Congressman King: No Need for Hearings on Islamic Extremism

March 13, 2011 4 comments

The list of individuals lining up to attack Rep. Peter King’s decision to hold hearings on so-called “Radical Islam” is far and wide.  From Muslim “crybaby” Congressman Keith Ellison to Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to the sheriff of Los Angeles to hip hop model Kim Kardashian to leftist ministers to the effervescent whiners and terrorist sympathizers at the Council on America-Islamic Relations, it appears folks from all folks of life and politics are ganging up on the New York Republican for this supposed stigmatic decision.

And you know, perhaps these folks are right.  Maybe this was an unnecessary move on the part of Congressman King.  Maybe there was no need to hold these hearings.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I agree.  What a waste of time and money it was to call CAIR and other Muslim groups and individuals for something that has already been known for well over 14 centuries.  Let’s go straight to the “good” book to find out.

Koran (4:89)“They but wish that ye should reject faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Koran (5:33)“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Koran (5:51)“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

Koran (8:12)“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

Koran (9:5)“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Koran (9:23)“O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers

Koran (9:29)“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Koran (9:30)“And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

Koran (33:60-62)“If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while.  Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”

Koran (47:3-4)“Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord.  Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude.  Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners”

Crucifixion, chopping off heads, fingers and feet, slaying infidels, nah, that can’t be radical, can’t it?  Of course not!

Or this most recent “act” of Islamic “kindness”.

So yeah, I agree with Ellison, Jackson and company.  This is not “radical Islam”.  This is mainstream Islam, straight out of the Koran. Look it up.  Or if you want to isolate and check the verses about violence and avoidance of Muslims to non-Muslims, go here.

Oh, but, Nedd, you do know most American Muslims really don’t believe or do that stuff, don’t you?

I suppose.  Perhaps you’re referring to Muslims who don’t know their Koran, right, the so-called “moderate Muslims.”  OK, fine.

But what about those who do? Does the Koran instruct Muslims to kill unbelievers, cut off body parts and crucify them or does it not?  I mean, do these verses exist in the Koran or don’t they?

So depending how you want to look at it, all Muslims are radical.  It all depends on how you want to interpret “radical”.  Most any rationally minded individual would classify crucifiers, beheaders and supporters of such heinous activities as radical.

But if a Muslim is defined as an adherent to the texts of the Koran, then regardless of their knowledge of what their so-called “holy book” contains, they all are radicals.

Or, to put it in oxymoronic fashion, they’re all mainstreamers; thus affirming a saying known in Internet circles, “there may be moderate Muslims but there’s only one Islam.”

So why should Rep. King say that he wants to track down all the radical Islamists who are part of the Al Qaida network?  Should he be concerned about all Muslims?

Oh, but, Nedd, you are a bigot.  You hate Muslims.  You want to stereotype them all.”

Actually the Koran has done a good job of stereotyping without my assistance. I mean, there’s one Koran, right?  And there’s just one Muslim religion, right?  I’m not aware of there being various sects of Islam, unlike Christian denominations like Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.

Let’s take a couple examples of denominations, like the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches.  The Lutheran Church has three different synods: the Wisconsin Synod, the Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA).  The Wisconsin & Missouri Synods are conservative in their worldviews, opposing same sex marriage and abortion.  The ELCA is more supportive both.  The Presbyterian Church has two synods: the Presbyterian Church of America and the Presbyterian Church USA.  The Church of America, of which the well known Coral Ridge Church of Ft. Lauderdale, FL is part of, is socially the equivalent to the Wisconsin & Missouri Synods.  The Church USA is more in line with the left leaning ELCA.

Both denominations and their factions generally embrace the Bible as the Word of God, even though the left wingers in the ELCA and Church USA stray away from some portions of it.  Both denominations and their factions, as well as others like Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Episcopalian, Church of Christ, Church of God, etc, generally regard Biblical principles as ones all should live by, though they may have varied interpretations of the Bible.  They all believe in different forms of church government they, based on the interpretations they see in the scriptures.

But we know of only one Islam.  You cannot find in the phone book church headings that categorize Islam into different denominations the way Christian churches are split. You certainly won’t see “Moderate Islam” next to any Yellow Pages ads under church listings on church, umm, mosque doors.

So how are we supposed to interpret Islam?  How is Rep. King supposed to interpret it?  Frankly, he is more or less beating around the edges of the truth.  The fact is all Islam is radical (or “mainstream”) by virtue of the texts in the Koran.

