Obama’s amazing disgrace

Share Button

10.5K Shares

Obama at Pinckney funeralGuns kill and, President Barack Obama says, so does the Confederate flag. According to the president, it is a symbol for white racism; it is a flag that encourages the South to take false pride in an ugly heritage that can lead to white supremacy.

Obama laid it all out last Friday when he was the guest celebrity eulogist for the Rev. Clementa Pinckney. The South Carolina state senator was one of nine people senselessly slaughtered on June 17 in Charleston, South Carolina, during a Bible study at Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. They died at the hands of either a psychopath or a white racist who was inspired at least in part by the Confederate flag.

At the memorial, Obama said:

For too long, we were blind to the pain that the Confederate flag stirred in too many of our citizens. … But as people from all walks of life, Republicans and Democrats, now acknowledge — including Gov. (Nikki) Haley, whose recent eloquence on the subject is worthy of praise — as we all have to acknowledge, the flag has always represented more than just ancestral pride.

… By taking down that flag, we express God’s grace.

What does Obama know about God’s grace? It is hard to know which God he worships or whether or not he even believes in God. Is it the fire-and-brimstone God that his Chicago Christian pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, educated him on? Is it Allah, the Muslim god that his father instructed him on? Or is “God” a powerful political word for Obama to bandy about because the real Obama is an atheist.

I don’t know how you feel; but I get the notion that when the president provides his understanding of God’s wishes, they are really Obama’s wishes.

Certainly, Obama was using God and the Christian pulpit last Friday when he heaped shame on the Southern whites at an inappropriate time: at a funeral for a dead Southern pastor.

In the end, it wasn’t so much a eulogy for Pinckney as it was a domestic policy speech and the need for economic, social and racial reform in the United States.

And the president did it in true Obama fashion by pontificating, lecturing and scorning the South.

As one Obama insider said, the president’s lecture to the country on race capped off his best week. If the best week for the president is locking down Obamacare, guaranteeing gay marriage and fermenting worse racism, then the insider was right: Obama hit the trifecta.

It was the climax to a week where the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act as law and legalized gay marriage throughout the nation. Then came the climax: The President was asked to do what he does best — give a memorial speech for black victims murdered by a crazed white man who had a photo taken with the Confederate flag, that shameful flag that was the banner to enslave blacks.

No Obama sermon would be complete without a lecture on gun control. With dozens of members of Congress at the funeral, Obama reiterated his call for stricter gun laws:

For too long, we’ve been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation. Sporadically, our eyes are open: When eight of our brothers and sisters are cut down in a church basement, 12 in a movie theater, 26 in an elementary school. But I hope we also see the 30 precious lives cut short by gun violence in this country every single day …

But Obama’s post-tragedy pulpit speech gives him a way to interpret America’s ills. And it is no surprise that none of it stems from blacks but from ignorant whites, particularly in the South, which almost ripped the union apart for the sake of enslaving the black man.

Obama’s notion of the truth is that African-Americans are the God-loving people of the country who understand grace. For Obama, too many whites are white supremacists who will never understand the helplessness of the African-American who has been enslaved, lynched and economically repressed by racism.

However, with the help of the federal government, racist whites can be reeducated and will finally embrace the African-Americans for what they really are — typified by Obama — as a special subset of Americans who are akin to the lost tribe of Israel. Past injustices to African-Americans can never be washed away. But in true Obama fashion, this can be addressed by greater government giveaways and an even greater voice for the liberal message in the mainstream media.

All of this will work out very well for a bigger welfare state and the Frankenstein legacy that Obama has blueprinted for himself. The plan was crafted by the liberal progressives before 2007, and its endgame is to take away our guns. After all, sometimes whites shoot blacks.

Barack has left the building

I was a teenager when I got a front-row seat to see Elvis at the Las Vegas Hilton. He belted out “Amazing Grace.”

