The Hegelian Dialectic & The Border Crisis

     I've got the beginnings of a picture forming in my mind, and I'm trying to fit all the puzzle pieces together.  It starts with the concept of the Hegelian Dialectic. If you're unfamiliar with this terminology, I'll try to explain it as simply as I can.  Named after Georg Hegel, an eighteenth-century philosopher, this theory has long been adopted by governments and ruling classes to manipulate their citizens into preconceived plans of action.
     I have seen it explained in this format:  PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION.  Look at this way; say a government has a Policy A that it wants to institute.  But they know that there is no way the majority of their citizens will ever accept or approve that policy.  So, they keep their plans under wraps: and instead the government creates Problem B, which is SO BIG (think terrorist event, mass shooting, killer virus) that it is covered night and day on every news outlet in the nation.  The news coverage manipulates and molds society's reaction and creates such disorder in the populace, that they clamor for the government to solve this manufactured problem, which ... surprise, surprise ... just happens to be Policy A that has been kept in the closet and can now be brought forth, and which is happily accepted by the deceived populace.
     Smarter people than me have attributed these major events to the Hegelian Dialectic:  WWI and WWII were manufactured by the bankers to bring them more power, and to establish the League of Nations, the United Nations, and the European Union.  In general, all the modern wars -- the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, etc.  -- have all been designed to increase defense spending, higher debt, and more poverty; and the world's elite bankers just keep getting richer.  And don't forget such manufactured events as the Energy Crisis, the Climate Crisis, and every nation's Economic Crisis ... all created from a preconceived agenda.
    So now that you should have a clearer picture of how the Hegelian Dialectic works, how does it fit in with the crisis on our southern border?  Remember, there has to be an agenda that the American people would never agree to in the beginning.  One possible plan is this: the elite in our government (that includes both parties) are all about power, and there are millions of illegal immigrants in this country that potentially represent a huge voting bloc that would guarantee that power.  However, the elite have been unable to sell the idea of complete Amnesty, no matter how hard they've tried.

     So what if they create the problem of thousands of homeless, immigrant children on the border and continuously cover the "humanitarian crisis" on the news?  Add to that the fears of rampant disease and possible terrorist infiltration.  Then create some further chaos by shipping busloads of these illegal immigrants to cities across the country.  Is that a big enough PROBLEM for you?
     Who could deny that they are getting the REACTION they want?  They need chaos, conflict, and hostility to grow if they are going to offer the SOLUTION that will satisfy the masses, but which is really what they wanted to accomplish in the first place.  The big question is this: what is the true agenda they are trying to accomplish, and how far are they willing to go?  Is it really a vast, new voting bloc to ensure power for the next several generations?  Or is it something even more threatening, such as instigating such turmoil and upheaval that our present system of government will need to be reconstructed?
     Just in case you think that my tin foil hat is screwed on a little too tight, I would like to point you to an article on SHTFPlan.com back in January of this year, and ask you the following questions:  Why in January of 2014 --- six months ago --- was FEMA seeking contractors who could supply medical biohazard disposal capabilities and 40 yard dumpsters to 1,000 tent hospitals across the United States; all required on 24-48 hour notice?  Why in October of 2013 -- nine months ago -- was the CDC soliciting 31,000 doses of pediatric flu vaccine?  During that same time period, FEMA requested over 100,000 winter and summer shirts and pants, tarps, and pre-fabricated housing units.
     There were all kinds of theories among the conspiratorial crowd, but perhaps the PROBLEM just had not come into view yet.  Perhaps what we saw in January was the pre-arrangement for the PROBLEM they were planning.  Could the Hegelian Dialectic be in play as we face this border crisis?  Can we, the people, avoid playing into the hands of the Elite? Can we solve this PROBLEM on our own, thereby defeating their pre-designed agenda?
     Honestly, they've been pretty successful so far ... it would take a miracle to defeat their plans.  But,  I just happen to believe in miracles and the power and authority of my God.  I cannot answer if He will foil the evil schemes in this spiritual war; I can only pray that He will guide us in His purpose and His will.  That's the best SOLUTION we've got.

Zechariah 8:17    "Don’t plan evil for each other. Don’t adore swearing falsely, for all of these are things that I hate, says the Lord."

A "Game-Changer" or An "Eliminator"?

     I hate that I am at the point of questioning every "good" report or research discovery that comes from the latest health/government/university study.  Now, claims that the heinous disease of Alzheimer's will be the new beneficiary of ground-breaking research once again leaves me wondering if we are being helped or hindered.
     Scientists and researchers from no less than the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization; Dr Simon Ridley, head of science at the charity Alzheimer's Research UK; US researchers at Harvard Medical School; and scientists at Columbia University are all supporting their findings that simple and regular eye tests could be used to identify Alzheimer's disease at a very early stage.

     In fact, the health editor at The Telegraph, writes that "early trials of two different techniques show that a key biomarker for the disease can be identified in the retina and lens of the eye.  Both methods were able to distinguish between healthy volunteers and those likely to be suffering from Alzheimer's patients with a high level of accuracy."  She goes on to say that, "Experts said the findings could be a “game changer” in treatment of the condition."  (I'm not real thrilled with that word "likely".  Are you?)
     And here's where my cynical little mind goes to work .... a US company called Cognoptix, Inc is involved in this research and supplied an ointment that provided a promising biomarker for the detection of beta amyloid proteins responsible for the formation of plaques in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients.  The co-founders of this company just happen to be the two doctors who identified the biomarkers, and I'm assuming, developed the ointment.  Furthermore, the Cognoptix, Inc. website says "Cognoptix is currently developing combined optical scanning devices and diagnostic agents based on these discoveries for clinical, commercial and academic research use. The company is actively forming and seeking new strategic alliances with pharma partners and academic institutes, while preparing its diagnostic platform for clinical use."  (My emphasis).
     Maybe I'm just a tad bit too suspicious, but a couple of red flags just popped up!  There have been quite a few indications that Big Pharma and Obamacare are willing bedfellows; among them the connections between Liz Fowler (the architect of the Affordable Care Act) and the nation’s largest health insurance provider Well Point.  She has also lent her considerable insider Washington influence and power to pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson.
     What would keep Big Pharma, and companies like Cognoptix, Inc and the government from colluding to identify potential Alzheimer's victims, and subsequently a) denying them health care coverage, or b) passing their names on to possible "death panels"?
     Shaun Frost, the Australian scientist/researcher who led the study, said, ""We envision this technology potentially as an initial screen that could complement what is currently used: brain PET imaging, MRI imaging, and clinical tests.  If further research shows that our initial findings are correct, it could potentially be delivered as part of an individual's regular eye check-up."  So now your eye exam can be used to add you to another "list".
     Having watched family members suffer from this awful disease, I welcome any medical advancements that would help to identify and treat this illness.  But even Cognoptix, Inc. admits that diagnosing the disease is a challenge and, to my knowledge, there has been no scientific or medical breakthrough for curing it.  So, it seems to me that the positive aspect of this latest study is that it offers the opportunity for early detection, and hopefully, would encompass attempts to slow down the progress of the disease.
     I guess the negative aspects depend on whether you trust the government, the health insurance companies and Big Pharma, who stand to make a lot of money on the application of any ointments or medical procedures.
     Like I said at the beginning of this post, skepticism has become the bane of my existence when it comes to any health procedure that the academics claim will "help" me.  I wish I could feel that their concern for humanity trumped their "strategic alliances" and greed for the Pharma dollar.

