Archive

Archive for the ‘homosexual agenda’ Category

Revisiting Obama’s Call for a Civilian Army and Some Final Considerations

April 11, 2011 Leave a comment

After long thought and consideration, I have decided to make this piece my last for this blog until further notice.  I want to share my personal thoughts and feelings for this decision and will do so at the close of this piece.  But first I’d like to go back and cover something our putative president told us on the 2008 campaign trail.

Perhaps there is nothing more frightening than the thought of a military-like presence in a residential neighborhood.  It’s even more chilling than seeing lines of squad cars cordoning off a street to check drivers to see if they’re drinking and/or not wearing a seat belt, the latter being a blatant unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment.

The images of a group of law enforcement officers walking thru a community sends a message that a crime is about to be averted or if in place, shut down. In such cases, most residents of that community would relish such a presence or at least not be bothered or intimidated by it, unless it becomes a regular pattern.

But seeing military commandos walking down our sidewalks or cruising down our streets would like send shivers up most any normal human being. Yet as disturbing as this would be, the thought of some largely unknown civilian army (with no direct ties to either the U.S. military or traditional law enforcement agencies) parading thru a city would possibly not only send shockwaves thru its residents but create massive and likely unprecedented panic and fear.  Most any rational headed man or woman would equate such activity to that of a police state with images of what occurs in many foreign nations coming to mind.

I know.  Because when I first heard Obama mention this civilian army at a campaign stop in Colorado, those thoughts and images raced through and plagued my entire being.  I could envision the gross and blatant violation of our 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Amendments.

And mind you, I’m no conspiracy theorist.  I don’t see how any normal minded law abiding individual could not be fearful of possibly being escorted from his or her dwelling to a prison or makeshift concentration camp by a law enforcement officer or military official, let alone a civilian army official, however that may be defined.

But a couple recently surfaced items have compelled me to reexamine what Obama might have implied when he was making his run for the White House.  Mind you, these are only observations.  And mind you, I know as so many of you do that Obama is a serial liar.  He is the equivalent of the little boy crying “Wolf!” on steroids.  He should not be trusted on pretty much anything.  He is perhaps an instrument of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya.

But what if Obama meant what he said in this regard?  What if he truly wants to assemble an army that is as strong as our current military forces, if not stronger?  We may not have an idea of what his true intent is but if it begins like with the expansion of the Americorps as Michael Savage points out here, or with this idea, or even with this one (worth viewing since it incorporates excerpts from both previous videos, plus more), we better sober up.

One of those items introduces us to the new Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy.  The question that begs for an answer upon seeing the name of the school is this: what leadership skills does America’s allegedly legit president possess that entitles his name to go on a school building and set as an example for others to emulate?  But beyond that, since Obama has sealed all his papers from public purview via executive order, his very first upon assuming office, we don’t have any transcripts as a student, awards as a teacher (if he so was one) or any other related documentation from his classroom or teaching days as examples of why a school should be named for him. Therefore, we don’t know what caliber of an individual this mystery man possesses other than of the unproven hearsays from talking heads on radio, TV and the Internet.

The limited information on the schools website doesn’t reveal much of anything different than we might read about a traditional public school. Dancing Czars exposes a few tidbits of details about its chief administrator there as a result of an unlinked story posted there.

Other details that might be revealed thru a Google search pans out nothing out of the ordinary, though a short video (volume quality is poor) gives the indication that this will probably be an all black school.  Based on the school district’s testing criteria, curricula here would seem to be that of any other middle school and high school in the Dallas district.  So maybe there’s nothing here.

But I do have this gnawing feeling, given the army videos and what is known about Obama, that there could be something more sinister in the brewing, like:

Will the school attract Muslims and teach about Islam in any capacity?

Will there be political activities on campus, particularly ones that will endeavor to recruit students to government service and some form of military combat?

Will the school be a recruitment source for Democrats?  With Obama’s name on the outside and his political prowess, I wouldn’t put this past him, despite the fact that schools are not supposed to be tools for political party organization. Recall the hubbub from Sept. 2009 when Obama used his bully pulpit to speak to public school students from the Oval Office upon their return to school.

With this being an all male school, was the gender segregation done to keep young impressionable students disciplined towards their studies?  Or realizing how Obama is the most pro-homo (putative) president ever in office, knowing how he seeks to promote the agenda at every turn and how he may have such tendencies himself, will this be a subtle effort to teach and homosexualize pupils?  Don’t laugh.  Massachusetts has been the one state subsidizing taxpayers to do so.

It does seem a bit peculiar in a strong conservative Republican state like Texas that a school named for our alleged president (and who is largely unpopular there) now exists.  Perhaps I’m reading too much into it.  Maybe I’m going overboard politicizing it.  But what if I’m not? There may indeed be nothing to this. But with Obama being who he is, a homosexual embracing Muslim and a person who has done nothing, despite widespread concerns, to prove he’s a natural born citizen, I’d rather be safe than sorry in saying this.

The second item is in all likelihood a bigger consideration for Obama’s civilian army.  And that pertains to the tragic December repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) in the U.S. armed forces.  It was a horrible decision by Congress to approve of it but it fits right in line with who Obama is and what he supports.  Sadly, it’s being implemented right before our very eyes. And if you want to know how repulsive the results of repeal are showing itself to be, here you go.  You have to read it to believe it.

4 months ago, Gen. James Amos, commandant of the U.S. Marines, our best of the best in uniform, made a strong case against the DADT repeal to Congress.  Less than two months after, he and one of his juniors have been apparently brainwashed to do the 180 (upper video – can also be seen directly on You Tube here).

It’s a terrible blight on our nation, both the acceptance of homosexual conduct as federal policy and the foisting of it on the men (and women) in uniform.  We can thank most of the Democrats as well as a few Republicans and the likely bogus POTUS for the repeal.

I know, some of you may be asking, “What does the DADT repeal have to do with Obama’s idea of civilian army – the federal military would have nothing to do with that”.

It all starts with one word as I alluded to two paragraphs ago: brainwashing.

Now let me hasten to add that I don’t know if there will be a correlation between a civilian army and the U.S. Armed Forces.  But if you can “convert” a prized and principled military leader like James Amos into accepting openly degrading and unnatural sexual behavior among the men (and women) who wear the uniform, well, you might be able to “convert” anyone.

We don’t know what went on behind the scenes with Obama, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and other high ups to cause Commander Amos to alter his apparent previously strong position on homosexuals in the military.  If you didn’t know how principled it was, just read the second paragraph here.  Not only was he opposed to repeal but so were the chiefs of the Army & Air Force.  And back in May, so was the head of the Navy.