Watching Obama sing it front and center at the memorial for Pinckney last Friday was like watching an Elvis impersonator. If you watch it, you can see Obama is totally into the moment. It was not a moment of Obama remembering a good man who was senselessly murdered along with eight others. It was the moment for Obama to have the world see him shine — as a healer and a singer. Even if the president could sing, the nation needs a good leader, not a celebrity.

It is as if because Obama is half black, he understands pain and loss — things no white person can ever understand. And Obama has the ultimate VIP pass. He is half black, and he is the most powerful man in the world.

It is laughable to imagine a white president singing “Amazing Grace” after mayhem befell a black community. But Obama has the ultimate American Express card. He is welcome on Jimmy Kimmel’s show and by all of Hollywood and its producers and writers, who change history when it comes to the Civil War and the constant injustice and violence perpetuated by whites against blacks.

Leon Trotsky would see this as a mechanism to divide a country. As for Obama, I don’t think he cares about America or Americans. His real goal is to build his legacy and use that to drag the nation further left.

It’s surprising when you consider that Obama cannot see any evil in Islam, saying Islam is a religion of peace that has little or nothing to do with the continuing global jihad. But anytime white violence touches what he calls his black brothers and sisters, his knee-jerk reaction is to attack white racists.

For any wrong endured by a black man, woman or child, Obama is there. He is there with his love for America (black America). He is there with his progressive ideals. He is there to point out how white Americans should feel endless guilt for the way blacks are treated and murdered every week at the hands of whites, while ignoring black-on-black and black-on-white murders.

The liar king

America is on a course of black dissatisfaction. The president has declared that blacks deserve more from our government, while whites see only Obama’s accusatory finger.

This is a despicable labeling of race and generations against the South. Obama went so far on Friday as to compare the gun rampage by an avowed white supremacist as an act of terrorism, linking it to America’s long history of racist church bombings and arsons.

Obama said the shooting was not a random act, but a “means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress,” a continuation of what Obama has labeled “original sin.”

To Obama, Southern plantation owners ripped blacks out of Africa’s Garden of Eden and enslaved them. The truth is that before slavery, Africans lived short, brutish lives with disease, starvation, never-ending tribal wars and — oh, yes — black slavery.

But let’s not have the truth get in the way of a grand legacy. There is a stir across the South, some sponsored by Republicans, to pull down the Confederate flag. Big retailers like Wal-Mart have already stopped selling the flag, while the mass media have explained that it is a hateful relic that should have been shelved a century ago.

Almost nobody wants to examine what caused the Civil War. It started over excessive taxes against the South, economic domination by the North and the armed invasion of the Southern states ordered by the Union Army of President Abraham Lincoln.

In an opinion piece on Al.com, Roger K. Broxton, president of the Confederate Heritage Fund, pointed out: “Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.”

History changes, especially for the leaders in our government, the mass media and public school boards around the country. Lincoln was the Great Emancipator who freed the slaves and built the bedrock of what would become the American Industrial Revolution. And I have seen over the past seven years nothing that suggests that Obama doesn’t want to be chiseled into American history just as Josef Stalin engraved himself as the Soviet hero.

It was pointed out on a CNN debate with Don Lemon last week that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, yet there is a monument to him in Washington that no one has asked to be torn down. Lemon said: “There may come a day when we may want to rethink Jefferson.”

Hopefully, we will never see such a day. But I think it is possible that the Jefferson Memorial could be torn down and in its place an Obama Memorial erected right there on the National Mall. I am not saying it will happen. But if America keeps shifting further toward the dead end of blaming whites today for what happened 50 to 300 years ago, the nation is going to be torn apart — ripped to shreds by race revisionists, rabble-rousers and wealth redistributors who are the heart of the Democratic Party. Like their leader Obama, their actions costs them nothing. Men like Jefferson put everything at risk for principal. Yet we may want to tear down Jefferson and build up Obama? If that doesn’t show how far this country has gone to hell, nothing does.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

The Mike Church Interview: A Remarkable Conversion to Tradition Changes the Face of Political Talk Radio

Share Button

The Mike Church Interview: A Remarkable Conversion to Tradition Changes the Face of Political Talk Radio Featured

Written by 


Mike Church Mike Church
Remnant readers may know that I have become a regular guest on the Mike Church Show, Channel 125 on the Sirius Radio Network, which is known as Patriot Radio. The same channel features the “conservative” talk shows of Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, along with Brietbart News.I put the word “conservative” in scare quotes as to Hannity, Levin and Beck, but the remarkable thing about Mike Church is that he is an authentic conservative, by which I mean a conservative who views political, social and moral questions from a traditional Catholic perspective as reflected in the papal and conciliar Magisterium before the late unpleasantness of the imaginary “renewal” of Vatican II.

