How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn’t (by Irwin Schiff)

For those who need a refresher on why Individual Freedom and Free Market Capitalism go hand in hand. .. Think about how “government” has extended it’s role into spheres far beyond it’s legitimate role, and how that diminishes individual freedom, prosperity, and security. Capitalism is the best solution to end poverty and provision of liberty for all.

First Amendment Trumps Sharia in Dearborn


http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2011/05/29/first-amendment-trumps-sharia-in-dearborn/

First Amendment Trumps Sharia in Dearborn

Posted By Andrew Bostom On May 29, 2011

[1]

Robert Muise, Senior Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center: Teaching us how to solve the problem of Sharia

A seminal, if ominous report [2] released May 17, 2011 by the Center for Security Policy described fifty appellate court cases from 23 states which involve conflicts between Islamic law—Sharia [3]—and American state law. Nothwithstanding the delusive mindslaughter [4] on display across America’s political spectrum which denies Sharia [5] encroachment in the US, the CSP analysis revealed [2] that,

Sharia has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

But the grim, seemingly inexorable, progressive acceptance of Sharia-based mores in the US—despite this totalitarian [3] religio-political “law” being antithetical to American law—was at least temporarily reversed late last week, in of all places, Dearborn, Michigan. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled [6] 2:1 on Thursday May 26, 2011 (in GEORGE SAIEG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DEARBORN; RONALD HADDAD, Dearborn Chief of Police ) that Dearborn, and its police department, violated the free-speech rights of a Christian evangelist by barring him from handing out leaflets at an Arab-American street festival last year. The court’s two judge majority opinion concluded [6],

On the free speech claim, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants and its denial of summary judgment to the plaintiffs. We thereby invalidate the leafleting restriction within both the inner and outer perimeters of the Festival.1 The restriction on the sidewalks that are directly adjacent to the Festival attractions does not serve a substantial government interest. The City keeps those same sidewalks open for public traffic and permits sidewalk vendors, whose activity is more obstructive to sidewalk traffic flow than pedestrian leafleting is. Moreover, the prohibition of pedestrian leafleting in the outer perimeter is not narrowly tailored to the goal of isolating inner areas from vehicular traffic. The City can be held liable because the Chief of Police, who instituted the leafleting restriction, created official municipal policy.

Elaborating on the issue of Dearborn’s liability for depriving George Saieg, an American Christian pastor of Sudanese descent, of his first amendment rights, the judges opined [6],

The City may be held liable for the restriction of Saieg’s free speech rights that the leafleting restriction caused. A municipality is liable if a constitutional injury results from a policy or custom “made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694–95 (1978). In this case, the City approved the Festival “subject to . . . the rules and regulations of the Police Department.” R. 47-13 (Ex. M: Council Resolution)…Chief Haddad described the leafleting policy as his department’s policy, subject only to the approval of the city council and the mayor. R. 47-11 (Ex. K: Haddad Dep. at 95–96) (stating that “the police department will supply the standards that must be met,” such as the “prohibition of individuals handing out . . . materials on the public sidewalk”). The police department’s leafleting policy, made with the authority that the City Council delegated to it, fairly represents official City policy. Therefore, Saieg may hold the City liable for violating his First Amendment right to free speech.

Most remarkably, the majority opinion of Justices Moore and Clay included a salient observation [6] revealing how these judges understood the Sharia-based objections to non-Muslim proselytization which motivated Dearborn’s attempt to abrogate Pastor Saeig’s freedom of speech—mainstream Islam’s [7] continued rejection of freedom of conscience:

Saieg also faces a more basic problem with booth-based evangelism: “[t]he penalty of leaving Islam according to Islamic books is death,” which makes Muslims reluctant to approach a booth that is publicly “labeled as . . . Christian.” R. 48 (Ex. A: Saieg Dep. at 75). Saieg believes that evangelism is more effective when he can roam the Festival and speak to Muslims more discreetly.

