Lisa, one of my faithful readers, and a good friend, sent me a link to an article that absolutely blew me away! It seems that the "Digital Pill" has arrived.
This article announced that the FDA had approved the use of the 1 square millimeter device (the size of a grain of sand), which it believes will "shift the care paradigm" into an era of digital medicine. Proteus Digital Health, Inc. is the name of the company that has designed and produced this "digital sensor". According to Proteus' official announcement, “The FDA validation represents a major milestone in digital medicine. Directly digitizing pills, for the first time, in conjunction with our wireless infrastructure, may prove to be the new standard for influencing medication adherence (my emphasis) and significantly aid chronic disease management." Are you wondering what that could possibly mean? According to GreenMedInfo.com, this is what it means: The aim of the "ingestible sensor" is to electronically verify patient compliance in taking the medication. In other words, this little pill gives the government access to your body! And what if it is determined that you are not "complying"? What then?
The official line is that you swallow your medication (which includes the ingestible sensor) and along with a patch on the outside of your body, a doctor, committee, or clinician is able to read a variety of biofeedback information..... is the medication helping the patient's condition? Is the patient taking the medication at the recommend times and dosages? What is the heart rate, body position, and condition of the patient? Also in the official statement was this curious pronouncement: "This device provides an unprecedented view into an individual’s personal health choices and physiologic response, allowing patients to better manage their health and more effectively collaborate with caregivers and clinicians, while enabling new information-based business models." Does any part of that statement scare you as much as it does me?
I'm sorry, but I have lost my trust in companies that seek to become a "business model" at the expense of my privacy. And do you really think this was designed so that the patient could manage his/her own health care?
What's to keep this nifty little invention from being integrated into any of your medications (without your knowledge!) and allowing the government to monitor if you are taking your medicine like a good little citizen should? It seems to me that it is only one small step to a panel determining that you are not following some medical protocol that a government bureaucrat has determined, sidestepping your private doctor (if they even exist in the near future) and deciding that you no longer meet the guidelines for receiving care.
Some other interesting facts about this company is that Bill and Melinda Gates are listed as founding partners in the company. They certainly have their fingers in a lot of green/global projects recently. And obviously, the commercial and global possibilities for such a device are infinite. Which doesn't surprise me ... considering the governments interest in GMO foods, new transfer methods for vaccines, and other highly questionable technological advancements to supposedly reduce suffering. Is mercy their aim ..... or money?
Decide for yourself. According to a 2008 article published in Pharma Marketing News, "it was estimated that an 18% improvement in compliance would translate into increased revenues of approximately $8000 per patient a year." Where would that money go? Follow the trail, and I bet you will find the REAL beneficiaries of this grand new technology.
Oh, and by the way, the name Proteus is taken from Greek mythology. Proteus was the son of the sea-god Poseidon. And what were his characteristics? He was elusive, changeable, and "capable of assuming many forms." Sounds like the perfect name for a company that presents itself on the cutting edge of medicine, with only better patient care in mind. Sure, you are supposed to have to give your consent to take this grain of sand buried in your heart pill. But who is to say how it will actually be used? This technology will be the death of us all!
Psalm 35:24-26 "Vindicate me in your righteousness, Lord my God; do not let them gloat over me. Do not let them think, 'Aha, just what we wanted!' or say, 'We have swallowed him up.' May all who gloat over my distress be put to shame and confusion; may all who exalt themselves over me be clothed with shame and disgrace."
I can remember watching the Terminator movie for the first time, and being fascinated with the imagination of a writer who could create such a diabolical plot. Originally designed as a computer system with artificial intelligence, Skynet was given command over all computerized military hardware and systems (including our nuclear arsenal). The objective of Skynet's designer was to eliminate any human error in launching a missile attack; and ultimately, to slow reaction time and guarantee a fast, efficient response to enemy attacks.
The problem in this frightening movie scenario, is that the computer started learning at an accelerated pace. It quickly began thinking for itself, making decisions with one goal in mind: the complete extermination of the human race. Just a storyline, you say? Not possible?
Well, have you stepped back and taken a real hard look at just how much of our lives are ruled by computers? And how much of our self-reliance we've handed over to a microchip? Consider SIRI, the latest component of the Apple iPhone. Here is their sales pitch, word for word: Siri is the intelligent personal assistant that helps you get things done just by asking. It allows you to use your voice to send messages, schedule meetings, place phone calls, and more. But Siri isn’t like traditional voice recognition software that requires you to remember keywords and speak specific commands. Siri understands your natural speech, and it asks you questions if it needs more information to complete a task. In other words, Siri has a mind of her own, and if you're not smart enough to give her all the information she needs, she'll do your thinking for you and complete her task. I'm sorry, but that just gives me the creeps! I have family and friends that are so proud that they are part of the iPhone zombie population. They are tied to their phones, eyes glued to the text messages that form a constant stream of nonhuman communication. They wouldn't dare pick up the phone and have a personal conversation! They can't be bothered; they might miss another trivial comment about what time Britney woke up this morning, or what Johnny's favorite TV show is.
But what they don't realize is that we are putting ourselves in a dangerous position; a situation where all this dependence upon computers, and their interconnection with every aspect of our lives, may soon make our very existence vulnerable. Do you realize that with every new version of the iPhone, iPad, Android phone, or Bluetooth element in your car, a more sophisticated system is tracking your every move and monitoring your every conversation. Doesn't that alarm you?
Every time you log onto Facebook, or text your opinion, or drive to your favorite firearms store, or buy anything online --- it's information that is being stored and used to compile a profile on you. And even if you can eliminate a huge online presence, there are drones in the air that are so sophisticated they can monitor your whereabouts and hear your conversations. Doesn't concern you because you're a law-abiding citizen? Think again! You are who the computers and those who are monitoring them say you are. You are no longer an individual.
We have bought into the lies: Computers will make your life simpler. Computers are advancing our civilization and improving our lives. Computers have become such a staple of our lives, we can't live without them. You HAVE to have the latest technology or you are behind the times. The greatest marketing strategy in the world! And we bought it; hook, line and sinker!
But here's my greatest fear: all this advanced technology is lessening our unique qualities as human beings. We no longer see the pain in each other's eyes, or feel the touch of a comforting embrace, or know the true loneliness that lies behind another's actions. Because it is all artificially expressed with a few typed words. We are just the human appendage on the end of a keyboard. We are slaves to the computer, and the computer rules our very existence. Real privacy has become a thing of our past. Want to know anything about anyone? It can be found on a computer.