Indeed, over the past year or so Mike Church has emerged as the only traditionally Catholic conservative in talk radio today, anywhere in the world. And I mean traditional. Not only during my appearances on the show, but now thematically, Mike has turned the longest running political talk show on Sirius Radio into an unabashed presentation of the Social Kingship of Christ, traditional Catholic moral teaching, and even the traditional Latin liturgy as the solution to what is evidently otherwise a terminal civilizational crisis. I have been invited on the show numerous times to defend all of these things explicitly, to speak of the one true Church, and even to call upon conservative Protestants to enter the Church if they are serious about saving our nation and our civilization.

But, happy to say, Mike has been going even farther than I have during my appearances, including the on-air presentation of traditional Catholic sermons on faith and morals, the works of Michael Davies—that’s right, the works of Michael Davies on mainstream talk radio!—the encyclicals of Leo XIII, Thomistic philosophy, and other sources of Tradition. The result has been nothing short of phenomenal. While Mike has alienated some of his viewers in a largely Protestant audience, who wonder if his show should move from the Patriot Channel to the Catholic Channel, he has converted many others, and he hears from these converts almost weekly.Mike Church puts the lie to “conservative” Catholics who say it is “imprudent” in our pluralist society to promote an explicitly Catholic approach to social and political issues such as abortion, “gay marriage” and the nature of true liberty, which does not consist of the “capitalist social order” promoted by what even the radical libertarian gadfly Kevin Carson has called “vulgar libertarians.” As I have said on Mike’s show again and again, the face of this nation could be transformed almost overnight if all the opinion-makers who profess to be Catholic followed Mike’s courageous example in proclaiming the truth that makes us free, rather than invoking the Constitution or the Spirit of 1776.

Happy and blessed Independence day – some scenes from the Patriot

Share Button

 

The Battle of Camden

The final battle scene

Benjamin vs. Tavington

British surrender at Yorktown

 

A Day of Mourning for the First Amendment

Share Button
A Day of Mourning for the First Amendment
A Day of Mourning for the First Amendment
07.03.15

Written by By Laurie Higgins

I would love to hear Melissa and Aaron Klein’s answer if some “LGBTQIAAP” activist or intrepid, “unbiased” journalist asked, “How would the legalization of gay marriage affect you?”

Oh wait, no one can hear their answer because Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian has ordered them to “cease and desist” from publicly discussing how it’s affected them.

In addition, he has fined them $135,000 for the “emotional distress” they allegedly caused two lesbians whose wedding cake the Kleins declined to make because of their true religious belief that there exists no such thing as a homoerotic “marriage.”

Melissa and Aaron Klein are the former owners of a small, independent bakery in Oregon who exercised their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and declined to make a wedding cake for a lesbian anti-wedding. Avakian in his foolishness and arrogance described this as a refusal to serve the lesbians based on their sexual orientation.

Here is Avakian’s statement on the astonishing abrogation of First Amendment protection that he has commanded:

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,”

The Kleins did not refuse to serve homosexuals. They refused to make a particular product for an event that offends the God they serve. The Kleins had no opposition to selling baked goods to homosexuals. They objected to baking a cake for an event that celebrates something that the God they serve detests.

The Daily Signal explains the tortured reasoning of Avakian:

The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate.

So now feckless state laws can be used to undermine constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

For true followers of Christ, the exercise of their religion extends beyond their pews and homes. It encompasses or should encompass the entirety of their lives. This is something that our Founding Fathers—including even the deists—understood, but contemporary liberals reject with disdain.