Roberta Aluffi Beck-Peccoz [8], Associate Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Turin, made this rather understated assessment of contemporary Islamdom’s strict opposition to the proselytization of Muslims by non-Muslims—rooted in the Sharia, and ultimately, the grave offense of “ridda,” or apostasy from Islam, deemed “treasonous” against the Muslim community, and punishable by death [7] under Islamic Law—published [8] in 2010:

Islamic States have always strongly opposed this specific freedom [i.e., freedom of conscience as per the first amendment of the US Bill of Rights, or more specifically article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights], claiming that it contravenes Islamic Law. [Note: It does, and that is why the 57 Muslim nation Organization of the Islamic Conference drafted and ratified the antithetical Cairo Declaration which insists upon having Sharia exert supremacy over all “manmade” law!]…Moreover they express fear that proselytism represents a kind of foreign interference in their internal affairs. Consistently, Islamic States do not favor proselytism; they sometimes tend to restrict it even in its lightest forms, such as the simple expression of one’s intimate beliefs…Proselytism is perceived as a major threat to the coherence and cohesion of the umma [i.e., the global Muslim community]: it can lead to ridda [apostasy from Islam] the paradigm of political treason, or fitna, the temptation, the civil war involving doctyrinal dissensions…

Even in moderate, pseudo-secular Arab Tunisia—prior to the “Jasmine revolution” which may have already empowered [9] the formerly banned Tunisian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood under Rachid Ghannouchi [10]—according to a 2010 US State Department report [11],

It was illegal to proselytize to Muslims as the government viewed such efforts as disturbing the public order.

Neighboring Morocco [12], also deemed “moderate,” aggressively deports Christians who dare proselytize to Muslims. The globally representative Sharia-based penal law (circa1982) of Comoros [13] (the Muslim archipelago island nation in the Indian Ocean, located off the eastern coast of Africa, on the northern end of the Mozambique), for example, defines the “criminal” proselytizer as one who, “…indulges, promotes, or teaches Muslims a religion other than Islam.”

The attempt by Dearborn’s large Muslim population to enforce Sharia-based injunctions against non-Muslim proselytism confirms local attitudes documented via polling data collected in 2003, and reported during 2004. “The Detroit Mosque Study: Muslim Views on Policy and Religion,” was conducted by Ihsan Bagby an Associate Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Kentucky and a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy Understanding—a Muslim organization. Data were gathered during the summer of 2003 and published online in 2004.

These alarming results were described on page 37 of the report [14]:

Mosque participants were asked, whether they agree or disagree with the statement, “Shari’ah should be the law of the land in Muslim countries?”

Apply Islamic Law in Muslim Lands
Strongly Agree — 59%
Somewhat Agree — 22%(i.e., collectively = 81%)

Somewhat Disagree — 8%
Strongly Disagree — 3%
Don’t Know — 8%

Such data supposedly reflected the Detroit area (read Dearborn) Muslims views of “Islamic countries,” only. But given the intrinsic, universally supremacist nature of Islam and the global umma (i.e., as stated in Koran 3:110 [15], and the Orwellian-named Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam [16], “Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah”), once an area has a Muslim majority it is assumed by Muslims that Islamic Law should prevail—hence the “enclave” phenomenon, now evident in the United States.

Following the issuance of the verdict, Pastor Saeig’s intrepid attorney, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, made these apposite remarks [17], which all who cherish our unique Western freedoms must heed, and support:

Everybody should be pleased. Dearborn is getting a pretty strong reputation as being the enemy of the First Amendment. As long as they keep passing these draconian restrictions that violate the rights of everyone, we’re going to challenge them.

Adam Kokesh body slammed, choked, police brutality at Jefferson Memorial

This is a troubling video. While we coddle every form of vile display of hatred and rebellion.. the Capitol police arrest peaceful, respectful citizens for “dancing”.. at the Jefferson Memorial. What “law” was being broken? Seems to me the citizens here were being systematically separated from their rights under the US Constitution. This is so tame, it’s hard to comprehend the police demands on these citizens- when I’ve personally observed serious threatening speech and intimidation tactics by weirdo’s in front of police with absolutely no effort by police to inhibit outrageous, vulgar and threatening behavior. Makes you wonder why the almost gleeful assault on citizens are occuring.

Untitled

Property rights- something far too many take for granted.. because they have idea what losing property rights means for liberty, freedom and the opportunity to be free of Government domination.  Government is always trying to take more power from citizens, and retaining property rights is the most basic right that offers everyone an equal opportunity for prosperity.  Take these rights away, or chip away at them by regulatory means, is one of the bedrock fundamental “changes” defined in the “Communist Manifesto”.  Beware a large central government.. in order to feed the enormous appetite of this government class, the need to tax and regulate the “serfs” who actually pay the costs of government overhead accelerates.  We must fight against anyone who insists government should confiscate or over regtulate or over tax property. 