This means all Muslims should be treated suspiciously, especially those we don’t know personally.  After all, who can always tell by an outward appearance that one is a “normal” Muslim?

But, Nedd, there you go again, stereotyping, lumping all Muslims into one basket”.

Sorry, I can’t help that.  Based on what’s written in the Koran, if I were to sit down at the table with a Muslim (actively practicing or not) stranger in one’s home or at a restaurant, what assurance(s) do I have that I won’t be attacked with a butcher knife, ax or similar object because I do not believe in Allah or Mohammed?  How do I know for sure that at any given moment that he won’t suddenly recall a graphic text in the Koran and literally apply it by clubbing me or taking on some other form of violence?

I have no such assurances.  I can’t guarantee that just because I don’t live in a Middle Eastern nation that I won’t be attacked.  The more than ample numbers of Islamic killings here in the U.S. and disproportionate number of Muslim onslaughts (compared to other religions) do not necessarily persuade me that I am safe around any Muslim, particularly those I do not know.

But isn’t Christianity violent?  Doesn’t the Bible sanction killing in the same way you read the Koran?”

Those are two good questions.  As for Christianity being violent, if you want to call it that, about the only claims to that can be made over the last 25 years are the shootings of two abortionists, “Dr.” Barnard Sleppian in 1998 and “Dr.” George Tiller in 2009.  Those murders, while not sanctioned by any God fearing and loving Christian, were strictly targeted at those who killed babies in the womb and not indiscriminately.  You did not hear the words “Jesus Akbar” or something similar shouted prior to the attacks.

However, you will find little, if any, other examples of any murder or attack done in the name of the Christian faith.

Now as for contrasts between the Bible and the Koran, this page will provide some help to your thinking.  But on a strictly scriptural level, may I offer my personal experience as a Christian why any such comparison between the Christian and Islamic text totally fails.

In the strictest of contexts, the Christian scriptures have never advocated violence in any way, shape or form.  This can be stated since the Christian faith is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as laid out in the New Testament.  But since the Christian faith includes the Old Testament and since Old Testament prophecy predicted the coming of Jesus Christ (or as Jews call Him, the Messiah), we can and should look to the Old Testament, also known as the Old Covenant.

There are indeed passages of violence in the Old Testament that are adequately explained for the average reader.  And there are a few others, such as God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 (for deviant homosexual activity, not inhospitality as homosexual groups claim) with fire and brimstone, and passages in Leviticus calling for severe punishment on those engaging in sexual conduct with relatives of one’s family or spouse’s family.

But such should be viewed more in line with the fact that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob hated sin and when its practitioners did what God told them not to do, they were sometimes met with the fate of death.  God was a pure and holy God and certain groups and individuals met their fate thru their willful disobedience and sin.  Not all sins committed resulted in death.  But some did.  Some of the wicked were punished by the sword and some were struck dead by the Lord.  Why the Lord did what He did back then, I confess I don’t have all the answers.  I admit that.  And many won’t be revealed, if at all, until we get to “the other side” (Heaven for those of who proclaim Jesus as Lord).

However, at no point in the Old Testament do you find any torture on the part of any of God’s people.  You also cannot find an instance of crucifixion.  You do find an instance of beheading in the Old Testament when David slew Goliath; however, the chopping off of Goliath’s head occurred after he was dead, not before.  You also do find an instance of hanging as occurred in the book of Esther.  And yes, there were slayings (by the sword) but again, that should be interpreted as punishment for gross sin and not necessarily because the ones killed were disbelievers in Jehovah God.  God did use the wicked at times (such as Pharaoh and Jehu) to achieve His purposes.  So it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that punishment in the Old Testament was not necessarily for refusal to believe in Jehovah God and that punishments that did occur were for gross sin.

In the New Testament, there are ZERO instances of Christians fighting for jehad.  You will find the slaying of Christian leaders during the Book of Acts as well as John the Baptist’s beheading in the gospels.  But since Jesus Christ paid the price for all sins of all humanity in the New Testament (or New Covenant) by being crucified for us, there was no more need for God to strike down people for their gross sins, to continue to institute human efforts to destroy evil or animal sacrifices to atone for sin.  Jesus paid it all in full!

By contrast, Allah has required for over 1400 years for Muslims to kill those who do not believe in Islam.  The atrocities done in the name of Islam are too innumerable to list here but many are well known, not the least of which was 9/11.  The two religions are diametrically opposed to each other.  The differences are stark and are too many to be named here but if you want a fairly exhaustive list of them, check them out here.

Aren’t there good Muslims, like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser”?

