Thread: WILL THE FOG OVER AMERICA EVER LIFT?

WILL THE FOG OVER AMERICA EVER LIFT?

By Coach Dave Daubenmire
September 11, 2014
NewsWithViews.com

Americans are in a fog. I don't have any other way of explaining what is going on. For the most part, otherwise sensible thinking people cannot put two and two together and come up with four.

They are in a fog; as if the sky was raining down marijuana smoke on us. Pot smokers call it being “stoned”, and “stoners” is the term they use to describe those who live in a constant pot-induced haze. Has there ever been a time in America when “common sense” was so uncommon?

I'm telling you, it is as if all America is living in a Purple Haze. Jimi Hendrix made that phrase popular back in the 60's when referring to the drugged condition that caused users to live in a fog. LSD guru Timothy Leary promoted the condition as “turn on, tune in, and drop out.”

It reminds me of the old saw about a man on the street interview where the interviewer asked a young man what the two biggest problems facing this nation were. “I don't know and I don't care” was his honest response.

Unfortunately, these are still the two biggest problems facing America. God-fearing Americans, in particular, are living in an apathetic haze. Confusion reigns. Satan is the author of confusion. At no time in my lifetime have so many cared so little about so much. Or perhaps it would be best to phrase it this way: at no time have they cared so much about so little. The only thing they care about is what they care about. But what they choose to care about is so insignificant to what really matters.

Will the fog ever lift?

I have been hitting the Tea Party circuit recently as an invited speaker. God has gifted me with the ability to speak what should be the obvious in a way that can be easily understood. I had another such event last night.

The Tea Party is made up, for the most part, of what I call the gray-hair brigade. They are the group of rapidly aging Baby-Boomers who were drawn into the political battle mainly out of fear of losing their retirement and pension income.

These are the children of the “Greatest Generation” who spent some of the best years of their lives turning on, tuning in, and dropping out. But now that their minds have begun to clear and they can see the sun setting on their lives, they understand what we are allowing to be frittered away.

But the sad truth is that for much of their lives they were only focused on themselves and the ones they loved. They bought into the lie, as we all did, that “if it feels good, do it.” And they did. But now, as they shuffle into the twilight of their days, they realize that much of what they invested their lives into, has stolen the hope of their “golden years.” The “eat, drink, and be merry” approach to life they were encouraged to live has left them facing a future full of hunger, thirst, and anxiety.

One particularly concerned granny approached me after my talk last night and asked me in desperation, “Coach, what will it take to awaken people? It is as if everyone is asleep.”

Turn on, tune in, and drop out. Apathy has consequences.

What if God is the one doing it? What if God is the one who is allowing the “spiritual” haze to shroud the people? What if the “I don't know and I don't care” attitude is a judgment of God on America?

“...because they received not the love of the truth that might all be saved. And for this cause God will send them strong delusion that they will believe a lie; That they all might be damned who believe no the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess 2:10-12

Americans love lies. Hear no evil. See no evil. Speak no evil. The truth makes us uncomfortable. Lies make us feel good. We have been deluded.

Look around and you'll see what I mean. Just have a conversation with the average Christian.

What should we do about the slaughter of unborn children? What should we do about the lawlessness of our government? What should we do about the looming financial crisis that is right around the corner? What should we do about the assault on Christian speech in America? What should we do about the radical homosexual agenda and the indoctrination of our children in our schools? What should we do about the slaughter of our Christian brothers in the Middle East?

What, me worry? I don't know and I don't care. Jesus has it all under control.

The judgment of God is upon America, my friends. The judgment isn't coming, it’s already here. Need evidence? Millions of Evangelicals don't even vote. Those that do, think you are in the will of God when you elect Satan's seed to positions of authority. They can't even see their own folly.

It’s time for you to become a truth-teller. Shake off the yoke of political correctness, because truth is the only thing that will clear the haze.

Let me conclude with a few simple questions directed especially at Believers.

If you see evil flourishing are you called to oppose it or accept it? If someone is lying to your children are you to oppose it or pay for it? Silence is consent.

Some Christians believe that God is going to pull us out of here BEFORE the SHTF (Stuff Hits The Fan). Like a good parent, He is going to come and clean up the mess that we have made in our nation. Despite all of the warnings in scripture, we have not been moved to action. All of the end-time prophecies should spur us to action, not cause us to sit on our butts like a Jimi Hendrix inspired stoner.

Is it possible that the truth is about to hit America smack in the face? Is it possible that the calamity you thought you would never see is at our door? Is it possible that God will hold us to account for our apathy towards evil? Is it possible that our grand-kids are destined to live in bondage?

Oh…I understand. You don't know and you don't care as long as there is peace in our time.

Will the fog ever lift? Only the truth can set us free.