So with our military’s finest now deluded to accept degrading and unnatural sexual acts and to allow such practitioners to openly serve, it appears we’ve reached the end of an era of integrity.  What has been both historically and Biblically viewed as verboten is now publicly tolerated, if not enthusiastically embraced, as part of our “brave” new military.

So how does the DADT repeal square with Obama’s concept of a civilian army as powerful as our actual military?  This is a theory but follow along.

No matter how hard the left and homosexuals on the left try to mainstream homosexual activity as normal and safe, the facts completely undo such thinking.  Most rational kids with normal childhoods do not enter puberty with raging hormones to engage in sexual activity with someone of their own gender. Those who participate in such activities (more so men) find themselves personally conflicted and confused, both from a moral standpoint as well as a natural one.  Those who persist in such activities find themselves dug in to it and gradually become firmly entrenched, generally believing from both a moral and natural standpoint that there is no issue with homosexual conduct.  Such people cannot distinguish right from wrong and this is why there is grave danger with the change of the DADT policy.

As is known by those of us who watch and read what is going on in the White House, we know that Obama has more homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers and allies than any previous president and perhaps more than all presidents combined since Reagan.  It would be too lengthy to detail all the groups and events with a homosexual “flavor” that have been part and parcel of the Obama agenda but suffice it to say that it is extensive and if you’re not sure of it, just plug it all into your favorite search engine.

With our military in the process of being brainwashed on homosexual conduct, it stands to reason that Obama may be making plans to have America’s military leaders train public outcasts to be part of his civilian army.  And what better way to do so than train avowed homosexuals as well as Muslims, to the extent the two can coexist?

Radical homosexuals and radical Muslims do not like America as it is and want to make it into an image that our Founding Fathers could never envision.  To do away with traditional marriage in favor of any faux form of it and to attempt to mainstream Islam and the Koran in America would drastically alter our national fabric. Yet that is exactly what Obama is doing, given the sizable number of homosexuals and Muslims in his administration.  To put the two generally disaffected groups together would seem to be a Herculean task, given the views of some Middle Eastern nations towards homosexual and given how many hard core homosexuals view any religion, be it Islam or Christianity.

Yet that’s what Obama seems to be achieving, which is partly why I believe that if he is not the antichrist, he is at least paving the way for him. What other discrete and divergent groups are so enamored with this empty suit?

So if homosexuals and Muslims are heavy in the Obama Administration, more so than all previous (legitimate) presidents combined, and our U.S. military is being brainwashed on homosexual behavior and Islam, why would such individuals not be considered to be part of an Obama civilian army?  Add to that the illegals currently residing in the U.S. that he enthusiastically embraces as well as disaffected black youth (which have been seen in military-like training exercises on You Tube) and you may have some form of civilian army full of outcasts beyond our wildest imaginations.

Of course, this is a theory and I accept that I could fully be in error here.  But think about it.  What kind of folks would consider being part of a civilian military led by an anti-American “president” other than the disaffected or those who view themselves as such? Would your normal every day Americans, even liberal ones, who go to work and raise families consider taking up arms against their fellow Americans?  I’m not even sure you can get your hardest of hard core Democrat leftists in public office (the Nancy Pelosis, the Barbara Boxers, the Harry Reids, Dick Durbins, etc.) to do so.

But if you’re not an American citizen, as Barack Obama is suspected not to be, then what’s to keep you from taking arms against the country you live in.  Lack of allegiance would be a dead giveaway to someone thinking of putting together a civilian army.  But who’s to say Obama has any?  Remember, there was likely a reason he didn’t cross his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem.  It wasn’t an accident.

The volumes of evidence showing Obama not to be constitutionally qualified because he’s not a natural born citizen are almost insurmountable.  And there is scant little, if any, evidence that Obama would not take up arms against the American people if it gets really bad.  And that is getting nearer to reality, especially as Americans are looking at whether Obama really met the constitutional requirements for the presidency.

I’m not going to address the FEMA camps that have been alleged where Americans may find themselves as a result of rebelling against the Obama Administration.  It has been viewed as conspiracy thinking.  It may well be.  But what if it’s not?  Although I don’t plan to discuss it in this piece, is it out of the realm that Obama could not use these facilities against us by rounding us up and putting us there?  I would not be too quick to dismiss it.  A call for a civilian army arouses the wildest of imaginations, many of which should not arbitrarily be dismissed.

One last point.  Some folks may think Obama was conjuring up every thought he could when he was on the campaign trail, including the civilian army.  And now from what we know about Obama since taking office 2+ years ago, a good many of us know that he’s a serial liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth on virtually anything.  So is it possible that he could be lying about the civilian army as well?  Yes, he could.

But what if this is the one rare exception whereby Obama tells us the truth?  We would be remiss if we pooh poohed it.

 

txdivider1.gif (501×15)

 

As those of you know and have followed me for years, you know I love writing. I believe God has gifted me to do so.  From my days of writing for The Reality Check and Alan Keyes Renew America to my Seat Belt Choice website (inactive) to my Stop the ACLU website (also inactive) to my blogs and miscellaneous places, I have cherished getting the word out on so many items.  I have been blest with a rich knowledge of all the news and resources the Internet has to offer as well as the Holy Scriptures which has shaped my thinking and world view of what I have gleaned from being online for nearly a decade. It’s long been my hope, prayer and passion that what I have shared, both via e-mail and my websites and blogs, would make an impression and impact on all I’ve come to meet.

Make no mistake about it.  Those of you whom God has put in my path have helped shape my thinking and world view.  Your knowledge and analyses of public figures, national and world events and spiritual matters have blessed me to no end.  Being able to spread the word on these items and compel lawmakers to address them for the betterment of the states and country we live in is something I am proud of.

However, there gets to be a point where one has to ask themselves (as I have) how much more we need to spread the word on something to get our message out.  I have now come to that point.  I no longer want to be an armchair quarterback or general, either to you, my readers and supporters, or to our elected officials.  I want to be where the action is.

I can no longer sit at my computer for hours on end composing and sending compelling messages, be they in the form of e-mails, news items for my website or blog, or for action items to lawmakers at the state and federal level.

Last month, I wrote this piece.  At the suggestion of a fine patriotic woman and contact, I outlined how we all must come together to encompass all the district offices of every Congressman and woman and U.S. senator in America for the purpose of impeaching or otherwise removing Barack Obama from the White House.  I originally thought it would be a fabulous idea if we all went to Washington (like 20-50 million of us) to force the usurper out.  I still think it is a great idea.  But not too many folks can make the long trip to DC, because of jobs (for those who still have them), finances, families or simply the distance to travel to DC, especially those who live more than a few hours north, south or west of the capitol. It simply becomes not feasible because of the logistics involved.