By all human understanding, Dr. Jasser is a fine patriot.  He probably is a person I would enjoy a good lunch or dinner with.  I have no qualms about that.  But he does have a problem.  And that is his faith.  He identifies Muslim groups and organizations like CAIR as radical and political.  And from all signs he has sought to distance himself from them.

As to the faith Dr. Jasser claims to love, as he notes in his testimony to Congress, frankly, it’s hard to see it.  As stated earlier, while there may be moderate Muslims, there is only one Islam.  And I cannot find anywhere on his site or in any quotes or articles of his elsewhere that he repudiates any of the verses like the above ones that cause division and hatred to exist between Muslims and Jews and Christians.

But if Dr. Jasser were to call for any of those verses to be removed, he would be excommunicated as a Muslim. Like the Bible, verses in the Koran warn of those who seek to remove them.  Thus my question is thus this – is Dr. Jasser willing to pay that price?  I certainly cannot see the beauty of the faith he claims to love.

A website that specifically called for divisive verses to be removed,, was online for years but a recent search for it now results in the appearance of a portal page.  The site was run by a so-called reformer to the Muslim “faith” but it appears he was either cast out of Islam or no longer believes what he originally penned.

(UPDATE 3/13 10:30 AM – Thanks to my good friend here, we now have the missing page from this courageous individual who said these verses should be excised and invalidated.)

But that aside, notwithstanding Dr. Jasser’s apparent patriotism and love for his version of Islam, it appears that form of religion does not exist.  So while I will not call him out on this matter, I do not feel he can sufficiently reform his religion. Virtually none of these so-called moderates come out and do so. Plus we don’t know what qualifies as moderate.

In the end, I have to come to the conclusion that all Muslims are either hypocrites or terrorists.  They’re hypocrites if they don’t believe in the whole Koran or terrorists if they do.  I see no middle ground.  Thus as much as I may hate to say it, I have to put Dr. Jasser on the hypocrite list since he doesn’t subscribe to the jehad verses in the Koran.

As such, the sooner the public and elected officials come to view Islam and the Koran literally for what it is and that technically all Muslims are potential terrorists, the sooner we will be able to eradicate this problem from our shores.

And if that means deporting all Muslims or asking them to renounce their affiliation to Islam, so be it.  The nation’s safety is more important than their religion since Islam is not the religion of peace but of war and hate, something even the hard leftist comedian Bill Maher agrees with.

Of course I admit this may seem truly radical in the definition of the word but if the public cannot differentiate hypocritical Islam from terrorist Islam, then what are we supposed to do?  We can live with hypocrites. We do every day. But we cannot live with terrorists, meaning those who are literal adherent of every word of the Koran.  The sooner Rep. King and others like him who both have the power and will to put a stop to this can frankly address this critical problem, the sooner our nation will be safer.

Profiling Muslims is absolutely essential to the safety of America.  We may be pilloried and pummeled for this view but there are no terrorist Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and atheists committing atrocities in the name of Allah and Mohammed.  Groups like CAIR can howl and threaten to sic the ACLU to keep America unsafe but in the end we must profile and view Islam exactly as it laid out in the Koran without a scintilla of denial or we will end up paying a stiff price for not doing so.

Dr. Martin Luther King paid heftily in the 1960s to ensure the conveyance and protection of civil rights for blacks as well as all Americans. The question nearly a half century later is this: is the New York Congressman by the same last name (as well as other members of Congress) willing to pay in the same fashion (if necessary) in order for the right of all Americans to live, let alone be entitled to their civil rights.  Because if we don’t have the right to live, civil rights are moot.  And we may well lose both unless we do the politically incorrect and unprecedented thing and look at Islam and the Koran exactly for what it is.  And if that means purging Muslims from our shores, it must be done.  The right to life comes before liberty, pursuit of happiness and civil rights.  Civil rights means zilch without life. And life and lives will be lost unless political correctness on Islam is buried 6 feet under.

God save America!

Categories: CAIR, Congress, Islam, Koran

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.

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 and .net and both are currently shown as registered and parked by (the .com site is registered and parked by There are other sites the WBC has registered but I cannot recall what they are except for 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?

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  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

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.


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: 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


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.


Your Name
Your Address
Your City, State, Zip
Your e-mail address (optional)

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  Thank you in advance for your due consideration and may God bless and save America before it’s too late.

