ACTION

A SHARIA MOSQUE IS A RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING

CENTER FOR SHARIA LAW. NOT A RELIGIOUS INSTITION IN NEW YORK CITY.

DICK MORRIS !

New York City has been seriously endangered by terrorists three times in the last 43 years, but most Americans only know about two of those attacks. In a related story, two days ago, Timothy Geithner, did tw0 things the Obama administration has shied markedly away from . . . he spoke the truth and he praised George W. Bush . . . therein lies a tale . . . .

Our country has been under serious attack from within for at least 44 years. Two Columbia University socialists Richard Cloward and Frances Piven published an article on their “Cloward-Piven Strategy” in a 1966 article in “The Nation,” "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation "establishing a guaranteed national income.” Their ideas were based upon those from two books of Saul Alinsky the infamous self-avowed Neo-Marxist community organizer from Chicago. More on Cloward and Piven later . . . .

Those of you who have read Alinsky’s horror masterpiece “Rules for Radicals” know that the main progressive trick is to relentlessly stay on the attack while creating situations in which they’re perceived to have the moral high ground (at least by their own activists and the left-leaning very sympathetic media). Where will they attack? Anywhere that a perception or an actual weakness can be found. Back about March 20, 2007, Dick Morris wrote a great editorial blog that day, three leading progressive Democratic spokespersons were on the attack against Republicans, totally unfairly in retrospect, but George W. Bush and the Republicans around him seemingly went “quietly into that dark night” and refused to defend themselves except in the most milquetoasty of ways.

The four main areas of progressive attack at that time were all bogus 1) supposed corrupt individuals (Stephens and Delay were eventually cleared); 2) Iraq the unwinnable war and the “War on Terror” in general; 3) the economy; and 4) the dismissal of a set of United States Attorneys. Truth fought for resolutely in these four areas might have changed today’s situation dramatically. This fourth situation was the least important at the time but has become very important today. Let’s look at all four of these problem areas more closely . . . .

#1 Nancy Pelosi made a big deal about “draining the swamp” but today the truth can finally be appreciated. Of about six corrupt Democrats that ought to have been in her gunsights only two are now looking at ethics trials. As for the main Republicans, Delay was finally cleared just last week after never seriously being at risk, Stephens died in a plane accident in southeast Alaska, being cleared a few months after losing the election for his senate seat. Most importantly, the loss of Stephens’ senate seat in a very close election in 2008, has allowed the Obama agenda to do an incredible amount of damage by providing that all-important 60-40 cushion. The Republican Party, not having its own truly active ethics policemen on the one hand (a failing that needs to be corrected immediately); giving every “appearance” of inpropriety on the other hand; and not standing behind its members on the third hand allowed this to happen in utterly wimp-like fashion. Truth alone is not enough to ensure that necessary conservative values like fiscal-conservativism and Constitutional conservativism will win the day, Truth needs to be defended energetically.

#2 Bush did NOT mount a spirited defense of his approach in Iraq (the “Surge” or “New Way Forward” was now two months old) generally speaking he remained mum although the news was almost immediately good. While there is much to be recommended in an approach of “under-promise and over-deliver” in comparison with the inanities of the opposite Obama-like notion of HYPE-HYPE-HYPE and more HYPE over-promising and dramatically under-delivering . . . you’ve got to communicate! For example, Rajjpuut saw a History Channel exclusive on the very day of the bus bombings in London that revealed the incredible successes of the U.S. War in Terror and how they were brought about (of perhaps 500 great success stories they admittedly covered only 14-15 in the segment, but it was impressive!). Now clearly, one does NOT want the CIA revealing its most impressive tactics, but for several years of outstanding work being reduced to a 90-minute show on the History Channel (does anyone besides Rajjpuut watch the History Channel) is definitely NOT getting the record of success across. Just revealing once every couple months the nature of some success stories (perhaps themselves six months old) that would have been helpful but instead we got nothing. Compare that preferred approach with the demoralizing “rely on luck”/man-caused disasters/ and “there is NO war on terror” strategems that seem to highlight the Obama approach and you get the picture.

#3 NOT getting the truth about the ECONOMY out to the American people was Bush’s biggest failing and its evils are plaguing us still today. In November, 2003, James Stack of investech.com revealed a graph he called the “Housing Industry Bubble” (housing prices had soared, yes, but stocks in the housing industry had risen an amazing 1300% in a relatively short time) and began talking about a coming “sub-prime lending crisis.” We had ample warning, you see. Bush and the Republicans saw the problem within a year themselves and sought to correct things with a bill in January, 2005 that would have undone most of the steroid-like ills brought about by the 1998 final version of mortgage-guarantee legislation. They were defeated.

Finally in July of 2007, enough Democrats agreed that a problem existed to pass a heavily-diluted law based upon their January, 2005 efforts. It proved to be way too little, way too late, but it did enough good that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recognized two days ago that Bush had saved our bacon. Without Bush’s administration passing that law, Geithner said, the recession would have been much, much deeper and housing prices would have dropped far, far lower. Americans that watch FOX News find this out three years later, most Americans inundated by the mainstream media (MSM) will never find this out . . . much like the successes in the war on terrorism, this underlines a severe problem with simple communication.

More importantly, Bush did NOT use the bully-pulpit of the presidency to expose the facts behind the economic threats facing the nation in January, 2005 when they first tried to pass their bill and stop the sub-prime lending crisis in its tracks . . . it’s a long and sordid tale that needed to be told (besides the two attacks on the World Trade Center in 1992 and then on 9/11/2001 by Islamist extremists, American terrorists attacked the city between 1967 and 1975) Bush and his administration and conservatives in general failed us by NOT informing everyday Americans about this internal attack and its continuing endangerment to our system and our people:

A. Cloward-Piven and George Wiley in 1967 create the National Welfare Rights Organization to implement C-P Strategy and bring about their “Guaranteed National Income.” They put almost seven million newbies onto the welfare rolls and by 1975 New York City is bankrupt and required a federal government bailout; New York State just missed bankruptcy. Cloward, Piven and Wiley did not achieve a guaranteed national income but they proclaim success publicly and on his mentors’ advice, Wiley moves to attack weaknesses in voter registration and housing as the next focal area for “manufactured crisis” strategy. He doesn’t have long to wait.

B. Jimmy Carter sweeps into office with a wave of progressive Democrats in November, 1976. In 1977 they pass the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA ’77) which for the first time requires really bad home loans be granted. Thankfully, it’s a very poorly crafted law and lenders can sidestep it fairly easily. Some background: Americans between 1946 and 1998 had the highest home ownership in the world 62-65%, the system is the envy of the whole planet. Only one in 404 loans in 1975 is made with 3% or LESS downpayment. ACORN is established in Arkansas in 1977 by a George Wiley lieutenant named Wade Rathke (later he’ll start up the SEIU union) and immediatedly moves into voter registration and housing and by 1980 becomes a chief backer of Bill Clinton, who’ll become the first ACORN president.