So I proposed this idea to the many contacts I have from my Stop the ACLU days as well as others I’ve come to know since my active days there.  I thought we finally had something tangible we could make an impact for.  We wouldn’t have to go across the country to Capitol Hill.  We could just go to the district offices of all our Congressional officials and hold up signs, demanding action from them on Obama.  The pressure for Congress to act would be too great to ignore if all 535 elected officials in Congress had their local offices blanketed with impeachment and removal signs.  Doing this on a daily basis would be something that could not be ignored.

As a result of my e-mail, I cannot tell you how dismayed I was when the number of responses I got to the idea on my blog amounted to less than one hand’s fingers. I thought this idea was a sure winner.  But by the deafening silence conveyed from my e-mail, it was clear that a good many of my contacts did not think so, preferring to do nothing or be little more than armchair generals operating from their keyboards.  We can no longer keep the status quo.  Unfortunately, some of us are content to be so, despite the country being stolen from us by the likes of Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano and a House Speaker (John Boehner) who doesn’t have the balls to tell Obama to show his papers or quit, nor to insist that taxpayer abortion funds and EPA funding be removed from budget considerations.

Though we must never cease educating our friends, families and others on the numerous agenda items the country faces day in and day and the dangers Obama poses to us both individually and corporately, there comes a time where we absolutely have to leave the keyboard behind and take to the streets.  This is that time.  America is in crisis mode with a dangerous man in the Oval Office and a Congress with a speaker who “takes Obama at his word” instead of investigating himself whether he’s a natural born U.S. citizen.

We can call, write, fax and e-mail Congress all we want but with few exceptions, its members will not listen to us.  The only way they will hear us (along with the media) is if they see a sustained presence outside their 1200-1500 offices across the fruited plain with signs demanding Obama’s removal.  It’s cheaper than going to Washington and requires nothing except wheels to get to their offices and makeshift signs demanding they act immediate.  Not everyone can go every day to a Congressman or senator’s office.  But we can ensure that coverage is consistent six days a week. There needs to be at least 100 men and women outside of every congressional and senatorial office in America on a daily basis (Monday thru Saturday) if we’re going to have a chance to save the nation.  Obama, Holder and Napolitano will not go if we stay home.  Patriotism demands action now!

As the venerable conservative Jewish columnist Don Feder wrote, “Where’s the Outrage“?

Unless and until we are willing to adopt the details laid out on my previous article, America will likely further sink into oblivion.  Lots of well-intentioned folks have great ideas to restore the constitutional republic via different methods.  The problem is many of those methods are largely not understood by the public.  The ideas are in many ways compelling.  However, most are not readily comprehended and virtually none get rid of the petulant man child in the Oval Office. The idea listed on my blog is easily understood and requires no experience, just patriotism and perpetual calls for Obama to go.

The issue is not can we do it but will we?  If patriotism is still alive and you want to get involved in this national effort, you’ll contact me.  If it’s dead and you don’t want to get involved, you won’t.  But think about what you will leave for those behind you if you decide that saving the country for your children and from a bogus president doesn’t warrant a little time and sacrifice on your part.

This is my last call to everyone.  I pray for an unprecedented response.  Because without it, America’s finest days may well have passed us by.  And without it, my activist days will likely go into the annals of American history.

What’s with the Westboro Baptist Church?

March 6, 2011 1 comment

Although the current intent of my blog is to continue pushing for Obama’s removal from office (and we will not stop until he’s gone), I want to set aside that just for the moment to comment on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this week involving the Westboro Baptist Church and a lawsuit against it by a grieving father of a deceased U.S. Marine.  I have followed the actions and theology of this church almost since I first got online nearly 10 years ago (don’t ask me how I first heard about them as I can’t recall) and would like to throw in my personal two cents and more.

I am the son of former Navy dad who served during the Korean War.  My dad did not die while in combat (he later committed suicide from acute alcoholism) but he did serve his country faithfully.  I later received a beautiful naval flag from President Reagan in honor of my dad’s service.  I did not serve myself but suffice it to say that I know a few things about the military.  And I am a huge supporter of our troops, though I have come to question why we’re fighting wars overseas against a 1400 year old religious ideology hell bent on killing those who don’t subscribe to it.  However, that’s a subject for another day.

Although not in the same right, I can and do have the utmost empathy and compassion for Albert Snyder for the loss of his son Matt in combat. I can only imagine what he went thru to know his son paid the ultimate price for his country.  I can’t say I personally know what this father is feeling but I do have a pretty good idea.

However, as much as I feel the dad’s pain (acknowledging President Clinton’s famous words), to be true to the U.S. Constitution, I must concede that the pariahs of Westboro Baptist had the constitutional right to do what it did in protesting, even if it didn’t have (and never will) the moral right to do so.

In all the years the WBC has conducted its galling protests against our deceased men and women in uniform, its members, largely comprised of Fred Phelps and his extended family, have faithfully complied with all state and local laws wherever they have been. They picket on public sidewalks and have never disrupted the ceremonies conducted at churches, funeral parlors and cemeteries.  They have even obeyed ordinances to stand hundreds of feet away from such facilities, though those ordinances are now facing legal scrutiny as a result of the 8-1 high court ruling.  So say what you wish about this church’s obnoxious protests, they aren’t illegal.

Yes, I know I may take some heat from those criticizing my position here, considering nearly every attorney general in America sided with Mr. Snyder.  It almost sounds like I’m defending the ACLU, the one organization that should be on the societal scrapheap and one whose agenda I fought for several years to thwart.

But rest assured I am not.

Although we can’t read into the minds of our Founding Fathers as to what they would think if they were alive today, I daresay they would frown on the actions of the WBC. But knowing their steadfast fealty to the Constitution they wrote, I seriously doubt they would abrogate their fiduciary duty to it.

It’s great to see the public come to the financial aid of Mr. Snyder so he doesn’t plunge into bankruptcy and financial disaster. But he could have avoided it all because in reality, he stood little chance of victory, despite a favorable judgment in a Maryland lower court.

The article in USA Today points out that Mr. Snyder “sued for damages based on the emotional distress Westboro picketers caused him”. Although I’m not a lawyer, I do have a logical legal mind.  And my first thought is this – how does one determine an appropriate sum of money to punish someone or some group based on emotional pain? To me, this is the first sign I knew this case was flawed from the start.  Anytime one has to come to subjective conclusions as to how much money one is due for some intangible action, you know you could be headed for trouble.

For example, if a hospital is sued because its doctors damaged an organ in the course of surgery, the patient is most certainly entitled to have all medically related injuries to that organ fully covered.  Lost time from work and home that would otherwise not be an issue should be fully compensated as well.  These are objective costs as specific monetary dollars come into play.  And even a fixed punitive fine may well be appropriate (provided the bulk of it goes to the patient and not the lawyer.