Repealing DADT: A Serious Risk to America’s National Security

February 13, 2011 2 comments

As the Obama Administration and the U.S. military work to implement the Congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and force open homosexuality upon our armed forces, it is imperative to know who some of the players are and why this sick social experiment must abruptly be halted. The fact World Net Daily put its current issue of its long running Whistleblower print publication online for the first time ever and for free speaks volumes as to how critical it is that policy be reversed and those who voted for it unquestionably must be removed from office, no matter how solid they are on everything else.  You can see how they voted by going here for the House and here for the Senate.

There was no public outcry to repeal the 1993 measure. In fact, public outcry was why President Clinton retreated when he sought to remove limitations on open homosexuals serving in the armed forces. Then Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn and General Colin Powell (both which have since changed their positions) were among public leaders at the time to urge to keep the then total ban in place. The Clinton Administration did end up modifying it to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they didn’t mouth off about their preferences.

The current outcry came heavily from leftist lawmakers and homosexual groups like the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network (SDLN) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), there was no public outcry for its rescission. Nonetheless, the 111th Congress decided to take action on it to placate the homosexual lobby and gave it what it wanted, ignoring heavy military opposition to it. Pro-life Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen joined the chorus of avowed homosexuals and their gay friendly alllies by issuing an unusually terse statement as to her hatred for the law and essentially military policy.

What Congress failed to note (and no doubt deliberately so) was just half a century ago when this writer was born, Washington declared that not only were avowed homosexuals verboten to serve in the armed services, they were banned from federal employment. In fact, federal law frowned on homosexual conduct from as late as the early to mid 1970s.

During the 1960s, a time that some call the “make love, not war” generation, an avowed homosexual activist by the name of Frank Kameny and his Mattachine Society began to pave the way for the removal of DADT.  He likely didn’t know he would be the father of the law’s repeal but given whom he is and what he sought to achieve early on, he now wears the repeal as his personal badge of honor.

However, Old Frank has done America a great service by posting letters from federal officials and other materials that show how private homosexual behavior was not only forbidden as a condition of serving the military but in any area of federal employment.

On his website, Mr. Kameny posted a damning letter (page 2 is here) from the U.S. State Dept. that every Congressman and senator supporting repeal should have read.  Had they done so, it’s possible a few of them would have changed their minds and voted to keep current policy.  It likely would have had no effect in the U.S. House, given the 75 vote margin of favorability but it could have led to a successful filibuster in the Senate and thus a defeat for repeal.

In his letter, John Hanes, a State Dept. official during the homophobic Eisenhower Administration, told Mr. Kameny (among other things):

So long as this is the attitude of our society – and you are well aware that it is, as expressed both formally in laws, regulations and ordinances, and informally in the average reaction of people toward homosexuals – the homosexual is automatically a security risk because of social and emotional pressure to which he is subject from society and because of the ever present risk that such pressures can be utilized by hostile elements to coerce him into activities other than those which he would undertake of his own free will. Also because of the prevailing mores of society, the homosexual frequently becomes a disruptive personnel factor within any organization.

Who in Washington today would daresay the homosexual is disruptive and a security risk?  If Mr. Hanes was working in the Obama Adminstration today and word leaked out of his writing, there would be mass calls for his resignation and he’d be run out of town.

But perhaps if the likes of Pentagon Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen had listened to Mr. Hanes, the Wiki Leaks scandal involving the avowed homosexual servicemen Bradley Manning might have never occurred.

Another public official with guts not so many decades ago was John Will, Director of Personnel during the first term of the Nixon Administration.  In a letter (page 2 is here) to Kameny, Mr. Will recounts a matter of homosexual incest (explicit descriptions) among two federal employees and why such conduct reflects adversely on government agencies employing them as well as homosexuals in general.  One paragraph goes like this: 

”The employment of individuals who engage in acts of sex perversion and other homosexual acts of the type described will lead to lack of respect, not only for the individuals concerned but also for other employees and for the agency which employs them.”

It should also be pointed out in Mr. Will’s letter that homosexual conduct was criminal in the state of Maryland less than 40 years ago, perhaps even more so since cousins were involved.  Now the state is poised to enact same sex marriage against the laws of nature, let alone of Almighty God.

And this is what a Congressional Democrat posted in the Congressional Journal regarding a fundraising license given to Mr. Kameny’s Mattachine Society.  Had he spoken this to the current Congress, he would be run out of the party. He wrote back then saying:

“The Mattachine Society is a group of homosexuals.  The acts of these people are banned under the laws of God, the laws of nature and are in violation of the laws of man.  I think a situation which requires them to be permitted a license to solicit funds for their sexual deviations is a bad law and should be changed forewith.”