C. By 1985 only 1 in 198 home loans in the country have been made with less than 3% down payment. ACORN isn’t having much success but they’re patiently refining their C-P and Alinsky shakedown approach. Soon lenders will, as a matter of course, accept the “necessity” of making horrifically bad loans to recipients with virtually no chance of ever repaying their mortgages.

D. In 1992, George H. W. Bush fails to veto a bill with an expansion in CRA ’77 to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac even though he detests the idea. Why? It’s a small part of a much larger bill. A horrible example of why large, complicated bills can be so dangerous. Bush only was over-ridden on one of his 44 vetoes during his four-year term, too bad he didn’t make it 45 vetoes, eh? ACORN now has something to bite on and things get rapidly worse for the country from this point forward.

E. Bill Clinton sweeps into office. He immediately gets the Motor Voter Act passed with Cloward and Piven standing right behind him during the signing ceremony (a photo of which you can find in about twenty places on the internet).

F. A community organizer in Chicago named Barack Obama begins working as a lawyer for ACORN in late ’94 and immediately begins shaking-down home lenders in the area. In ’95, Bill Clinton gets two expansions to the CRA ’77 mortgage-guarantee idea passed. Meanwhile ACORN has learned its craft now a horrific 1/7 of all home loans are made with less than 3% down payment and Freddy and Fannie are on the hook.

G. Bill Clinton gets his ’98 expansion of mortgage-guarantee law passed putting the whole system on steroids. ACORN goes into overdrive shaking down lenders so that people without ID; people without jobs; people claiming foodstamps as “income”; people with horrific credit ratings; people without rental history; people on welfare; and illegal immigrants qualify for home loans . . . many of them “qualify for $500,000 homes. This is 1998, by 2005, 1/3 of all home loans will be made with less than 3% down payments.

In November, 2003, James Stack of investech.com starts publishing his “Housing Industry Bubble” chart and warning of the impending sub-prime lending crisis and you know the rest . . . however, you know it NOW; why didn’t the conservatives warn us over and over and over and over again until Americans got the picture . . . even if voters didn’t take it seriously at first, it would certainly have explained a lot of things later, no? So we have a literal provable and obvious case of two internal terrorist attacks on the USA; the bankruptcy of NYC in 1975 and the financial collapse of 2007 and the Republican Party did NOT have the wherewithal to put them both before the voters for as long as it took????

#4 Let’s talk about a less complicated and less dire example of the progressives’ ability to manipulate truth and create havoc, but one that's very important right now . . . we can use it as a good example of how they work and of what Bush did wrong . . . .

Today, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Department of Justice, under Obama’s appointee Deputy Attorney General Julie Fernandez, is perhaps the most dangerous organization in the government. Without belaboring the point they might steal the 2010 and 2012 elections. For example, the dropping of the already won case of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers actions in November, 2008 in Philadelphia; the oral order from Fernandez to a roomful of DOJ employees not to prosecute cases where the victims are White and the perpetrators Black; and worst of all, instructions from Fernandez that the DOJ “had no interest in allegations of Motor Voter Law improprieties because that’ll just reduce turnout.” Tie all that into ACORN’s activities and you see we could have a problem at the voting booths. Let’s talk about Bush’s problem . . . .

A surprising example of the impotence of the Bush Administration arose with the dismissal of a bunch of U.S. Attorneys. An immediate, prolonged and vociferous attack on the Administration was mounted by the leftist Democrats. It was also a totally-fabricated and phony “scandal” which the Bush Administration met with a whiny half-hearted defense, cowardly backtracking and concessions instead of forthrightly counter-attacking with full exposure of the underlying lies. Bottom line, the Bush DOJ was immaculate compared to today’s Kangaroo operation under Obama. Let’s refresh your memory . . . .

First of all, the DOJ has the legitimate power and authority to dismiss U.S. Attorneys at any time for any reasonable cause . . . or even without cause. There is no civil servant U.S. Attorney class who got their on merit by passing an exam. They are a part of the executive branch and are assigned by the Attorney General to work prosecuting different areas as the Administration in power sees fit. And what exactly did the EMPLOYEES in question do that caused them to be removed? They all pulled Julie Fernandez-like incompetencies! That’s right it seems they all deliberately went light on prosecuting or even pursuing voter fraud cases. They were removed and replaced with attorneys that the DOJ assigned to vigorously prosecute the voter fraud statutes, such as they are (conservatives in 1993 called Clinton’s Motor Voter Act a “license for voter fraud”). A President has the right without qualms to remove any person who serves at his pleasure. Can a president be unethical in doing so? Of course, think of Richard Nixon and his attorneys general and special prosecutors. Was that the case in Bush’s firings? Not on your life. And, like namby-pamby teddy bears the Administration hemmed and hawed like school boys caught with a Playboy hidden in their history text.

Conservatives, Libertarians (like Ol’ Rajjpuut) and Independents have been

very unhappy campers in this country for quite awhile, most of the time they

find themselves voting Republican and biting their tongues or voting for an

ineffectual 3^rd Party. The Republican Party has not stood by their promise of

fiscal conservativism and Constitutional conservativism for the most part and when they actually did, they’ve proven virtually gutless in the process.

Why Bush, Rove, AG Gonzalez, etc. didn’t take the moral high ground and on a case by case basis expose the crucial type of cases these attorneys were refusing to prosecute is anybody’s guess . . . but it amounted to INCOMPETENCE. Truth is not enough. TRUTH NEEDS TO BE MADE OBVIOUS AND TO BE DEFENDED VIGOROUSLY! Hopefully, today’s conservatives have the stomach to do the hard work for as long as it takes until our nation is once again free.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Three Leftist Books Every Informed

American Voter Should Read

Saul Alinsky: “Rules for Radicals”

Wade Rathke: “Citizen Wealth: Winning the Campaign to Save Working Families”

http://www.gopublius.com/HCT/HillaryClintonThesis.pdf

#1

And the “last shall be first” it’s said, so we’ll begin by looking at Hillary Clinton’s Honor Thesis “There is Only the Fight . . .” An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. Not too much needs be said, the work speaks for itself. Alinsky is clearly a personal hero and Clinton fawns over him and his books “Reville for Radicals” and “Rules** for Radicals” like a blushing high school freshman. Both Alinsky and Hillary Rodham were native Chicagoans. Young Ms. Rodham interviewed Alinsky twice and was even offered a job by Alinsky but ultimately turned him down and went to law school instead. But her worship is, nevertheless TRUE LOVE, equating Alinsky in the summation with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Walt Whitman saying, “. . . each embraced that most radical of political faiths: Democracy.”