But how does one properly determine appropriate compensation for emotional damages, often known as “pain and suffering”?  It’s literally anybody’s guess.  One dollar amount may be right for one person; another person may disagree and believe such “pain” should result in more money being given than the first person; a third person may yet have another figure.  Is $5 million, the original jury verdict at the district court in favor of the father, a fair sum for him?  It’s all about what one thinks and feels.

Listen, I am not standing up for these Kansan loose screws. These protests are despicable.  But where does one draw the line?  Was Mr. Snyder forced to watch the Phelps’ clan? Granted, as ABC reported, there was a 30 foot gap between the protesters and the front entrance of the church where Matt’s funeral was being conducted, ”forcing” the family to reportedly use a side entrance.  It’s arguably difficult to escape seeing those nasty signs when you’re just 10 yards away from them.

But unless Phelps members stepped on private property, as much as I hate to say it, and I do, they didn’t do anything constitutionally wrong.  Their presence was obnoxious and noxious, no doubt.  But is $5 million a fair price for obnoxiousness?  That is the question.

It is stunningly shocking that 48 out of 50 attorneys general would go to the lengths they did to write amicus statements in favor of the Snyders.  It’s perfectly understandable to stand with the family.  The moral high road is to do so.  But the higher road is to stand with the Constitution, not withstanding the church’s juxtaposed view of morality here.

Now I said all I said as a born again Pentecostal Christian of over 30 years.  I confess Jesus Christ as my personal Lord & Savior and I know if I were to die today, I would go to meet the Almighty in Heaven because of that relationship.

But on a constitutional level, if this is today’s legal mind of America’s attorneys general, we are in heap big doggy doo.  The proper role for them should have been to not support the church because of its warped view of America and its military, nor Mr. Snyder, but to pray the public obtains a correct understanding of the Constitution in today’s society.  The 48 men and women in this capacity should have taken a spectator’s role and not that of a participant.

https://thatsafact.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/divider_line-1.jpg

Aside from the case, I have wanted for a long time now to talk about my own personal knowledge and understanding of the WBC, perhaps from an angle not previously perceived by the public.  And this court ruling helps pave the way.

It appears something has happened to the WBC website at this time as I am unable to access it to provide details.  Perhaps the site’s web host pulled it after the ruling or after one of the Phelps gang promised to “quadruple” the protests, I don’t know.  If the church can’t get hosting because its most recent host terminated it or if no other host wants to be paid to display this church’s literally hateful message, all I can do is smile. The only concern I have is if the feds had something to do with the site’s shutdown. Otherwise, it’s a great thing.

For the record, if my memory is correct from past visits to the main site, hosting was provided by the appropriately named First Amendment hosting.  We speculate but cannot prove since the site is down that this was (and perhaps still is) the web host.

We tried GodHatesFags.org and .net and both are currently shown as registered and parked by GoDaddy.com (the .com site is registered and parked by DirectNic.com). There are other sites the WBC has registered but I cannot recall what they are except for GodHatesAmerica.com which, like the others, currently isn’t working.

So since the site is inaccessible for the moment, I will rely on my experience and personal knowledge of the group to share with you, my readers.

As I said at the start, I don’t recall how or when I first heard of the WBC (2003 or 2004 would be my best guess) but I soon started finding out who they were.  And without having networked with anyone, I soon began to see how this church’s theology was in conflict with my Christian faith and how I was brought up.

Back then, the church was one to be reckoned with.  It was not because they had a large following.  They had anything but that and still don’t to this day. The church is largely comprised of family members (admittedly they have heed the Lord’s command from the Book of Psalms, “blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them”).  And amongst those members, several of them are attorneys.  Perhaps Shirley is the most recognized of them.  I don’t know who the others are offhand.  Regardless, the fact these folks had the oddest doctrine unlike anything I ever heard did not detract from their astute legal minds.  They do not lose cases.  In fact, I can’t recall one they have lost.  They know their Constitution. They know the 1st Amendment as well as any constitutional expert. They’re not dummies.

And they have collected tidy sums of money for their legal victories.  One I recall was a 1st Amendment victory from the city of Topeka (KS) where the church is located.  I don’t specifically remember what the suit was about except I believe it had something to do with the city’s failure provide police protection during a picket when an outsider instigated an altercation.  The church went after the city and I believe settled out of court for $170,000.  And the Phelps were proud of it, having made a copy of both sides of the $170K check and then posting it online.

Before the Phelps clan started picketing funerals (which had been roughly since 2007 or 08), their main thrust was protesting at any and every facility that was knowingly and publicly promoting homosexuality in any context.  It didn’t matter where and what the specifics were. If the church found out that homosexual perversion was going on anywhere, they made a point of being in attendance.

And anywhere didn’t necessarily just mean the United States.  The Phelps folks protested along the Canadian border.  Since the Canadian government would not permit them to cross their borders, referring the WBC as a hate group (which it most definitely is), they were confined outside Canada’s points of entry. They also went to Sweden and even Australia.  Their legal business made the Phelps gang rich and they spent their money accordingly.

Here are just a few examples where the WBC would go:

  1. Schools, colleges and other venues where the play or film the Laramie Project (it was both) was occurring or where known homosexuals were going to speak
  2. Legislative offices and bodies, city halls, courthouses, preparing to enact or enforce laws promoting civil unions, same sex marriage or hate crimes legislation
  3. Theatres and entertainment centers where celebrity homosexuals (like Elton John, Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Etheridge) were performing on a given day or night
  4. Churches preparing to either bless civil unions or same sex marriage or conducting ceremonies (legal or not) for those wanting such recognition
  5. Denominational headquarters where talk of approving homosexuality in any form in the denomination was being planned

Say what you want about the church’s message, they are not afraid of carrying it out.

But what is most unfortunate is that with the church being financially “blessed” (and I use that term towards the WBC in an oxymoronic way) is that its members could be going to these above establishments to do a lot of good.  It is certainly appropriate in a proper context to confront practitioners and promoters of homosexual activities.  It’s even fitting on occasions in a firm but loving way to directly warn them of their behaviors; that such invariably lead to pain, misery, disease, death and worst of all, a Christless eternity.

However, to tell people that God hates them, and worse, that they have no hope, is a horrible message to send, let alone completely unbiblical.  If God hated the world, He would have never sent Jesus Christ to the cross to die for our sins and theirs.

Yes, God does hate sin and He hates the acts avowed homosexuals commit. Homosexual activity was the only sin in the Bible (Gen. 19) met with punishment by fire and brimstone.  And seducers of children into it (or for that matter, any activity that keeps a child from knowing his or her Creator) potentially face the wrath of God (Matt. 18).

