pentagon itself, because virtually everyone who passed by me (us) seemed to be against me (us). Perhaps there was some element of fear as well? But I'm not afraid of the authorities or of going to jail for a sociopolitical cause, which I've done before; although our government does do its best to keep us living in fear. It just seemed so surreal; sort of like protesting the Dark Side's unholy ambitions on Darth Vader's Death Star.

Not too unlike protesting in front of an abortion clinic though . . .

When it comes to 9/11, I'm not the one who needs to be ashamed. I didn't kill anyone on 9/11, but someone did. Some group (conspiracy) of people did. And I don't think it was a group of Islamic fundamentalists that brought down WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 . . . I think it was elements of our own (federal) government (i.e., the military-intelligence complex).

But does this make me a kook?

The feeling of shame, or embarrassment, is a uniquely human emotion. Dr. Leon Kass, in his book Toward a More Natural Science, points out the fact that animals do not feel shame; shame is a uniquely human emotion. In short, we are not animals.

The true criminals behind the terror attacks of 9/11 have yet to be brought to justice. Instead, they continue supporting the doctrine of endless wars, torture, and unlawful detentions they began nine years ago. Who is running America? The military-intelligence complex?

It's hardly embarrassing for one to believe that the terror attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated by rogue elements within our own government, or that the WTC buildings (1, 2, and 7) were brought down in some manner that didn't simply cause their collapse but caused them to disintegrate. Many intelligent people believe the government is covering up the truth about 9/11, and I don't think they should feel any shame for believing this. (See Peter Lance's (.pdf) 9/11 Timeline 1981-2006) I think it's more shameful for one to accept, at face value, the official government explanation of 9/11, because such acceptance reveals how little thought one has chosen to invest in this most important of subjects.

America needs citizens who are willing to think.

Please, examine the evidence for yourself . . . as so many intelligent people are doing. . .

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth

9/11 Truth

Why Beck’s Jingoism Appeals to His Many Followers

2010-09-01T09:10:00.001-07:00

I happened to be in Washington this past week, so I went to see the crowd at Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally on Saturday (8/28). It's not often that I'm able to see a large crowd of people who have been taken-in by jingoistic sloganeering, and it was a rather unsettling experience for me.

Jingoism is marked by a rabid nationalism and militarism expressed in an aggressive militaristic foreign policy.

Beck's call for "supporting our troops" and "restoring honor" to our great nation is propagandistic patriotic sloganeering at its best.

Beck's use of terms such as: God, faith, hope, charity, honor, family, life, liberty, freedom, and rights are, in Beck's hands, emptied of their true meanings and given nationalistic propagandistic meanings.

I hope that Beck's followers come to understand the true meanings of the terms Beck uses.

Beck's 8/28 rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington occurred on the 47^th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., where he gave his famous I Have a Dream speech.

Beck endorses Dr. King and what he stood for, and this is Beck's (and his handlers') weak point.

As I've said before, I write about Dr. King's legal-social philosophy often, because I believe his is the best philosophical basis for legal-social theory: natural law. And because, as Dr. King noted, this legal theory is also the philosophical basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

At issue here is: Justice. What is it? And how do we know whether or not our nation is acting justly?

Does Beck have the answer? Is Beck the man who, like Dr. King, can lead us our nation on the path of justice? Can Beck tell us how to go about building a more just society?

I think not. (Nor am I (by far) the only one who thinks he is not.)

If Beck knew what justice was he wouldn't be supporting the unjust wars that our troops are fighting; nor would he be supporting Israel and its unjust treatment of the Palestinian peoples; nor would he be supporting the unjust War on Terror and the unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act.

The unjust nature of these is obvious and yet Beck seems oblivious to these injustices.

Rather than taking a stand for what is right and for what is true, Beck takes a stand for what is wrong and for what is false: preemptive war, torture, wiretapping, warrantless searches, suspension of due process for terror suspects, etc . . .