In this she appears willfuly ignorant that the country (which she said Alinsky was such a patriot of) is a Republic and that the methods Alinsky espouses are all “power plays” rather than having any basis in integrity or honor. Democracy to Alinsky means tyranny of the masses, or at least the tyranny of all those Alinsky can mass together for a demonstration. Alinsky calls himself a Marxist and, of course, Marxism seeks to replace the American Constitution more or less with “Das Kapital.” Rodham does mention numerous inconsistencies that she implied made her head swim (“After spending a year trying to make sense of his inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor” she described her turning down Alinsky’s job offer and heading off instead to law school). But she clearly admires Alinsky’s practical power in making things happen for the poor and yet is taken aback by notions that the ends justify the means and other inconsistencies. So unlike the Marxist ideologue Barack Obama who was raised a Communist from birth, Hillary Clinton, nee Rodham shows she’s been exposed to a another ethical approach to government.

This is why Clinton is so dangerous. Unlike the true believer and foreign-developed Marxist Barack Obama (who must act in pre-catalogued ways in accord with Das Kapital), Clinton is an American-developed semi-Marxist who like her husband really has a feel for American institutions and traditions. Expect Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2012 or expect Bill Clinton to do a body transplant into her body and run again that way. In any case we haven’t heard all there is to say from the Clintons and that is one great reason that reading this thesis is highly recommended by Rajjpuut.

#2

Wade Rathke: Citizen Wealth: Winning the Campaign to Save Working Families is a recent book written by the founder of ACORN and SEIU and a lieutenant of George Wiley (who along with Cloward and Piven bankrupt NYC between 1968 and 1975). His latest imperatives? A. Using the internet to accelerate the demise of capitalism. B. “The Maximum Eligible Participation Solution” which is nothing more than an updated but apparently not improved (Thank God!) version of Cloward-Piven Strategy relying upon the ultra-leftist politicians to create some stupid program which the ultra-radicals on the street can abuse to every thinking person’s lament.

Mostly the book is a hodge-podge of community-organizer war stories with a bit of his perspective of “the future of community-organization.” Interestingly, Rathke has thus far defied ACORN’s recent firing of him and still works with three of their affiliate organizations (the ACORN name has been changed on Rathke’s orders to COI for Community Organizations International). Rathke’s brother Dale was involved in nearly $1 million worth of embezzlement from ACORN over many years and it appears that Wade covered-up the scandal for at least eight years – ah me, trouble in Utopia.

Anyone who reads this book has super-fodder for contradicting doubters who refuse to believe in Cloward-Piven and their plots and even in the bankruptcy of NYC by Rathke’s mentor George Wiley.

#3

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” is a small book with a big wallop. Starting out with the book’s dedication (to the devil no less!) through its repeated emphasis that the end justifies the means . . . one gets the picture quickly here: these are nasty people. Remember Hillary Clinton read it and wrote her thesis on it; Barack Obama read it and later taught a class in Rules for Radicals as well as practicing its tenets as an ACORN lawyer shaking down mortgage companies; Richard Cloward and Frances Piven read it and created their infamous Cloward-Piven Strategy. A must read for anyone interested in preventing progressive takeover of the USA.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

** This is NOT precisely true, Hillary's thesis was created in 1969 and Alinsky's Rules for Radicals was not published until 1971. The "second book" of Alinsky's was his "Training Manual" created some time after Reville for Radicals, and ever expanding. About 95% of the content of that TM went into his second book Rules for Radicals which showed his followers the evolution in his community organizing that took place over the next 25 years.

Finally, this is a start, a government report. Granted the Democrats will not push anything through the House or Senate because they are all in on it, however...the people can push it.

Yes we can!

Can you see this is an opening we've been looking for? An offical report.. Start now, put on the pressure, turn up the heat, shout it loud and clear. Spread the report to all your contacts via email, facebook, twitter and any other mode you can think of. Send copies to your local new papers, call, fax and write letters to Congress and Senate. Won't do any good, we'll never know till we try. It is the American way…GrizzlyMama

• This was originall posted on Tea Party Patriots: by carol on August 16, 2010 at 8:52pm
• Send Message View carol's blog

Posted: August 16, 2010
12:01 am Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a scathing staff report today charging that the White House has "used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the president's agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives."

An advance pre-publication copy of the report, shared by Issa's Washington office with WND, accuses the White House of nothing short of criminal activity. It charges the Obama administration
with violating federal laws to advance what the Government Accounting
Office has characterized as an unlawful "covert campaign," using federal
resources "to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying
campaign."

Pulling no punches, the Oversight Republican Report accuses the Obama White House of "violating federal law prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes."

"The White house has failed to transition from campaign mode to leadership mode and is now inappropriately leveraging those campaign-trail relationships to unlawfully generate support for the
president's agenda," the report concludes.

Read in its entirety, the Oversight Republican Report charges the Obama administration with the type of callous, unethical and possibly criminal manipulation of public opinion that is reminiscent of Watergate
and the illegal campaign activities engineered by Donald Segretti on
behalf of the Committee to Re-Elect the President during Richard Nixon's
presidential election campaign of 1972.

In 1964, Donald Segretti pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of distributing illegal campaign materials, for which he served in federal prison four months of a six-month term.

The Obama administration's abuses alleged in the Oversight Republican Report can be summed up under the term "astro-turfing," a fraudulent public relations activity in which "the White House and the agency whose
resources it is co-opting attempt to create the impression that
grassroots support for a particular policy exists when in fact it has
been fabricated using taxpayer dollars."

The report points to several instances of alleged, unlawful abuses:

The National Endowment for the Arts

On Aug. 6, 2009, on behalf of the White House Office of Public Engagement, NEA Director Yosi Sergent invited a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, marketers and other influencers of the
arts to participate in a conference call designed to encourage involvement in President Obama's United We Serve program.

Nell Abernathy, director of outreach for United We Serve and Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, identified the goal of the NEA program was to recruit artists to create
art to support the president's agenda "with the same enthusiasm and with
the same energy that we all saw in each other during the campaign."

The Oversight Republican Report, however, contends the initiative was illegal.

"The use of taxpayer dollars and federal employees to create an alliance whereby the NEA becomes the de facto strategic communications arm of the White House is unlawful," the report alleges. "Using a
government e-mail account and government personnel and resources to host
a call using artists and arts group to support the president's agenda
is a clear violation of federal law."

The report stresses that it was inappropriate for representatives of the White House and the NEA to formerly ask artists and entertainers to use their talents to support the president's agenda "because many of
these people rely on NEA grants to subsidize their livelihoods."

The Department of Justice

In October 2008, the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs added Tracy Russo, the chief blogger and deputy director for online communications for Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign, to direct
the Department's "new media efforts."

The Oversight Republican Report documents that Russo covertly attempted to shape public opinion by posting comments on the Internet anonymously, or through the use of a pseudonym, attacking authors or contents viewed as critical of the president, in an effort to shape
debate online.

The report concludes, "The deployment of Justice Department resources to generate clandestine comments on message boards and blogs is a highly improper use of the Department's resources."