Check us out today: www.newswithviews.tv

WARNING. NewsWithViews.tv may be change the way you think.

© 2014 Dave Daubenmire - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article


http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave386.htm

Wednesday, 10 September 2014 11:30

America: Land of the Free?

Written by Charles Scaliger




One hundred seventy years ago, Europe was a continent in ferment. Dissatisfied with the feudal/monarchical system that had sustained most of the continent since the collapse of the Roman Empire, many European intellectuals and agitators wanted to completely overturn the old order. The French Revolution had spawned many imitators, and a number of movements, known collectively as “socialists,” worked to sow unrest and urge their fellow Europeans toward revolution. The most extreme of these was the “scientific socialism” of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and a circle of leftist intellectuals and malcontents who called themselves the League of the Just. In seeking to differentiate themselves from the many brands of “Utopian socialism” then in vogue, Marx and his collaborators eventually hit on a new name for their program: communism. Before long, the term was on the lips of every informed European, and young Karl Marx soon produced a statement of the communist ideology, the Communist Manifesto.

The Communist Manifesto, a brief and very accessible piece of political pamphleteering, was once required reading in high-school civics classes across the land — in a day when many of its claims still had the power to shock. But nowadays, the Manifesto is seldom read except by political science majors. The reason for this is not hard to discern: The Communist Manifesto, indisputably one of the most influential pieces of writing ever produced, no longer offends or surprises, because nearly all of its philosophical underpinnings have been accepted, and nearly all of its program adopted, in whole or in part, in the formerly free nations of the West, including the United States.

Profession of Faith
The Manifesto was published in 1848, a time of social upheaval across Europe (1848 was Europe’s famous “year of revolutions,” which saw socialist uprisings in dozens of states large and small, including the many Italian states, France, Ireland, the Hapsburg Empire, Poland, the German states, Denmark, western Ukraine, Switzerland, and Belgium). Monarchies, including the Capetian dynasty in France, were overthrown, and other reforms that allegedly broke with Europe’s feudal, aristocratic past were instituted. But it was not so much against the entrenched political elites that the Communist Manifesto was directed; instead, it aimed to abolish the “bourgeoisie,” the rough equivalents of the entrepreneurial and mercantile classes that constituted Europe’s budding capitalist classes, whom Marx termed “the middle class owner[s] of property.” These were the men who had brought about the Industrial Revolution, with its exquisite division of labor and productive factories and mills, as well as the shopkeepers, merchants, and traders who found markets for the fruits of Europe’s miraculous new productivity. They were also the people and corporations who fomented international trade, beginning the process of enriching and improving the lot of the entire human race through such trade — a process that continues apace in our day, with Western modes of manufacture and capital accumulation now being spread to the nations of Asia and Africa. The Manifesto rejected all of these things, proclaiming instead the ascendancy of the so-called working class, and railing against the material blessings of what Marx termed capitalism. In an age of optimism, prosperity, and relative freedom — at least, in contrast with what Europe had known for centuries — the Manifesto’s ranting pessimism did not sit well with many enlightened minds.
Marx’s central talking point, the need to abolish private property, had little appeal in a Europe and America where private property had formed the base for the greatest surge of economic growth the world had ever seen. Inequalities in ownership there were, and remain, but the critical right to own and control property (including one’s own person) is the legal doctrine upon which a free-market economy is founded. It allows men to take ownership of their lives and work to improve their situation, instead of expecting masters to provide for them. Private property, in other words, is one of the most important discoveries of Western Civilization, and is the basis for the progress we have enjoyed for five centuries.
The 19th century, though it did not aspire to medieval levels of piety, was still an age of faith (at least relative to the 21st) when even the brightest skeptics were reluctant to embrace atheism (the great French mathematician and physicist Pierre Simon Laplace, when asked whether he believed in God, replied coyly that he had “had no need of that hypothesis” in his work). But Marx’s Manifesto raged against God and religion, assuring his readers that a future communist order would eradicate them altogether.

If such talking points were shocking to most mid-19th-century readers, they are no longer. In our day, Christianity has become all but extinct in many parts of Europe, and not only in former redoubts of Soviet Communism. For while atheism was official policy in nearly all of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union (and remains so today in Communist China, Cuba, and North Korea) — a policy that effectively secularized countries from Central Europe to the Asian Far East — the former and current communist regimes in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere are little less secular than those European nations that were not drawn into the communist sphere. While many recent surveys have attempted to gauge the degree of religiosity in European countries, with somewhat varying results, the overall picture is stunning: Irreligiosity and outright atheism are close to becoming the norm across much of formerly Christian Europe. For example, according to a 2010 Eurobarometer poll, as many as 34 percent of all Swedes, 37 percent of Czechs, and 40 percent of French do not believe “there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force.” The same poll reported that 30 percent of Dutch, 27 percent of Belgians, 29 percent of Estonians, 25 percent of residents of the U.K., and 20 percent of the EU overall, believed likewise.