Psalm 101:3    "I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless. I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not cling to me."
   

A Win For Hobby Lobby & The Constitution!

     I sat, holding my breath yesterday morning, awaiting the decision from the Supreme Court on the most important case before the bench, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.  As you should know, the case was to determine whether the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) can exempt a company from federal government regulations requiring employers to provide contraceptive coverage to their female employees.
     In a 5-4 decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court gave a narrow ruling that "closely-held corporations" can't be forced to provide contraception.  Basically, the Court held that private, family-owned businesses can claim religious exemption to being forced to provide certain contraceptive measures that are designed to end the pregnancy of a fertilized egg; in effect, resulting in abortion.  Specifically, Hobby Lobby objected to four of the 20 contraceptive methods in the mandate; pills and devices that can work after conception, including morning after pills and IUDs.  Essentially, the Supreme Court has voted that our religious convictions matter, and corporations can have a religious viewpoint under federal law.
     I have to admit that tears spontaneously filled my eyes, as I looked heavenward and thanked God.  Perhaps He had heard and answered the collective prayers of Christians who asked that we not be forced to compromise our faith.  Of course, the skeptics will point out that it was a narrow victory; far from unanimous, and is not a clear mandate from either the Court or the populace.  They will argue that women, who wish to receive these methods of birth control, will be denied, and the government was only trying to require businesses to provide a health care option the women need.

     But Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote his own opinion, pointed out this mandate did not come from an elected body; not from Congress, or one of the three elected Branches of government; but from an unelected bureaucracy, namely from the Department of Health and Human Services.  He found it troubling that an unelected bureaucrat (at the time, Kathleen Sebelius) could set down such sweeping laws that effected the electorate.  That is clearly unConstitutional!
     I will admit that I'm a little confused about the dissenting opinion coming from Justice Ginsberg, who saw this as a gender equality issue in the workplace.  Already, opponents of the Court decision are misleading the public by saying that employers are exempt from providing all contraception methods.  In truth, only four of the twenty were excluded.  Then of course, we are hearing a montage of talking points on the injustice towards women, and how this is part of the continued "war on women."  But these arguments just don't hold water.
     The Court ruled that women who want these contraceptions are not banned from getting them; they have other ways to receive them, like buying them for themselves (as they had been doing for the 30 years before the Affordable Care Act).  Or if HHS was so concerned about the availability of free contraceptive methods, why didn't they pay for them?  (Of course, if the government paid for them, it would mean the American taxpayer would be footing the bill, right?)  In the end, the Court decided that this mandate intruded upon the "individual conscious" of Hobby Lobby's owners, and DID prohibit them from the "free exercise" of their religious beliefs, which is a violation of the First Amendment.  It gives me a small glimmer of hope that our national foundation of religious liberty is still holding strong.  Keep praying, America!

Joshua 24:15        "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
   

"This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land..."

     That familiar refrain may soon become the anthem of Westerners who are seeking to regain poorly managed lands under the care of the Federal government and the Bureau of Land Management.  Long displeased with the way the Feds have handled the operation of the lands, both environmentalists and ranchers are lodging complaints.
     According to The Christian Science Monitor, a group of environmentalists recently filed a notice of intent to sue the BLM for failing to report impacts to the desert tortoise and similarly threatened and endangered species from off-road vehicles, cattle grazing and other activities in California.

Federally controlled lands are in red.

      Meanwhile, for the last three or four decades, Western states have long argued that taking back control of parts of wide tracts of federal land means the land would be managed better, and their state  economies would improve.  In fact,  The Salt Lake Tribune reported last Friday that political leaders from nine Western states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal of wrestling control of oil, timber and mineral-rich lands away from the U.S. government.  As evidence of this, Idaho Speaker of the House Scott Bedke argued that Idaho forests and rangeland managed by the state have suffered less damage and watershed degradation from wildfire than have lands managed by federal agencies.
     Just consider these facts as outlined by the Congressional Research Service:  If you include the US Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, National Parks, and military bases, then the Federal government controls the following percentage of lands in Western States ... Nevada - 81%, Alaska - 62%, Utah - 67%, Oregon - 53%, Idaho - 62%, Arizona - 42%, California - 48%, Wyoming - 48%, New Mexico - 35%, and Colorado - 36%.  All we have to do is look at how well they manage our Federal budget, the welfare system, and the healthcare system, and we get a pretty good idea how conservatorship of our land is being administered.
     Here's the deal ... our land is important for supplying our food and energy needs.  The stability of the country depends on it.  And when the fate of a spotted owl or some rare species of desert vegetation comes before the nation's prosperity, then something is wrong.  So now the governing officials of the Western states are getting serious about demanding the releasing of titles to certain lands that exclude national parks and wilderness study areas.  The Deseret News,  out of Salt Lake City, reports that the “Transfer of Public Lands Act,” signed into law by Utah Gov. Gary Herbert in 2012, has set the stage for a formal showdown with the government by demanding action under threat of lawsuits.  And the recent meeting of officials from the other states probably means more will be signing on to this form of protest.
     There is an even more rancorous situation brewing on the border of Texas and Oklahoma.  Breitbart.com reports that government has turned its focus on 90,000 acres along a 116-mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.  What is scary is that the government is going to use a decades-old case to prove preeminence in doing just that.
     In 1986, rancher Tommy Henderson lost a case where the BLM attempted to seize some of his land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using this prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.

     And there's a bit of interesting history that accompanies this unique situation.  Using the Red River as the defining boundary line between the states of Texas and Oklahoma has been surrounded in controversy for generations.  The various forms of movement of the river have caused no end to the conflict.  Currently, the Texas Farm Bureau asserts the State of Oklahoma believes that whenever the river shifts south, the state line moves south. But when the river moves north, the line remains in place. Now, the BLM seems to want to settle the matter by simply confiscating the land.  So how do you think that's going to go over?
     I pray that cooler heads will prevail and the Government doesn't try to force this issue.  The sad thing is that, in no way, can bureaucrats understand the relationship between a rancher and the land.  Since the mid-18th century, the great stretches of largely-arid territory west of the 100th meridian, splitting the Dakotas and running down through Texas, have been home to hardy pioneers, farmers and ranchers who have done a pretty darn good job of taking care of one of our most precious resources ... the land.  All the federal government seems to have done is contribute bad policies, politicized scientific and environmental theories, and severe budget cuts that have all served to cripple the land's production. For the foreseeable future, I tend to stand with Utah State Representative Ken Ivory, when he says, "“It’s simply time [to take back the land]. The urgency is now.”

Isaiah 40:8    "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever."