There’s no doubt that Rep. John Dowdy would have been run out of today’s Democrat Party.  There’s no room for moral conservatives among today’s Democrats.

Even LBJ’s homophobic administration did not view homosexual behavior favorably as documented here and here.

The question that has to be asked is this – if the repulsive nature of homosexual acts were condemned and even punished under federal law nearly a half century ago, how it is such behavior is not only about to be endorsed in today’s military but in an administration that has more homosexuals in it than all previous ones and more than Presidents Bush and Clinton combined? The Obama Administration’s personnel director is one of them.

The homosexual is indeed a security risk on so many fronts and is putting our men and women in uniform in grave jeopardy. And we thank Frank Kameny for showing us proof.
If the entire military and its massive opposition to repeal (not reported by the incompetent lame stream media) were the price paid to “compensate” Mr. Kameny as well as the pro-homosexual groups like HRC & SLDN, then this is something that Rep. Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services, and his committee members must investigate.  I would not put it past the Obama Administration that something tangible (a potentially impeachable offense) may have been given to Mr. Kameny, either by Mr. Berry or Obama himself, given their virulent condemnation of the previous enforcement of a ban on homosexuals in the military and government in general. Perhaps that’s had something to do with Kameny getting a handshake from Obama and front seat to the repeal signing.

So how is it that actions once viewed by the federal government and described as immoral, perverse, and disrespectful; behavior which was said to bring “hatred, ridicule and contempt” on an agency of the federal government; behavior that is repudiated by every religion of the world, now be celebrated and publicly honored?

If you’re Barack Obama, you simply chalk it up to “personal (not military) experience”.  If you’re Congressman Barney Frank, who claimed he “owns” the agenda and for which the “two down” quote all but certainly includes open homosexuals in the military, ditto. If you’re Congressman Jared Polis and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, both of whom, like Rep. Frank, voted for repeal of DADT, dittoes as well.

But how does one account for Republicans like Sen. Mark Kirk, one of 8 Republicans who voted for repeal. Sen. Kirk has served in the U.S. Navy, despite not being entirely truthful about his service?  Doesn’t he know (or care) from experience about the risks of putting open homosexuals in military service? He is suspected of being one himself, despite being previously married.

Why did Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam vet and staunch defender of keeping DADT, decide after the vote to repeal to support its implementation? Is it because his wife and daughter support same sex marriage? Or is it because he has no fixed principles? Or both.

What about Sen. Scott Brown who, like Sens. Kirk and McCain, served in the military? It is well documented of his support for repeal after promising to support the then current policy.  He was bought and paid for as well by the homosexual lobby.

Why did generally reliable social conservatives like Sens. John Ensign and Rich Burr back repeal?  Is there something here as well? Did they not see the logic inference from repeal, that instead of homosexuals being silent about their preferences, they could now be upfront and outspoken about them?

It appears Washington lawmakers are a different breed than the rest of America.

Why did Congressman Ron Paul vote to repeal DADT, not once but twice? Almost anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Texas Congressman Paul recognizes him for his fiercely libertarian streak and strong defense of constitutional liberties for all Americans.  He is known in some circles as “Dr. No” for voting no on almost every bill that comes his way.  However, the fact he was a doctor prior to his time in Congress has to raise a few eyebrows why he would vote for a law that permits unhealthy and repulsive sexual acts in the armed forces. He was the sole Congressional physician to vote this way.

If Dr. Paul doesn’t see the medical risks of permitting open homosexuals in uniform, then his supporters should ask themselves if he has the judgment of being a capable president, his otherwise strong constitutional stances notwithstanding.

As noted earlier, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen was a big supporter for repeal.  Along with Rep. Paul, she was one of only three current Republicans (the other is Rep. Judy Biggert) to vote twice for it in the 2010 Congressional session (the other two supporters were the only Republicans unseated at the ballot box in November).  Notwithstanding that she represents a district in Miami Beach with an influential homosexual lobby, she is well known for her pro-life views, a position that frequently conflicts with homosexual adherents.  But it is perhaps because of this lobby that she virulently defends her pro-homosexual votes – she also has voted for hate crimes legislation, (something Dr. Paul staunchly and thankfully opposes) as well as a myriad of homosexual causes.