Outside of Europe, other modern “Western” countries show similar trends, with Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay (three of South America’s four most-developed countries) reporting rates of irreligiosity or outright atheism of 25, 11, and 17 percent, respectively. Results in Canada vary, but rates of atheism north of the border have been reckoned at anywhere from a quarter to a third of the population. In the United States, the picture is not quite so bleak, with slightly less than 10 percent of Americans self-identifying as atheists, although around 20 percent have no religious affiliation as such. Still, for the billions of residents of Europe, East Asia, North America north of Mexico, the wealthier nations of South America, Australia, and New Zealand, godlessness has become mainstream.

Urged on by articulate advocates such as biologist Richard Dawkins, who have used the Internet to amplify their message, atheism is on ever surer footing in the United States and elsewhere, especially among the young, while traditional religiosity of every kind is routinely ridiculed in the media and marginalized by legislators and policymakers. Karl Marx, were he alive today, would no doubt be pleased.

Another part of Marx’s program was — and remains — abolition of the family. Marx saw the “bourgeois” institution of the family as indissolubly connected with capital and private property. When the latter disappeared, he argued, so would the former:
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
The decline of marriage and the traditional family is so universally acknowledged as to be almost cliché. Even as divorce rates have risen, the number of unmarried couples cohabiting and bearing children has skyrocketed across the Western world. The number of American children born out of wedlock is now higher than 40 percent, a figure that was in the single digits until the end of World War II. At the same time, the drive to legalize, legitimize, and make ubiquitous “same-sex marriage” is turning millennia-old Judeo-Christian culture on its ear. Similar trends are in evidence across the formerly Christian West, from Catholic Latin America to Orthodox Eastern Europe. And for those who, in Marx’s day or our own, protest the calculated destruction of the traditional family and the Judeo-Christian morality associated with it, the Manifesto, echoing modern secularists, dismisses their “disgusting” concerns as “bourgeois claptrap about the family [and] about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child.”

But the abolition of God, church, marriage, and family are, in Marx’s view, subordinate to the overarching goal of Marxism, the radical leveling of society by the elimination of private property and the middle class (the “bourgeoisie”). This Marx justified by claiming that, under bourgeois capitalism, private property was already a fiction for the proletariat or working classes:
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

Not only that, but the bourgeois conceit of “freedom” was nothing more than a justification for an unjust system of property rights:
The abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

While private property has not yet been altogether abolished, private property rights have become so diluted as to render almost meaningless once-robust legal protections on the formerly sacrosanct private sector. From confiscatory taxes on income, property, and capital and corporate gains, to ever-expanding regulatory regimes controlling every conceivable aspect of commercial activity and property use, the modern world has become, for the most part, implacably hostile to the principles of laissez-faire economics that once inspired Western governments to deregulate commerce and broaden property rights. That Americans have not yet been herded into full-blown Soviet-style kolkhozes is hardly the issue; American farms are already largely collectivized in the name of environmental and occupational safety, government control of farm prices and food supplies, and countless other ration*ales. To the extent that they still operate on American soil, factories and corporations are already owned by the state in that they pay the highest corporate taxes in the Western world and are subject to constant oversight and control by a welter of government agencies on the lookout for the slightest perceived breach of politically correct etiquette or any whiff of what our government overlords can characterize as unfair competitive practices. The modern American workplace is literally papered with communist-style government edicts warning of the penalties for any unfair employment or workplace practices, for safety violations, or any of countless other crimes against the regulatory Nanny State. These types of things have become accepted because we cannot imagine a workplace in which, for example, we are not warned of the consequences of “unequal employment practices,” but such things are as much in the spirit of Marx’s program as they are antithetical to individual liberty and private property rights.

Planks to Build a Marxist Society
Marx’s Manifesto is more than just a screed, however. It sets forth 10 specific measures — often known informally as the “Ten Planks of Communism” — for bringing about communism. In our day, these “planks” no longer appear radical to most, because all but one of them have now been implemented, in whole or in part, by the United States of America. The “Ten Planks” are:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy, progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of *inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Plank #1 we have already discussed. While property taxes have long been a feature of American law, current levels found in many parts of the United States have not. According to the Tax Foundation, the heavily populated states of New York and New Jersey have the highest property taxes in the United States. An average resident of Westchester County, New York, for example, paid $9,044 in property taxes in 2009 — the highest in the country. Many other counties in the urban northeast were not far behind, however, with Nassau County, New York, exacting an annual tribute of $8,940 and Bergen County, New Jersey (where this writer’s ancestors first settled in the mid-1600s to find freedom from religious oppression in Holland) shaking down property owners to the tune of $8,708. Overall, New Jersey has the highest median property taxes ($6,579), followed by Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Illinois, Vermont, Wisconsin, and California ($2,893).
Added to such impositions are the innumerable federal, state, and local regulations controlling everything from excavating a new pond, building a treehouse for children, and repairing a porch roof. Permits for even mundane house repairs and upgrades have become so routine that few Americans can now imagine a time when a homeowner, contemplating the need for a new patio, would simply build it, or wanting to construct a clubhouse or treehouse for his children and their friends, would take no thought except to purchase the lumber and nails. Treehouses and clubhouses are among the many by-products of private property rights that have all but disappeared from American neighborhoods, because, in most places, they are no longer legal in a nation where private property rights have become a fiction.