The report cites GAO rulings stating that covert propaganda violates Title 5 U.S.C. Section 3107 of federal law, which prohibits the use of publicity experts unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.

Office of Education

The Oversight Republican Report details that beginning on the morning of April 24, 2009, U.S. Department of Education Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs and Outreach Massie Ritsch launched an
e-mail campaign in coordination with the White House to promote
President Obama's plan to begin a federal takeover of student loans.

The report again charges criminal abuses: "The intent of the e-mail is clearly to create grassroots support for the president's education agenda by inappropriately leveraging Ritsch's position as a Department
of Education employee. Because it was drafted or intended to influence
members of Congress while they consider the president's federal student loan plan, it is unlawful."

Federal workforce

The Oversight Republican Report charges that in March 2010, White House Office for Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle sent "overtly partisan, unsolicited health-reform e-mails to career civil servants in
executive branch offices, suggesting to recipients that they were being
officially instructed by the White House to support the president's
health-care reform proposals."

Again, the report charges the Obama White House with illegal activity: "Criminal statutes prohibit executive branch officials from using appropriated funds to influence the legislative process. Title 18
of the United States Code, section 1913, prohibits federal employees
from engaging in the very activities DeParle urges."

Department of Health and Human Resources

The Oversight Republican Report charges that the Department of Health and Human Resources contracted with Jonathan Gruber, a health-care economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to provide "technical assistance" to support President Obama's health care reform proposals.

For this, Gruber was paid $297,600, plus another $95,000 for a second HHS job.

The Obama administration then relied upon and distributed Gruber's commentary and views to publications including Time, The Washington Post, the New York Times and the New Republic without revealing that
Gruber was a paid HHS consultant.

"Using HHS appropriations to contract a highly visible health-care expert to advocate on behalf of administration policies under the guise of providing 'technical assistance' is inappropriate," the Oversight
Republican Report concludes, while further alleging that the
administration's failure to disclose Gruber's status while touting his
work violates GAO's policy prohibiting covert propaganda.

Other abuses

Among the additional abuses, the Oversight Republican Report cites a cable television ad featuring 84-year-old Andy Griffith promoting Medicare and the Obama administration's health-care reform bill.

The Department of Health and Human Services paid $700,000 to make the cable television ad buy, and the report alleges the commercial – run in July 2010 – gave the appearance that it
was "designed to affect general elections by convincing seniors to
support one of the Democrat's major legislative initiatives."

The report further charges the White House of posting "fictitious and misleading" information about jobs "saved and created" on the White House-maintained website Recovery.gov.

Also criticized are signs the Federal Highway Administration has encouraged the states to post, announcing that new federal highway projects were being funded by stimulus dollars.

David Axelrod

Axelrod and astro-turfing

The practice of using covert propaganda to push political opinion is familiar to at least one administration official, Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod.

Prior to joining then-Sen. Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, Axelrod was a partner in AKP&D Message & Media, a Chicago-based media and public relations firm that listed among its corporate clients
Cablevision and AT&T.

According to a Business Week report published in 2008, AKP&D set up front organizations for corporations that wanted to run public issue ads without having the ads identified as having been
paid for by the corporations.

Business Week cited as an example a television commercial Axelrod's firm created for Commonwealth Edison, the largest electric utility in Illinois. The ad warned a ComEd bankruptcy and blackouts could occur
unless a rate hike was approved. The ad was sponsored by CORE, which
described itself as "a coalition of individuals, businesses and
organizations."

After a complaint was filed with state regulators, ComEd was forced to admit it had bankrolled the entire $15-million effort.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=191809

Tags:

Share Twitter Facebook

Please read and pass on we don{t need this wingnut subverting the movement... Remember the Conservatives and Democrats don{t want a third party because they want the sole power that is why they are undermining us...BOO him off the stage...

Newt “World Order” Gingrich supported GATT, NAFTA and WTO while in Congress.

Posted by John Kabitzke on 07/07/10 8:29 PM
Last updated 07/07/10 8:30 PM

Please be informed by reading the following on his broken contract with Americans:

Just as report cards keep parents posted on their children's progress in school, constituents have a tool to let them know how their federal representatives measure up to their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

We should expect high "grades" from them, because it is not difficult to determine whether legislation oversteps the clearly delineated, limited powers of the Constitution. If there is uncertainty, the Bill of Rights tells the government everything else is off limits. Moreover, an oath calls God as witness to the oath-taker's honesty and integrity. In other words, it is both illegal and immoral to violate the Constitution. Why are so many Representatives bringing home Fs on their report cards? They may mean well, but a Congressman's good intentions do not fulfill his obligation before God to vote according to the law.

There are a growing number of candidates for Congress who are running in support of the Constitution. Many of them were motivated to become involved as a result of the political phenomenon in the last presidential race that became known as the "Ron Paul Revolution." But if the GOP establishment has its way, the Republicans who will go to Washington will be of the neocon variety and will offer voters looking for alternatives to the liberal Democrats more of an echo than a choice. The establishment-favored Newt Gingrich is a case in point.

The Republican?

After more than a decade out of the spotlight, Newt Gingrich is once again making headlines as a conservative author and basking in media speculation of his possibility as a presidential candidate. He is busy promoting his conservatively themed books and documentaries while touting firm belief in limited government and personal freedoms. Gingrich's rhetoric brings back memories of his old days as a staunch proponent of cutting taxes, balancing the budget, reducing bureaucratic regulations, and strengthening national defense.

Just as in those days, Newt Gingrich now positions himself as a conservative. But does his definition of conservative mean loyalty to the Constitution, or loyalty to the establishment? "Understanding the real Newt Gingrich ... is essential," said John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society and producer of the new DVD The Real Newt Gingrich. "Americans must realize that they are being persuaded to follow false leaders, to put confidence in men who don't deserve our confidence." Both Gingrich's congressional track record and his present activities prove him no better than the current White House occupant.

Gingrich Resumé

Newt Gingrich served in Congress from 1979 until 1999. His first Freedom Index score (when it was known as the "Conservative Index") was 84, but it nose-dived from there. He achieved his lowest scores as Speaker of the House. Gingrich consistently lost points for his propensity to support unconstitutional legislation.

1. Education - Gingrich backed federal education funding from his earliest days in office, though the Constitution gives absolutely no authority over education to any branch of the federal government. He helped garner support to create President Jimmy Carter's Department of Education in 1979. Since then educational spending has soared while educational standards have plummeted. Things got worse when he was Speaker. In 1996, then-Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour bragged that "education spending went up under the Republican Congress as much as it went up under the Democratic Congress." That is a bit of an understatement since Gingrich's Republican Congress increased education funding by $3.5 billion in 1996, the largest single increase in history.