There is increasing talk of Radio Frequency Identification chips (RFID) to keep track of our children and to enhance the way we conduct commerce. Including them on our drivers' licenses and credit cards is being discussed. Want to stay out of this system? Good luck!
So I guess my parting comment is this: How were we so easily tempted by the promises of this artificial stimulus? We no longer have the desire to seek new experiences, partake in bold adventures, or create fresh ideas. Instead, we have become a generation of automatons who only respond to computer games, instant messaging, chat rooms and social networking sites. We don't have the yearning to push ourselves beyond the timespan it takes to sign in and sign out.
The sad thing is that God didn't design us to become enslaved to a computer screen. In a sense, they have become a false god. And for many, I think "the 'Net" is just that ..... a trap; a system to entice and deceive. You can hide behind that text or your screen persona and be whoever you want. But be forewarned ...... Skynet, ummm, I mean the internet knows your real identity and everything about you. So I challenge you to channel your inner Sarah Connor. In The Terminator, she did whatever it took to protect her son and destroy the machine that sought to control the world and enslave the human population. Are you up to the challenge?
Zechariah 10:2 "The idols speak deceitfully, diviners see visions that lie; they tell dreams that are false, they give comfort in vain. Therefore the people wander like sheep oppressed for lack of a shepherd."
I hope this post doesn't get too bogged down in rhetoric, so I'm going to try to explain what I know and hopefully, some of you out there can educate me further. ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) is another alphabet association that gives me the creeps. First of all, it was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at its inaugural conference, the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York in September 1990.
So, anything that combines International and Environmental and the UN, makes me sit up and take notice. And there's that phrase, "Sustainable Future" that appears throughout Agenda 21, the UN's effort to erase national sovereignty, boundaries, and individual property rights.
So just what does "Sustainable Future" mean? Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center, has done a lot in making the public aware of this threat to America. Adherents to this philosophy insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact; focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction. Does this sound like something you want our country to be involved in? But lest you missed the significance of what ICLEI stands for, I will repeat it ..... International Council for LOCAL Environmental Initiatives.
That's right, Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. And what are communities promised for these dues and extra "help"? Economic prosperity in the form of special deals between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Let's all say it together .... Solyndra.
Other examples of local "Sustainable" policies include Green jobs, Green Building Codes, Smart Growth, Wildlands Projects, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, and growth management ---- all promoted by ICLEI and part of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21 (it's official name).
How does it apply to the United States? In 1992, more than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. President George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledged to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. To put it simply, our government signed away our national sovereignty and our individual rights, both as property owners and citizens; and they did it without batting an eye.
In essence what Clinton's Executive Order did was direct all agencies of the Federal Government to work with your state and local governments to change the way they operate so they will be in compliance with the Agenda 21 guidelines! So through groups like ICLEI, this decidedly un-American ideology of "Sustainable Development" is beginning to surface as government policy in every town, county, and state in our nation.
You can be sure that the supporters of this initiative will have a sweet-sounding definition of "Sustainable Development." In fact, here is the definition as issued by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. Sounds innocuous, right? But here's the meaning behind those innocent-sounding words: In order to meet the needs of future generations, it is going to require that vast amounts of land and natural resources be denied the citizens of today --- these environmental lunatics aren't really interested in conserving; they want to deny you the use of your own land and prevent today's society from exploring for oil or any of our other abundant natural resources. And to their way of thinking, it is going to take a whole new way of organizing society.
What they are really saying is they want to control every aspect of your life .... from what you eat, how many children you have, what kind of car you drive, how much property you are allowed to own .... because, after all, what you eat, drive, birth and own will affect how much someone in the future will be allowed to enjoy. Do you see why ICLEI is a great concern of mine? The question is, what are we going to do about it? I urge everyone to contact your Mayor or City Council and find out if "Sustainable Development" is part of your local government policy. You also check ICLEI's website to see just how many nations of the world and cities in America have already signed on to this destructive policy.
There is a furtive and deceptive effort to take away our God-given liberties. Officials at the highest level of our government are handing over our freedoms to a One-World Government and a New World Order. We have been asleep for too long, and they have managed to push their agenda pretty far down the road. But I pray, with the help of God, that we can reclaim the rights He endowed us with, and protect them for future generations. This is not just an American problem, but we can lead the way, shine a light on this conspiracy, and show the world how God intended us to live. Check with your city, county and state governments and stop Agenda 21!
Psalm 70:1-2 "Hasten, O God, to save me; come quickly, Lord, to help me. May those who want to take my life be put to shame and confusion; may all who desire my ruin be turned back in disgrace."
I don't know why it took me so long to do it. But before I reveal what "it" is, let me start at the beginning. For the past year, I have come into my own in regards to developing my own self-defense system. I took Beginning gun training classes and then advanced to an accredited 3-day pistol training course and a rifle-training course. I tried different firearms, deciding which would be best for a range gun and which would best fit my needs as a carry gun.
But this process did not come without some trial and error. The trigger pull on this one was too long; this gun is still too big to effectively carry with my style of dress; the inside-the-waistband carry holster works better for me than the outside one. But the REAL benefit of all these decisions was that I was allowed to make all these choices on my own. First of all, I'm pretty stubborn and independent, so I'm not exactly a pushover. But I am fortunate enough to be married to a man who encouraged me to go to the gun dealer and purchase my own gun, in my own name. "You're the one who is going to be shooting and carrying it, so you have to own the decision." What a wise man!
And that's something that I recommend every husband do for their wife. Take them to the gun dealer, but let them try the different models and make the final decision. You can make suggestions ... "Are you sure you want that smaller .38? It may be smaller in size than the 9mm, but the recoil will be much more intense." But ultimately, you need to let them make their own decision, and if they choose wrong, it will be a learning experience. It's not the end of the world. My first firearm was a .38 Lady Smith & Wesson revolver, and it didn't take me long to realize that just shooting target practice was no fun. It beat me up too much!
So my husband took me down to the local gun dealer and I traded up to my Springfield XD 9mm when I decided to begin formal training. It has been a great range gun, but I soon realized that it was not a great concealed carry choice. I have added to my collection, and each time it was MY choice! When you are the one filling out the paperwork and the purchase is in your name, it really means something!