Plank #2, a heavy, progressive income tax, has been with us since 1913. Originally urged upon Congress and the American people as a new and innovative way to raise revenue for necessary state functions, the permanent, heavy, graduated income tax was originally inspired by communist and socialist theorists such as Marx as a handy tool for wealth confiscation and redistribution. And the income tax, enforced by the authoritarian and almost unaccountable IRS (and its counterparts in other Western countries), has lived up to Marx’s expectations, subjecting Americans to inquisitorial annual or quarterly tax returns that are scrutinized by agents unrestrained by any legal presumption of innocence. The IRS and the income tax have ruined the lives of countless Americans and continue to make the month of April a time of fear and loathing, especially for the most productive and heavily-taxed among us. As no doubt intended, income tax levies are most onerous for those who choose to be self-employed, since the FICA exaction is double what an employee is required to pay. This has had the effect of encouraging more and more Americans to seek employment with large corporations or in the public sector rather than to start their own businesses. And for many plucky entrepreneurs who do persist in being self-employed, being in permanent debt to the IRS is a fact of life.

Planks #3 and #4 are likewise being carried out via heavy taxation. While the right of inheritance has not been abolished outright, the confiscatory levels of state and federal inheritance taxes on estates of any significant size are having a comparable effect. The first permanent federal estate tax (better known colloquially as the “death tax”) was instituted in 1916, just three years after the permanent income tax. In its original form, the estate tax law permitted the federal government to harvest a 10-percent impost on all estates exceeding $50,000. Subsequent legislation extended taxation to gifts, so that wealthy estate holders could not avoid taxes by giving away their assets before death. As of 2011, federal estate taxes were levied on all estates valued at $1,000,000 or more, with a mind-boggling maximum rate of 55 percent, while a paltry $11,000 per year is subject to exclusion from the gift tax. This means, in principle, that the federal government now has the power to confiscate more than one-half of all the property of wealthy decedents. This has created a strong disincentive for the wealthy and successful to save money and other capital assets (the true basis for economic growth, as every free market economist understands), and strong incentives to spend their wealth (in keeping with the Keynesian bias for spending over saving).
The confiscation of the property of emigrants is being accomplished by heavy “expatriation taxes” now inflicted on any American who seeks to renounce his American citizenship and transfer his assets abroad. Current U.S. law imposes very heavy exactions on any American with assets of $2 million or more who seeks expatriation.
The confiscation of the property of “rebels” has taken the form of applying noxious “asset forfeiture” laws — whereby the federal government has the power to seize assets from anyone suspected of drug trafficking, money laundering, racketeering, and other criminal offenses — to individuals or institutions suspected of involvement with financing terrorism. In 2001, the Patriot Act spelled out sweeping new federal powers to confiscate money, real estate, and other assets from terrorist suspects and their enablers, including banks and other financial institutions. As with other types of asset forfeiture, such things once seized by the state are seldom if ever relinquished, even if charges are dropped or overturned. Moreover, the definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist-related activities” are sufficiently nebulous that, in the near future, it is not at all improbable that such provisions will be used to confiscate the property of people labeled as “anti-government” — the Newspeak version of “enemies of the state.”

Plank #5 was accomplished in full with the creation of the Federal Reserve, America’s central bank, which has enjoyed a monopoly over the money supply since December 1913. The Fed, along with other comparable central banks abroad, such as the Bank of England and the European Central Bank, is arguably the most powerful tool for central economic planning and wealth redistribution ever devised. Since the economic collapse of 2008, for example (a catastrophe encouraged by Fed policies), the Federal Reserve has presided over the largest transfer of wealth in human history, from the more than 99 percent of Americans who do not own controlling interests in the megabanks and other financial corporations that constitute the Fed’s “primary dealers” into the pockets of the few thousand oligarchs who do. That such a consummate tool of revolutionary Marxism should now be hailed as the very linchpin of the entire U.S. “free market” economy is without doubt one of the supreme ironies of our age.
Not many years ago, few Americans aside from economists and bankers had any notion of what the Federal Reserve is or how it works, and fewer still appreciated the threat it poses. Nowadays, things have changed, with popular and congressional awareness of the Fed and anger over its destructive activities at an all-time high. Thanks to the tireless labors of former congressman Ron Paul to expose the Fed for what it is, bills to audit the Fed and curtail its powers are now a fixture in the House, and criticism of the organization is par for the course in congressional debate and in the mainstream news media. While abolition of the Fed does not appear imminent, it is under scrutiny and on the defensive as never before.