Oregon Ranchers support Government Litigation Savings Act

Repost… By Tim K. Smith

HERE’S ONE THATS BEEN COMING FOR SOME TIME AND ITS NONE TOO SOON. PLEASE SUPPORT THIS AND SUPPORT OUR RESOURCE INDUSTRIES.

 Ranchers support Government Litigation Savings Act

 May 29, 2011

 Ranchers support Government Litigation Savings Act

By National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

WASHINGTON (May 25, 2011) – The Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) strongly support the Government Litigation Savings Act, legislation introduced today, May 25, 2011, by U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). NCBA President Bill Donald, PLC President John Falen and ASI President Margaret Soulen Hinson agree that while EAJA was intended to level the playing field between private citizens and the vast resources of the federal government, radical environmental groups have abused the system to target private citizens.

“Well-funded environmental activists have abused EAJA to advance their agenda to ultimately end grazing and other multiple-use activities on federal lands,” Donald said. “Congress intended EAJA to level the playing field between private citizens and the powerful federal government, not provide a means for radical environmentalists to use taxpayer dollars to target family farmers and ranchers. We strongly support the Government Litigation Savings Act and urge all members of Congress to do the same.”

EAJA allows plaintiffs to recover attorney fees and other expenses from the federal government when they prevail in a case against the government. Falen said the government often settles cases and pays plaintiffs through EAJA instead of devoting time, staff and resources to a trial. He said when environmental activists file lawsuits against a governmental agency, farmers and ranchers lose.

“Farmers and ranchers pay to defend themselves against these frivolous lawsuits and at the same time their tax dollars are paying the attorney fees for the environmental activists attacking them. In what world can this be construed as being right and just? Rep. Lummis’ and Senator Barrasso’s legislation will finally shed light onto these abuses and reform EAJA,” Falen said.

Specifically, the Government Litigation Savings Act will prohibit organizations with a net worth exceeding $7 million from filing for EAJA funds; require that EAJA filers show a “direct and personal monetary interest” in the action to be eligible for payments; and cap the attorney fees environmental activists claim to be owed. According to a letter signed by PLC, NCBA, ASI and 34 other organizations representing livestock ranchers, the Government Litigation Savings Act “will help protect our members from the injustice of funding their own demise.”

“As the producers of food and fiber for a growing global population, livestock producers take very seriously our obligation to responsibly use and manage natural resources,” said Hinson. “Unfortunately, EAJA payments are not encouraging conservation or wise resource use – they are encouraging destructive behavior on the parts of powerful special interest groups. We commend Rep. Lummis and Sen. Barrasso for their leadership on this issue and urge all members of Congress to support this important legislation.

Proof of voter fraud in the USA – from the horse’s mouth

Is it time to re-evaluate the integrity of our system for tabulating votes? The more centralized we make the system, the easier it is to “game” the outcome with no one knowing it… other than the perps. Computer are wonderful machines, but the problem arises when you put that machine under the control of a small number of corrupted “insiders”.. Stalin said he didn’t care if people voted..so long as he controlled who COUNTED the vote..

Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools | The Oregon Catalyst

lister.serendipityThumb Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools

by Dave Lister

For those of us in opposition, the narrow defeat of the obscenely expensive Portland Public Schools construction bond was a miracle on the order of the parting of the Red Sea. Not only did the supporters of the measure have more than a million dollars to spend against an underfunded and loosely organized opposition, but they also had the school district itself pressing the envelope of electioneering like I’ve never seen.

A mail piece from PPS arrived at my home just before the election under the guise of “public information.” It showed how badly the schools were in disrepair, explained the urgency of getting on with rebuilding, and proclaimed that, despite it all, the district was still doing a great job educating the kids. Even after The Oregonian called foul on what was clearly unlawful campaigning, the district mailed a follow-up, reasserting the urgency but more clearly explaining the cost.

That’s when many homeowners realized it could be much more than the $400 per year being touted.