And there are others but the question must be asked is why Washington lawmakers are willing to put our men and women in uniform at risk with this repeal.  Are they that utterly clueless on what constitutes homosexual behavior.  Sure, we expect that from Democrats but since some Democrats did not support repeal, it stands to reason that something led the 15 House Republicans (second vote – first vote here), and 8 Senate Republicans to vote to put our troops at risk.
We now turn to Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen and Secretary Gates. Fox reports that training from top brass to allow open homos to serve will begin (probably already has) this week.  I can’t imagine what this “training” will entail – who knows, maybe one of them will attempt to explain or even engage in a perverted homosexual sex act and then tell other troops to be very sensitive with those inclined to commit such acts.

You may think this is funny but if you think about it, or even try to think to, you will automatically envision one or more sexual acts.  And then if you are a rational human being, you will then say, “Why are we going to allow this to occur in our military?”

Besides this tragically stupid and utterly bankrupt and immoral policy change, I have a question for Mr. Mullen, Secretary Gates and any other current military leaders: Knowing that we have troops on the ground in Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Iraq and knowing what some neighboring nations like them do to known homosexuals, regardless of your personal feelings about this matter, do you really think it’s a good idea to put our troops harm’s way because of this social engineering experiment?

This is a question the press won’t ask.  But they should.

Frankly, every commandant in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard should be unanimous in their response and if they were, every last one of them would tell Obama, “Hell no, we won’t implement sexual perversion on our troops and under no circumstances will we allow embracers and practitioners of such activities in our ranks”.

But folks like Mullen, Gates and clueless senators like Kirk, Brown Burr and Ensign wouldn’t give time of day to listen to those on the front lines who have sense enough to oppose such idiocy.  So we must do so.  And without delay.

And so now we must ask Sec. Gates and JC Mullen the following in an open letter:

You obviously are aware of the soldier behind scandal involving Wiki Leaks, Bradley Manning.  You were aware that he was an avowed homosexual, right?  You were aware that his young history contained numerous issues pertaining to his sexual identity that could have posed a major problem for the military, right?  Now you’re supporting a policy that will create more Brad Mannings and likely have greater repercussions on our troops, not the least of which is a possible mass exodus of men and women in uniform because, despite all the attempts from the left to normalize homosexual behavior, it is still viewed as repulsive by sizable numbers of men and women in and out of uniform.

Have you checked Manning’s Facebook page, which is laden with love for this agenda?  Can you not see the risks of what may well reoccur if you allow this change in policy to continue?

Had you taken some time to study U.S. history and read government correspondence on homosexuality and its incompatibility with government and military service, you would have found that throughout our first 200 years of history, from Washington to Ford, such behavior was never viewed with even a faint trace of approbation.  Why then do you wish to sacrifice the futures and even lives of our men and women in uniform for the sake of perverse political correctness that America’s putative president chooses to embrace?  Did you not learn a lesson from this scandal?

There is one point in the whole DADT repeal debate that has been ignored by Sec. Gates, JC Mullen and the 300+ members of Congress who voted to approve this trash.  It’s also ignored by all the homosexual activists, groups and allies.  It’s the one thing that not only debunks the repeal debate but the entire same sex agenda as well. The public has been told that homosexuals like Pvt. Manning, Congressman Barney Frank, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, actress Ellen DeGeneres, singer Elton John and others cannot help who they are; that it’s part of their makeup (orientation).  The gay identity is unchangeable in the same way that one cannot alter their skin color or gender (there are those who claim to be able to change their gender but that’s a can of worms to be opened another day). This is what we’re being told.  This is what has been sold as a bill of goods to us.

But that bill is now officially rejected. And we can thank Frank Kameny for it.

You see, Mr. Kameny has done the public a great service by posting many of the documents he has accumulated over the years to his website.  From Eisenhower to JFK to LBJ to Nixon, we’ve seen evidence that courageous federal officials rightly rejected homosexuals for government and military service because of the pressures and problems faced due to the lifestyle embraced.  From John Hanes to John Will to John Dowdy and many others not mentioned, such individuals refused to succumb to political correctness in order to placate those embracing repulsive behavior.

But most of all, we thank Mr. Kameny for telling, rather showing, us that homosexual conduct was not a matter of one’s sexual orientation.  See for yourself.

There you have it, folks, sexual preference, not orientation, is irrelevant to federal employment and military service.  Ouch!  Thank you, Mr. Kameny, for telling us the truth that homosexual practices are by one’s choice of sexual partner and not innateness. The nation owes a huge debt of gratitude for your courage to display the revealing (no pun intended) letters, pamphlets and brochures.