Plank #6 has been mostly accomplished as well, at least as far as the mainstream media are concerned. However, with the arrival of the Internet (ironically, a government creation), it has become much more difficult for the American establishment to “control the narrative,” so to speak. The Internet has made possible many things that were once unthinkable, such as the diffusion of the doctrines of liberty and the disclosure of news that the government-controlled media ignore or actively try to stifle.
Of course, lest we forget, the U.S. government retains the power to shut down the Internet should it become too much of a threat. The Internet has also become an instrument of comprehensive and essentially unchecked state surveillance. As we have but lately found out, no e-mail is sent unremarked, no Facebook post unnoticed, and no forum posting truly anonymous in a day when the federal government no longer acknowledges any restraints on its authority to spy on its own citizens. And other media are just as surely under the federal government’s thumb, with television, radio, telephone, and cable networks all under government control, if not outright ownership (yet). Since 1934, the FCC has tightly regulated all forms of electronic media, allegedly to ensure that use of the airwaves was equitably allocated. But in 2006, the FCC dispelled any doubts about whose interests it truly serves when it declined to investigate allegations (later revealed to be true) that the NSA had been compelling telecommunications corporations to assist them in illegal espionage on American citizens.
But in the meantime, Americans still enjoy the freedom of the press, and nearly unfettered access to the great writings of all ages that constitute our heritage. The Internet continues to be exploited by the private sector to magnificent effect, bringing about marvelous new means to buy and sell products, to create and maintain social and professional networks, and to store, disseminate, and access information.

Planks #7 and #9 have been implemented piecemeal since the late 19th century, when the newly formed Department of Agriculture (USDA) began subsidizing farming and farm research. Beginning with the Great Depression and FDR’s New Deal, the USDA became one of the federal government’s most important instruments for promoting socialism via massive farm subsidies, price controls, and manipulation of commodity supplies. Today, nearly all commercial farmers accept government subsidies in exchange for government control over their fields and their harvests. Moreover, ranchers in the West must graze their cattle on federal lands, subject to federal rules and regulations that, over the last several decades, have been directed at driving cattle off government lands altogether and putting an end to ranching in the name of environmental concerns. For all intents and purposes, then, both ranching and farming is altogether under the micromanagerial control of the federal government’s social engineers, just as Marx had advocated.
Moreover, the distinction between country and city has been blurred by the creation of vast sprawling suburbs made possible by massive freeways (the interstate highway system) created by the federal government under President Eisenhower. The rise of the “burbs” and the people who live in them (while mostly working in the city) has contributed to the dilution of rural and small town America and its distinctive culture by city values. Big cities generally have been centers of government growth (New York City passed the first modern American gun control law, the Sullivan Act, in 1911, for example, generations before such legislation could ever be contemplated in more rural areas), because with the much larger concentrations of people living in cities, the demands for government dispute mediation and controls are correspondingly greater. For this and other reasons, city dwellers tend to be much more “liberal” than their rural counterparts; would-be social engineers within government are therefore constantly trying to impose urban values and lifestyles on rural and small-town America, which has always been instinctively hostile to Big Government.

Plank #10 has been fully realized for generations. Government schools have been around since the 19th century, and since the creation of the Department of Education by President Jimmy Carter, all public schools have effectively been under federal government control. The implementation of national curricular standards often hostile to traditional values and tried-and-true methods of effective pedagogy — such as the controversial Common Core being foisted upon public schools right now — shows just how important government control over education is to carrying out the social revolution Marx and his epigones advocate. It is public schools whose anti-American curricula now militate against religion (especially Christianity), family values, and sexual restraint, and which regularly distort American history and slander many of our noble forebears, such as the Founders, whose views do not square with the agenda of messianic Marxism. American public schools have been at the vanguard of the effort to indoctrinate Americans in the beliefs of the Marxist counterculture.
Fortunately, Americans still have options for educating their children. Private and online schools offer a range of alternatives to public school, and homeschooling, once illegal across the land, is now legal in all 50 states. Many homeschooling families can now take advantage of online education programs such as FreedomProject Education, whose online student body numbers nearly 600 after only a few years of operation. And government-sponsored initiatives to consolidate control over public school curricula, especially Common Core, have been met with strong resistance from a public finally awakened to the fact that our school system is slipping from our control.
Even the child-labor legislation contemplated by the 10th plank has long since become the law of the land, in many cases preventing responsible young adults from entering the workforce when they wish.
Only the eighth plank, with its call for industrial armies, has not been implemented in any significant degree, it being one of the final steps undertaken in the transition from socialism to unalloyed communism.