The purpose of Beck's (upcoming) 9/12 rally, so he says, is to help Americans recapture the feeling of unity we all had immediately after the terror attacks of 9/11. Personally, I can't imagine a worse thing for Americans to do that to put themselves (willingly) right back into the very terror-induced mindset that, ten years ago, shut down most of our critical thinking skills, which opened us up to be influenced and manipulated by the government propagandists. The last thing Americans need is a return to that non-thinking, duped, reactionary, vindictive, hyper-patriotic, overemotional mentality.

As for 9/11, Beck has never questioned the official government story. And yet the terror attacks of 9/11, which were perpetrated by elements of our own government, were the greatest injustices of our time. Beck talks about freedom and justice but it was the very injustice of the 9/11 attacks (which killed nearly 3,000 people) that led to the most drastic reductions of freedoms that Americans have ever known.

The core concern, I think, of the TEA party folks has been to regain the people's ability to regain control over our currently bloated, corrupt, and unjust federal government. For the most part, the TEA party folks are ordinary, hardworking Americans who are simply fed up with the feds. I can relate to this yet I can also relate to the many other injustices within our society, which Beck considers (= brands) Leftist (e.g., peace, reforming the drug laws, economic injustices). Beck appeals to these TEA Party folks because he uses terms they are familiar with (e.g., freedom, socialism, the Founders, Marxism) and he comes across to them as one who is learned in the subjects of history and political science yet Beck is simply using these terms and the concepts they represent as buzzwords in order to create an intellectually thin jingoistic lens which his followers can use to view (i.e., understand and make sense of) the world.

I have my own issues with both the Left and the Right yet Beck seems to be assured that it is the Left—and only the Left—which is a real threat to America. This appeals to most Americans because Americans value individual freedom and liberty above all else. This individual liberty and freedom stems from our rights, which are inalienable because they come to us from our Creator. This is outlined in the Declaration of Independence, a document Dr. King used to hold America's feet to the fires of our asserted ideal: that all people are created equally and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . .

This is something the Left often forgets: that the greatest civil rights leader of our time—Dr. King—stood on natural law, with eternal moral standards that created the legal and philosophical foundation of inalienable civil rights which Dr. King used (so successfully) as a fulcrum to gain the liberation of his peoples during his oppressed times (i.e., the American Negros of the 1950's-60's).

Dr. King was an intellectual, as well as a man who knew what justice—and injustice—was. He could recognize an unjust law or situation (like the Vietnam War and poverty) and organize against it in order to build a more just society. Glenn Beck, on the contrary, seeks to perpetuate the current injustices and legitimize the illegitimate within the minds of his followers in order to build a more unjust society.

One writer has suggested that Beck (and his handlers) has (have) managed to co-opt the TEA Party by duping its older—less tech savvy—members, leaving the younger, upstart, Ron Paul, End the Fed, 9/11 truth revolutionary types out in the cold. I think this is true, but I also think there is more to it than this. Not all of the TEA Party people at Beck's rally were old; many were middle aged or younger. I think these people simply haven't bothered to think-through—critically—the issues that are at stake today. Nor have they bothered to think about what justice is. Sadly, it's Beck's anti-intellectualism, sloganeering, and jingoism that actually appeals to so many people, which engenders a "My Country Right or Wrong!" mindset.

Just wrap indefinite detentions and torture in the American flag and everything's okay . . .

Beck has ridiculed Ron Paul and his supporters, as well as the 9/11 Truth crowd, yet these people were the founders of the TEA Party movement—ordinary citizens who could see the injustices of preemptive wars, torture, eavesdropping, suspension of due process for terrorism suspects, etc . . .

Mr. Beck sets himself against the very people who know what justice is while portraying himself as an authentic spokesman for justice. He uses the skin of the truth (freedom, justice, rights) and stuffs it with lies (don't question 9/11, support preemptive wars, support Israel) in order to make it palatable to his listeners/viewers/followers.

It doesn't take an Einstein, however, to see the injustices which America is guilty of . . . but it does take someone with a heart and a thinking mind; someone who knows what justice is.

Something Glenn Beck seems oblivious to.