Mr. Kameny states on his website that the compilation of all his papers is unrivaled anywhere, be it a library, government office or via the Internet.  The 70,000 documents he claimed to have in the attic of his Washington, DC home is now at the Library of Congress with his protest signs at the Smithsonian Natural Museum of American History. That’s good to know.  Members of Congress, particularly those voting for repeal, must examine the history of homosexuals in government employment and military service in light of the Kameny papers.  The House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Buck McKeon of California, should subpoena the LOC for copies of Mr. Kameny’s documents.  What he has on his website is no doubt helpful but having the entire stack may shed some additional knowledge as to the reasons for the DADT repeal.

It is now not in doubt that this move by Obama, Mullen, Gates and those voting for repeal was not only political in scope but in appeasement of those who want to pervert the military.  Because perverting and poisoning it is precisely what they want, though they will deny it until they are blue in the face.

Rep. McKeon and his committee should further subpoena court documents on the cases involving Mr. Kameny and his Mattachine Society.  It would also be useful to get copies of all federal correspondence over the last 50 years relative to the issue of homosexuality in government employment and military service.

The left, and particularly its homosexual allies like the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network, the ACLU and many others will cry foul and claim this effort is a witch hunt designed to end in a scorched earth policy.  However, the homosexual infiltration in government and military, from the past Kameny days to the current Wiki Leaks scandal involving Cpl. Manning, appears to have octopus-like tentacles in that it appears to have pervaded all aspects of federal government over the last 30 years.  The unprecedented numbers of homosexuals currently in the Obama Administration and in leadership capacities only adds fuel to what I will now call the DADT repeal scandal.  That particular matter should be investigated by the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, chaired by California Rep. Darrell Issa.

And perhaps this question should also be asked by these committees.  If homosexuals were unable to obtain security clearance for federal employment or military service because of the behaviors they practice, how is it that America’s commander-in-chief (putative as he may be) was not vetted in this capacity, given the actions claimed to be attributed to him (and which have not been denied by Mr. Obama)?

If no other reason serves a good purpose for hearings and an overturn of the repeal, this certainly qualifies. Congress should also seek the resignations of Mullen and Gates. Their acquiescence to Obama and the left is doing grave damage to the nation’s moral fiber.

If this article goes viral, and I hope it does, there will be a backlash of anger because the public will have a pretty good idea what the repeal of DADT has done.  The people will know who was responsible and the consequences of implementation (if not reversed). It is, at least in this writer’s view, the straw that broke the camel’s back.  Or better put, it will have been the drop of boiling water that scorched the supporters of this trash.  The report by former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt thoroughly rebuts the backers as well as this excellent April 2010 report by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. Both were ignored by party leaders in the 111th Congress as well as Obama.

Congress has a solemn responsibility to impeach and remove Obama for forcing unnatural and immoral sexual misconduct on our finest and all America. And if any serviceman or woman (homosexual or not) ends up being maimed or killed because of this change of policy, knowing what some Muslim nations do to homosexuals, their blood will be on Obama’s hands as well as everyone that voted for repeal.  The public has an obligation of voting out or recalling (if such provisions exist in their respective state constitutions) each such lawmaker at the earliest opportunity.  It should be utilized.

And if you don’t think there won’t now be advocates of concerted efforts to murder our men and women in uniform (be they heterosexual or homosexual), think again.

The homosexual activists will lash out at the truth here.  However, they can’t blame this writer.  Frank Kameny has paved the way for its “frank” revelations, not to mention those revealed by the other Frank, Barney.  The sordid details are there for the world to view.

Shoot the messenger if you must.  But after the messenger goes, the truth won’t.

Categories: Uncategorized

My Letter to House Speaker John Boehner & Majority Leader Eric Cantor

February 1, 2011 Leave a comment

Dear Readers:

I have faxed the following letter to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner & Majority Leader Eric Cantor with regards to Barack Obama, his all but certain ineligibility and other matters the 112th Congress needs to tackle.  Please feel free to read and use it or any portion of it to contact them in any fashion you wish to.  Congress will not act on Obama’s likely constitutional presidential disqualification unless We the People force them to via being buried with calls, letters and faxes.

House Speaker John Boehner
U.S. House of Reps.
Washington, DC  20515
Fax: (202) 225-0704

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor
U.S. House of Reps.
Washington, DC  20515
Fax: (202) 225-0011


Dear Speaker Boehner & Majority Leader Cantor:

I am writing you regarding a few points, though I will attempt to be brief.  This will be copied and posted on my blog for all to see.  I am putting the two of you together since you’re both House GOP leaders and the content is related to you both.