Another reason the defeat was miraculous is that the pro-bond campaign was masterminded by Portland’s premier political strategist, Mark Wiener. Wiener, who calls his firm “Winning Mark,” has been the brains behind the successful campaigns of most of the state’s high-profile Democrats, most recently conducting the campaign securing a third term for Gov. John Kitzhaber. Wiener has such an uncanny gauge on the pulse of Portland voters that he scuttled former Mayor Tom Potter’s attempt to reform our city government by simply sending out a mail piece bearing the image of President George W. Bush. Considering Portland voters have rarely, if ever, turned down requests “for the kids,” this one should have been a slam dunk for Wiener. But for some reason, this time “Winning Mark” lost. If the opponents had been as well-funded and well-managed as the supporters, the slim “no” margin would have been much wider.

The question is why was it defeated?

Most people simply shrug it off on the economy. They say the bond was too expensive and folks couldn’t afford it. But I’m not convinced that’s the whole reason.

Mom used to tell us we couldn’t have dessert until we’d eaten our vegetables. That simple truth is lost on our leaders. Our town is full of expensive dessert. We have the Eastbank Esplanade. We have streetcars. We have bike lanes and bioswales. We’re spending half a billion dollars to run light rail to Milwaukie and considering a streetcar to Lake Oswego. Meanwhile, the schools are crumbling, the roads are in disrepair and the Sellwood Bridge teeters on the edge of collapse. The things that should be top priority lay on the plate like the over-boiled lima beans Mom used to make us choke down.

When you ask the politicians how we can justify new rail lines and transit artwork and eco roofs while the roads are full of potholes and the schools are crumbling, you get a lecture on the “colors of money.” Transportation money is red. Water utility money is blue. Parks money is orange. As a citizen, you’re told no mixing is allowed. Of course, if you’re an elected, the rules don’t apply and you can use water utility money to bail out the Rose Festival, build solar powered latrines, purchase land and build an eco-spec house.

Mom also used to say “if there’s a will, there’s a way.” With all the dessert projects going on in this town, don’t tell me there’s no money to rebuild the schools and don’t lecture me about colored money. Last time I checked, all the money in my wallet was green.

Dave Lister is a small-business owner who served on Portland’s Small Business Advisory Council.

tt twitter big4 Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools

tt digg big4 Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools

tt facebook big4 Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools

tt reddit big4 Portland has money for light rail & bike lanes, but not schools

Subscribe to this blog

RSS

Priorities? Portland has clearly laid out it’s priorities by allowing increasing tax collections to be siphoned off onto pet “bike path” projects and assorted similar seemingly lower priority spending.. at the expense of maintaining things like bridges and schools. Someday Portland voters (those that pay taxes) will be done with it.. and insist on fiscally responsible government, or move out of the city. Anyone visited Detroit lately? That’s the model Portand leadership seems destined to emulate.

EPA Gives Money to China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection | The Foundry

Media_httpblogheritag_yxfrq

Only government can “reason” their way into NONSENSE .. wasting the resources of the country. The USA borrows money from China, at interest. Then, the USA turns around a “Gifts” that borrowed money back to China.. while still retaining and paying on the debt that was used to fund the “gift”.

Obama and his administration consider this advanced economic policy as a system beyond the comprehension of we mere taxpayers. Redistribution, Obama Style, is a SURE way to destroy the security and ecoomic future of America. This is purposeful destruction of American wealth, from the inside out. 

Imagine borrowing $1,000,000 from the bank.. turning around an “gifting” $500,000 back to the bank.  Keep in mind, you still owe the bank the original $1,000,000.  Who thinks there may be a bit of corruption involved in this sort of ‘transaction”?    Obama and his minions are showing us what they think of America.. and take us all for fools.

 

God-Hatred–Part i–The God Hatred of the Proto-Marxists

God-Hatred

Part I—The God Hatred of the Proto-Marxists

“In a word, I hate all the gods!”

With this proclamation a rebellious Prometheus, even as he lay helplessly bound to a rock and while eagles coldly devoured his liver, shook his fist in the face of deity.  His legendary punishment, to be carried out through all eternity, had been ordained by Zeus after Prometheus heroically defied the divine edict which forbade the provision of fire to mankind.  Fire, in the Promethean legend, symbolized the special knowledge possessed by gods alone.   The myth of Prometheus thus mirrors Satan’s slant on the Garden of Eden, sharing with it the invidious theme that God has withheld knowledge that would allow men to become god-like.