The Meaning of "Asparagus" and The Demand for Accountability

   

     By now you have heard of the rancorous exchange between the Attorney General of the United States and a sitting member of Congress.  During a House Judiciary Committee Hearing, Texas Representative Louie Gohmert dared to point out that Attorney General Eric Holder seemed not to take his "held in contempt" status very seriously.  “I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our Attorney General, but it is important that we have proper oversight."
     In case you've forgotten, considerable time has elapsed since Eric Holder was held in contempt of court for not complying with the House's request for documents concerning the Fast and Furious gun debacle --- two years to be exact.  So Gohmert's assertion is not without merit.
     You could almost see the sparks fly from Holders eyes!  “You don’t want to go there, buddy!” Holder responded. “You don’t want to go there, OK?”  Now, I ask you, does this remark sound appropriate coming from the chief law enforcement officer, and chief lawyer, of the United States government?  Or does it sound like someone who views himself above reproach?
     Because I would like to remind Mr. Holder, that while he serves at the discretion of the President, he  is also under the purview of Congress, and subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." In other words, he ultimately answers to Mr. Gohmert, and the Representative is due his respect.
     Instead, Holder chided Gohmert for his opinion regarding his lack of attentiveness to the Fast and Furious scandal.  He then proceeded to let Louie know that he thought the contempt charge was both inappropriate and unjust; it was indeed a big deal to him.  (But I think we should consider the reason he thought it was a big deal.  Was it because he held a high opinion of Congress and their oversight?  Or was it because it offended his ego?)
     Gohmert was undeterred.  He reminded the Attorney General that his comment was justified in that the Justice Department has still not produced the documents related to that specific contempt charge.  “I’m just looking for evidence, and normally we [Congress] are known by our fruits and there’s been no indications that it was a big deal because your department still has not been forthcoming in producing the documents that were the subject of the contempt."
     Shortly after, Representative Gohmert's time was up in the hearing, but Holder managed to slide in one more derogatory comment:  "Good luck with your asparagus."  Now, many in the media were only too happy to point out this reference to what they thought was Gohmert's verbal stumble back during the 2013 conflict with Holder, in which he said,  "The attorney general will not cast aspersions on my asparagus!"  That comment got lots of attention on the late night comedy shows and across the MSM.  But the joke is on them ... and the Attorney General.
     Gohmert has since explained that he was quoting a formidable Texas criminal defense attorney, by the name of Percy Foreman.  “Percy was a very, very liberal criminal defense attorney, but he was incredible in the courtroom,” Gohmert said. “When somebody started attacking his integrity, he stood up and said, ‘I object, he’s casting aspersions on my asparagus!’ And people would scratch their heads, but it brought down the level of the rancor.  I was using a Percy Foreman line from criminal trials back probably 50 years ago.”
     In other words, Representative Gohmert was showing that he would not be intimidated or ridiculed; nor would he allow anyone to goad him into an argument that would disgrace or cheapen a Congressional oversight committee hearing.  In effect, he was defusing a potentially explosive situation, and above all, doing his job --- the job that we, here in Texas, sent him to Washington to do.  Yet, AG Holder held on to that comment for a year, waiting to throw it back at the Representative!
      I think it is evident that the AG's response was not only way off the mark, but a sign of his character; his level of anger and desire for revenge; and his lack of respect for anyone but himself.  Appointed officials of the government must be held accountable for their actions.  Yet, in a speech following his dust-up with Gohmert, Holder remained adamant that congressional critics had launched “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive” attacks on him and the Obama administration.
     But here is what he doesn't get ... the members of the various committees he has appeared before, and the American people, simply want the truth.  Why won't he provide the documents?  What are they afraid of?  There have been some serious allegations about complicity with known terrorist affiliated groups, and Representative Gohmert and the Judicial Oversight Committee are acting on our behalf in trying to get the answers.
     So the AG can rail about the pressure and the frustration he feels, but that does not excuse him from maintaining his stall tactics and refusing to answer the questions.  He is required and expected to justify his actions as Attorney General!  Yet he has not done that.
     In fact, testifying on the Hill about his prosecutorial duties in upholding the law, Holder said, "There is a vast amount of discretion that a president has - and, more specifically, that an attorney general has."  I would hate to assume that he means he can do whatever he wants, regardless of Congress or the law.
     I applaud Representative Louie Gohmert for his fearlessness and his respect for the American people.  He boldly proclaims that the Executive Branch of the Government must be held accountable, because we are at a "tipping point" in this country. Will we able to keep the republic, as Benjamin Franklin warned us?  When told by Glenn Beck, during a radio interview, that the country is praying for him, he humbly replied, "If anyone is tempted to pray for me ... I don't need courage. My problem is Wisdom.  Pray that I will have wisdom, and know when to fight and when to back off."  Mr. Gohmert, you keep on fighting, and we will keep on praying for you.  Thank you for standing up for us!

Ephesians 5:15-17    "Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is."

   
 

SCOTUS Leaves Christians Defenseless

   

     By refusing to hear the case of a New Mexico photographer who declined a job to commemorate the same-sex union of two lesbians, the Supreme Court of the United States, in effect, is forcing Christians to go against their religious convictions, and to do it against their will.
     The photographer was accused of violating New Mexico's "sexual orientation" law which mandates that there can be no denial of service based on discrimination by those offering their services to the public. Here are the facts, as reported by World Net Daily:  In 2006, Elaine Huguenin received an email from a woman, Vanessa Willock, asking if she would be “open to helping us celebrate our day,” a “commitment ceremony” between her and her same-sex partner.  When Elaine and her husband, Jonathan, politely declined because the ceremony was at odds with their beliefs, Willock found another photographer, for less money.  But that did not stop her from filing a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, demanding the Huguenins be punished.  And that is the primary objective ... to punish.
    The Huguenins said they would “gladly serve gays and lesbians” by taking portraits. But photographing same-sex marriages or commitment ceremonies would “require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs,” according to their petition to the Supreme Court.
     OK, I feel like a broken record whenever I try to discuss my convictions on this subject.  It's really very simple for me.  While my religious beliefs do not condone the redefinition of the word "marriage" to become anything other than the Biblical meaning, I would not tell another person how to conduct their lives.  It is their choice.  But it is equally my choice to not be coerced into approving their choice.  Doesn't it seem as if the New Mexico law is doing just that?
     Let me just put it into terms that apply to me.  I am a writer.  I am also a Christian who honors my God's commandments to the best of my abilities.  There are certain actions that He has made clear to me that He does not approve of, and of which He would not want me to write in an approving manner.  I am guilty of some of them; therefore I am not comfortable passing judgment on others who may commit different acts that offend Him.  I can only change me and my heart, with His help.
     But my religious beliefs and consciousness regarding an issue like same-sex marriage are the same beliefs that would not permit me to write and glorify someone's actions who is a murderer, an adulterer, a gossiper, a slanderer, an abuser of his/her parents, a God-hater, a greedy embezzler, a liar, and so forth.  Before those of you who disagree with me, go all Duck Dynasty on me .... I am not equating same-sex marriage with the act of murder.  I am just trying to make the point that the Bible is my standard for a broad spectrum of activities.  That doesn't mean that I think no one should be allowed to write about them; I simply choose to let someone else do that honor, should they so desire.
     But forcing me, as a Christian, to say that I approve of what Jeffrey Dahmer or Bernie Madoff did is no different than forcing a Christian photographer or baker to use their artistic expression in approval of same-sex marriage.  No one is saying that you can't have your wedding cake or your commitment photographs; in fact, in every single case brought before the courts, the couples have been able to find someone who is happy to supply the service.  Just don't force someone who chooses to abide by their religious convictions to do something against their faith and their will.
     Yet by declining to even consider the case, the Supreme Court of our land is, in effect, condoning the decisions of the lower courts.  And it doesn't stop there!  I could hardly believe it when I read that one of the New Mexico State Supreme Court justices said that being ordered to compromise one’s beliefs is simply the “price of citizenship.”  As a group, the New Mexico justices released this statement, in part:  At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead... In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship."
     In short, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin must compromise, show tolerance and respect for others who are different than they.  But because they are Christians, they cannot expect the same treatment.  They, apparently are not worthy of tolerance or respect; and anyone who disagrees with their religious beliefs does not have to compromise.  And exactly why doesn't Vanessa Willock have to compromise to accommodate the contrasting values of Elaine and Jonathan?  Where is Vanessa's respect for someone who believes differently than she does?  Where is the outrage over the "social injustice" perpetrated against the Huguenins?  But remember, it is not about justice; it is all about punishing.
     I am afraid this is just the beginning of the legal persecution of Christians.  When Judge Tim L. Garcia of the New Mexico Court of Appeals says that states can require Christians to violate their faith to do business; and the United States Supreme Court does nothing to protect our rights to practice our faith as commanded, then where does it all lead?  If we are Bible-believing Christians, we know good and well where we're headed.  It's not going to get any easier from here on out.  We must make up our minds to continue and persevere in our faith.  As our Lord told us, there's a price to be paid to follow Him.  You have a choice ... compromise or stand firm.  What will you do?