The Kleins, parents of five children, were forced to close their bakery, their sole source of income. Their significantly diminished income comes from Aaron’s current job as a garbage collector. To help this family in need, A GoFundMe campaign started which raised $109,000 in a matter of hours. Then, under pressure from tolerant disciples of diversity, the GoFundMe website shut it down. Nothing says tolerance quite like impoverishing families for their religious beliefs.

Here is a list of just some of the (unverified) 88 feelings and/or effects for which the two lesbians sought financial remuneration:

  • acute loss of confidence
  • degradation
  • demeanment
  • depression
  • disappointment
  • disbelief
  • discomfort
  • distrust of men
  • doubt
  • excessive sleep
  • exhaustion
  • felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful
  • felt stupid
  • less talkative
  • loss of appetite
  • nervous appetite
  • impaired digestion
  • weight gain
  • moodiness
  • pale and sick at home after work
  • shocked
  • stunned
  • surprise
  • uncertainty
  • worry

This wowzer list of ailments purportedly resulted from not being able to purchase a wedding cake from one bakery. How, pray tell, do these two function in a diverse world?

Perhaps, just perhaps, their ailments were caused by their own wrongdoing and not by the right actions of the Kleins.

Here are some things that I hope happen:

  • I hope Avakian’s profoundly boneheaded decision is appealed.
  • I hope Avakian—who holds an elected position—is recalled.
  • I hope the Kleins do not pay one red cent of the $135,000.
  • I hope the Kleins speak everywhere about this injustice.
  • I hope conservatives everywhere come alongside this family in prayer and with financial help.

And on July 4, while we celebrate the freedoms we enjoy in America—chief among them the right to speak and the right to exercise our religion freely—perhaps we should pause for a moment of silence to mourn the denial of those rights to the Kleins.

Stop Obama’s Planned Gag Order on Firearm-Related Speech

Share Button

Friday, June 05, 2015

It’s happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.

Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration’s “Unified Agenda” of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.

To understand the proposal and why it’s so serious, some background information is necessary.

For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called “defense articles” and “defense services” in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part “U.S. Munitions List,” which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.

Also regulated under ITAR are so-called “technical data” about defense articles. These include, among other things, “detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information” about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the “public domain.” Essentially, this means data “which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public” through a variety of specified means. These include “at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.” Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.

The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been “exported,” as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.

With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.

Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized “export,” including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.

Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.

But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means are at his disposal to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation?

Supreme Court has not the authority to redefine marriage

Share Button

We are seeing our court system begin to morph into what was passed off as the legal system in Nazi Germany.  We have judges that are nothing more than rubber stamps for the Obama regime and their socialist agenda.  The founding fathers felt that impeachment was the only solution for corrupt judges.  If that be the case then let the impeachments begin!!!…CTP

30 Shares

bouquet, Bible, wedding ringsAlthough they seem to think they do, five Ivy League-educated lawyers in league with the Prince of Darkness have not the authority to redefine marriage, which was not defined by man in the first place.

God established marriage in Genesis 2:23-24, “The man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (ESV)

The Supreme Court is not the first to try and change the institution’s definition. As Christ explained to the Pharisees in Matthew 19, Moses’ command to issue a certificate of divorce did not change God’s definition of marriage. “… Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:4-9, ESV)

As it was in the beginning, and as it was in the 1st century, so it is today.

While the Supreme Court can write a tortured and illogical ruling to attempt to redefine legal marriage, it has no authority over spiritual marriage as God established. Anything other than a God-sanctioned marriage is sexual immorality.

The five justices who wrote the majority opinion should know that. Two are Catholic. Three are Jews. They were certainly — if they were ever “practicing” Catholics and Jews — taught the truth about marriage. Sadly, they’ve sacrificed their souls on the altar of universalism (look for more on universalism in Monday’s column, “How have we fallen so far?”). They will answer for their apostasy.

Marriage has not changed as far as God is concerned; therefore, it has not changed as far as the Christian is concerned. Take heart in that, fellow Christian.