2. Foreign Aid - Gingrich voted numerous times throughout his 20 years in Congress to increase and expand unconstitutional foreign aid and trade. He supported both subsidized trade with the Soviets and federally funded loans to foreign governments through the Export-Import Bank. Between 1994 and 1995, Gingrich voted for $44.8 billion in foreign aid. He also helped push through federally funded loan guarantees to China. Today, that murderous communist regime is the largest holder of U.S. debt in the world.

3. NAFTA, GATT, WTO - In 1993, Gingrich proved himself invaluable to Clinton and the Democrats in Congress when he garnered enough Republican support to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the precursor for development of an eventual North American Union, following the same trajectory that has occurred in Europe with the emergence of the EU. (See the October 15, 2007 "North American Union" issue of The New American, especially "NAFTA: It's Not Just About Trade" by Gary Benoit.) The next year he followed suit by supporting the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). As Minority Whip, he could have postponed the lame-duck vote on GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) that subjected Americans to the WTO. Gingrich's Benedict Arnold act helped to hand over the power to regulate foreign commerce, a power reserved in the Constitution to Congress alone, to an internationally controlled body, making America's economic interests entirely at the mercy of the WTO.

Gingrich knew GATT sounded the death knell for American sovereignty. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee prior to the lame-duck session, he said, "We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization.... This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected.... It is a very big transfer of power."

4. Contract With America - Another con-game Gingrich played was the much-acclaimed "Contract With America," the Republican Party's supposed answer to big government. It turned out to be a public relations smokescreen to cover various unconstitutional measures that Congress planned to pass under Gingrich's leadership. The Contract included a "balanced budget amendment," which amounted to a Republican excuse to continue spending while claiming to fight for fiscal conservatism. If the government only spent money on constitutional programs, the deficit would take care of itself.

Other areas of the Contract With America dealt with measures to reduce welfare programs and relieve tax burdens on families and businesses. That sounds good until one considers that the Constitution prohibits welfare programs and taxes that the Contract proposed only to reduce. If Gingrich had been loyal to his oath of office, he would have worked not to trim but to purge them. Ironically, but hardly surprisingly, federal spending in all the areas addressed by the 1994 Contract rose in subsequent years. Edward H. Crane, president of the Cato Institute, observed that "the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract With America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%." Crane also pointed out, "Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton's requests by more than $30 billion."

Another of the problems with the Contract was that it called for stronger federal crime-fighting measures, despite the Constitution's prohibition on federal involvement in police matters outside of piracy and treason. Countries that do not have such strict constitutional safeguards on federal police end up with Gestapos, KGBs, and Departments of Homeland Security.

5. School Prayer Amendment - The proposed balanced budget amendment was not Gingrich's only attempt to change the Constitution. He also pushed hard for a school prayer amendment to allow America's children to pray in schools. It was just another shameless publicity stunt, for Gingrich knows the main obstacle to prayer in schools is not a faulty Constitution but an overambitious Supreme Court. Had he truly wanted to release the federal stranglehold on prayer in schools, Gingrich could have employed Congress' constitutionally authorized power to restrict the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction of the issue.

6. Clinton's GOP (Grand Old Pal) - In 1995, Time magazine named Newt Gingrich "Man of the Year," characterizing him as a states' rights conservative and the Republican answer to Bill Clinton. The ironic thing about Time magazine's 1995 claim is that in June of that year, Gingrich and Clinton both agreed at a debate in Clare-mont, New Hampshire, that they were "not far apart" in their views. Later Clinton publicly thanked Gingrich for his support of the President's pet projects in areas such as welfare, education, labor, the environment, and foreign affairs. He made special mention of Gingrich's support of the $30 billion Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that shackled gun owners with new restrictions, federalized a number of crimes, and handed the feds police powers that the Constitution reserves to the states.

On numerous occasions, Gingrich showed himself a friend to Clinton's military policies, with a flagrant disregard for the constitutional mandate that Congress alone may declare war. He made a formal appeal to the House of Representatives in 1995 to "increase the power of President Clinton" by repealing the War Powers Act. He praised Clinton's unconstitutional use of the U.S. military to inflict a communist regime on Haiti in 1994, the same year he voted for an extra $1.2 billion for United Nations "peacekeeping" missions. He also urged the President to expand U.S. military presence in Bosnia the following year.

This partial resumé does not include Gingrich's support of abortion and anti-family measures, federal welfare, a presidential line item veto, the National Endowment for the Arts, confiscation of private property, amnesty for illegal immigrants, higher taxes, and a myriad of other unconstitutional legislation. But it is enough to prove he lied each time took his oath of office. The question is, why this disdain for the rule of law? A close look at Gingrich's associations provides the answer to why he had such a propensity for claiming conservatism while voting with the establishment.

Futurist

In 1994, Gingrich described himself as "a conservative futurist." He said that those who were trying to define him should look no further than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America's "founding parents," in which he said: "The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented - a democracy for the 21st century." He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that "served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced."

Gingrich recommended The Third Wave as essential reading to his colleagues when he became Speaker of the House. In his forward to another Toffler book, Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave, he grieved at the lack of appreciation for "Toffler's insight" in The Third Wave and blamed politicians who had not applied his model for the "frustration, negativism, cynicism and despair" of the political landscape. He went on to explain that Toffler advocated a concept called "anticipatory democracy," and bragged that he had worked with him for 20 years "to develop a future-conscious politics and popular understanding that would make it easier for America to make the transition" to a Third Wave civilization.

The Internationalist

Another explanation for Gingrich's liberal voting record is that he has been a member, since 1990, of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a group founded in 1921 as a think tank of influential politicians and policymakers dedicated to sacrificing national independence to create a global government. He showed his fidelity to internationalism in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Affairs in July of 1995 when he brazenly admitted his disdain for our founding document.

"The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution," he said. "Under our [constitutional system] - either we're going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we're going to have to rethink our process of decision-making." He went on to profess an oxymoronic belief in "very strong but limited federal government," and pledged, "I am for the United Nations." That is certainly no surprise since his mentor is none other than former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger (also a CFR member and one-world internationalist).

On other occasions Gingrich expressed his admiration and regard for establishment insiders Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George Catlett Marshall, praising what they had done to bring about international government. Gingrich scorned any connection with "isolationists" (a dirty word used to describe anyone who defines free trade as the ability to conduct international business unfettered by unconstitutional regulations) in a speech given at the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom on March 1, 1995. He cited his work on NAFTA, GATT, and various foreign aid measures, and concluded saying, "I'm always curious why there's some presumption that [I am] in any way isolationist."

Newt and Improved

What about Gingrich today? Isn't it possible he has changed since he served in Congress? He has a new wife and a new religion, converting to Catholicism earlier this year. He still says he is conservative, but maybe that definition has changed, too. Indeed, he positioned himself as a hero of this past April's Tax Day Tea Party movement, partnering with that group in his position as chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF). He issued a general invitation to all Americans on YouTube to join local Tea Parties across the nation. "The fact is that we need a smaller government, a more effective government, and we need lower taxes," he said. "Let's communicate to our leaders, 'We want you to fix it, or we're gonna want new leaders.'" He used even stronger language in a rousing delivery at the April 15 Tea Party in New York, when he warned big-spending legislators to straighten up or "we're gonna fire you."