But to never give anyone the option of leaving this lifestyle (or any other sinful activities) runs contrary to the scriptures and the heart of God.  And yet that’s what the Westboro Baptist Church does. They lump pretty much all America and the world with the sinners.  In other words, the Phelps clan believes that we are all responsible for other people’s sins.  It contradicts scriptures like in Ezekiel 18 about the father not being responsible for the son’s sins and vice versa as well as Romans 14 about each person solo being accountable to God for their sins of commission and omission.

Yet this has been the WBC’s theme across so many of their press releases.  For example, in the fall of 2003 when the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire chose to ordain an avowed homosexual minister to be bishop, the WBC stated in one of their releases that all Episcopalians are headed straight for hell with Gene Robinson.

And in some of their other releases targeting Catholic churches, the Phelps folks boldly state that all Catholics are going to hell with their fag priests.  This runs very contrary to scripture.  All one has to do is go check out Revelation 2 & 3 and read what Jesus said to the apostate churches as Pergamos, Thyatira and Sardis.  The Lord had read indictments to the church leaders and congregations but singled out those who were not caught in their corruptions.  There is no way one can honestly read those verses otherwise.

A few months after I began getting acquainted with this church, I wrote to it at an e-mail address posted at their website and asked the people there how they could reconcile this blatant doctrinal error.  I had received replies from two of their members but one of them, Shirley, one of Pastor Fred’s daughters, exchanged several e-mail chats with me (the name of the other escapes me) before I reluctantly concluded that I could not persuade them of their errors.  I pled with Shirley to show me where their views were scriptural.  She couldn’t except to engage in name calling. So suffice it to say that her responses were terse, angry and with twisted use of the scriptures (see II Pet. 3:16 which refers to people who do this kind of stuff).

I wish I had saved the chats for everyone to see but unfortunately I didn’t.

Virtually every press release had these words on it (the press releases for the homosexual protests before they began targeting the military:

WBC to protest ….. in religious protest and warning.  God is not mocked.  God hates fags and fag enablers.  God hates so-and-so…… blah, blah, blah.

This is a horrible message to send.  It gives those who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle no help.  And it gives more ammo to the radicals and others on the left to condemn Christians and to pressure lawmakers to clamp down.

And if that isn’t bad enough, the church’s website reminded its visitors on a daily basis how many days Matthew Shepard is supposedly in hell.  There was also a list of days a California lesbian who died some years ago in a freak incident with a dog is allegedly in hell.  They may well be there if they rejected Jesus Christ.  But only God knows their hearts – who knows, they could have confessed Christ as the moment they were about to leave this life. Regardless, the constant condemnation is something no bonafide Christian would ever do.

The church essentially believes “once a sinner, always a sinner”.  No hope, no help, no change.  It’s an extreme form of Calvinism which I believe many of its adherents reject.

This makes you wonder if the Phelps members have a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ.  Only God really knows but all signs point to just the opposite.  I had tried addressing this in my online conversations with Shirley, all without success.

If the church had even an iota of compassion, it would adopt the principles and actions embraced by one of the most fabulous pro-life groups I have ever encountered.  I am referring to David Bereit, National Director of 40 Days for Life, his assistant Shaw Carney and a vastly growing network of motivated pro-lifers.

David, who founded the organization and helps run the website and its action network, is one of the finest individuals I’ve ever encoutered.  Although I have not met or spoken with him personally, I have had several e-mail chats with him and have watched his videos.  He’s a bonafide born again Christian with the heart of God for the unborn and mothers considering abortion.  His credentials (he originally came from the venerable American Life League) and character can be summed up in one word: impeccable.

David and his 40 Days have a mission which began as a once a year project in 2007 but now occurs twice annually.  That mission comes from passages in the Old and New Testaments whereby God used a 40 day period to achieve the miraculous, which includes saved babies, persuaded moms and even ex-clinic workers. This group goes out 40 consecutive days to abortion clinics across all 50 states (and now even outside U.S. borders) to pray, hold signs and when the occasion arises, witness and counsel to those preparing to enter the clinics as well as those who work in them.  From what this observer has seen, this project has had more impact than any other planned pro-life activity with the possible exception of legal victories gained.  And proof of its impact shows in that abortion clinic personnel have become terrified at the successes obtain.

And it’s all done well within the context of the law and the fact it has never had any legal trouble is a testament to the character of the young Mr. Bereit and his army of pro-lifers.

Here’s a great write up on 40 Days and what it does.  It is the antithesis of the WBC and their God Hates Fags motto.  If the Phelps folks ever decided to adopt and implement the heart and soul toward the homosexual that David and his great legion of pro-lifers do toward pregnant women considering abortion, the continually propped up three legged table that that agenda sits on would rapidly collapse.

It certainly is appropriate to speak out against the homosexual agenda and those who are pushing its evil to cover America.  It is important to take firm and even aggressive stands when necessary.  But it is thoroughly wrong to stereotype everyone in it as collaborators. Those trapped in it but seeking help must have access to all appropriate useful resources.  Condemning them is completely wrong and hurts the cause the same way attacking abortionists and clinic workers does.  Thankfully such is virtually non-existent in the pro-life movement.  This must be the same attitude reaching the homosexual.  The lifestyle is tantamount to seeking an abortion.  It’s a dead end wrought with heartache and sorrow and nothing redeeming.  But homosexuals need the love of God applied in the same fashion as to pregnant women going to the abortion mills.  The WBC fails miserably at it.

So as such, let me close by asking this – is there any group across America who, like the WBC, will picket and protest at facilities promoting the homosexual agenda and speak out against it?  And at the same time, is there any group across America with the financial means to do what the WBC should be doing if it was true to the Lord’s call.

If there is, I want to know about it.

I intentionally did not want to emphasize the WBC’s more recent calls to picket the funerals of those who died in battle or otherwise.  I feel covering the court ruling and understanding of what this awful church does in that regard more than enough explains their mission in America.  It is a dastardly one that has no place in decency.  The church may have the 1st Amendment on their side to do what they do but it has the American people squarely against it.  I defend their right to do what they do.  But their actions are defenseless.

The military has been under fierce moral assault by Barack Obama and his cadre of leftist buds working to make girly men out of our finest men in uniform as evident in the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  The forced homosexualization of our troops is frightening and dangerous.  The calls to increase perversion in our armed services by allowing cross dressers and transsexuals to serve are even more troubling, let alone repulsive.  Obama’s agenda must be abruptly halted.  This is where the focus of the WBC should be, not the men who wear the uniform and pay the ultimate price, even if the wars are not justifiable.

