Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 2800 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove unwarranted personal attacks. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Friday, July 23, 2010

I Am America by Krista Branch



Krista Branch debuts the video to her recent single release, "I Am America." Share this patriotic song with your family and friends. "I Am America" is a hopeful song with heavy dose of truth. It's time we stand up and restore honor in America!!!

I AM AMERICA!

HELLO, I'M A RACIST, PLEASED TO MEET YOU

By Selwyn Duke
July 23, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

There is such a thing as a conditioned response. Here’s an example: Leftists call conservatives “racists.” Conservatives cower and stutter some defense. Leftists call conservatives “racists” some more. Conservatives cower some more. Question: How do you think you break this pattern?


We’ve seen this again with the recent vitriol spewed by NAACP head Ben Jealous (a fitting last name). Speaking at the NAACP convention in Kansas City, Jealous accused the Tea Party of, take a guess . . . cue the “Jeopardy!” music . . . “racism.” Just as predictably, many conservatives are running around trying to convince everyone that, by gum, they really are swell guys. No, really. I’m not a racist. I don’t beat my wife. I don’t kick my dog. I eat my organic vegetables and drive a Prius.

Look, why don’t we just save everyone the trouble? Every time a conservative renders an opinion, we can just play a recording with a little weaselly voice screeching, “You’re a wacist! You’re a wacist!” (Barney Frank style) followed by a music video featuring The Cowering Conservative — I mean, 1950s-style, duck-and-cover footage with the tune and all.

And such conservatives abound. Oh, don’t get me wrong, conservative brethren, I love ya’, man. But, frankly, too many of you are saps. You really don’t get it. People who advocated welfare reform in the 1990s were accused of being “racist.” If you’re for border control, you’re “racist.” If you criticize Obama, you’re “racist.” If you oppose quotas, you’re “racist.” If you say that, be it nature or nurture, there are differences among groups, you’re “racist.” If you want English to be the national language, you’re “racist.” The word has become meaningless, only used to stifle and stigmatize opposition. And if calling you a heretic worked in that regard, the left would do that. And if calling you a Fig Newton worked, they would do that.

Nevertheless, the ploy prevents sap conservatives from speaking — and even conceiving of — certain truths. They won’t say that so-called racial profiling is just part of proper profiling, they pay lip service to the relativistic idea that all cultures are morally equal, they refuse to call bigoted blacks such as Obama and Eric Holder out on their bigotry, they tolerate double standards with respect to hate-crime-law application and racial jokes, and they let whites persecuted for making innocent comments twist in the wind. They won’t speak unfashionable truths for fear of becoming unfashionable people. Well, all I can say is that if the Truth can be “racist,” then hello, I’m a “racist.” Pleased to meet you.

And this gets at a deeper point. On the O’Reilly Factor recently, Bill O’Reilly was discussing the Jealous situation with Professor Marc Lamont Hill. You know, Hill is the fellow with a Cracker-Jack-box Ph.D. who looks like a high-school kid heading to the prom. Anyway, the good professor, in so many words, put forth the leftist definition stating that only whites can be “racist” because being so requires one to have “institutional power.” OK, whatever. I accept the definition. Really, I do.

I just reject the word.

What I mean is, I’ve long warned against using the Lexicon of the Left. “Racism” is a term as stupid as “ageism,” only, we’re inured to it. We forget that “ism” refers to a doctrine, system or theory. Thus, of course “racism” will denote doctrine, and is it any surprise that the doctrine is dumb? Leftist doctrine is usually dumb. But what’s even dumber is that we actually embrace the left’s doctrinal terms. This is why I prefer using what simply refers to attitude — “bigotry” — as in Barack Obama is a bigot, Eric Holder is a bigot and Ben Jealous is a bigot. As for “racism,” it was originated by the left. So leave it to them. They can define it. They can whine it. And if they ask me, I’ll tell them where they can stick it.

The point is that you can’t prove you’re not a “racist” to the left, because they’ll just define “racist” as being whatever you are. In fact, sap conservatives, understand something: You’re not going to “prove” anything to the NAACP. You’re not going to prove anything to the mainstream media. You’re not going to prove anything to any dyed-in-the-fool liberal. They are enemies. And enemies aren’t interested in proof; they’re interested in propaganda.

So cultivate the right warrior attitude. Look at it like this: If you were engaging in a cold war against the Nazis in 1938, would you bend over backwards to “prove” to them that their propaganda about you was invalid? Of course not! They know it’s invalid — that’s the nature of evil’s propaganda. And it’s designed to invalidate you. And you don’t respond to enemies with defensiveness and measured responses.


You propagandize against them.

Now, this doesn’t mean you have to lie. Note that while “propaganda” generally has a negative connotation today, it doesn’t denote dishonesty. It is simply, informs The Free Dictionary, “the organized dissemination of information, allegations, etc., to assist or damage the cause of a government, movement, etc.” And to damage leftists’ cause, all we need do is tell the truth about them.