It is a right of passage for young boys; their fathers take them down to the store and they buy their first BB gun or their first shotgun before hunting season. And those boys are never the same! And it is the same for us women. Somehow, taking that step yourself (instead of letting your husband make your purchases for you) is an investment that empowers you. You now have the responsibility to take that investment seriously. It is a sizable expenditure and should not be taken lightly or wasted. When you fill out that paperwork and sign that form, and then walk out with a case in your hand, you have a new identity. You are a gun owner! And it is liberating!
Which brings me back to my original statement. What have I just done that adds a new dimension to my pride as a gun owner? I joined the NRA! And what made me "pull the trigger", so to speak? The NRA has been an indefatigable opponent to the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). For nearly 20 years, the NRA has worked tirelessly to warn American gun owners about the United Nations’ efforts to undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners by putting in place international controls on small arms. They have monitored all U.N. activities that could impact our Second Amendment rights, and have worked with our allies in the U.S. Congress to successfully assemble strong bipartisan opposition to any treaty that adversely impacts the Second Amendment.
On July 26th, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) gathered the signatures of 51 Senators on a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton opposing any treaty that infringes on our rights. The letter stated "As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure--if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference--that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard." And as of this moment, the Conference on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (U.N. ATT) has broken down and will not report a draft treaty to the member nations. But we can't slack off. It is likely that the Conference will submit a new draft treaty after the U.S. election, and the NRA has proclaimed that they will keep up the pressure to defeat it. Without the NRA, it is likely this treaty would have been ratified by the Senate and one more death knell would have been delivered to the Second Amendment. But the NRA can't continue to fight without our help!
So instead of relying on my husband and other men to lead the way, I made my own decision and added my voice to the discussion. I now have a "dog in this fight" and it feels good!
Proverbs 31:11 "Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value."
First, we are told that it is all a matter of "fear-mongering"; once again the nutty gun-lovers of America are seeing threats where there are none. But there is so much behind-the-scenes maneuvering between our government officials and the United Nations, that anyone paying attention knows that this Treaty doesn't pass the smell test.
So, just what is the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty? It is better known as the "small arms treaty", and here is the official statement by the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (even that name makes my skin crawl!) ...... The global trade in conventional weapons – from warships and battle tanks to fighter jets and machine guns – remains poorly regulated. No set of internationally agreed standards exist to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use. Many governments have voiced concern about the absence of globally agreed rules for all Countries to guide their decisions on arms transfers. That is why they have started negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty. Preparations to address this issue have been underway since 2006 and will culminate in the Conference on an Arms Trade Treaty in July 2012.
That means they're at our back door, folks! And if that doesn't make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, this should. Both Secretar of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama are openly supporting the ratification of this treaty. Oh, they will tell you that it has nothing to do with individual gun rights of U.S. citizens, but is an attempt by the U.N. and nations around the world to address gun sales by "rogue nations."
But what they're not telling you is that this treaty DOES apply directly to the United States because it lumps us together with these so-called "rogue nations." And it's even more sinister than that; the real motive is to use an international body to bypass our Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to get what they've wanted all along -- a ban on guns in this country. You see, it is a poorly disguised attempt to implement massive gun control without having to go through the normal legislative process in Congress -- because they know it would never pass. The real plan is to ignore Congress and use the U.N. to trump U.S. law by signing a treaty that would grant international supervision over the sale and possession of guns in America. Pretty slick, huh?
How would the treaty function? The Arms Trade Treaty would specifically require signatories to identify and trace, in “a timely and reliable manner,” illicit small arms and light weapons. The information would be required to be submitted to the United Nations. Supporters say the treaty is necessary to prevent rogue countries from being able to purchase guns from arms dealers. Critics of the treaty have long felt that it would lead to mandatory registration of all firearms and every sale; even those between individuals. So it seems pretty clear to me --- the treaty would directly impact gun sales in the U.S. and by extension the gun rights of individual citizens.
And if that doesn't convince you, here is a statement by Retired Lt. General William Boykin: "There has been a decree by this administration --- by the president and the secretary of state --- saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons. That means the United Nations, an international body, will decide how you and I, as Americans, can buy and sell our weapons; how we control those weapons; who is authorized to have those weapons; and where they are. This is a dangerous trend."
So once again, it seems to me that our Leaders are willing to throw away our sovereignty for the sake of being part of the "global community." It doesn't seem to matter to them that the Constitution gives the power to regulate international commerce to Congress alone, or that the Second Amendment guarantees the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”, and the U.S. has no business supporting a treaty that infringes on the Bill of Rights.
Oh, wait. I forgot. We've just been shown by the Supreme Court that the Constitution is insignificant, right? So what makes us think our Bill of Rights will be honored?
I would caution you to do your own research and make up your own mind as to whether my conclusions about this little "non-threatening" treaty are correct. (For an in-depth analysis of this Treaty, read this article.) But as far as I'm concerned, it is appalling that our Government would even consider giving authority to the U.N. to regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sale of firearms or ammunition; let alone be party to any sort of international gun registry that would impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners.
But this post comes with a further warning .... apparently some Senators have stated they support the general concept of the treaty, but believe countries such as the U.S. should have “exclusive authority to regulate arms within their own borders." This statement seems to indicate that the Senators believe firearms registration is acceptable provided it is initiated by individual governments. Do you know your Senator's position? I suggest you make your opinion known. And one final thought .... Still feel your Second Amendment rights are secure?
Luke 11:21-22 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder."
I don't even know where to start. I was as stunned as the rest of America when I heard the decision by the Supreme Court on the Affordable Care Act. According to a standard Government class in high school, here is how the role of the Supreme Court is defined:
The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all is the Constitution. In essence, the Supreme Court is like a "referee" on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the "referee" in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court's job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds of these rules and boundaries.
But it seems to me that Chief Justice John Roberts decided to not only set new boundaries, but actually apply rules of a whole new and different game. It was as if the Court started out playing football, and he ended up declaring that Congress had won by the infield-fly rule.
In simple terms, this is what Roberts did; he changed the meaning of a law after it was passed, so that he could establish a Constitutional basis for it. I wish I could understand and explain why he did it. There are so many rumors and innuendos, and one thing is sure .... we will probably never know what really happened during the debate in that chamber, and why he ruled the way he did.
But we do know the consequences of his disastrous decision. Now that he has ruled that Obamacare is a "tax" on the American people, and is constitutionally sound, every hard-working American will be forced to pay a "compulsory contribution" to the cost of this so-called service. Because that's what a tax is....compulsory.