Yet it seems Gingrich is still up to his old tricks. In front of a Tea Party crowd, he expounds the virtues of limited government, but elsewhere he is still the futurist conservative devoted to internationalism. His blog biography brags about his work as Speaker of the House and then boasts of such unconstitutional credentials as serving on the CFR's Terrorism task force, co-chairing the UN task force to "reform" (i.e., strengthen) the United Nations, and receiving credit for the DHS being his brainchild. "Newt Gingrich is a leading advocate of increased federal funding for basic science research," reads the bio. Gingrich's ASWF endorses federal involvement in areas such as energy, education, labor and the environment. He also founded the Center for Health Transformation, which advocates its own version of socialized medicine.

Global Government Gingrich

It would seem the CFR has done a good job schooling Gingrich in foreign affairs over the past 10 years as well. No longer the novice, Gingrich supports continuing the "war" in Afghanistan despite the fact that Congress never actually declared war as required by the Constitution. The Baltimore Sun noted on October 22 that Gingrich supports expanding the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. He claimed, "Afghanistan is a skirmish in a long war.... We need a much larger grand strategy that deals with the whole war." He even had the audacity to invoke George Washington as a model for Obama in making "morally correct" decisions in Afghanistan. Careful, Gingrich, you're quoting one of those nasty noninterventionists! Washington had this to say about foreign policy in his Farewell Address: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Yet National Review quoted Gingrich in opposition to the Father of Our Country. "You can pull out of Afghanistan, and then what?... We pulled out of Somalia, and now we have pirates," he said, ignoring what U.S. support of the UN puppet regime in that unfortunate country has done to promote terrorism, and parallel scenarios in Afghanistan and across the Middle East. His statements leave little doubt as to how Gingrich would conduct himself as Commander in Chief.

Little Green Man

But he isn't all fight. There's also the kinder, gentler Newt who, in April 2008, cuddled up with current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a love seat at the National Mall to make a "We Can Solve It" television commercial (for Al Gore's $300 million global-warming ad campaign) urging constituents to pressure their Representatives in Washington to go green. He said that "our country must take action to address climate change." Yet when he explained his participation at newt.org, he admitted, "I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global warming [or] that humans are at the center of it." This is ludicrous. If Gingrich intends to take a side in the debate, he is de facto conceding that climate change is real and humans are the cause. He is yielding to a false premise, and any "compromise" solution based on it will be disastrous.

Gingrich's blog explains further, "There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism ... and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want." (Emphasis added.) He fails to acknowledge that the Constitution prohibits federal involvement in those areas, but the really troubling word is "prizes." This has cap and trade written all over it. Gingrich already sanctioned cap and trade on sulfur dioxide emissions in the 1990 Clean Air Act. He claims to oppose Obama's plan but instead wants the government to lower prices on alternative energy sources, "because I think you're going to get faster acceleration of new innovation if you lower the price of good products ... rather than raise the price of obsolete products." So Gingrich's "conservative" answer to the concocted energy crisis is price regulation and government subsidies, both of which use tax money to stifle the economy, giving advantage to faulty products and services that cannot support themselves in a free-market economy. Gingrich's "Green Conservatism" seems much like the "left-wing environmentalism" that he disapproves.

Education Reform à la Al (Sharpton)

Pelosi and Gore are not Gingrich's only strange bedfellows. He recently toured the nation with Reverend Al Sharpton and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to promote President Obama's education reforms and charter schools. Of course, there are a number of problems with that scenario, not the least of which is Gingrich's association with Al Sharpton, a controversial left-wing activist, or his contemptible pandering to the dictates of the liberal Obama administration. The main problem, as usual, is Gingrich's endorsement of patently unconstitutional measures. The tour agenda recommends increased local control of schools to be regulated and subsidized by the federal Department of Education. That's right: increased local control through increased federal regulation.

The proposal also calls for "the ability of parents to pick the right school for their child." Parents would already have that ability if it weren't for the Department of Education. Rearranging how the federal government regulates education may be "reform" of the current system, but the current system is unconstitutional.

Rearranging how the federal government regulates education may be "reform" of the current system, but the current system is unconstitutional.

Republican to the Oh-so-bitter End

If all this weren't enough to expose Gingrich's fidelity-at-all-costs to the establishment, he endorsed an ultra-liberal Republican over a conservative third-party candidate in New York's 23rd Congressional District special election held November 3. Republican Dede Scozzafava supports same-sex "marriage," big labor, and abortion. She won the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood in March of 2008. The liberal ACORN-affiliated Working Families Party backs Scozzafava, and conservatives within her party call her a RINO (Republican In Name Only). When the New York Post came out in support of her Conservative Party opponent, Doug Hoffman, it said, "a Republican should adhere to certain minimum GOP principles. Scozzafava is just too far to the left too often." Yet Gingrich described her in a letter to supporters as "our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington." Gingrich explained his endorsement on newt.org, saying his "number one interest in the 2009 elections is to build a Republican majority," and to do so it is sometimes necessary "to put together a coalition that has disagreement within it." Considering that the publisher of the liberal Daily Kos endorsed Scozzafava as "willing to raise taxes" and "to the left of most Democrats on social issues," it's fair to ask if Newt has any principles at all.

Scozzafava dropped a campaign bomb-shell when she withdrew from the race just four days before the election, leaving a two-man fight between Hoffman and Democrat opponent Bill Owens. Gingrich then endorsed Hoffman, not on principle, but to prevent the Democrats from gaining another seat in the House. Owens got an endorsement from Scozzafava the very next day and proceeded to win the election by a narrow plurality. So Republicans lost a seat in the House, and Gingrich lost an enormous amount of credibility among conservatives.

Jekyll and Hyde vs. the Constitution

With outrageous national debt and out-of-control federal spending, loss of sovereignty to the likes of the UN and the WTO, spiraling taxes, and a bloodsucking bureaucratic leviathan, America can no longer afford to gamble on such a Jekyll-and-Hyde "conservative" as Newt Gingrich. What we need in Washington instead are constitutionalists who know that it is against the law to violate the Constitution no matter what anyone's opinion may be. The easiest way to tell a phony conservative from the true constitutionalist is to ask a few simple questions. Does he support federal education and welfare programs? Foreign aid? An interventionist foreign policy as opposed to staying clear of foreign quarrels? If yes, he is not a constitutionalist. We will never get back to good government unless we urge lawmakers to use the Constitution as their guide, and only support candidates who adopt the Constitution as their platform, regardless of party.