Retreat From the Marxist Rabbit Hole
In very many respects, American government and society are now aligned with the vision of the Communist Manifesto. Unlike the former Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, and other nations that can or could truly be characterized as communist, we have not reached the ultimate phase. Instead, we are in a transitional phase, which we might term “American socialism,” in which our political leaders pretend to uphold individual liberty, free markets and trade, and the rule of law, but do precisely the opposite. Like the many flavors of socialism that Marx identified near the conclusion of the Manifesto as ideological allies and necessary precursors to true communism (such as “German socialism,” “feudal socialism,” bourgeois socialism,” and “critical-Utopian socialism”), American socialism tries to subvert liberty and Christian culture via appeals to nationalism, patriotism, humanitarianism, and class equality — socialism wrapped in the American flag, as it were.
Appearances to the contrary, the consummation of the communist program in America is not inevitable. But nothing less than a veritable American Renaissance will prevent it. Such a national rebirth would entail a restoration of constitutional federal government, confining it to its limited, defined powers. It would mean a repudiation of destructive, nonsensical social innovations such as same-sex “marriage” and abortion on demand. It would require the abolition of the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and myriad other unconstitutional federal agencies and departments. And it would require a return to sound money and liquidation of the national debt by deep cuts in government spending. If these things do not soon come to pass, we may soon find out just how far our leaders are willing to take us down the Marxist rabbit hole.

Fortunately, Americans still have the means to reverse the trend toward Marxist absolutism. We still have the freedom to express and disseminate our political opinions and to practice our religious faith. The Internet has proven more powerful even than the printing press for making our voices heard and changing hearts and minds about liberty. Americans are still very well armed (unlike the countless captive millions who have endured Marxist totalitarianism), and, despite an energetic campaign by media and government in recent years to rethink our right to self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment, show more devotion than ever to this right — a powerful disincentive for would-be putschists in Washington, who have perhaps so far refrained from imposing martial law, under one pretext or another, because they still fear the wrath of a well-armed citizenry. As perilous as our state has become, we do not yet reside in Stalinist Russia or modern North Korea.

But we must not be lulled into complacency. After all, few of the denizens of states where communists seized control imagined such a thing happening to them. And as Arthur Thompson, the CEO of The John Birch Society, notes, the government that a people has is a reflection of the attitudes that the people hold:

Government is always a reflection of society and will change as its society changes. The communists understand this better than anyone, and it is why they are working to change American society away from being based on morals and constructed around individual freedom. If this process should be successful, our government would follow. Civic as well as individual morality is important. If we lose a moral society, we will not be able to stop a communist style government. This is why Marx always called for social revolution.

Since the days of Marx and Engels, the drive toward communism has been orchestrated by men and women with subtlety, enormous patience, and a long-range plan. If we wish to restore freedom to our shores, we must be no less organized, dedicated, and zealous.

This article is an example of the exclusive content that's available only by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...a6a2-287785873

US Army Officer Denied Entry Into Daughter’s Michigan High School Because Uniform Might ‘Offend’ Muslim Students

http://ow.ly/BnwAz



US Army Officer Denied Entry Into Daughter’s Michigan High School Because Uniform Might ‘Offend’ Muslim Students - Sons of Liberty Media
ow.ly
US Army Officer Denied Entry Into Daughter’s Michigan High School Because Uniform Might ‘Offend’ Muslim Students


US Army Officer Denied Entry Into Daughter’s Michigan High School Because Uniform Might ‘Offend’ Muslim Students

Published on: September 11, 2014

Is this happening? Days before 9/11? Our finest men and women, our best and brightest, who defend our freedom and individual rights, who protect the homeland, are shunned, banned from …… public school.
We. Are. Done. Unless there is some kind of revolution to overthrow the haters.
Whoever enforced this treasonous ban should fired immediately, and school parents should march on this school in Michigan. I would go to such a protest, and urge my readers to go as well.
Enough. Any parent who sends his or her children to public school is delivering them into the clutches of the enemy. Homeschool. Homeschool. Homeschool.