Because you see, there will be a tremendous cost; $1.76 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office. And someone will have to cover that cost. That's $1,760,000,000,000 if you want to see all the zeros.
And here are some more interesting facts from the CBO: Four million Americans can expect to lose their employer-provided healthcare by 2016, according to the revised figures; far more than the 1 million people estimated last year. And 1 million to 2 million fewer people will gain access to the law’s subsidized exchanges than first thought, while an extra 1 million are expected to qualify for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Provision (CHIP).
So, back to covering that cost. The Federal Government has no other way to make revenue to pay for such programs except to tax us. While some may opt to pay the lesser fine the first few years than be coerced into buying health insurance they don't want, the burden for paying for private insurance after your employer drops those benefits will soon bring hardship and distress on the American citizenry. Your share of the "tax" to pay for that $1.76 trillion price tag will force you into a Government healthcare program, and that will ultimately be the end of true patient-controlled health care.
But even sadder for me, this decision means the end of Limited Government, Checks and Balances, and Self-Determination. We, as individuals, no longer have the protection of the Constitution. When one man can change the definition of a law and use the Constitution to support a false premise, then there is no backstop for freedom and individual liberty.
I have heard some proclaim a victory because the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause cannot regulate inactivity. That should never have been argued in the first place, since the Constitution makes that perfectly clear. So that is a hollow victory at best.
While I abhor increased taxes to pay for programs that enslave us, I am even more heartbroken at the damage this decision does to our legal system. If words can be twisted and new definitions applied to passed laws, then where lies the security of a free people?
Our God gave us the wisdom to set up a system that protected the rights He gave us. And now we have deliberately destroyed that protection. Take one last look at Liberty. This is the way it is defined in the dictionary: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. I think the Supreme Court of the United States just made that definition obsolete.
Deuteronomy 4:7-9 "What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them fade from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them."
When I first saw the article announcing that U.S. Army troops from Maryland were conducting "urban training exercises" on the streets of St. Louis, Missouri, I was shocked! All kinds of scenarios popped into my head: Is it setting up a false flag for the November elections? Is it to slowly desensitize us to seeing troops in the streets? Since when are our military bases not suited to conduct training? Does the Government fear riots come election time, and this is a pre-warning?
As I looked into this incident further, I gained some more insight. The area in St. Louis where the "exercises" were being conducted is a high crime area, and St. Louis has a history of being a hotbed for civil unrest. I grew up in the St. Louis area, and as a child, I can remember when Martin Luther King was assassinated, there was real fear that the city would burn. Perhaps this is a show of power for any other city who might experience forms of social upheaval? Or a signal to the nation that dissent will not be tolerated?
But then that led me to Posse Comitatus, a term that is at the forefront of every freedom-lover's vocabulary. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1876 and its purpose was to act in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies in using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the US President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Therefore, when the Insurrection Act of 1807 is coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.
Since I am not a legal scholar and don't pretend to know all the legal ramifications of these Acts of Congress, my understanding is on a much simpler level. It's my humble opinion that what these Acts attempt to do is limit the power of the President or the Federal Government to use military power against the citizens.
What further investigation revealed was actually quite astounding. I don't want to bore you with a lot of tedious facts, but this condensed explanation should broaden your understanding.
In 2006 Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill. Section 1076 of the law changed the Insurrection Act and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. This flow-chart shows how these changes gave considerably more discretion to the President.
Fortunately for us, On February 7, 2007, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) introduced legislation that would revert the Insurrection Act to its previous state. Sen. Leahy argued that the modifications to the law make it "unnecessarily easy" to assert federal authority over national guard elements without the consent of governors, and that the changes removed a "useful friction" that existed between the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act.
In perhaps a prophetic statement, Senator Leahy remarked on September 19, 2006, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. It creates needless tension among the various levels of government – one can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders." The amended changes to the Insurrection Act were repealed in 2008. Yet that doesn't seem to have dampened the efforts to introduce the possibility of military forces in our urban streets. Did the Governor of Missouri invite the Federal Government to conduct these exercises? And if so, under what auspices? And if the State did not ask for assistance, why is the Federal Government exerting a show of force that is un-Constitutional?
I am far from being able to predict what all this means, but I'm perceptive enough to know this is unprecedented and unwarranted. It means something! I just pray that it's not what I think.
1 Peter 5:8 "Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour."
Denise Morrison, of Tulsa Oklahoma, recently came under fire from the local code enforcement team. Her crime? Growing a "survival garden". You see, after becoming unemployed, she decided to become self-sufficient, growing her own food and medicinal herbs rather than accept government assistance.
She filled her yard with things like, fruit trees, berries, nut trees, and a wide variety of edible and medicinal herbs. She used these herbs to treat her diabetes, high-blood pressure and arthritis. She had received warnings before, so she made sure that her garden met all the required ordinances; no plant was over the 12-inches tall that was mandated by code. She also made sure that every plant in her garden could be eaten.
But apparently the city did not honor her responsible behavior. According to Denise, “Every word out of their mouth was, ‘we don’t care’ .” So what was their final action? Over 100 plants were removed, leaving Denise with no way to feed or medicate herself. They even took the fruit and nut trees. Without committing any crime, the government came in and destroyed her garden. Denise sat in her driveway and allowed herself a good cry; and then she just drove away.
So apparently, if you want to be self-reliant and live a sustainable lifestyle, it is now a crime. What this story is really about is Property Rights and Eminent Domain. Take, for instance, the heart-breaking story of Andrew Wordes of Roswell, Georgia, who fought the city for the right to raise chickens in his backyard. He fought the City and initially won. But further investigation found that his property was targeted for "city improvements" because it actually sat right in the middle of a planned city park. The chickens were just a catalyst for the City of Roswell to unlawfully seize his land. After the initial win, the City made Andrew's life a living hell; trying to foreclose on the home and ultimately arresting him. Upon release from jail, he refused to leave his home and when authorities came to remove him, they were met with an explosion. Andrew had had enough, and ended his life.
In California, government officials formed "nuisance abatement teams" to intimidate people in giving up their lands, or hooking back into the grid. And now the Department of Homeland Security has joined forces with the Environmental Protection Agency and are creating environmental justice units to "combat environmental inequities", supposedly to avoid burdening minority and low-income populations with a disproportionate share of any adverse human health or environmental risks associated with our (DHS) efforts to secure the Nation. It's my thinking that they can use this "Environmental Justice Strategy" to tell you and me that we can't use our own land as we see fit. No more gardens, no more chickens, no more fruit orchards, no sustaining ourselves.