Revelation 14:12     "Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus."

Is The TSA Pre-Check Another Information Grab? And Is It Safe?

     I recently had a good friend fly in from Arizona for a long weekend visit.  As she traversed airports, she was surprised to be told by a TSA agent that she could skip the long, slow security line because she had a Pre-Check board pass.  What was that, she asked.  He explained that she did not have to remove her shoes, her belt, her jacket, her laptop from its bag, or show her bag of liquid containers.  That's great, she thought, but how did I come to be eligible for this program?  I don't remember signing up for anything.
     We figured that because she is a member of a Frequent Flyers program for US Airways, she was automatically enrolled in the program.  But our first thoughts were, how safe is that?  Aren't all those items the exact things that we've been warned about that could be used to conceal methods of terrorism?  So we decided to figure out how one enrolls in this unfamiliar program.

     The official TSA website describes this program as "an expedited screening program that allows travelers to leave on their shoes, light outerwear and belt, keep their laptop in its case and their 3-1-1 compliant liquids/gels bag in a carry-on, in select screening lanes. To date, passengers have only been eligible through existing programs such as U.S. Custom and Border Protection’s Global Entry program and frequent flier programs with certain airlines, but this announcement will allow travelers to apply directly for the expedited screening program. Since its introduction, more than 25 million passengers have already used TSA Pre✓™ nationwide."
     So, for me, there's an obvious concern ... of those 25 million passengers, how many are like my friend, who didn't even know they had been signed up?  She underwent no special evaluation, other than she has enough points on her credit card to use toward airline miles.  How quick before someone with nefarious plans takes advantage of that?  Does it seem like a loophole to anyone other than me?  Am I not understanding this program?
    On further investigation, I discovered that, according to the TSA website, the way to enroll in the program is as follows:  "The TSA Pre✓™ application process allows U.S. citizens to go through a pre-enrollment process online and visit an application center to provide biographic information (e.g. name, date of birth, address, etc.), fingerprints, payment and valid required identity and citizenship/immigration documentation.  All TSA Pre✓™ program applicants must visit an application center in-person to verify their identity and citizenship/immigration status as well as to provide fingerprints."
     That's all well and good; they have to be a U.S. citizen to apply.  But what about the issue of home-grown terrorists?  How many times have we heard about people who have no history of association with terrorist groups; no criminal record, and then we find out they are at the center of a sinister plot?  And are there any exceptions to applying, such as individuals on student visas, or those who could hide behind medical complications?
     It seems to me that this program affords someone seeking to harm that plane greater probability of achieving his mission.  And that possibility far outweighs the advantages of boarding the plane quicker and easier.  But that's just me.
     Could it be that this is just another information grab and data collection service?  Why does it seem so contradictory to me?  On the one hand, the program gathers uniquely personal information about you, and then on the other hand, you are allowed to bypass all the security measures we were told are necessary to keep us safe.  Granted, if it was a perfect world, then the data they are collecting on each of the participants should go a long way towards keeping the bad guys off the planes.  But it seems to me that all that data would be helpful in identifying them after the crime.  Plus let's not forget that there is an $85/5-year membership fee that must be paid to stay current in the program.  To date, that's a tidy little sum of over $2 trillion every 5 years for the TSA; and the program is expected to grow exponentially as the application sites open nationwide.
     So, here's what I'm thinking:  Perhaps the TSA is tired of hearing the grumbling from passengers about the long security lines, and their invasive screening techniques.  So now they have initiated a new program that will supposedly result in happier passengers; but will they be safer passengers?  You can't really have it both ways!  And I just can't help myself; when it comes to a government agency, I'm always skeptical... aren't you?

1 Timothy 4:16    "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers."

Why The Justina Pelletier Case Should Concern All Parents

   

     It was the decision that I thought could never be justifiably made.  But earlier this week, Judge Joseph Johnston, the Massachusetts juvenile court judge overseeing the custody battle between the parents of Justina Pelletier and the State of Massachusetts, awarded permanent custody to the state's Department of Children and Families (DCF).
     First of all, Justina is not even a resident of Massachusetts!  Until a year ago, she lived with her parents in Connecticut.  But one fateful night, the teen who suffers from mitochondrial disease, went to the ER at Boston Children's Hospital with flu symptoms and never came home.  The disease is caused by dysfunctional mitochondria, the sub-units within a cell that generate energy for the cell.  Symptoms cover a wide range of disorders, including poor growth, loss of muscle coordination, muscle weakness, visual problems, hearing problems, learning disabilities, heart disease, liver disease, kidney disease, gastrointestinal disorders, respiratory disorders, neurological problems, autonomic dysfunction and dementia.  Seems like a difficult disease to not only diagnose, but to treat.
     But now it seems that on the word of an ER doctor, unfamiliar with Justina's medical history, a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder called Somatic System Disorder can be made; and charges alleged against the parents for medical abuse can be grounds for Justina to be permanently removed from her family.  This is such a travesty of justice and a very frightening sign of out-of-control power by the State!
    A somatoform disorder is a mental disorder characterized by symptoms that suggest physical illness or injury – and other symptoms include anxiety and depression.  Symptoms are sometimes similar to those of other illnesses and may last for several years.  From what I've read, this is a psychiatric disorder, which means the original doctor at Boston Children's was either ignorant of the physical effects of mitochondrial disease, or did not believe the parents' report of her medical history.  He seems to have determined that she was "a head case".
    Now, Justina will more than likely have to remain in State custody until her 18th birthday while her parents appeal the ruling, and try to prove that they are fit parents.  In addition to the frightening implications of this case, the judge's reasoning for reaching his decision should strike fear in all our hearts.  As The Boston Globe reported, there were four key factors that he cited for taking Justina away from her family.  Here they are, in reverse order:
4.  The judge argues that “credible psychiatric and medical evidence” suggests that Justina Pelletier suffers from a “persistent and severe Somatic Symptom Disorder,” not mitochondrial disease as she was diagnosed with previously.  The facts of the case seem to prove otherwise.  The court heard testimony from four doctors during the hearing; Dr. Mark Korson, of Tufts Medical Center, who is Justina's primary doctor and diagnosed her with mitochondrial disease.  He stood by his diagnosis.  The other three doctors were all psychiatrists; two from Boston Children's and one was a psychiatrist who has been seeing Justina since 2006, and testified that she suffered from depression due to her mitochondrial disease.  The two psychiatrists from Boston Children's Hospital were the original doctor who diagnosed her with Somatic System Disorder, and stuck by his opinion, and a second psychiatrist who disagreed.
     So the only doctor who testified that she didn't have mitochondrial disease was the doctor who made the original claim.  How likely was he to change his story?
3.   Justina’s parents “significantly hampered” DCF’s efforts to find a “suitable placement” for the girl, according to the ruling.  “While Justina was at Children’s Hospital, the parents were verbally abusive to Justina’s hospital providers. Family members of other patients complained that Justina’s parents stated their children were being kidnapped by Children’s Hospital,” the ruling says. “They threatened to call the F.B.I. They called hospital personnel “Nazis” and claimed the hospital was punishing and killing Justina.”  The court also accuses the parents of using “profanity” directed at DCF personnel.  Are you kidding me?  If I took a sick child to the hospital, knowing she had a pre-existing condition, and the hospital misdiagnosed her, took my child away from me and threatened to take custody of her; I'm pretty darn sure that I would heap abuse upon their heads, too!  I would do anything to get her back, and would not be worried about presenting the hospital staff in a good light.
2.  The judge has determined “placement of Justina in the conditional custody of her parents is not in her best interests at this time.”  What is not in Justina's best interests is to rip her away from her family and medically treat her in a manner that has only resulted in a steady decline in her health.  Her parents have stated many times that if they don't get her out of the hands of the State, they fear she will die.
1.  Psychological and clinical evaluations of Justina’s parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier, are “necessary.”  It is horrifying to see how easily the State can cast aspersions on the competence of parents.  Do you really think the Pelletier family is any different than your own?
     According to the family's spokesperson, Rev. Patrick Mahoney, the parents of Justina are being punished for not going along with DCF's analysis of their daughter's medical condition.  “DCF, the courts, and everyone else involved is sending a message,” Mahoney said. That message, he said, is if you question these entities, they’re going to say, “‘Guess what? We’re going to take your child and not give them back to you.’
     Although the Pelletiers can file a motion in court again in May to regain custody, they plan on appealing later this week.  Wouldn't you turn over every stone to find a way to rescue your child from State custody?  This case represents the intrusion of an over-reaching government into our families' lives and, I fear, is just the beginning of relegating parents to a subordinate role.  We must pray that the Pelletiers stay strong and in the fight.  They represent all of us.