So what this does mean is that you have to stop being “conservative” and start being bold. The only consistent political definition of a “conservative” — the only ones that holds across time and place — is “one who desires to maintain the status quo.” Well, maintenance men are seldom warriors. Conservatives too often take a conservative approach, being cautious while their enemies are callous. They too often bring a rhetorical knife to a rhetorical gunfight. They too often act like losers — and lose.

I am not saying that we should stop making reasoned arguments, but those are for the reasonable (those who can be swayed). They are wholly inappropriate for unreasonable charges from dishonorable children. They deserve your boot. You spit in their eye. For enemies bent on your destruction don’t want compromise; they won’t yield to reason. They are to be fought and, God willing, defeated.

This means that when a Congressman Joe Wilson shouts “You lie!” at Barack Obama, you respond, “Representative Wilson was wrong. Obama lies a lot.” It means that when the left bristles at a satirical letter to Lincoln, you understand that bold, fresh pieces of insanity will always hate satire. And, personally, do I really care that some Tea Party folks juxtaposed Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler on a billboard? Not really. I’m just not that concerned about Mr. Hitler’s reputation.

And what of civility? Be wary. When the left is civil — or calls for civility — it’s usually a ruse. It’s simply the tactic that best helps them achieve their aims at the moment. Here’s how it works: Leftists lie through their teeth, and then, when you respond with righteous indignation, they pout like little girls, saying, “You’re mean! You’re intolerant! What happened to civility! [Translation: You called our lies lies! How dare you!]” Understand that the effect here is to stop sap conservatives from calling lies lies, thus allowing the left to use its greatest weapon with impunity. Also understand that the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse.

And understand something else: Leftists are cowards. They are creatures of the pack, finding their strength only in numbers. After all, what do you think being politically correct is all about? It means doing what’s fashionable in our time, what makes you popular. A man who believes in Truth, such as Thomas More, will die for his principles, alone, twisting in the wind. A liberal goes the way the wind blows and will die for nothing. Stand up to leftists en masse, and they’ll fold like a tent.
So free yourself. Laugh at the “racism” shtick. Make it a badge of honor. Call leftists what they are: cowards, bigots, liars, demagogues, and, worst of all by far, enemies of Truth. Fight fire with fire. Remember, millions of good Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and will stand with you. So just say to our leftist legal aliens: If you like name-calling and you want to fight, OK. I’m a racist, sexist homophobe, and I’m in your face. What’s it to ya’?

© 2010 Selwyn Duke - All Rights Reserve

Relationship between Church and State - an Old Catholic View from 1917

There has always been much discussion in America about the concept of " Separation of Church and State".
There are also many errors published about what the Catholic Church has taught regarding forms of government, especially the idea of "the divine right of kings". I have learned that when one wants the truth about any organization one should read what that organization published at least as much as what that organization's critics publish.

Remember while studying this that they are talking about LEGITIMATE governments, truly constituted, not about usurped power stolen by criminals contrary to the laws of any nation.
Remember also that the United States was not excepted or condemned by the Church as to our form of government, and never has been. In fact the Church realized early on that there would be more opportunity in the United States for spreading the Gospel than in most any other nation BECAUSE of our form of government and our 1st amendment.

Notice also that one theme that runs throughout this article is that the purpose of both the Church and the State is to promote the happiness of the people involved. The Church has always condemned any state that works in the opposite direction as we now have in the USA.

It also seems that the Church has sanctioned the very notion held in America by law that the government should "make no law" regarding religion in these words in this article.

"That in States whose personality is constitutionally made up of every complexion of religious faith, much of it in its diversity sincere, there should be a governmental abstention from any specific denominational worship or profession of belief, and a general protection and encouragement of the individual in the practice of religion according to his own religious principles within the limits of the Natural Law, or of a general acceptance of Christianity, seems a practical necessity of evil times, when unity of faith is so widely lacking, and a modus vivendi which, if sincerely carried out, seems to work as little harm to objective right as can be expected in a condition of consciences sincerely differing in the matter of right established by the Divine Positive Law. "


When people condemn the Church saying that She wants to rule and pick the Kings, and that She only sanctions the "Divine rights of Kings" they are simply not telling you the truth.
I know this because I have made a life long study of this subject and I have been a practicing Catholic my whole life.

This is taken from the old Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm

LEGAL NOTICE: The Authors specifically invoke the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press, without prejudice, on this website. The information posted on this website is published for informational purposes only under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America. Images, text and logic are copyright protected. ALL rights are explicitly reserved without prejudice, and no part of this website may be reproduced unless by written consent. You hereby have written consent to post any individual post from this website containing this copyright to any other blog or email only if you post the whole and unaltered article including this copyright, and give proper credit to the author, and a link back to this blog at http://www.paulstramer.net/. This applies only to articles written by Paul Stramer. ©2005-2009 by Montana Business Communications (PDS) All rights remain in force. Removing this notice forfeits all rights to recourse. Copyright strictly enforced © The videos are third party and not covered by this legal notice.