Where does it end? And what can we possibly do to defend our rights? When growing a garden becomes a crime, it's time to unite. These individuals tried to stand up to the system and lost. Eminent Domain will be the death of Liberty in this country. It all comes down to this ..... If we rely on ourselves, then we don't need the Government. And they can't have that, now can they?
As I was surfing my favorite news sites and blogs, I came across a frightening report. With the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare looming over us, you can feel the fear and anxiety throughout the medical field. According to a recent survey by the American Medical Association, an astounding 83% of doctors stated that they would consider leaving the medical profession, should the unconstitutional law go into effect.
You can go to an article on town hall.com to get the specific statistics on the survey, but here's a few of the key findings; how your own doctor may feel about continuing to practice medicine. Doctors feel:
1) The medical system is on the wrong track
2) The system challenges their ethics
3) Big Government is at the center of current problems
4) They will either stop accepting Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
5) They will stop accepting Medicaid patients
6) They are hesitant to voice their opinion
7) Private Practice is being replaced by Corporate medicine .... and more.
So, where would that leave us? I watched a daytime news show last year that interviewed an audience of doctors. Half were newly graduated from Medical School, while the other half were seasoned and veteran doctors. The difference in philosophy between the two groups was astounding! The young doctors think the new system will provide "equal access" to all people, and think working for Big Brother poses no ethical or practical problems. (Brain-washing in the medical school classroom is no different than at other universities.) The older doctors clearly see a decline in the quality of medical care when decision-making is made by "panels" and "committees" versus treating the individual as needed.
And now I'll answer my own question.... I think if Obamacare becomes a reality and we lose 83% of our "old-school" doctors, we will suddenly find ourselves in a "Brave New World". You will just be a number in the medical system, seen by whatever physician happens to be on call at the clinic you report to. No longer will you have an intimate and personal relationship with your doctor, and your wait-time for an appointment will be extended considerably.
I feel for all the physicians who entered into this profession for all the right reasons. How it must break their hearts to think that the Government will control the quality of life of their patients. No longer will the physician/patient relationship be paramount! And they endanger their livelihood (and their freedom) should they decide to buck the system. I can understand why, even though it would be extremely difficult, they would rather leave their profession than deliver a substandard caliber of care.
As a patient, I must admit that my opposition to Obamacare stems from more than the financial aspect of health insurance, long wait-times for elected surgeries, or so-called "health panels" that will determine aspects of my life-giving care, or even the circumstances of how my life will end. My real concern is the relationship I want to have with my doctor. I want someone attending me who knows me --- my name, my history, and how I wish to be treated..... and cares about hearing my opinions.
The thought that I could be facing a future with Government-employed practitioners turns my blood cold. So you can bet that I will be praying that the Supreme Court follows the Constitutional rulebook, and strikes down the mandate. Our nation needs healing -- and by those who know the true meaning of restoring us to health.
Jeremiah 8:15 "We hoped for peace but no good has come, for a time of healing but there is only terror."
This week I received an email from a good and faithful friend. He said he thought I would find the following video interesting. Not only did I find it thought-provoking; I found it bold and inspirational.
Father Andrew of St. Thomas More Catholic Church in Centennial, Colorado was recently invited to present the Invocation at the 2012 Colorado Republican State Assembly and Convention. His opening prayer was of the usual order; asking God's help in knowing right from wrong, and good from bad. Then he quoted Scripture from the Book of Revelation, Chapter 21, which is highly unusual for any clergyman today. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." He then looked straight at his audience and began one of the most powerful, and honest, speeches I have ever heard. You don't have to be a Catholic, or even a fan of the Catholic Church; indeed, even an opponent of the Church cannot deny the veracity of his words. Because he spoke as an American first, and a priest, second.
The premise of his speech was simple: The moral challenges facing our country today are not caused by political affiliation, but rather by attacks on religious freedom. He further stated that this is not an issue between Liberals and Conservatives; Democrats and Republicans. It is an issue between Democracy and Socialism! And he was only getting started!
He cited two hallmarks of democracy that would never be compatible with socialism: personal choice and private property. Both of these elements were the reasons the Pilgrims found their ways to our shores, and Father Andrew goes on to point out that they are ordained as rights in our Declaration of Independence. These "God-given" rights necessarily lead to personal responsibility and individual generosity, which are at the foundation of Christianity. Socialists cannot allow them to stand if they hope to control the populace. They want to take those responsibilities away from us. Therefore it will always be their goal to restrict religious freedoms.
Father Andrew ends his short speech by inviting all good people of conscious to stand together and fight for our religious liberties. They are at the center of our Democracy and will never be compatible with Socialism. That's why they must be fought for! Watch his impassioned speech below. I think it will move you as much as it did me.
Job 33:3 "My words come from an upright heart; my lips sincerely speak what I know."
It has been awhile since I've written a post on the Constitution series that I studied through prestigious Hillsdale College, the independent, liberal arts college known for its unabashed conservative ideals. The lecture I studied this past week was titled The Recovery of the Constitution. This particularly intrigued me, because I feel we are at a crossroads in this country. The next six months will determine if we follow the path of liberty and freedom established by the Founders, or venture down the path of enslavement to the Federal government offered by the Progressives. As it has been declared, our choice is "fundamental."
Dr. Larry Arne, President of Hillsdale College, began his lecture by quoting Abraham Lincoln (who was actually quoting the Bible) when he said, "A house divided against itself, cannot stand." We are so divided today that, ultimately, we have to go one way or another. One side believes in limited government and restraints against a growing government that impedes man's natural ability to govern himself. The other side promotes the idea that we have advanced so much through technology, science, organization, and knowledge that we require a "new" kind of government; one that actually needs to be larger, and expanded, to take control of everything. The old restraints are in the way, and impede us from being all that we can be.
These two principles are obviously not compatible. You cannot have both. That's our choice in the upcoming election. Pure and simple. And I'd like to present aspects of two different speeches that Dr. Arne used in his lecture to point out the contrasts between these two ideals. The first speech was by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he launched his campaign for President in 1932. The other is the speech given by Ronald Reagan when he assumed the Presidency in 1981.