Army officer denied entry into daughter’s school because uniform might ‘offend’ students
By Douglas Ernst – The Washington Times – Wednesday, September 10, 2014
A U.S. Army officer from Rochester, Michigan, was denied entry into his daughter’s high school by four members of its security staff, told that his uniform might “offend” some students.
“Before he was allowed in, the security guard stopped him and said sorry you’re not allowed in the school. Security told him men and women in uniform weren’t allowed because it may offend another student,” Lt. Col. Sherwood Baker’s wife, Rachel, told a local Fox affiliate.
Col. Baker was on his way to see his daughter’s counselor regarding her class schedule when the incident occurred.
“I can’t even believe they would think like that after all [soldiers] do for our country,” Jim Reynolds, a local resident, told the station.
Rochester Schools Superintendent Robert Shaner, who is also a veteran, sent a letter to the Fox affiliate apologizing for incident.
Mr. Shaner’s statement read: “The district has apologized for any perception that individuals in uniform are not welcome in the school. The district does not have a policy excluding individuals in uniform and will be working with administration and the firm that handles our security to make sure district policies are understood and communicated accurately.”

Source
Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books
Don't forget to Like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2014/09/us-army-officer-denied-entry-daughters-michigan-high-school-uniform-might-offend-muslim-students/

This offends me and these people who stopped this soldier from entering the school needs a public apology, where is the Fergerson out cry here!!!!




ALSO

Ordered To Remove ‘Dont Tread On Me’ Flag, Violating 1st Amendment

http://libertycrier.com/business-own...1st-amendment/





Liberty Crier's photos

Business Owner Says City Ordered To Remove ‘Dont Tread On Me’ Flag, Violating 1st Amendment

September 11, 2014


OCALA, Florida. —The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of the owners of a Florida sporting goods store who were ordered by Ocala, Fla., officials to remove a Gadsden flag, also known as a “Dont Tread On Me” flag, displayed in front of their store. Rutherford Institute attorneys are insisting that the City renounce its order to remove the flag, pointing out that the City’s threat to prosecute small-business owners Keith and Hannah Greenberg for flying the flag in front of The Gear Barrel as well as its flag ordinances constitute content-based restrictions on speech that patently violate the Greenbergs’ fundamental right to freedom of speech.

Under the City’s ordinances, display of the flags of the United States and State of Florida is allowed, but other flags are prohibited. The federal appeals court for Florida has previously held that laws allowing only governmental flags to be displayed are content-based regulations of speech that violate the First Amendment.
“What we’re seeing is the criminalization of free speech, manifested in incidents where the government attempts to censor speech that is controversial, politically incorrect or unpopular,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “Under the First Amendment, the government has no authority to pick and choose what type of speech it approves.”
Keith and Hannah Greenberg lease property on Northeast 3^rd Street in Ocala, Fla., and operate The Gear Barrel, a sporting goods store. In July 2014, the Greenbergs hung on a pole outside their store the so-called “Gadsden Flag,” which depicts a yellow field bearing the image of a coiled snake and the words “Dont Tread on Me.”

The Gadsden Flag was designed and used during the Revolutionary War and has been adopted recently as a popular symbol of discontent with the government. In September 2014, the Greenbergs received a letter from the City informing them that their property was in violation of the City’s sign ordinances and demanding that they cure the violation. Believing the notice related to another display at the property, the Greenbergs removed that display and Keith Greenberg called the City’s Code Enforcement Officer to advise him that the display had been removed. At that time, the Code Enforcement Officer told Keith that the outside display of the Gadsden Flag was also prohibited and that flag must also be removed. Keith also was told that flying a United States flag was not prohibited. Keith told the officer his liberty entitled him to fly the Gadsden Flag and he would not remove the flag. Thereafter, the City sent a Notice of Violation to the Greenbergs and their landlord demanding removal of the flag and informing them that they could be fined up to $500 per day for repeat violations. After consulting with their landlord, the Greenbergs removed the flag from outside the store in order to avoid the steep penalties threatened by the City.

In coming to the defense of the Greenbergs, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute are demanding that the City’s threat to prosecute the couple be withdrawn. Institute attorneys also point out that the provisions of the City’s ordinances allowing only governmental and religious flags is patently in violation of the First Amendment because speech is permitted on the basis of the content of the speech. Whitehead cites a 1993 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruling an ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, unconstitutional for restricting all flags except governmental flags.
Legal Action

The Rutherford Institute’s letter to City of Ocala officials is available here.

Press Contact
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
(434) 466-6168 (cell)
nisha@rutherford.org


video at link below

http://www.mygtn.tv/global/video.asp...lipId=10566569

Read more at http://libertycrier.com/business-own...ma5M7rJKqZD.99





A wake yet America???? These are atrocities and they deeply offend this country, our way of life, and every true American... We must never let it stand...Fire them all they don't work for us...Those who allow it are traitors to our Country.