Ezekiel 34:4   "The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them."  

Common Core and the SAT: The Next Step in the Nationalization of American Education

     By now, you know that I am not a fan of Common Core, the federally backed national education “standards” that are supposedly designed to balance the quality of education from pre-K through high school.  From everything I've read, the effects of this education initiative serve only to dumb down our kids to the lowest denominator, while promulgating a steady diet of state propaganda.

     The New American reports that almost every state has sacrificed their individual rights to legislate education in favor of massive grants to the states that comply with this "nationalization" agenda.  Not only are education standards lowered, but students (and, in essence, their families) will be monitored and tracked in unprecedented ways from early childhood into the workforce.

     Believe me, proponents of nationalized education are good at using all the catchwords and phrases that sound good; such as “excellence” in education, “raising the bar,” and getting America’s children “ready for the workforce”.  But teachers have pointed out that the curricula for Math and English have actually been a step backwards in preparing our children to compete in the world marketplace.  As the inadequacy of these standards comes out of the shadows, critics are becoming more vocal in their opposition.

     That's why the latest efforts of the Common Core schemers to affect the implementation of the SAT college preparatory testing has come under fire.  The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is one of two main standardized exams generally used by colleges for admissions.  (The ACT, or American College Testing, is the other.)  As The New American points out, among the main revisions proposed by the architects of Common Core are the removal of the essay requirement and an end to penalties for incorrect answers aimed at discouraging guessing. Also sparking alarm among experts concerned about the ongoing dumbing down of American education is the fact that the SAT will be drastically scaling back and simplifying the vocabulary and math requirements.

     The proponents of these changes claim that the new SAT will contribute to “fairness,” reducing “inequality,” and “providing opportunity”.  They have long claimed that financially better-off students are able to do better on the exam because they can pay for tutors or preparation lessons.  Common Core advocates want to offer free preparation for test-takers in the hopes of reducing that alleged unfairness.  Of course that preparation will only be offered to states that align with the Common Core initiative.  

     But how are students really helped when their scores are artificially boosted by removing harder vocabulary words and math problems on the SAT in order make the tests "fair"?  How does this help advance America's future workforce in the competitive global marketplace?  With the SAT aligned with the Common Core Standards, even homeschooling families and students at private schools will be under heavy pressure to submit to this inferior curricula.

    I urge you to read this insightful article.  I think you will be amazed, as I was, to find out that by 2011, SAT reading scores had reached their lowest point in almost 40 years, according to the College Board.  The fact is that despite soaring costs paid by taxpayers, students are learning less and less, with tens of millions now functionally illiterate. The trends have actually been accelerating, with critical thinking skills and reading abilities plunging fastest.  We can no longer deny that the quality of our education in this country is declining at a rapid rate.  Nor should we fail to comprehend the results of a lack of critical thinking among our children.  

     And in case you are wondering just how important critical thinking is to the future of our nation's children, consider this:  Critical thinking, as defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, is "the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

     So, if you wanted to gain control over a population of people, would you want to teach the next generation to have the ability to think clearly and rationally?  Or have the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking?  Why, they just might be able to understand the logical connections between ideas, and actually begin to (gasp!) question your motives or policies! 

     While outrage over this dumbing down of our youth is growing, there are still far too many parents and state officials who are unaware of this encroaching menace.  I urge you, once again, to research your own school district and root it out before this cancer takes hold and spreads.  Education is the key to our children's success, but it must propel them to greater heights; not subject them to a lowering of quality or knowledge to promote a political ideology.  Get in the fight --- your children and grandchildren's future depends on it!

Proverbs 4:13     "Keep hold of instruction; do not let go; guard her, for she is your life."

Do You Believe Your Children Are Yours?

     If you answered "Yes" to this question, then you don't fit the new paradigm of parenting as promoted by Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC television host and political commentator.  Ms. Harris-Perry, along with her feminist progressive cohorts, feels that "we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to their communities."  Indeed, we are all supposed to adopt a "collective notion" about our kids.
     Just what does that mean?  Well, as reported in an article on the Cybercast News Service website, the Progressive view, as promoted by Ms. H-P, is that we need to invest more in government educational programs.  In fact, Lindsay Burke, of the Heritage Foundation says that the Left would like to see "preschool programs starting with infants and toddlers, expanding programs like Head Start to include three-year olds and younger children; all with the express purpose of growing government intervention in the lives of our youngest Americans and the American family."