Roosevelt, in his address to the Commonwealth Club, gives his description of the Declaration of Independence: "The task of statesmanship has always been the redefinition of these 'rights' (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) in terms of a changing and growing social order." The problem is that Roosevelt feels that government is under "contract" with the people, and that contract should be altered whenever the "needs" of the people are determined to be unfulfilled. He seems to have forgotten that the Declaration of Independence was no contract at all. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." The problem is this: he had lost the meaning of that word "unalienable". It's original intention was rooted in the word "lien" --- as in contract --- and the "un" prefix meant you couldn't get rid of them! That contract for those specific Rights was between man and His Creator! No government could alter or destroy them!
This is a clear mis-reading of the Declaration of Independence, and there is a reason for this misinterpretation. He is trying to state that since the times are different than when these Rights were first specified, then they must be redefined to fit the current society. In other words, everything shifts fundamentally with time. Perhaps he should have re-read Alexander Hamilton: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself....". In essence, Roosevelt is saying that in the "new conditions" of society, you can't be secure in your property unless the Government can guarantee your property. And of course, it can't guarantee your property, unless it has a claim on all your property. And it just makes sense, doesn't it, that this kind of new Government can't be limited by such old notions as representation, limits on scope, and separation of powers. Sound familiar?
Now, contrast this ideology with Ronald Reagan's first Inaugural Address. He points out that the orderly transfer of power from one party to another is unique in the history of the world; it is done "according to the democratic will of a free people", and it happened for the first time in history in 1800 in the United States of America. Reagan, in his speech, calls this nothing less than a miracle.
Remember that when Reagan assumed office we were in a world of hurt economically, and we faced unprecedented foreign policy crises. "Government," said Reagan, "is not the solution to the problem. From time to time, in America, we have come to believe that society is too complex to be managed by self-rule. Government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of ruling himself, then who, among us, has the capacity to rule someone else?" That is brilliant! So, if under a system of self-rule, Government is not the solution, who is? Obviously, it is us, as individuals. We, the people, are still the best form of government on this planet.
Another moving aspect of Reagan's Address was the fact that he moved the location in order to face the National Mall, where he could give tribute to his heroes. He paid homage to George Washington, the Father of our Country: "a man of humility, who came to greatness reluctantly. He led Americans out of revolutionary victory into infant nationhood." Next, he mentioned Thomas Jefferson. "The Declaration of Independence flames with his eloquence." He looked beyond the reflecting pools to the Lincoln Memorial. "Whoever would understand, in his heart, the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln." Reagan saluted the Founders of our country: Washington for his humbleness; Jefferson for his eloquence in writing the Declaration of Independence; and Lincoln as a common and obedient man. But then he went on to honor those who lay in Arlington National Cemetery; those who went beyond the call of duty to pay the price for our freedom. They are just as much the heroes of this nation, as those whose monuments grace the National Mall. Our freedoms have been paid for by individuals, and it is the individual who should have control of his own destiny.
The real meaning of his speech lies in his conviction that what those Founders fought for is the same as what those young men in Arlington died for --- the Rights that are guaranteed by our Creator; not granted from a Government that can redefine them based on a shift in society.
So there you have it! We have a choice to make. And our options are clear. Will we live by the principles of the American Founding, or by the values of the Progressives? We have six short months to decide. May God be with us!
Romans 8:20 "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope"
Thanks to CZ, a faithful reader, for suggesting this post topic. She sent me a link to an article about a major city in our state, (and the Southwest) that is implementing a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system on two of their Independent School District campuses. Granted, the program is being instituted on a trial basis ..... for the time being. But news sources report that if deemed successful, it could eventually include all 112 of its schools and all of its nearly 100,000 students.
So just what is an RFID system and what does it accomplish? Among other things, it is a wireless non-contact system that uses radio-frequency electromagnetic fields to transfer data from a tag attached to an object, (in this case the Student ID Card) for the purposes of automatic identification and tracking. Some tags require no battery and are powered by the electromagnetic fields used to read them. Others use a local power source and emit radio waves (electromagnetic radiation at radio frequencies). The tag contains electronically stored information which can be read from up to several yards away. Unlike a bar code, the tag does not need to be within line of sight of the reader and may be embedded in the tracked object.
Of course, the powers-that-be trot out all the usual benefits of such a program; it will increase the safety for students, allowing them to be located at all times; at a cost of $15 per ID card, it would bring in much needed revenue to the educational system, offsetting cuts in state funding. But that didn't add up, and this is what I couldn't understand ---- if the school district is suffering from spending cuts, then how are they affording the $525,065 to implement the pilot program and $136,005 per year to run it? All I had to do was read between the lines, and there it was --- buried within a paragraph of the article. Now I get it! According to the School District's Assistant Superintendent for Budget and Finance, if successful, the school district would get $1.7 million next year from both higher attendance and Medicaid reimbursements for busing special education students. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT would pay for it, and ultimately control it.
Furthermore, it was explained, the payoff could be a lot bigger if the program goes districtwide. This official said the program was one way the growing district could respond to the State Legislature's cuts in state education funding. So, let me see if I understand this correctly --- if the State won't give us the funds we want, then we'll just sacrifice a little of our students' freedoms and implement this small pilot program and get our funding from the Feds. So it's a financial decision! And obviously worth the trade-off! Never mind the fact that our entire educational system has failed to properly educate our kids over the last few decades, and they don't deserve their overblown budgets!
They also cite the fact that "national school safety experts" (whoever they might be!) compare the RFID chips to nothing more sinister than security cameras. They attempt to further mollify privacy concerns by blithely commenting that it is just a pilot program, and not permanent.
And you wouldn't believe the number of parents who fell for this nonsense! Don't they see that we are incrementally losing our freedoms? Security cameras were once going to be a pilot program, too --- and used exclusively to capture the "bad guys". Remember that? Now they are everywhere, and are an intrusion upon our privacy, notwithstanding all their nefarious uses.
One school district spokesman summed it up neatly, "“We want to harness the power of (the) technology to make schools safer, know where our students are all the time in a school, and increase revenues.” That about covers all the bases --- introduce technology that will lull the sheeple into a false sense of security; use it to gain more private information on individuals; and justify it all in terms of money.
What I want to know is this --- what happened to the days when teachers had enough authority and influence to motivate students to be in their seats in the classroom, where they were supposed to be? Now we need "technology" (translation: some person sitting at a computer tracking our children) to be assured that our children are getting the education we send them to school for???