But since the WBC focus is elsewhere, who will step up to the plate and be the equivalent of 40 Days of Life for the homosexual agenda?

https://thatsafact.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/divider_line-1.jpg

P.S.  When I began writing this article on Friday, as I noted at the start, the WBC website was for some reason inaccessible. As of yesterday morning (Saturday), someone was apparently hacked into the website or otherwise accessed it as a gay porno site had appeared when typing in GodHatesFags.com.  But by yesterday evening, the porno site was removed. Since then, typing in the above comes up with literally nothing.  So it appears the church’s site is still down or its hosting has been terminated with no one to pick up the slack.  That’s fine by me.  As I said earlier, as long as government isn’t censoring free speech, I’m all happy to see the church’s hate message be gone.

For now, good riddance!

Oh, if you want that relationship with Jesus Christ that I have, along with God’s eternal piece, look no further than here.

What We Must Do Now

March 4, 2011 1 comment

On the heels of my previous post, which has generated a lot of attention (though not so in terms of petition signatures and letters to Congress, according to personal info relayed to yours truly), a fairly new contact of mine offered a suggestion as to how to up the ante on calling for the impeachment of America’s putative president and Attorney General Eric Holder.  I think it’s an outstanding one which should be implemented at once.  Without further adieu, let’s go.

This individual, who shall remain anonymous except to say she is a patriotic woman, suggested We the People being organizing en masse outside each and every local office of every Congressman and woman throughout the nation.  Considering that not too many folks have the time and money to travel and stay in Washington until Barack Obama is (hopefully) forced out of office, this appears to be the best alternative and perhaps even more effective than going to DC.  If all 435 offices (minus the couple current vacancies) of our Congressmen and women (and we may include all 100 U.S. senators as well) was manned from Monday thru Saturday every week with signs and calls for the removal of our usurper president, the media would not be able to ignore the impeachment calls as they are largely doing so now.  And of course, neither would Congress.

This would have to be a consistent operation.  While having a mass turnout at every office is ideal and something we should strive at, the seemingly more pressing concern would be to have at least bodies out on a daily basis.  In other words, it would be great to have 100 men and women outside of every local congressional and senate office. However, it would be better to have 10 of them 6 days a week, than, say 100, three days. Consistency is what is needed, though numbers are also essential.

This would strictly be a grassroots effort without some big name organization wanting to lead the way.  It must be run by We the People.  However, organization in terms of putting together individuals and groups wanting to participate is very necessary.

Although this is just for starters, my theory of an organizational flow chart is as follows:

  1. We would need 50 state coordinators who would oversee operations in all 50 states.  Although I have not decided whether we should include senate offices at this time, since senators only conduct trials after impeachment are approved, for the moment we will proceed with just the 435 members of Congress.
  2. Underneath these coordinators will be local coordinators who will be assigned (geographically speaking) to a member of Congress.  The local coordinator will oversee sign and picket operations with that Congressman or woman.  He or she will be encouraged (but not required) to establish a relationship with a person or persons working for the particular lawmaker.  It may be especially difficult to do so with a liberal Democrat.
  3. State coordinators in states with one legislator representing the entire state (Vermont, Delaware, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Montana) will be local coordinators as well, however, they will be able to select individuals underneath them to represent individual district offices.  This is necessary in both Dakotas and Montana since they are geographically speaking large states.  It will be at the coordinator’s option in Delaware as it is a tiny state geographically, though there are three district offices. It will be necessary in Vermont as there is only one district office for its one rep.
  4. Local coordinators will have individuals underneath them if the Congressman or woman has more than one office in his or her district.  If the district has only one office, then the local coordinator obviously represents that district.
  5. Information as to locations of district offices as well as other contact info for each of the members of Congress can be found here.  Although I haven’t counted how many offices there are altogether, it is somewhere in the range of 1000-1500.  So this will be a massive operation.

Anyone interested in being a state or local coordinator or someone willing to work under a local coordinator (if applicable) should reach me at the234project@rocketmail.com.

This operation must be peaceful but firm and determined and it must be consistent.  We will hopefully arrange for impeachment and other signs to be held outside these offices for public awareness; however, individuals and groups may (and are encouraged to) bring their own signs as well.

Messages on signs cannot be physically threatening in any way.  They can and are encouraged to be strong in content but foul language will not be permitted.  The pickets and signs will create public awareness as to what Obama is doing to America and will hopefully spur drivers and other passersby to participate.  The message on the signs, for those bringing their own, must somewhere state the need for Obama to be impeached or otherwise removed from office.  It can state reasons for his removal but it must signal a call for removal, bottom line.

We need to get things going soon as the longer we wait, the more we risk losing our country.  We need to put the fire to act in our elected men and women.  There is private talk of impeachment in some respects.  But we need to stand up for America and insist that Congress do its duty to the Constitution and the American people.  It likely won’t occur without us doing the legwork (literally).  Let’s get the ball rolling now.

Contact me at the above e-mail address with any questions, suggestions or comments.

IMPEACH OUTLAW OBAMA IMMEDIATELY!

February 26, 2011 4 comments

With Wisconsin and several other states taking center stage in national news over the legislative skirmishes between Republicans and public sector unions at their respective state capitols, other news items have largely taken a back seat as multitudes of Americans sit and observe these political chess matches.  The unrest in the Middle East, rising gas and food prices, foreclosures and jobs, while still high on people’s minds, have somewhat temporarily fallen off the public radar screen as the round the clock protests continue.

One of those items, however, with no shortage of stories, according to Google news searches, was made yesterday via America’s putative president. And that was Barack Obama’s decision to instruct the U.S. Justice Dept. to cease defending a 14 year old law passed by 80% of members in both the U.S. House & Senate. The legislation was known as DOMA or the Defense of Marriage Act.

But while there was significant coverage from the so-called mainstream media and plenty of political buzz and outrage from conservative groups, political pundits and lawmakers, what was noticeably absent was any mention of the “I” word.  One of the exceptions was Monica Crowley from Fox News which you can listen to her statement here.

On the left, one group cited as having precedent a decision by the Bush Administration to discontinue fighting a marijuana advocacy policy challenged by the ACLU and struck down in court.  However, the issue here was that a public transit agency was being denied their 1st Amendment right to free speech.  The agency was apparently not advocating breaking the law but urging policy change to the current law.  Though some may find a call to ease marijuana restrictions as offensive, it does not appear to run afoul of the 1st.

The same group also cited for an example of an impeachable offense was an alleged decision also by President Bush to not protect homosexuals due to his alleged failure to adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention.  However, since Geneva is a foreign matter that is (supposed to be) subservient to the U.S. Constitution, that point is moot.