Benjamin Franklin saw the destruction of American coming, when we loose all virtue

Share Button

Losing the republic

46 Shares

flagBenjamin Franklin would greet the country’s 239th birthday with profound shock, if his comment “at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787” is any indication. A lady had “queried [him] as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. ‘Well, doctor, what have we got: a republic or a monarchy?’”Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”How does one “keep” a “republic” — or, more essentially, keep the freedom that a republic supposedly protects? The Founding Fathers were not only unanimous but insistent and explicit about the requirements for such a feat. Yet Americans have spurned their stipulations for over a century and a half now. Hence, the incredulity of Franklin and the other Founders that the United States still survives. And though we can debate whether it remains a republic, for sure it’s no longer free.Indeed, Franklin predicted our slide into totalitarianism. “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” he observed. “As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Patrick Henry also praised virtue, along with “morality and religion,” as “the great pillars of all government and of social life …” So did John Adams: “[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.”

Why? What renders virtue, morality and religion — by which the Founders meant biblical Christianity — so indispensable to political freedom? Why are they its prerequisites? And what does their eviction from modern America portend for us?

Sam Adams hinted at one reason liberty depends on Christian virtue and morality while the Continental Congress was signing the Declaration of Independence. “We have this day restored the Sovereign, to whom alone men ought to be obedient,” Adams said. “He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought, and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them.”

In other words, the only “Sovereign” who should rule us is God Almighty, not a mere, sinful human, even if we call him “king” — or “president,” “congresscritter,” or “Your (Dis)Honor.” Perversely, the greater the political power fallen men wield against others, the greater the prestige and privileges their victims accord them. Soon the ruled degenerate to worshipping government — and demanding more of it — rather than their Creator.

We’re quick to cite deluded North Koreans, but far too many Americans believe that “government plays an essential role in promoting the good life…” These folks attribute to politicians and bureaucrats the miracles of Jesus Christ: government feeds the hungry with loaves and fishes stolen from taxpayers, calms the raging flood, heals the sick and delivers us from evil. In fact, government goes Christ one better: It doesn’t merely find money in unlikely places; it creates it from nothing.

One devotee even asserts that his idol improves our every moment: He lists a day’s typical activities and government’s responsibility for them. By his reckoning, we encounter the state’s heavy hand 18 times in the first 80 minutes after waking. (For instance, the Almighty doesn’t supply our next breath; the EPA does [“…as you get out of bed you notice that you are breathing freely this morning. This is thanks in part to government clean air laws…”]) And the hand only waxes weightier from there. Our chronicler is apparently too lost in his fanaticism to realize that he proves Leviathan’s unconstitutional aggrandizement, not its beneficence.

Sam Adams, a devout Christian, understood that we should never genuflect to other sinners, especially the collection of them called “government.” Our submission is due to God alone. Meanwhile, as we look to the Lord to supply our needs, so the state’s worshippers expect “blessings” from their god — seldom acknowledging that what it gives to one it has taken forcibly from another.

This brings us to the second reason that only a moral, virtuous people can be free: They recognize and condemn theft, even in its sanitized forms.

Few of us, including the most rabid socialist, would hold his neighbor at gunpoint while stealing his wallet. That’s robbery by anyone’s definition.

But Americans increasingly, guiltlessly aim government instead of a gun at their fellows. Immoral and brutish, they see nothing wrong with legalized theft, i.e., with taking what belongs to someone else via the state’s coercion. They long ago replaced the idea that what’s yours is yours, period, with a satanic parody: Whatever you legally acquire is yours, even if it started off as mine. You can steal anything you like and still be “good” so long as you don’t wind up in jail.

Welfare in all its guises is the most obvious example. But there are other, more insidious legal robberies, such as “working” for government [sic for “sponging off taxpayers”]. Or consider schools’ levies. These loot owners of real estate to “educate” [sic for “indoctrinate”] other people’s kids; worse, they suborn neighbors into connivance with the state’s thievery. And what about the ubiquitous lawsuits that hunt “deep pockets” instead of the guilty party? Suing someone — even a corporation — because you can, not because he’s genuinely damaged you financially, is only another form of legalized theft.