One school board trustee actually had a brain cell working, and voiced her concerns over whether the administration would soon be tracking the teachers' every move. That's what these people don't understand. It doesn't stop with just making sure a student hasn't skipped out on Second Period Math. If they can start out small, and gradually implement it, then before you know it, all of society will fall into step and accept it as part of our everyday life.
Fortunately, this is one matter where the ACLU and I agree. They were able to successfully cancel a similar program in California, citing not only privacy issues, but the risks of identity theft or kidnapping if somebody hacks into the system. And if that doesn't convince the ill-informed parents, this should: a State Education Agency spokeswoman stated that no state law or policy regulates the use of such devices. How's that for checks and balances?
And finally, these additional little tidbits about RFID chips made the hair stand up on the back of my neck .... An RFID tag attached to an automobile during production can be used to track its progress through the assembly line (and who is responsible for turning that chip off?). Pharmaceuticals can be tracked through warehouses (and records kept on your personal medical information). Livestock and pets may have tags injected, allowing positive identification of the animal (and further tracking of the pet's owner). RFID identity cards can give employees access to locked areas of a building (and anyone with harmful motives); and RF transponders mounted in automobiles can be used to bill motorists for access to toll roads or parking. How many of us have these innocuous toll road tags on our cars? Do you really think that's all those little chips are good for? Since RFID tags can be attached to clothing, possessions, or even implanted within people, the possibility of reading personally-linked information without consent grows increasingly conceivable. I even watched a recent television series where an isotope was added to the pitcher of cream at a local coffee shop, allowing government officials to track everyone who decided to add a dollop to their morning cup of joe. Think it sounds too far-fetched? Be honest. Do you, really?
I'm sure that most parents signed the consent form that was sent home with their child. The Nanny State was once again stepping in to take care of their children, because the parents and the teachers were not capable. It's almost laughable, how easily we give up our rights. Almost. But how long before we are all just a blip on someone's computer screen?
Proverbs 2:11 "Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you."
Last week, I read an article by Andrew Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey. He has written six books on the U.S. Constitution, and is a strong advocate for this historic document. He views it as a contract that must be interpreted the way its authors intended or else it is invalid. As a Libertarian Conservative, Napolitano believes in "small government" with limited powers. Which is exactly why I was interested in what he had to say about this topic.
Just yesterday, as Peace-Loving Warrior and I were driving into town, we saw a big, white "bird" sailing across the pastureland just to our left. From a distance, it looked like it was sailing on currents of wind. That is, until the sun caught one of its wings in flight, and the glare of reflected sunlight off metal, revealed its true identity. Less than 100 feet off the deck, and a wingspan less than 15 feet? What else could it be? You tell me! I'm not exactly sure what information this mystery "flying" apparatus was gathering from the assorted cattle grazing in the fields and the farmhouses scattered across the rolling landscape. But there it was!
And I dare say there are more flying around your neighborhood, too. You see, the federal government has charged the Air Force to dispatch drones to assist local police in tasks such as finding missing persons or kidnap victims, or to chase the bad guys. OK, these are all good uses of this equipment, although I'm not exactly sure which of those would have been in that particular pasture, but what do I know?
But according to Judge Napolitano, the drone operator might also see other activities that citizens are undertaking, and if he deems it of interest to the government, he may take a picture of you and keep it. If the government authorizes the 30,000 drones it has forecast over the next 10 years, then this is something that should give pause to all lovers of freedom.
What if the government deems that the fertilizer you're using for your roses might be used in a Timothy McVeigh-style horror? Is that Sudafed really for your cold, or do you have a meth habit? It looks as if you are buying lots of chips, Cokes and candy in those bags of groceries, and Heaven forbid ---- are those cigarettes? And of course, that deer stand in your corn field --- what is its real purpose?
I can hear many of you saying, "Aren't you taking this a little far? If you have nothing to hide, why should you be concerned?" But just read this quote from Judge Napolitano and see if you can tell where I'm coming from:
If the police use a drone without a warrant to see who or what is in your backyard or your bedroom, or if while looking for a missing child the drone takes a picture of you in your backyard or bedroom and the government keeps the picture, its use is unnatural and unconstitutional. I say "unnatural" because we all have a natural right to privacy; it is a fundamental right that is inherent in our humanity. All of us have times of the day and moments in our behavior when we expect that no one -- least of all the government -- will be watching. When the government watches us during those times, it violates our natural right to privacy. It also violates our constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court has held consistently that numerous clauses in the Bill of Rights keep the government at bay without a warrant.
And a further point is this --- where does it end? We already have cameras on many street corners, some equipped with listening devices and tiny megaphones. Megaphones? Will we soon be commanded to "Stop talking on that cell phone!" or "You're not allowed to eat that hamburger while driving a car!" And now you have the military (Air Force) involved with law enforcement, which is only supposed to happen in the case of disaster. And never mind that this collaboration is not the result of legislation enacted by Congress. The President enacted it on his own.
And to quote Judge Napolitano, "The whole reason we have a Bill of Rights is to assure that tyranny does not happen here, to guarantee that the government, to which we have supposedly consented, will leave us alone." Does the following map look like we're going to be left alone? In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the FAA recently released the following map of 63 authorized drone launch sites. Do you see one near you? Does it give you pause? It sends a chill down my spine.
Proverbs 17:23 "The wicked accept bribes in secret to pervert the course of justice."
Today's post has been pricking my conscious for days now, and I can no longer ignore it. Several broadcasts and images have come before me in the last couple of weeks, and I think maybe it is God prompting me to speak out.
Back in 2010, there was the debate involving Representative Bart Stupek and his amendment. Its stated purpose was to prohibit the use of federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Stupek revealed that House leaders told him, "If you pass this amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more."
Then there is the recent controversy over the Administration's Health and Human Services mandate that requires nearly all employers -- even Catholic ones -- who provide insurance to their employees to include coverage of birth control services; regardless of their religious convictions.
Sarah Palin dared to suggest that Death Panels would be a part of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), and was roundly criticized for fear-mongering. Yet, it seems to me that by attempting to mandate birth control, they are in effect seeking to establish Death Panels for the unborn. As Representative Stupak asked at the time, "Is this how we value life in America?" Apparently it is. For the last four years the word "Eugenics" has become a part of the national dialogue. Just what does it mean? According to Wikipedia it is: the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization, based on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between superior and inferior elements of society. And it is not a new movement. From the early 20th century, Eugenics has always been widely accepted in the U.S. academic community. (Somehow that doesn't surprise me!) By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States' leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum. Corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution and Rockefeller Foundation contributed extensive funding to the cause.