That group also said Bush violated the 4th Amendment for gays but cited no examples. It couldn’t because, despite all the political wrangling, homosexuals are not codified into U.S. civil rights law and should never be since our Declaration of Independence plainly states that all men are created equal, not just those individuals defined by which gender with which they share sexual intimacy.

One individual who strongly believes that Obama should be impeached is former Congressman and champion of secured borders Tom Tancredo.  In an editorial to the Washington Times last summer, he called for Obama’s removal based on his abject unwillingness and failure to patrol and control our southern borders.  He was one of the first public figures to demand Obama be impeached, 18 months into his faux presidency.

The left wing Media Matters cites claims that calls for impeachment are all smoke and mirrors and to back it up uses as an example a paragraph in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to House Speaker John Boehner.  The paragraph quotes former Solicitor General Seth Waxman saying that there may be times where compelling legal arguments for or against a statute cannot be made and in such “rare” cases, forgoing the defense of the statute can be viewed as a necessary evil.

It is inexplicable that a defense of millennia of traditional marriage cannot be made by the U.S. Justice Dept. here.  The fact is the Justice Dept. has colluded with America’s alleged president that traditional marriage is only in one form and to deny others that is unconstitutional.  For Obama and Holder to say that the legal assault on marriages of one man and one woman fails to qualify for a vigorous legal defense implies that 427 out of the 535 members of Congress in 1996 and President Bill Clinton willfully conspired to pass and sign into law an unconstitutional measure.

Sorry, that flies in the face of all common sense, considering that vast numbers of members of Congress are lawyers by trade as was President Clinton.  Without doing an exhaustive background research, a very conservative and reasonable estimate of the numbers of lawyers in the 104th Congress easily concludes that at least 50-100 of the 427 who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act are of a legal background.

It is not necessary to further dissect Holder’s and Media Matters’ claims as they are heavily flawed but there is one other paragraph in the attorney general’s letter that is especially factually aberrant and is why DOMA is legally defensible and why this decision warrants both Obama and Holder’s removal.

In the letter, America’s A/G states the four reasons why the law cannot stand judicial scrutiny.  Reason two basically renders the other points moot and blows the lid off of this decision.  It also dismantles the entire homosexual agenda.

While sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable, see Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason 101 (1992); it is undoubtedly unfair to require sexual orientation to be hidden from view to avoid discrimination, see Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-321, 124 Stat. 3515 (2010).”

Citing Richard Posner, a lawyer and judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, from a book he wrote is not in any way, shape or form compelling to Obama and Holder’s decision.  For whoever in the medical field Posner cites to back up his claims, there are just as many in that field, if not more, who will state precisely the opposite.

But the failure of Posner’s so-called proof that sexual orientation is immutable, meaning it is unchangeable, does not lie so much in the medical field (though that is important) as it does those who have lived the homosexual lifestyle and left it.  And there are hundreds of thousands who have, including someone I have personally met and consider to be a friend, gospel singer Stephen Bennett.

Although Stephen’s testimony as a former homosexual is stunningly compelling and beautiful, the key issue here is that his example and those of so many others are proof that homosexual behavior is NOT in any way, shape or form immutable.  People may be trapped in the homosexual lifestyle but being trapped in it does not mean that there isn’t help to walk away from it, case in point.  It isn’t an orientation.  It is a preference (see photo 2/3rd of the way down).  In other words, we’re talking choice.  We’re not talking about being born black, white, male or female, innate traits.  We’re talking conduct.  We’re talking behavior.  We’re talking practices.  We’re talking action.  Is that clear?

And because people have quit practicing unnatural and unhealthy sex acts that define who they were, the vacuous nature of Holder’s immutability argument essentially nullifies his three other points outlined to Speaker Boehner.  Apart from political correctness, they cannot legally stand, let alone this agenda.

And neither can this decision by Obama and Holder.

Besides former Rep. Tancredo, there have been little in the way of impeachment calls since then from other notable public officials for any reason. There are virtually none with reference to this decision, though Media Matters cites one individual via Twitter.

The fact that many major current public figures are carping on Obama’s decision but saying zilch about impeachment is disturbing. But like me, many other patriots who plainly see what this is all about are.  You can find some examples of them here (along with the usual cadre of leftists).  One poster named Russ briefly but quite well outlines (halfway down the page) the reasons why Obama and his administration must be ousted.

Article II, Section 3, last paragraph of our U.S. Constitution, states the presidents have an obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.  Article II, Section 4 states that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  It is inarguably treasonous that Barack Obama sued the state of Arizona because that state passed legislation to secure and patrol its borders since the federal government has refused to do its job.  It is just as treasonous to refuse to execute a duly enacted law passed by a bipartisan Congress and signed into law by a U.S. president, absent blatant unconstitutionality, which DOMA clearly is not.

And it is also treasonous to refuse to supply documentation of natural born citizenship as Barack Obama has stubbornly refused to do for over 2½ years now. For this reason alone, Congress should simply demand Obama’s resignation or take physical measures to do so. Impeachment would be unnecessary since that procedure applies to legitimate presidents.  For all practical purposes and with much compelling evidence, it strongly appears Obama is an illegitimate president because all signs point to him not being naturally born.

However, since Congress publicly refuses to address the eligibility issue for whatever reason, it absolutely must take up impeachment for Obama’s deliberate attempt to evade enforcement of our current laws.  Who can rationally argue that refusal to enforce a lawfully enacted statute doesn’t qualify for impeachment under Article II, Section 4? Obama, if a true president, could have gone to Congress with his alleged concerns about the unconstitutionality of DOMA and asked for repeal.  He did so with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), even though the process for repeal and the repeal itself was corrupted and sabotaged with outright lies. But while calling for repeal of DOMA in both the last and current Congress, no congressional action has thus far been taken up.

Thus Obama’s actions are indicative of a king and dictator and must be remedied at once. If not, it stands to reason that he will issue an executive order or take some other measure bypassing Congress to grant amnesty to the 12-30 million (depending on what number you believe) illegals currently here in the U.S.  If that occurs, it may well be the impetus whereby countless public demands for his removal will be made but it may also create massive civil unrest unlike anything we have seen since World War II.  However, we cannot wait to see if that moment will come.  Action must be taken now to remove Barack.  This is not so much about DOMA as it is the rule of law and Obama’s actions and inactions creating chaos and a lawless society.  It must be put to an end now.