     If that doesn't convince you that the government wants to usurp your influence on your children, then maybe this next argument will.  Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for Concerned Women for America (CWA) presented the Heritage Foundation's stance.  “The encroachment on parental rights is unrelenting -- from the Obama Administration to college classrooms to news desks across the country,” said Crouse. “Everyone, it seems, is hopping on the bandwagon to remove children from parental influence and let teachers, television programs, video games and cultural influences shape the minds and hearts of next generations of Americans. MSNBC has assumed leadership in just laying the agenda out there and exposing the plan: the left wants to expand government to the point of taking over the raising of the nation's children.”
     I can remember a time when teachers and the school system partnered with parents in a mutually approved education plan.  Now parents are being increasingly isolated and the State sees itself as the Collective Parent.  That does not bode well for the the influences upon our children.  All you have to do is read Ms. H-P's defense of her misguided comments.  On The Huffington Post, she is quoted as saying, "This isn't about me wanting to take your kids.  This is about whether we, as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good. And that is exactly the fight that we have been having for a couple hundred years."
     There you have it!  And I can't believe they are bold enough to admit it!  It's all about the "collective good" versus "individual freedoms" AND the right of the State to impose their will on individual citizens -- especially when They determine it benefits the collective, as a whole.  This must not be allowed to advance any further than it already has!
     And that's why Michael Farris, a lawyer and Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), has formed ParentalRights.org and is raising support for a Parental Rights amendment to the Constitution.  Currently, Parental Rights are recognized as implied rights.  This amendment will allow Parental Rights to become specifically enumerated in the text of the Constitution.  In addition, the Amendment would guarantee the following to parents:  1)  Parents have a right to make reasonable choices for their child in public schools, such as opting their child out of classes the parents find objectionable. It does not give parents any power to dictate curriculum or other choices by the school for the student body at large.   2)  While Parental Rights do not include a right to commit child abuse or neglect, they are due the same high legal protection as other fundamental rights.  3)  The amendment will not apply in cases where a parent's action or decision would end life.  This exclusion was a necessity to avoid the appearance that the PRA would affect the abortion issue either way, which would make its passage a political impossibility.  4)  Neither the Senate's treaty power, nor the courts, can subject parental rights to international law.  Furthermore, federal courts would not be able to impose harmful principles of international law on parents, because the rights granted in the text of the Constitution override and overwhelm any conflicts between parental rights and international law.
     I wish Mr. Farris luck in getting this Amendment before Congress.  As the attorney for the Romeike family, the German home-schoolers who sought asylum in America, he has championed a parent's right to educate their children according to their religious beliefs.  However, the Supreme Court declined to hear the family's appeal to the U.S. Justice Department's attempts to deport them back to Germany, where they risk losing custody of their children if they continue with their home-schooling.
    While the Supreme Court's decision does not bode well for the chances of a Parental Rights Amendment, Mr. Farris confirmed to Fox News earlier this week, that the Department of Homeland Security had granted the family “indefinite deferred status."  That means the Romeike family, who claim the German government is persecuting them because they want to raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs, can stay in the United States without the threat of being forced to return to their home country.  And that decision, says Mr. Farris, "is a miracle from God."
     So maybe Mr. Farris is working in miracle territory, and he can somehow convince enough members of Congress that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.  For the life of me, I cannot understand how it can be considered anything else.  It is the essential nature of being a parent, and a God-given responsibility.  No government should interfere with that!

Proverbs 1:8-9     "Hear, my son, your father's instruction, and forsake not your mother's teaching, for they are a graceful garland for your head and pendants for your neck."

The Devil Is In the Details

     Today's post is kind of a fast-forward from yesterday's thoughts, and shows what we have reaped from not paying attention to who has been running the country.
     I ran across an interesting article on the website for Dave Hodges' Common Sense Show.  In the article, he presupposes that there is indeed a secretive power elite (called the New World Order) with a globalist agenda, conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government.  Of course, they can only accomplish their goal by replacing sovereign nation-states through carefully orchestrated events and propaganda that present this agenda as the natural progression of human history.  Got that?
     Ok, Mr. Hodges suggests that there are five "variables", or factors, that these global elites must control in order to suppress an individual's or nation's freedoms.  Let's take a look at these factors, and his hypothesis on each one, and see if this is/could happen in America.

     Factor #1:  The Media:  Six corporations control 98% of the media. These same six corporations virtually control everything that most people see, hear and subsequently believe. The CNN’s and FOX networks have successfully turned the majority of our people into sheep who are willing to accept any form of dictatorship so long as it is endorsed and glorified by the news media.
      I must admit that I know far too many people who take the so-called "news reports" from CNN, MSNBC and FOX as "the gospel".  "I heard it on FOX News" is often their confirmation that they've heard the truth.  What they don't understand is that the powerful men that own these corporations, also control the narrative that the talking heads spew.  Don't be fooled!  These men have their own agendas, which are mirrored by what, and how, "news stories" are reported.  The reporters are not necessarily independent journalists and are, more often than not, hired lackeys of their commanding bosses.
     The hope we have lies in the alternative media that consists of independent researchers and bloggers who owe their allegiance to no one.  We must be discerning in accepting their "facts" as truth, but for the time being, they provide an influential option to the ever-declining state-run media.
     Factor #2:  Social Factors:   The majority of Americans still believe in hard work, their religion and traditional family values which honors the sanctity of marriage as defined in the Bible. Through the control of the media and an increasing control of the government, Americans are being forced into glorifying every form of behavior, previously considered to be perverse and the traditional values of the American family are under attack by the media, Child Protective Services and the education system.
     It doesn't seem that long ago that everyone shared a "let bygones be bygones" social philosphy ... as long as we didn't inflict physical harm upon each other, Americans were willing to be tolerant of different opinions about lifestyle choices.  But now there is developing a deep divide in this country, and an extremely vocal minority is demanding, in authoritarian ways, that everyone should adopt their ideas and ways.  Instead of truly following a policy of "freedom of choice", we (the Christian conservatives) are being forced to comply with the intolerant dictates of those who once blamed us for intolerance.
     But the one thing that these social tyrants, whether Elite or not, cannot control is our minds and hearts.  They may pass laws that restrict our actions, but they can never legislate our values and our morals.
     Factor #3:  Economics:  One unelected entity controls the nation’s banks, The Federal Reserve. The same people control all governmental legislation for all economic policies including the Stock Market. When the super elite get caught with their proverbial hand in the cookie jar and suffer major economic losses, they simply steal from the people and call it a bail-out. As a result, we have had the bail-out, the son of bail-out and the grandson of the bail-outs.
     We cannot deny that since The Federal Reserve's inception in 1913, the dollar has never been the same.  And now they have themselves backed into a corner with all the money they have printed.  There are all kinds of scenarios that the so-called conspiracy theorists (but are they right?) suggest .... Russia, China and India will soon be purchasing Iranian oil in gold and bypassing the dollar as the only medium of exchange (i.e. the Petrodollar);  this will lead to false flag provocations both abroad and at home, which will result in martial law and the global suppression of citizen opposition.  The NWO would be ushered in!
     If this scenario is true and plays out, it will be more important than ever that individuals be prepared with long-term food storage and survivalist plans.  The longer you can keep from being sucked into their system of control by growing your own food and trading and bartering, the harder it will be for them to force you to "get in line".
     Factor #4:  Military:  If the super elite have made serious miscalculations on the path towards establishing a New World Order, the handling of the American military is a prime example.
     From all appearances, the American military offers us a semblance of hope against the designs of the NWO.  But that will only last as long as each service man and woman holds tightly to their oath of defending the Constitution.  One cannot ignore the struggle for the heart and soul of our military when we see the firing of over 260 senior command military officers, and the downsizing of the military to pre-WW II numbers.
     Do the young recruits embrace (let alone know) the proud history of our military?  Will the American people continue to support our returning veterans and stand shoulder to shoulder with them to defend this great nation?  The NWO cannot succeed if the Military stands strong and unwavering.
     Factor #5:  The Government:  The NDAA, Executive Order 13603, the Patriot Act, NSA spying, the use of the election fixing electronic voting machines, force feeding us GMO’s, the punishments of whistleblowers, the alleged militarization of the law enforcement, the corruption in the halls of Congress, and so much more ....  all lead to a NWO-like conclusion.  
     Our national election process is due for some massive changes.  Term limits would be a good start.  But it's obvious that our political process is drowning in misconduct, profiteering and criminality.  The Elites pre-determine our next Leader, and the people's voice is discounted.
     Now all that is changing with the advent of active grassroots organizations and bold Americans who are becoming involved in their government for the first time.  We need new voices and fresh blood!