What is most disturbing to me, is that the darling of Feminism and the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a champion of the Eugenics agenda. Long thought of as providing "a choice" for women in controlling their own bodies, I believe that Sanger, in reality was a monster. There, I've said it! But I wonder if all my "liberated" friends know some of her real thoughts. Read just a few of her quotes and decide for yourselves:
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
On sterilization & racial purification:Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people.
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
As you can see, unwanted pregnancy was not the only issue the Eugenicists were concerned about. At the core of their agenda was ridding society of "inferior" populations, a philosophy that inspired Hitler and his Nazis.
And just in case you think these comments from the early 1900's have evolved into a more caring and sympathetic Planned Parenthood, read this 1971 assessment of the organization: Planned Parenthood has an unhealthy concept of pregnancy, as it views the state of gestation as an abnormal condition or disease. Speaking for the organization, Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as "an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition ... May be defined as an illness ... Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents..."("Is Pregnancy Really Normal?" Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9).
I want to assure you that the interest in Eugenics has not waned in the ensuing years. John Holdren, the Science Czar of the current Administration, co-wrote a book called Ecoscience in 1977, in which he held forth these views:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
I know, I know! This sounds like it came right out of Dr. Frankenstein! But don't be fooled! Read the book yourself! Our leading politicians and government officials are looking for ways to cut funding and medical care costs, and I believe their history speaks for itself.
I recently watched a TV program where handicapped children appeared with their parents. Everyone was concerned over the warning signals that are quite apparent. These children were ALL contributing members of their families, and each parent said their lives had been enriched by the unconditional love of their sons and daughters. The children themselves were not limited by their handicaps or disabilities, and seeing their accomplishments brought tears of joy to my soul.
I want to leave you with this video. Watch it and then tell me that our society would be better off without celebrating the achievement of this precious child. He has Cerebral Palsy and surprised his returning vet father by walking to him for the first time. How can he be deemed "undesirable?" God will surely judge us!
Matthew 19:14 "Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
The other evening I had the opportunity to attend a meeting at our local VFW Post, where Sheriff Richard Mack was scheduled to speak. I knew nothing of the man, except that he had been a County Sheriff in Arizona. In light of all the pressure upon Sheriffs in Arizona lately, I figured he would have something relevant to say.
It took only a few minutes into his speech before I realized that not only had I been given an opportunity to hear him speak, but it was an honorto learn from this man's experience.
So just why is he so significant? Well, in 1993 he sued President Clinton and the Federal Government over their intrusion on States Rights, as it pertains to the 10th Amendment. Here's the story: In 1993, Congress amended the Gun Control Act (GCA) by enacting the Brady Bill. The Act required the Attorney General to establish a national instant background check system by November 30, 1998, and immediately put in place certain interim provisions until that system became operative. These interim provisions required Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) to engage in lengthy background checks any time there was a sale from a firearms dealer. The CLEOs would have to research in whatever State and local record keeping systems were available and in a national system designated by the Attorney General. He would then determine if the prospective purchaser of a handgun was eligible to receive that handgun, and if found ineligible, the law enforcement officer would have to provide the would-be purchaser with a written statement of the reasons for that determination.
And if the CLEO did not discover any basis for objecting to the sale, he must destroy any records in his possession relating to the purchase, including his copy of the Brady Form. Now, besides the fact that this obviously smacks of over-the-top bureaucracy, governmental regulation, and a colossal amount of time taken away from a County Sheriff's duties, you might think that this was an assault upon the Second Amendment.
But Sheriff Mack saw the bigger issue at hand. Along with Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana, Sheriff Richard Mack filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. And he did it based on the Tenth Amendment. Simply stated, this is what the Tenth Amendment says:
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.
This is commonly known as State Nullification and what it means is this: Whenever the Federal Government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state's legislature is duty bound to interpose its power to prevent the Federal Government from victimizing its people. So just what does "interpose" mean? It means that our local and state elected officials are bound by the oath to the Constitution (that each took upon taking office) to stand between us and an over-reaching federal government.
And that's just what Sheriff Richard Mack did when he decided to sue the Federal Government. The Government and Attorney General Janet Reno made it known that if he failed to comply with these interim provisions of the Brady Act, he would be subject to arrest. But Sheriff Mack believed that the Founders designed the Constitution to be a true system of checks and balances, and this Act needed to be checked.
In fact, the Judge of the Federal District Court in Tucson, AZ, who initially heard his case stated, "Sheriff Mack is thus forced to choose between keeping his oath to the Constitution or obeying the Act, subjecting himself to possible sanctions." And the Judge ruled in favor of Sheriff Mack. And who was the Judge? Judge John Roll, who was killed during the attack on Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in 2011. His legacy is extensive, but his decision that the Brady Law violated the Tenth Amendment may be one of his most important. By the way --- this case went all the way to the Supreme Court and Sheriffs Mack and Printz won!
So what significance does it have for us today? Sheriff Mack pointed out to us that the Constitution establishes "Dual Sovereignty"; that both state legislatures and the federal government are sovereign -- they each have spheres and can execute powers that the other cannot. By the same token, they each have limits on what they can invoke the other to do.
It is his belief that the mountains of federal regulations that we've seen in the last few years are not incumbent upon the states to enact, if it is determined that these regulations are not in the best interest of the state's citizens. In a very powerful voice, Sheriff Mack shouted, "The Federal Government is Not Your Boss!" He strongly asserts that we can protect our freedoms by taking back our country --- county by county, state by state.
That means that, as citizens, it is essential that we elect Constitution-abiding County officials, from Judges to Sheriffs to Commissioners, all the way down to the Dog-Catcher. We can then ask (and expect!) them to interpose on our behalf whenever the Federal Government oversteps its reach. And that includes such newly-created agencies as the EPA, the TSA, Homeland Security and the Department of Education.
We are perilously close to abdicating our states rights. If we don't elect officials that know what the Constitution says and believe in the system of checks and balances, then we can expect to see our freedoms disappear. So I challenge everyone to get involved in your local elections; know who your candidates are and what they stand for. We can take our country back .... and it starts at the County level.
James 1:25 "But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do. "