It’s not arguable that this move was political to please and placate the homosexual lobby as the repeal of DADT and the 2009 hate crimes legislation were.  Given that Obama:

  1. has more avowed homosexuals in his administration than any recent previous administration (and at high levels)
  2. has given frequent speeches to the rabid homosexual Human Rights Campaign (HRC), including one from his wife saying that her hubby was born in Kenya, which was recently removed for some spurious posted claim
  3. has participated in past (and maybe present) gay activities (which the media will not touch)
  4. attended a church with numerous open homosexuals
  5. is rumored to have a gay relationship with his “body man” Reggie Love

These are definitely signs that the homosexual agenda (along with Islam) is at the top of his priorities, both personally and as putative president.  Therefore, it is by no means a stretch of the imagination that the decision to refuse to defend DOMA is a political one which suits both his own fancy as well as that of groups like the Human Rights.

This is a serious breach of fiduciary duty to America. And it warrants action from We the People since it seems Congress won’t initiate charges without a massive public outcry.

Since the Constitution plainly states that impeachment charges begin in the House, this is where we must first focus our attention.  And as we do, it is imperative that you not only contact our own Congressman or woman for his or her backing but that you request the entire delegation of the state you reside in for their action as well, especially Republicans and conservative Democrats.  Given the blatant refusal of Barack Obama to heed to the constitutional requirement to faithfully execute all of America’s laws, this matter far transcends a local representative’s district.  It affects the entire country.

To that end, I have created a letter which you can use to write or fax (please do not e-mail) your elected officials.  Although it is far preferable to put your thoughts into your own words, in a serious matter like this I believe it is OK (should you choose to do so) to copy the content of this letter and paste it into your own Microsoft Word or other program.  Be sure to then print and sign it. Your signature states that though you may be copying someone else’s letter (as in this case), you fully endorse its content by signing it.

If you plan to fax and have a system that does so by computer, it would be preferable in this particular case to do a hand fax instead since the automated fax does not have a visible signature.

Here is the letter I have sent to 8 of the 9 Congressmen in this state, including my own:https://thatsafact.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/divider_line-1.jpgVIA FAX:

Congressman Lamar Smith, House Judiciary Chairman – (202) 225-7680
Congressman Peter Visclosky – (202) 225-2493
Congressman Joe Donnelly – (202) 225-6798
Congressman Marlin Stutzman – (202) 226-9870
Congressman Todd Rokita – (202) 226-0544
Congressman Dan Burton – (202) 225-0016
Congressman Mike Pence – (202) 225-3382
Congressman Larry Bucshon – (202) 225-3284
Congressman Todd Young – (202) 226-6866

2/25/11


Dear Chairman Smith & Indiana Congressional Delegation:

In light of the publicly announced decision on Wednesday by putative President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to cease enforcement of the duly enacted Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I respectfully ask you to initiate and support impeachment charges against both men.

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires presidents to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.  DOMA is legislation that was passed in bipartisan fashion by 80% of the 104th Congress and signed into law by then President Clinton. There is not a shred of unconstitutionality in that law since it, contrary to points made in a letter by A/G Holder to Speaker John Boehner, does not discriminate against anyone from having access to the institution.

A deliberate intent to avoid and evade enforcement of this law, like any other, sends a message that the Constitution be damned.  Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder cannot cherry pick which laws they will defend and which they won’t. To do so is a serious breach of constitutional fidelity that, if not quickly remedied, warrants impeachment and removal from office.  It borders on treason since refusal equates to a blatant dereliction to defend America in all respects and on all fronts.  It has crossed the proverbial line.

Should a president find a law unconstitutional, it is up to him to go to Congress and ask lawmakers to repeal such a law.  Since Obama has not asked Congress to repeal DOMA and since Congress has not addressed it since enactment in 1996, this administration has an obligation to vigorously defend it until and if Congress does repeal it.  This was how Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was rescinded, although the decision to repeal was a terrible one. But at least the proper procedures were followed.  Such is not the case with DOMA.

The Obama Administration is already on record for failing to enforce federal immigration laws and is instead suing the state of Arizona for its courageous decision to do what the feds won’t. Adding its willful failure to enforce DOMA as well as a refusal to abide by a Florida judge’s decision striking down Obamacare, a pattern of lawlessness is steadily emerging here.  And along those lines, since he cannot get such legislation approved by Congress, there are plenty of rumblings among some of its members that Obama is set to issue an executive order to grant amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens already here.  We cannot wait for that to occur.  Obama and Holder’s blatant disregard for current statute already more than qualifies for their removal from office.

A willful refusal to support a law on the books because it conflicts with one’s own personal agenda appears to be a solid ground for impeachment, per Article II, Section 4.  If refusing to enforce DOMA does not amount to treason, it certainly qualifies under the category of high crimes and misdemeanors since it is a blunt abrogation of constitutional duty from the highest public officer in America.  It sends a message that lawbreaking is permissible, depending on one’s own whims and views.  This cannot be allowed to stand. It is why I ask you to do your solemn duty, without partisan politics and wrangling, to start the constitutional process of removing Barack Obama and Eric Holder from power without delay.

The American people are seeking leadership here and we pray you provide it.  Thank you.

Sincerely,


Your Name
Your Address
Your City, State, Zip
Your e-mail address (optional)
https://thatsafact.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/divider_line-1.jpg

Obviously, you will want to put the names of all your state’s Republican Congressmen and women at the top of your letter (names and fax numbers can be located here). Again, feel free to modify any of the above, but should you feel the need to do so, please keep your letter to a max of 2 pages.  You may also wish to call all these Congressmen, but regardless, they need to hear from you in writing. Fax is obviously faster than snail mail but regardless, it is important that your thoughts be put on paper.

Do NOT e-mail, I repeat do NOT e-mail as your messages may possibly not be read, they may be deleted or go into unmonitored accounts.

And if you have the financial means to overnight letters to Chairman Smith and all the Republicans in your state, by all means do so.

Please spread this message very far and wide.  Only when literally millions of Americans speak out will Congress even think of acting.  We must speak out like never before.  If you forward no other link or e-mail of mine, please, for God and country and your family, get this one out.  Obama and Holder must be removed without delay.

Please, readers, I beg of you to not ignore this plea.  Our nation’s survival now depends on giving Obama the boot.  Your actions or inaction will determine whether we continue to have a country and republic or a dictatorship and continued lawlessness.

And lastly, I want every reader to sign this petition to Rep. Smith and all House Republicans.  I want you to spread the word on this petition and get into as many e-mail hands as possible.  If there are people you normally don’t forward political items to, this is one you absolutely must, that is if you and they care about God, country, family and future. If the U.S. House refuses to do its job without being told, then it’s time we crack the whip and make them do it.  This needs to go viral across America more than anything else right now.

Any questions, comments, concerns or need for assistance, e-mail me at the234project@rocketmail.com.  Thank you in advance for your due consideration and may God bless and save America before it’s too late.

https://thatsafact.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/divider_line-1.jpg?w=600