     Ultimately, we need to realize that it doesn't matter if you actually believe Dave Hodges and subscribe to his theory of a New World Order, or an elite group of people who seek global control.  The truth lies within the pages of the Bible.  The Good Book tells us that such a time will come and the real key to defeating these powers is for this nation, and all peoples of the world, to turn back to God.  Because, in case you don't realize it, the entities behind the NWO are the Enemy's elect; they are doing his dirty work.  Can't you see his fingerprints all over their agenda?  And we need to remember that even if it looks as if they are defeating us -- that the Enemy's plan is taking hold -- there is always a remnant that will never give in, never consent, and never surrender.  There is always hope!  Let others take their marching orders from the Fallen One; I will play by God's rules and victory will be mine!!

Romans 8:38-39      "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
   

The EPA and Riverton, Wyoming

     Have we become so de-sensitized to over-reaching federal agencies that clear violations of the Constitution are simply ignored?  Have we just resigned ourselves to a behemoth Government?  I was appalled to realize that this story is actually a couple months old, yet I knew nothing about it until PLW heard it mentioned on a podcast.
     It seems that the Environmental Protection Agency has declared that Riverton, Wyoming is part of the Wind River Indian Reservation, undoing a 1905 law passed by Congress.  This has understandably angered state officials.
     The Daily Caller reports that Governor Matt Mead, has vowed not to honor the agency’s decision and is preparing to fight in court.  “My deep concern is about an administrative agency of the federal government altering a state’s boundary and going against over 100 years of history and law,” Mead said in a statement. “This should be a concern to all citizens because, if the EPA can unilaterally take land away from a state, where will it stop?”
     So, let's look at this story from a Constitutional aspect.  The EPA is an agency of the U.S. federal government which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.  It seems that the Wind River Indian Reservation submitted an application to get funding for air quality monitoring under the Clean Air Act.  Somehow, the EPA determined that this application qualified the Reservation to be treated as a state, and the EPA decided that the boundaries established by the 1905 law were not to be honored.  The EPA then granted the tribes' claims that the Wind River Reservation actually extended over 1 million acres beyond the boundaries that the 1905 law established.
     I have to agree with state officials, who have filed a stay against the EPA's decision to revise the boundaries, by stating that the agency has effectively overruled an act of Congress.  And why isn't anybody screaming about the Tenth Amendment?  It clearly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Where does an Agency (who is bound by the laws of Congress) get off thinking it can overstep its authority and ignore the State and the people of Wyoming?
     Everything is upside down in our government!  Why isn't Congress calling the EPA on the carpet for stepping outside their jurisdiction?  Why is the Wyoming Congressional delegation appealing to the EPA, as if the Tenth Amendment doesn't exist?
     This whole controversy arose from a 2009 tax case that the state urged the courts not to drop because of the “implications of ruling on a boundary without the federal government and Eastern Shoshone being involved in the case,” reports the Casper Star-Tribune.  State courts have heard at least two cases on the boundary in the last three decades — one 1980s Wyoming Supreme Court case found that Riverton was part of the reservation, and another state high court case in 2008, which found that the town was in Wyoming.
     Back in 2009, State Attorney General Marty Hartsocg had this to say:  "We don’t have a fully binding decision.  We do in the state, but the state is then put in a position of having to rely on the federal government’s view for its direction."  Why do they need to rely on the federal goverment's direction?!? Am I just not understanding the Tenth Amendment properly?  Or have the States, through time, simply abdicated more and more of their powers to the Federal Government, and hence to the myriad of agencies that have been spawned through a vacuous bureaucratic system?  Is this why the Federal Government and their Agency heads feel empowered to grab more and more dominion away from the People?
     And speaking of the people, what about the 10,000 residents of Riverton?  What are the tax, state services and law enforcement implications?  Are they subject to the Tribal Police or state law enforcement officers?  But the bottom line is this ... why is the EPA allowed to be a part of this decision at all?  Is it a surreptitious plot to seize private property and put it all under control of the US government?  Sounds crazy, huh?  But so did the canceling of millions of health insurance policies just a few short years ago.  Here's hoping that the State of Wyoming will uphold its Constitutional rights.  The ability for the rest of us to engage in these Tenth Amendment violations may be determined by their willingness to fight back.

Proverbs 24:11     "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter."


   

Big Food In Bed With GMO Giants

     Thanks to a series of articles I found on Truthstream Media, I'd like to present you with some interesting stories and facts regarding what is acceptable in our diet.  This first story centers around a policy in Manitoba Canada and its provincial government’s Early Learning and Child Care lunch regulations.  This program requires children’s lunches to be checked against the Canadian Food Guide and then “supplemented” by the workers of the school. The “supplementation” comes with a fine of $5 per child, which is taken directly from the parent’s account.
     Natalie Logan's mother received a note from the school saying that the lunch she provided her daughter did not meet the lunch program requirements.  Natalie's lunch included leftover roast beef, potatoes, and carrots, with an orange for dessert, and a container of milk.  What was she lacking?  Her lunch did not include a Grain, so the lunch program supplemented it with, what else?  Ritz Crackers!  And fined her mother $10!!
     Ritz Crackers contain no fiber, no protein, and no vitamins, but their GMO-laden grains and High Fructose Corn Syrup meets the requirements of the government of the province of Manitoba?  And if you think this kind of misguided information couldn't happen here in the good ol USA, think again.
     "Conflict of Interest" doesn't even begin to cover a so-called fact sheet on the benefits of processed foods that the International Food Information Council (IFIC) distributed to the members of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
     UNTIL you realize who their sponsors are ... including, but not limited to, Cargill, Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, General Mills, Mars, McDonald’s, Monsanto, PepsiCo, Red Bull, and Yum Brands (this last being the parent company of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC, and WingStreet.