In an earlier article I suggested that many influential Marxists have hated God for parallel reasons.  In some circles this thesis was greeted with polite laughter.  Others felt that I was merely exaggerating to make a labored point.   Are there really Marxists who hate God? In this article we will explore the views toward God held by Marx’s ideological precursors and associates.

Georg Hegel is the father of the “Dialectical” philosophy, a theory according to which all things contain their own contradictions.  According to Hegel, it is the combination of these opposites, the “abstract” and its “negative,” that result in the “concrete” or absolute.  Thus, and at the risk of over-simplification, “being” and “nothing” are represented by Hegel as the ever evolving state we call “becoming.”

 

With some modification, this theory became the mechanism by which Karl Marx believed historical processes would inevitably lead to world Communism.  Using the term “Dialectical Materialism,” Marx taught that historically inevitable economic and social evolution could be directed and accelerated by instigating controversies which would then be resolved through serial compromise in favor of a relentlessly advancing socialism.  Hegel was a totalitarian, arguing that “the state has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state.”  His view of God can be summed up in this direct epithet:  “God is, as it were, the sewer into which all contradictions flow.”

Following Hegel, Ludwig Feuerbach expanded upon the dialectical process to form a bridge between Hegelian Dialectics and Marx.  An avowed anti-Christian, Feuerbach maintained that “God is repulsive” because “God alone is the being who acts of himself.”  Feuerbach argued that man vainly sacrifices his true essence to worship a God who is an essentially selfish being.  “Man is a god to man,” exclaimed Feuerbach.  “This is the supreme practical maxim, this is the turning point of the world’s history.”

Mikhail Bakunin, a collaborator with Karl Marx and fellow member of the First International, was the father of “Collective Anarchism,” a theoretical proletariat-run utopia in which there would be “equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child…and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well being by his own labor.”  Bakunin regarded the Christian deity as the ultimate source of illegitimate authority, insisting dismissively that “If God really existed it would be necessary to abolish Him.”  He saw God as exploitative and infantilizing, and argued that the very idea of God “implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind….”  Summing up his views he wrote in 1847, “He who desires to worship God must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.”

Bakunin’s resentment against God extended beyond a mere grudging atheism.  He was a self-avowed Satanist who saw Lucifer as the liberator of mankind.  “The Evil One,” he wrote, “is the satanic revolt against divine authority, revolt in which we see the fecund germ of all human emancipations, the revolution.”  Continuing this line of thought, which was later picked up by  Saul Alinsky, Bakunin wrote, “Satan (is) the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds.  He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.”  In a moment of great candor Bakunin revealed his deeper feelings in the matter.  The purpose of revolution is not to elevate the masses or eradicate oppression, he explained, but rather to “awaken the Devil in the people, to stir up the basest passions.”  “Our mission is to destroy, not to edify,” he insisted.  “The passion for destruction is a creative passion!”  Bakunine saw “every step forward (as) a victory in which we overcome the Divine.”

Another early associate of Marx was philosopher and socialist Moses Hess, who was also one of the founders of Zionism and was identified by Bakunin as a fellow Satanist.  Born in Marx’s home city of Trier in 1818, it was Hess who converted Engels to Communism and introduced Marx to socio-economic controversy.  Hess advanced Hegel’s dialectical materialism in a way that later made it accessible to Marx’s Communist doctrine by positing man as the initiator of history through his deliberative consciousness. After his introduction to Marx, Hess is reported to have said, “Dr. Marx is my idol, who will give the death blow to medieval religion and politics….”

In 1841 Hess brought Marx into “The League of the Just,” a secret organization devoted to collectivist ideologies.  (Upon meeting Marx, fellow member George Jung wrote in that same year, “If Marx, Bruno Bauer and Feuerbach associate to found a theological-political review, God would do well to surround himself with all his angels and indulge in self-pity, for these three will certainly drive him out of heaven….”)  In a subsequent essay entitled Rome and Jerusalem Hess wrote, “The Christian… imagines the better future of the human species… in the image of heavenly joy….  We, on the other hand, will have this heaven on earth.”  After his first meeting with Engels Hess gloated, “He parted from me as an over-zealous Communist.” Marx, after this meeting with Hess, referred to him as “my Communist Rabbi.”