340,000 BABIES BORN TO ILLEGAL ALIEN PARENTS IN THE U.S. AND GOING UP. THE LAW WAS FOR CIVIL WAR SLAVE FAMILYS. SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOPED IN

THE 1920'S! WHO ARE THESE DO GOODERS ? IS CONRGESS ASLEEP ! NO WONDER MY HEALTH INS. IS

SO HIGH, WE ARE PAYING FOR THERE BIRTHS IN OUR HOSPITALS AND THEN - +.

Author: Brian D. Hill

Source: USWGO Alternative News; Sources are listed below the article

Date: August 16, 2010

Damon Dunn is a Republican being put in the position to be nominated for the Secretary of State of California is actually a registeredDemocrat in border-bottom: medium none;"">Florida since 1999 according to Dr.Orly Taitz. The speech by Dr. Taitz about the Election Fraud was foundon YouTube by theuser William Wagener.

Dr. Taitz is also running to be nominated for Secretary of State so Damon Dunn who is competing in the nominations for California Secretaryof State is who she is up against in the elections.

According to Dr. Taitz Mr. Dunn has violated three Elections codes of California. Those California Elections codes are §8001(a)(2),§18203,and §18500which has been searched up on the California Governmentcode search engine.

For those who don't know what three Elections Codes were violated I will explain all three.

According to §8001(a)(2)

No declaration of candidacy for a partisan office or for
membership on a county central committee shall be filed, by a
candidate unless

(2) the candidate has not been registered as

affiliated with a qualified political party other than that political

party the nomination of which he seeks within 12 months, or, in the

case of an election governed by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section

10700) of Part 6 of Division 10, within three months immediately

prior to the filing of the declaration.

So somebody that is already affiliated with a qualified political party has to state their change to another political party 12 monthsprior to running for office.

According to §18203

Any person who files or submits for filing a nomination
paper or declaration of candidacy knowing that it or any part of it
has been made falsely is punishable by a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the state prison for
16 months or two or three years or by both the fine and imprisonment.

So in simple terms for this one if anybody who files for, makes a declaration for, or submits a filing for Nomination or Candidacy knowingthat the information put on the filing was false information then thatis considered fraud according to California Election Code (CEC). So inother words if I filed that I am not affiliated with any political partyeven though I was years ago then I am lying about my politicalaffiliations to a Government registration facility which is what fraudis. So if I told the FBI my name was Sally Joe then I am committingfraud in a Government office. So you get the picture of what fraud is.

So the last Code is §18500 and so according to it

Any person who commits fraud or attempts to commit fraud,
and any person who aids or abets fraud or attempts to aid or abet
fraud, in connection with any vote cast, to be cast, or attempted to
be cast, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for 16
months or two or three years.

So according to this law if somebody aids, commits, approves, encourages, or supports Fraud then they are held liable and is guilty ofa Felony.

So now I explained what all three California Elections Codes Damon Dunn has violated according to Dr. Taitz.

Dr. Taitz claims she wants to become the California Secretary of State to expose all the inner political corruptions within California.Dr. Taitz has also been fighting in court for months to years overObamas Birth Certificate issue over the fact that Mr. Obama did notrelease a valid long form Birth Certificate before his inauguration toPresidential office.

Also according to William Wagener's video description it says

Across America, TEA PARTY fakes are endorsing and Pushing RINO's to win
the Republican Primaries. RINO = Republican In Name Only. Damon DUNNis the man who had forged Signatures on his Nomination Papers, in theCalifornia
Secretary of STATE GOP primary. See Proof, in "Nomination FRAUD" onY.T.
Mr. DUNN had been a registered Democrat all his life, publically statedObama is His "Hero", in a Stanford Blog interview, and voted only in2009 one time. ONE TIME. Yet, he makes wonderful speeches and wantsus to believe he is qualified to run the States Elections, having votedONE TIME, prior to the June 2010 Republican Primary.

So according to William Wagener there are democrats who have became Republicans just to get elected even though that is a false Declarationof affiliation for a political party. It is nomination Fraud whensomebody does not declare that they begin to affiliate themselves with adifferent political party because of the corruption and infiltrationthat breeds from the sudden change in political parties. So that is whystates have passed law codes that anybody who changes a political partyhas to wait a certain time period plus has to declare that the person isready to change to another political party.

Even though the Standford Interview is mentioned by William Wagener I am unable to source it at this time until somebody notifies me of thesource of the Interview.

Damon Dunn got a scholarship into Stanford University then got into Football. Dr. Dunn also played in the NFL for the Jacksonville Jaguars,Cleveland Browns, New York Jets and Dallas Cowboys.

Damon Dunn has also been affiliated with the Democrat party according to Dr. Taitz.

Damon Dunn also thought of Obama as his hero according to a Stanford Blog Interview.

The video regarding the Orly Taitz speech is below:

[stream flv=http://uswgo.com/rapidleech/r322/files/2010_-_Another_RIGGED_ELECTION-%5BfxMQRK2TbZc%5D%5Bf34%5D.flvimg=http://uswgo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/OrlyTaitzSpeech.jpgembed=true share=true width=640 height=480 dock=true controlbar=bottombandwidth=high autostart=false /]

Sources (Links are within the article but sources are also included here for reference):

CommonElections Fraud Violations - Also mirrored here

YouTube - 2010 - Another RIGGED ELECTION - Video mirrored here

California Government codes search engine

CaliforniaElections Code §8001(a)(2)

CaliforniaElections Code §18203

CaliforniaElections Code §18500

Links that were referenced in this article:

William Wageners YouTube page

As I’ve mentioned, while studying the U. S. Constitution, feeling that voices of the past were speaking to me, now I receive from an unknown The Great Controversy, voices of the past. Today I read about John Wycliffe. He arose in England, the “morning star of the Reformation.”

“Men of learning and piety had labored in vain to bring about a reform in these monastic orders; but Wycliffe, with clearer insight, struck at the root of the evil, declaring that the system itself was false and that it should be abolished. Discussion and inquiry were awakening. As the monks traversed the country (England), vending the pope’s pardons, many were led to doubt the possibility of purchasing forgiveness with money, and they questioned whether they should not seek pardon from God rather than from the pontiff of Rome.”

“Wycliffe was called to defend the rights of the English crown against the encroachments of Rome. . . But the arrival of the papal bulls laid upon all England a peremptory command for the arrest and imprisonment of the heretic. These measures pointed directly to the stake. It appeared certain that Wycliffe must soon fall a prey to the vengeance of Rome.”

“The death of Gregory was followed by the election of two rival popes. Two conflicting powers, each professedly infallible, now claimed obedience. Each called upon the faithful to assist him in making war upon the other, enforcing his demands by terrible anathemas against his adversaries, and promises of reward in heaven to his supporters. This occurrence greatly weakened the power of the papacy.”

“The schism, with all the strife and corruption, which it caused, prepared the way for the Reformation by enabling the people see what the papacy really was. . . Wycliffe called upon the people to consider whether these two priests were not speaking the truth in condemning each other as the anti-Christ.”