     According to their website,  ”The International Food Information Council Foundation provides food safety, nutrition, and healthful eating information to help you make good and safe food choices.”   Sounds good, right?
     So when the IFIC puts together their ”fact” sheet,  “What Is A Processed Food? You Might Be Surprised!”, well .... let's just say, you will be surprised at their findings.   For instance, consider this from their information sheet .... FACT:  breakfast cereals, like frozen vegetables and roasted nuts, are processed.  But here's the TRUTH (according to a group called Dietitians For Professional Integrity, who champion real food for real health): The IFIC conveniently fails to mention that, unlike most breakfast cereals, the freezing of vegetables and roasting of nuts does not obliterate nutrients. Nor do frozen vegetables and roasted nuts contribute artificial dyes, artificial flavors, chemical additives, or partially hydrogenated oils to people’s diets.
     As if that lie is not enough, the IFIC makes an absurd comparison between modern-day processing techniques and traditional methods, stating “Food processing began about 2 million years ago, when our ancestors put flame to food”.  But our Dietitians with integrity point out that heating food has nothing in common with partially hydrogenating oils, making aspartame, or turning corn into high fructose corn syrup.
     So, it goes without saying that we have to ask, "Are the Nutrition Professionals in bed with Big Food?"  Industry watchdog Eat Drink Politics reports that various forms of corporate sponsorship by Big Food are undermining the integrity of those professionals most responsible for educating Americans about healthy eating.  When Coca-Cola and Nestlés sponsor symposiums in which nutrition attendees are educated on the benefits of sugar, don't you have to question the professional's advice?  Don't you think it's a real problem when the people sponsoring the nutrition lessons are the very purveyors of GMO crops, potato chips, soda pop, and fast food?
     As consumers become more aware of the dangers of a GMO-related diet, states are fighting to mandate GMO labeling.  Initiative 522, in Washington, could be the first in the nation to force companies to give consumers some sort of clue if what they are eating has been genetically modified.  So why does it come as no surprise that Monsanto and DuPont, two of the nation’s largest producers of GMO seeds in the U.S., have given a combined $8.7 million towards I-522′s defeat — nearly half of the $18.1 million raised against the labeling initiative so far.
     But they aren't the only ones in the Big Food group who are fighting to keep the consumer in the dark on the lack of nutritional value in GMO ingredients.  Campbell Soup Company, Del Monte, General Mills, Smuckers, Ocean Spray, Welch Foods and Sunny Delight Beverages are just a few who are siding with Monsanto and DuPont.  Why are they fighting so hard?  Because, in Europe, they are further ahead in the battle to force these companies to drop their GMO ingredients from products.
     If the American people actually knew how much of their average grocery store has been genetically engineered — some estimates say as much as 90% — there might be an uproar leading to a real food revolution where companies would be forced to spend more money using better ingredients in their products.
     The bottom line is this:  we should have the right to make an informed decision about what we put into our bodies.  Why should we have to eat what they want to feed us -- especially if it is nutritionally inferior -- just because it might last longer on the shelf, cost them less, or look more cosmetically appetizing?  For Big Food, it's about the Almighty Dollar.  For American consumers, it's about our health and our very lives.

Genesis 9:3      Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

The Justina Pelletier Story: Your Children Are Not Your Own

     Not since the Terry Schiavo case, has a family's battle over healthcare for a loved one been so contentious.  Until now, this story has been confined to local news outlets and sporadic coverage by the MSM.  But, defying a gag order, the father of 15-year-old Justina Pelletier is relating his family's nightmare in hopes of saving his daughter's life.  This might be just another sad story of a young girl battling a life-threatening situation, except that it looks as if it is the State of Massachusetts that is threatening her life.  Here are the facts, as reported by the Fox News outlet in Connecticut, the NYDailyNews, and TheBlaze

Justina, in a wheelchair
at the state psychiatric ward

     Justina, along with her older sister, Jessica, suffer from mitochrondrial disease.  Gastrointestinal disorders, learning disabilities, and extreme fatigue and muscle weakness are among its symptoms. The disease causes the body to have trouble converting sugar and oxygen into energy.  Justina was diagnosed with the disease by doctors at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, in 2011.
     In early February, 2013, Justina's parents took her to Boston Children’s Hospital with an apparent case of the flu.  Contrary to their desires, they say doctors at the hospital wanted to change her treatment regimen. Those physicians believed Justina had somatoform disorder, a psychological disorder that said the symptoms she experienced were all in her head. The Pelletiers, however, disagreed and believed she should continue treatment for mitochondrial disease, the disease she was diagnosed with and had been treated for by doctors at Tufts Medical Center.
     When the Pelletiers went to Boston Children’s Hospital on Valentine’s Day 2013 to have their daughter discharged and taken to Tufts, they were served with a 51A form instead — one that accused them of medical abuse. Essentially, they were accused of treating their daughter medically in a way that she didn’t need, and they called the cops.
     What resulted, for the Pelletiers, is the loss of custody of their daughter.  Justina was placed in a state psychiatric ward for nearly a year.  This January, she was transferred to a temporary residential program in Framingham while the court battles continue.  Justina’s parents have only been allowed supervised visits with their daughter, which only last for one hour every week. They say her condition has deteriorated during her time at the psych ward.

Justina, last year at ice-saking competition
before her nightmare began

     Until her medical troubles started, Justina was a normal young girl. She loved figure skating and her family, who live in West Hartford, Connecticutt.   Justina’s older sister, Jessica, was diagnosed with mitochondrial disease by Dr. Mark Korson, chief of metabolism at Tufts. When Justina started feeling sick in 2010, her parents took her to Tufts for an evaluation. She eventually came under the care of Korson, who diagnosed her with the same disease as her sister, then treated her with a “vitamin cocktail” and a number of other prescription medicines.
     Her condition seemed to be looking up until that fateful day in February, 2013 when she came down with the flu.  Her doctor, Mark Korson, recommended that the family take the girl to a colleague at Boston Children’s Hospital.  Justina was taken by ambulance to Boston Children’s, where a young emergency room doctor told the family that he “didn’t believe” in mitochondrial disease. A medical team at the hospital came up with a new treatment plan, which Lou Pelletier says was created without input from doctors from Tufts.
     When the family refused to sign this new plan, and attempted to check Justina out of Boston Children's, that's when their legal nightmare began.  The State took custody of their child, and they are fighting to get her back.
     After the family went to local media with their plight, Judge Joseph Johnston put a gag order on all parties involved in the hearings.  But earlier this week, Lou Pelletier, made a bold decision to break that gag order, by appearing on TheBlaze.  "She is going off a cliff," Lou Pelletier said of his daughter, who is now confined to a wheelchair. "She looks awful and is pale and her hair is falling out. Her gums are receding and she has no body strength.  She is pretty much paralyzed below the hips."
     As of yesterday, the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families has filed contempt of court charges against Lou Pelletier.  When asked if he regrets talking with the media, Pelletier said, “we’re all in” at this point.  "We are David, not against Goliath, but against two Goliaths— Boston Children's Hospital and the State of Massachusetts.  To me it's a hopeless cause, and the only way to win is in the court of public opinion.  I need to save my daughter.  If we don't do something, she is going to die."
     For an entire year now, the Pelletiers have fought to have Justina transferred to Tufts for treatment.  She has been able to sneak notes out to her parents, in which she writes that she is in extreme pain.  Can you imagine what that does to a parent's soul?  “I have a right as a U.S. citizen to take my daughter to what doctor I want to, and it’s been taken away,” Linda Pelletier said.  Her husband adds, " There are people with the power to stop this now ... the governor of both states, the attorney generals, the DCF commissioners all have the power, executive authority, to stop this.  The system has failed.  I am battling the medical world that thinks it knows everything."
     Unfortunately, I don't believe the Pelletier family's legal battles will be the first for Americans.  As our medical care is increasingly being dictated by the State, we can expect that medical decisions will not be our own.  Life, which is precious in God's sight, will be controlled by costs, bureaucracy, and a system that is soulless.  Welcome to the New World Order!

Comment:  Since Lou Pelletier defied the gag order, and spoke directly to national media outlet, TheBlaze, citizens have been outraged over this family's nightmare.  Naturally, their legal fees have bankrupted the family, and donations can be made at freejustina.com.

Psalm 82:3-4    Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.