Bruno Bauer, also a close friend of Karl Marx, was a dialectical materialist and the author of Historical Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels, a volume in which he argued that the Bible was a forgery, that the story of Christ was a fable, and that Christianity was a monumental hoax.  Bauer’s vitriol against God was thinly disguised over a lifetime of such writings, and his animus toward Christianity was exceeded only perhaps by the virulence of his anti-Semitism.   Of Christianity Bauer said that the “total alienation” it caused mankind was “the biggest obstacle to self-consciousness.” He insisted that the freedom Christianity offered was fraudulent, a “freedom from all important worldly interests, from all art and science….” 

Speaking of religious faith in general, Bauer predicted the end was near:  “When religion has reached the point that man makes up its content, then the climax of this opposition has been reached,” he exclaimed.  Bauer did not lament this anticipated outcome because, as he put it, man’s “very chains have helped to deceive him about the harshness of his service.”  Of the Jew he wrote, “The restricted nature which makes him a Jew is bound to triumph over the human nature which should link him as a man with other men….”  Bauer’s misanthropic doctrines alienated him from his fellow men, and he lived out his life in bitterness and alone.

Another early collaborator with Marx was Pierre Joseph Proudhon.  A French socialist and the first in history to call himself an “anarchist,” Proudhon regarded private property in any form as intrinsically oppressive.  In his Theory of Property, he declared “property is theft”, “property is impossible”, and “property is despotism.”  He regarded the capital-labor relationship as unavoidably exploitative, with labor in an irreversible position of victimization, and he called for the nationalization of all capital.  “We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organized workers’ associations,” he railed.  For Proudhon, direct and immediate personal labor was the only legitimate source of property.

In his Philosophy of Misery Proudhon explained that there was hope for mankind only in defiance of the divine plan.  Proudhon called for a “society without authority,” and argued that capital, government and church are homologous and false ideals and that to attack any one of them, a virtuous deed, is to attack all.  This he encouraged.  “What capital does to labor, and the state to liberty, the Church does to the spirit.” 

Speaking of God, Proudhon declared, “We reach knowledge in spite of him.” In other writings he made his worship of the anti-God principle even more explicit.  “Come Satan, slandered by the small and by kings.  God is stupidity and cowardice; God is hypocrisy and falsehood; God is tyranny and poverty; God is evil.”  Proudhon codified his indignation at the possibility that there could be any power greater than himself in a defining oath:  “I swear, God, with my hand stretched out towards the heavens, that you are nothing more than the executioner of my reason, the scepter of my conscience.”  Finally, in order to clarify any lingering misunderstanding about his anti-theist sentiments Proudhon added redundantly, “God is essentially anti-civilized, anti-liberal, anti-human.”

                             __________________________________________________

In subsequent installments I will explore the God-hatred of the communists, socialists and anarchists who preceded Marx, of Karl Marx himself, and of his followers.

Jim Wagner

              The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him,

              but because he loves what is behind him.  —  G. K. Chesterton

                               

Image001

TX Gov. Perry Blasts Obama For Declaring Emergency in AL, But Not TX



Perry Blasts Slow Federal Response as Texas Wildfires Flare Up Again

As dry conditions and gusty winds whip up new wildfires in parched Texas, Gov. Rick Perry Thursday blasted the Obama Administration for failing to issue a disaster declaration for the state, widening the growing rift between the White House and the states rights advocate governor, 1200 WOAI news reports.

“You see hundreds of thousands of acres of Texas burning and you know that there will soon be emergency declarations, and we did that now a couple of weeks ago, but still no response from this administration,” Perry told 1200 WOAI’s Michael Board after addressing the Texas Emergency Management Conference in San Antonio.

“There is a point in time where you say, hey, what’s going on here,” Perry said. “You have to ask why are you taking care of Alabama and other states? I know our letter didn’t get lost in the mail.”

More at:

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/main…rticle=8503182

Please listen to:
Jeff Kropf 6-9:00am M-F AM 1360 KUIK
Victoria Taft 11am-3:00pm M-F AM 860 KPAM
Mark Levin 3-6:00pm M-F AM 970 KCMD
www.afpclackamas.com

Watch C-SPAN 1 and 2 to keep informed on national and international issues!

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.”
Winston Churchill