“Wycliffe came from the obscurity of the Dark Ages. There were none who went before him from whose work he could shape his system of reform. Raised up like John the Baptist to accomplish a special mission, he was the herald of a new era.”

However—the English monarchs, “eager to strengthen their power by securing the support of Rome, did not hesitate to sacrifice the Reformers. . . Hunted as foes of the church and traitors to the realm, they continued to preach in secret places, finding shelter as best they could in the humble homes of the poor, and often hiding away even in dens and caves.”

The pope’s vassals failed to burn Wycliffe at the stake during his life, “and their hatred could not be satisfied while his body rested quietly in the grave. By the decree of the Council of Constance, more than forty years after his death, his bones were exhumed and publicly burned, and the ashes were thrown into a neighboring brook.”

This sorry spectacle of historical fact took place in Christ’s name. Give people power and they become animals. Speaking for voices of the past, follow your conscience or become a slave of the powerful.

In The Great Controversy, which was sent to me by an unknown, I’m thinking perhaps voices of the past, I studied the U. S. Constitution and felt voices of the past were speaking to me. I had a bigger than life calling.

This morning I read in The Great Controversy, “The Pilgrim Fathers.” The Church of England followed many dictates of the Holy Catholic Church. In the beginning, Christianity sought to supplement the authority of God with the church, I read. Authority is a word that rings an alarm bell in me, and for good reason. My father, who never saw a good quality in me, referred to my disobedience as the story of Adam and Eve, who ate the forbidden fruit.

The early Christian Church “began by enjoining what God had not forbidden, and ended by forbidding what God had explicitly enjoined,” I read—my father, the unquestioned authority, who never saw a good quality in me, I can relate to the Pilgrims. “Many earnestly desired to return to the purity and simplicity which characterized the primitive church. They regarded many of the established customs of the English Church as monuments of idolatry, and they could not in conscience unite in her worship. But the church, being supported by the civil authority, would permit no dissent from authority, would permit no dissent from her forms. Attendance upon her service was required by law, and unauthorized assemblies for religious worship were prohibited, under penalty of imprisonment, exile, and death.”

“In their flight, they had left their houses, their goods, and their means of livelihood. They were strangers in a strange land, among a people of different language and customs.”

In the spring of 1975, I cut from the herd, arriving for the first day of my new life on Easter Sunday. I went to sea on a 37 foot sailboat I named Bold Venture. While at sea several miracles occurred. After two years at sea, strictly on my own, with God’s help, I survived knowing who I was and what I was about. When everything should have gone wrong for me, according to authority, everything went right, and has continued to go right. Believe it or not, there is great power in you. Follow the dictates of your conscience.

Under “The Pilgrim Fathers,” I read: “It was their desire for liberty of conscience that inspired the Pilgrims to brave the perils of the long journey across the sea, to endure the hardships and dangers of the wilderness, and with God’s blessing to lay, on the shores of America, the foundation of a mighty nation.”

“Eleven years after the planting of the first colony, Roger Williams came to the New World. Like the early Pilgrims, he came to enjoy religious freedom; but, unlike them, he saw what so few in his time had yet seen—that this freedom was the inalienable right of all, whatever might be their creed. . . Williams was the first person in modern Christendom to establish civil government on the doctrine of the liberty of conscience.” Wouldn’t you know civil authority would not allow this? Civil authority maintained that such a liberty “would subvert the fundamental state and government of the country. He was sentenced to banishment from the colonies, and, finally, to avoid arrest, he was forced to flee, amid the cold and storms of winter, into the unbroken forest.”

Roger Williams found refuge with an Indian tribe “whose confidence and affection he had won while endeavoring to teach them the truths of the gospel. Making his way, at last, after months of change and wandering, to the shores of Narragansett Bay, he there laid the foundation of the first state of modern times that in the fullest sense recognized the right of religious freedom. The fundamental principles of Roger Williams’ colony was ‘that every man should have liberty to worship God according to the light of his own conscience. His little state, Rhode Island, became the asylum of the oppressed, and it increased the prospered until its foundation principle—civil and religious liberty—became the cornerstones of the American Republic.”

In the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable right; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and in the U.S. Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” here we go again with authority’s unquestionable misbegotten control. On the phony legal ground that Roger Williams’ theory would “subvert the fundamental state and government of the country,” we, the people, are forbidden from acknowledging in schools and other public places our trust in God as the maker and keeper of the law. American children are being misinformed on the historical background of the Constitution being based on “Higher Law.” What began as enjoining what God had not forbidden has once again ended by forbidding what God had explicitly enjoined. What comes around goes around. Wake up, America! You are about to be enslaved.

Author: Brian D. Hill

Source: USWGO Alternative News

Note: If you conducted a poll regarding the Sharia Law and want USWGO to add the results to the USWGO poll results article then send aemail to admin @ uswgo.com

USWGO Founder Brian D. Hill is now posting forums threads on David Icke's Forum, MisterPoll, FaceBook, Quizilla, and other places to gather votes on whether the Sharia Law is approvedby the majority of people or whether the Sharia Law is opposed by themajority of the people.

For those who don't know what Sharia Law is USWGO prepared a article a while ago along with it a attached pdf file explaining how Sharia Law threatens Human Rights and the American Constitution.

The Sharia Law being implemented by stealth in America will mean a radical overhaul of the Court system providing a double court systemwhere one religious group gains higher justice then other religious andnon religious groups, one religious group may beat up women and attackpeople of other religious groups, Free speech will be abolished, Freedomof the press will be abolished, Freedom of Religion will be abolished,Freedom of assembly will be abolished, woman can no longer wearswimsuits or even tan and women will be raped if they violate this partof Sharia Law, and other horrors await America as Sharia Law is beingsecretly passed throughout local areas of America until it reaches theCapital for evaluation on whether a National Sharia Law should beenacted.

Sharia law threatens the Constitution and threatens Human Rights groups and even the Court on Human Rights as the Sharia Law was createdby radical Islamic (Not Muslim) groups that don't believe in any form ofHuman Rights or even a Constitution.

Muslims have been attacked and discriminated whether they agree with the Sharia Law or not because that law has turned many people againstMuslims and has even formed secretive hate groups against Muslims. Manypeople now feel as though Muslims are terrorists or support radicalIslam even though it's not true. The hate has spiraled and willeventually lead to violent wars and holocausts if Sharia Law keeps beingpassed throughout the world.

"It will become Us against Them kind of scenario if we let this absurd law be sneaked into every law system throughout the world. Infact it won't lower discrimination against Muslims but will lead to morejealousy, hate, and violate Human Rights" says Brian D. Hill of USWGO.His anti Sharia Law views has led to several facebook users attackinghim, calling him racist, and leading to attacks against USWGO'sreputation.

Will the Sharia law pass or will it be rebelled by the people? Polls will tell and USWGO is allowing 7 days before they publish a articleregarding the poll results.