Agenda 21 Simplified: The Eradication of Private Property Rights
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/ag...operty-rights/


Agenda 21 Simplified: The Eradication of Private Property Rights - Freedom Outpost
freedomoutpost.com
Agenda 21 Simplified: The Eradication of Private Property Rights




Agenda 21 Simplified: The Eradication of Private Property Rights

David Risselada 4 hours ago

More and more people are awakening to the reality of U.N. Agenda 21, and here at "For Truths Sake," we are trying to the best of our ability to show you exactly what Agenda 21 is. It's a very complex subject that involves many different "agendas" in fact, and they all revolve around securing a one world government headed by the United Nations. To write one conclusive piece of the entirety of Agenda 21 would be an exhaustive effort even for the most dedicated writers. So what we decided to do was to highlight actual events in the U.S. and tie them back to the U.N. agenda showing you the actual source. For instance, today Dr. Fred wrote a piece on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which is actually an initiative being governed by the U.N. which attempts to portray the U.S. as a racist nation for the purpose of allowing themselves the opportunity to assert control and eliminate our sovereignty.

Agenda 21 is actually another term for "sustainable development," which originated at the Earth Summit in Rio back in 1992. The whole premise of Agenda 21 is based on the belief that the world's industrial powers are destroying the environment by causing "global warming" and only by radically altering the way we live can the planet be saved from our destructive selves. The aim is to eliminate private property rights, remove man's footprint from the rural parts of the world and herd them into the cities, control populations, and force us to live under their rule by ensuring all nations are completely disarmed. Many will balk at this; however, as I said before we intend to resort right to the source of U.N. materials which are out there in plain sight for all to see. This way, the most we can be accused of is misinterpreting what we are reading.

Let's start with the recent attacks we have seen against private land ownership in the United States more specifically, the way our cities are rezoning the land we own and exercising more and more power over it. Communism has a long history of denying people the right to own private property, in fact, the Soviet Union removed all farmers from their land and forced them into stacked apartment complexes in the name of preserving the environment and collectivism. The United States constitution guarantees the rights of individuals to own property because property ownership is the very vehicle in which private wealth is created.

The U.N., and the rest of today's communists are attacking the rights of property ownership precisely for that reason. They believe that when individuals own property, the wealth created by doing so is used for selfish reasons that only benefit the property owner, and thus, owning property only contributes to the creation and sustainment of poverty. Let's look at an excerpt from the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements-
Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies.

To exercise such control effectively, public authorities require detailed knowledge of the current patterns of use and tenure of land; appropriate legislation defining the boundaries of individual rights and public interest; and suitable instruments for assessing the value of land and transferring to the community, inter alia through taxation, the unearned increment resulting from changes in use, or public investment or decision, or due to the general growth of the community.

The U.N. believes that land ownership contributes to "social injustice," in other words it is unfair that some people own vast amounts of land while others own little. In order to rectify this, they are going to control all the land, tax you for owning it and redistribute the resources in order to achieve social equality. While many of these objectives may sound good, there is no way that the government can ensure total equality for everyone, and every time it has been tried, these governments have found it necessary to murder millions in order to achieve it. Which brings me to my next point.
While, on one hand, they are claiming to make everything equal for all, on the other, they are doing something quite different. Many people who are following this topic have come to accept that the global elite are seeking to control the world's populations. This very document, the U.N. Conference on Settlements, addresses this by pointing out the problems of excessive population growth.

World population growth-trends which indicate that numbers of mankind in the next 25 years would double, thereby more than doubling the need for food, shelter and all other requirements for life and human dignity which are at the present inadequately met;
If today's food requirements for a population of seven billion people are inadequately met, how will they provide for a population of fourteen billion? Well according to Alex Newman from the New American the U.N. has a plan on how to deal with the exploding population growth in Kenya. They intend to inundate the women of that country with propaganda about reproductive health, abortion and family planning in an attempt to convince them of the need to have fewer children, to help them meet their population objectives for Kenya of course. Doesn't that sound like something you would hear from some of our own politicians? Could it be possible that they are attempting to use birth control and abortion as a means of population control here in the U.S.? I think we can all speculate on the answer to that question.

In my next article I will focus on a subject that strikes to the heart of Americans with a bit more severity, the disarmament of the United States and why it is imperative for the implementation of Agenda 21.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/agenda-21-simplified-eradication-private-property-rights/

'Kelly File' Debate: Dinesh D'Souza vs. Ward Churchill


by Fox News Insider // Sep 12 2014 // 10:20pm As seen on The Kelly File

Radical former professor Ward Churchill and conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza went head-to-head in a debate tonight on “The Kelly File.”

---

ICYMI: See more of Megyn's interview with Ward Churchill:
No Holds Barred: Megyn Kelly Confronts Professor Who Compared 9/11 Victims to Nazis
Ward Churchill: ‘U.S. By Its Own Rules Is Subject to Being Bombed’

---

Watch 2 video's at link below

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/09/12...ward-churchill

http://www.alipac.us/f19/rockefeller...7/#post1440314

It is not a fog. It is a CURSE in the form of homosexuality.