Anyone so dead to conscience that he wants your money buying his dinner lusts for overweening government: Few folks will surrender their rightful property without legions of thugs threatening them. And as those legions savor their power, they agitate for more in a vicious cycle that Thomas Jefferson described: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild [sic], and government to gain ground.”

That takes us back to Franklin’s quote about corrupt, vicious nations “needing” masters. Without the constraints Christianity provides — love of God, not government; respect for rather than covetousness of other people’s property; abhorrence of violence and political power instead of admiration and affection for them — we’re plunging into totalitarianism’s maelstrom.

Enjoy your 239th birthday, America. You may not have another.

–Becky Akers

American Heritage Girls

Share Button
A lady called in to Rush Limbaugh to thank him for donating a sizable amount of his Rush Rivere series books to her organization the American Heritage girls.  I was really impressed with this organization and especially in these trying times their organization is needed more than everHere is a link to their website What a fantastic alternative to the now liberal controlled, politically correct girl scouts and brownies.  The American heritage girls is a Christ-centered alternative to the girl scouts teaching their young ladies love of God and love of country.  Read the history of their organization from their website below………….CTP
http://www.americanheritagegirls.org/images/css/background_header.jpg
American Heritage Girls was founded in 1995 in West Chester, Ohio by a group of parents wanting a wholesome program for their daughters. These parents were disillusioned with the increasing secular focus of existing organizations for girls. They wanted a Judeo-Christian focused organization for their daughters and believed that other parents were looking for the same for their daughters. This became the catalyst for the birth of the organization we have come to know as the American Heritage Girls. AHG is seen as a Christ-centered alternative to Girl Scouts.American Heritage Girls began its first year of programming in the fall of 1995 with about 10 Troops and roughly 100 members. Most of the Troops met in the West Chester area and worked on badges written by the founding parents. Organizational events were started that year which assisted the organization in tying city-wide Troops together.American Heritage Girls is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the mission of building women of integrity through service to God, family, community and country. The organization offers badge programs, service projects, girl leadership opportunities, and outdoor experiences to its members. It serves as a catalyst for building young women of integrity and faith. It also broadens girls social development through extra-curricular activities. This program of character building has successfully served thousands of girls since its inception and will continue to do so long into the 21st century.

The founders of the American Heritage Girls and the volunteers of today give all credit for the success of AHG to God for His constant hand upon the organization and His unceasing blessings.

1 in 3 Americans would consider living somewhere else

Share Button

6 Shares

Cardboard boxes. Moving.More than one-third of America’s adult population is open to the idea of permanently leaving this country in order to live somewhere else.

A new poll conducted by financial service provider TransferWise finds that 35 percent of U.S. residents would consider living elsewhere — primarily because they believe they could more fully realize their economic opportunities in another country.

The survey, which questioned more than 2,000 Americans, found the greatest interest in abnegating U.S. citizenship lies with young people between the ages of 18 and 34. In fact, a majority of the millennial-generation demographic — 55 percent — indicated an openness to living outside the U.S.

Those who indicate they prefer to remain in the U.S. offer a variety of reasons: familiarity with their homes, established personal relationships, the virtues of American democracy.

But as Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro noted Wednesday, there’s a big gap between the larger percentage of Americans who cite personal ties as a reason to remain here and those who cite more material reasons — like amassing wealth:

The rationales for staying in America, articulated by Americans, are particularly weak: 59 percent say they would stay because “it is home,” another 58 percent say they would stay thanks to romantic and family ties — and then the stats drop precipitously, with just 22 percent stating they would stay for the democratic society, 17 percent for the culture, 10 percent for the good future for children, 5 percent for wealth, 3 percent for low crime, and 2 percent for low taxes.

The poll also found that, “given the right reasons,” even more Americans would consider moving away. If factors like quality of life and cost of living are sufficiently persuasive, 65 percent said they’d be open to moving abroad.