75 years for filming police...really?

‘Don’t tread on me’: Tea Partiers denied the right to vote in Texas | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

‘Don’t tread on me’: Tea Partiers denied the right to vote in Texas | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

LDS Apostle Extols Fundamental Principles of U.S. Constitution

Apostle Extols Fundamental Principles of U.S. Constitution

Elder Oaks gives an LDS perspective on the Constitution. Very much worth the time to read!

The View: Whoopi & Joy Behar Walk Off Stage During O'Reilly Interview

Nicely Done Mr. O'Rilley! They can't argue against the truth!

Tea Party Movement : Children of the Revolution [TPM-COTR]

What Does Separation of Church and State Really Mean?

The much-bandied about phrase “separation of church and state” means different things to different people. To those from the secular humanist persuasion, it means that the state can make no public acknowledgement of religion, have no religious displays, recognize no tax exemptions for churches, and goes so far to regulate even religious expressions of private individuals in the public arena out of line. One also hears that any attempt by others to “moralize” or use any religious values to argue for a policy should be silenced. On the other hand, there are those who believe the matter is simply that the government should not establish an official state church, or that a church should not be anointing officials in the government. Other than that, people should believe and practice how they see fit. Both sides couch their arguments on constitutional theories, some involving Thomas Jefferson’s "wall of separation" letter. To consider this issue, it is important to look at the historical situation of the framers and what they intended. To recap, they were declaring independence from the King of England. There is one important title for the monarch of England that is relevant to this issue, “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”. Not only was the Church of England the official state religion (and still is), but the King himself was the head of that Church. This ensured that his political reach not only extended in the public realm, but from the pulpit. The hierarchy of the church was subservient to the king. This led to abuses in both directions, those by the church and those by the government. The founders did not declare independence from England because they wanted to set up a secular state. They declared independence because of a long train of abuses and usurpations of government power against its people. They were concerned about matters of tyranny, not theology. The Boston Tea Party was about taxes (and thus enshrined in American tradition the fine art of bitching about taxes), not about Baptists throwing Presbyterian’s Bibles into the Atlantic. The Declaration itself made liberal use of religion in general, as did the Founders in their public statements. Even in Jefferson’s Wall letter, he expresses religious sentiment and asks for prayers. It’s obviously clear; it isn’t religious expression they are worried about. The choice of phrase is important, “separation of church and state”. Jefferson doesn’t say separation of religion and state. He is talking about institutionalseparation. Ireland’s official church is the Roman Catholic Church, as is Poland’s. In England, it’s the Church of England. These aren’t religions in general but specific religious institutions. No nation has “Christianity” as the official state religion for a very good reason. The reason is that there’s about 50,000-some odd flavors that run the gamut from the Mormons to the Unitarians. Some Christians say Jesus established a hierarchical church, others say he was a social activist, still others say he was an anarchist. Saying Christianity is the official state religion would border on effective meaninglessness. It wasn’t the ideas that the Founders were afraid of which is why they were perfectly free praying together and expressing religious sentiment in public documents and speeches. Institutional corruption and tyranny were their concerns. The results of institutional mingling of churches and governments are quite clear in history and it hasn’t been beneficial for the state or the church. However, this is a far cry from divining an intent that projects the idea that “religion is all that’s wrong with the world” upon the Founders. There was a camp among the Founders who believed that a free society required a religious people and yet still continued to allow free association between the various churches. However, the crowd pushing separation most vigorously also is the crowd that’s trying to regulate certain religious beliefs out of existence. Pharmacists aren’t allowed to express their religious sentiments about abortion and retain their jobs. The argument is that they shouldn’t take the job if they don’t follow a pre-defined ethical construct approved by the government. Catholic hospitals are consistently fighting attempts to force them to provide abortions despite their clear religious teaching. Catholic Charities in California are required to recognize “gay marriage” despite their own beliefs. Schoolchildren (a.k.a. individual citizens not to be confused with government officials) are told that they aren’t allowed to pray or have Bible studies on school property. In one case, school children were threatened with federal prison if they dared utter a prayer on their own volition during a graduation ceremony. The IRS has investigated churches for preaching against abortion. In short, the wall of separation is growing to enforce a certain religious orthodoxy and not protect the free expression of religion that was also mentioned in the First Amendment. The irony of setting up such a system where beliefs are regulated to some level of appropriate orthodoxy on issues such as abortion is that the sword cuts both ways, depending on the whims of government. When right-wing churches complained about IRS harassment, the left-wing told them to stop talking about abortion instead. However, when an anti-war sermon brought the IRS, the left-wing cried foul. The problem with state regulation of religion is that its regulation will serve its own interests, usually on sale to the highest bidder. The Founders were rightly concerned about this abuse, which is why in the same breath of saying the State should establish no official religion; it should also in no way restrict reasonable expressions of religion. Contrary to the opinion of some, the First Amendment doesn’t require regulating religion into hiding; it requires that church and state remain institutionally separate. The mere expression of the word “God” in a speech does not a theocracy make. Article Author: John Bambenek John Bambenek is a freelance columnist and author. He is the author of Illinois Deserves Better and is an information security professional, part of the Internet Storm Center and a courseware author and certification grader for the GIAC family of security certifications. … Visit John Bambenek's author page — John Bambenek's Blog

PRESIDENT OBAMA SHELLS A WHOPPING $100 BILLION TO THE UNITED NATIONS

THE NATIONAL DEBT REACHES $13.6 TRILLION!!!

THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINES GROW!!

WHAT, BARACK WORRY??? by

Paul L. Williams, Ph.D.

The U. S. State Department today announced that the Obama Administration has agreed to contribute $4 billion to the United Nations Global Fund to fight AIDs, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from 2011 to 2013. The $4 billion represents a 38% increase over the previous U.S. commitment to the fund. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that a total of $11.7 billion has been raised from 40 countries, the European Commission, faith-based organizations, private foundations, and various corporations. This means that over one-third of the money will come from the pockets of US taxpayers.  Oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and the United Arab Emirates contribute next to nothing, and China, which holds most of the US $14 trillion debt, agreed to provide a measly $14 million. In addition to the annual gift of $1.33 billion to the Global Fund, President Obama has agreed to provide billions more for UN projects. These allocations are set forth in a 28 page document as follows: 

• Funnel $63 billion to the Global Health Initiative during the next six years 
• Make $1 billion annually to education programs 
• Give $475 million to the Global Agricultural and Food Security Program’ 
• Provide $800 million from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and North Africa. An additional $3.2 billion will be provided by private equity capital sources to these Muslim nations 
• Shell out millions more available through USAID for developing tech hubs in Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, South Africa, and Senegal. 
• Dole out $80 million through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for small to medium enterprises in the Middle East and North Africa. 
• Cough up $2.5 billion annually to 90 countries to “strengthen governance and democratic institutions.” 
• Make available $30 billion through the Obama’s Climate Change Initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, $100 billion a year will be provided through taxpayer and private resources to deal with the alleged threat of global climate change. 

The United States is assessed at 22% of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27% for U.N. the peacekeeping budget. Mr. Obama has requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget for 2011. The United States is also assessed for numerous other United Nations organizations as well. More than $6.347 billion went to U.N. organizations in FY 2009.    The United States also provides money to the U.N. through the State Department, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies. Andrea Lafferty of The Traditional Values Coalition writes: “The U.S. taxpayer is forced to pay billions to an inefficient organization run by world leaders who hate America and the free market system. This doesn’t make any sense – nor does our paying 22% of the cost to keep this bureaucracy alive when we have only one vote in the General Assembly.”    Several candidates have called for the U.S. to sever its relationship with the United Nations. The list includes Dennis Ross, a Republican candidate for Congress from the 12th Congressional District of Florida, In a statement to The New American, Mr. Ross said: An organization that allows nations like Iran and Libya to chair committees dedicated to human and women’s rights makes a mockery of both. The UN, like any bureaucracy, must constantly be evaluated and put to the test, and if found lacking, be dismantled.    I believe the US government is perfectly capable of conducting bilateral and multilateral relations with other nations on our own. Despots, human rights violators, and tyrants should be confronted, not congratulated. Such concerns over the U.S. involvement with the UN are not new.    Senator Barry Goldwater was quoted in 1971 by the Congressional Record as saying: The time has come to recognize the U.N. for the anti-American, anti-freedom organization that it has become. The time has come for us to cut off all financial help, withdraw as a member, and ask the U.N. to find a headquarters location outside the United States that is more in keeping with the philosophy of the majority of voting members, someplace like Moscow or Peking.

To Learn, To Do, To Be

The following is from a General Conference Address given by President Thomas S. Monson, Nov. 2008.

Many areas of the world have experienced difficult economic times. Businesses have failed, jobs have been lost, and investments have been jeopardized. We must make certain that those for whom we share responsibility do not go hungry or unclothed or unsheltered. When the priesthood of this Church works together as one in meeting these vexing conditions, near miracles take place.

We urge all Latter-day Saints to be prudent in their planning, to be conservative in their living, and to avoid excessive or unnecessary debt. The financial affairs of the Church are being managed in this manner, for we are aware that your tithing and other contributions have not come without sacrifice and are sacred funds.

Let us make our homes sanctuaries of righteousness, places of prayer, and abodes of love that we might merit the blessings that can come only from our Heavenly Father. We need His guidance in our daily lives. In this vast throng are priesthood power and the capacity to reach out and share the glorious gospel with others. As has been mentioned, we have the hands to lift others from complacency and inactivity. We have the hearts to serve faithfully in our priesthood callings and thereby inspire others to walk on higher ground and to avoid the swamps of sin which threaten to engulf so many. The worth of souls is indeed great in the sight of God.

Ours is the precious privilege, armed with this knowledge, to make a difference in the lives of others. The words found in Ezekiel could well pertain to all of us who follow the Savior in this sacred work: “A new heart … will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you. … “And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. “And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.” How might we merit this promise? What will qualify us to receive this blessing? Is there a guide to follow?

May I suggest three imperatives for our consideration. They apply to the deacon as well as to the high priest. They are within our reach. A kind Heavenly Father will help us in our quest.

First, learn what we should learn.

Second, do what we should do.

And third, be what we should be.

October 8, 2010

Thank you to my friends at http://watchglennbeck.com for providing a link to the show. This is from Glenn's show on 08 October 2010. The feature that includes parts of my letter starts at 4:06. Worth the watch! I was honored to be included with others whose stories far outweigh mine but together we all have one purpose, and that is to put God back in the Country.

What is the “Tea Party”?

What is the “Tea Party”? Click here to vie the article




Click the picture to go to the national Tea Party Site