Rep. Cantor, on the heels of Speaker Boehner telling PMSNBC that he believes Resident Obama is a natural born citizen, it was reported from Meet the Depressed that you also believe the same thing.  May I ask the both of you one question?  And that is how long are you going to let this drag out while the White House impostor destroys the country?

How is it that the two of you are willing to accept the state of Hawaii’s word while at the same time there are over 400 stories at World Net Daily exposing every angle of this matter?  How is it that there are at least 10 states now that have introduced legislation at the state level that would require state board of elections offices and secretaries of state to obtain proof of eligibility from all presidential candidates? It is expected that at minimum two (Arizona & Texas) will pass thru their respective chambers and ultimately be signed into law with more to come and more states to introduce similar measures.  But if so much as one state makes a statement that our Constitution will be upheld in that regard, then what will you do when that state declares Obama ineligible to run next year because they will have nothing on file from him? This will spread like wildfire as this issue will garner national attention, inasmuch as the lame stream media will wish to ignore it.

How can you continue to ignore the countless number of lawsuits filed by the likes of Phil Berg (a Democrat), Mario Apuzzo, Gary Kreep, Orly Taitz and others and pretend this is not an issue?  Reasonable estimates and polls show that roughly half the country is at least aware of this issue with more talking about. A prospective employer even brought it up to me without any provocation in one of the very rare job interviews I’ve had to this point.  Plus who in their rational state of mind spends $2 million to lawyers to ensure that all his records, including birth certificate, are sealed?

How can you continue to ignore videos like the one from Obuzzard’s wife in her own word saying to the Human Rights Campaign during the campaign trail that Kenya was her hubby’s birthplace?

And how can you and all of Congress ignore the plight of hugely decorated Lt. Terry Lakin who sits in a Ft. Leavenworth military prison because our all but certain bogus commander-in-chief would not comply and show documents proving his natural born citizenship?  This man (Lt. Lakin) is paying the ultimate price for his firm willingness to defend the U.S. Constitution (6 months in prison with a total loss of his income) and yet during his trial he and his legal team reportedly couldn’t call or cross examine witnesses or testify himself. This is a monumental miscarriage of justice that Congress should not hesitate to intervene. And I tell you one person that would back Congressional intervention in a heartbeat.  And that is Florida Congressman Col. Allen West.

And this is just for starters.

Speaker Boehner, on the heels of all the eligibility issue, not to mention the rapidly Marxist state Obama has foisted upon this country over the last two years, please tell me how you could even think of wanting to go golfing with Obama?  Would you golf with Castro, Hugo, Kim Jong Il or dare I say Hitler, Stalin or Mao? If you can’t say NO, then you have a problem with your moral values. And so do I.  Obama may not have slaughtered millions of people as those dictators have but otherwise there is no difference between him or any of them.

Then again, who knows, maybe Obama has something in common with those tyrants. After all, millions of unborn babies have been slaughtered in the womb, thanks to his unequivocal support and votes as a U.S. senator and policies as America’s putative president for unrestricted abortion on demand.  I mean, what’s the difference whether in the womb or out?  They’re human beings.

The both of you can sweep this under the rug all you want but the public attention this is getting, even more so with the recent comments of Hawaii’s governor, will not die down any time soon.  People look at Obama, his ties to Indonesia and Kenya, socialist policies and they see something radically wrong.  State lawmakers see it as well, though not all.  However, it seems like Congress doesn’t want to upset the applecart but instead play nice with Obama.  My Lord, he’s wiping out the country with his effervescent and relentless thirst for government to pervade and control all sectors of our lives, taking with the nation’s destruction our Constitutional liberties and safeguards and leaving our porous borders continually open.  Does this not make sense to you? He’s suing Arizona because the state insists on secured borders. He should be ousted for this reason alone.

The country had issues with Republicans during the Clinton years in which the people supported both the GOP and the then president.  They liked Clinton, even if they wouldn’t give him a Democrat Congress but for the first two years of his presidency.  They wouldn’t let the GOP touch Social Security or Medicare back then.  Clinton was popular.  But Obama is not.  The public will not rise in opposition to any hearings that might be held on his constitutional qualifications or lack thereof.  The public firmly and demonstratively opposed the Democrats’ imposition of Obamacare in the last Congress. There is no reason to believe the same will occur if hearings are held on Obama’s eligibility.  Americans suspect something is wrong with him.  Congress should certify it.

Why would you not want to address Obama’s eligibility in light of the fact that every appointment he has made, every nomination he has offered, every bill he has signed, every executive order he has given is all null and void if he is ineligible?  That would be the best possible recourse for the country rather than go thru the nightmare of trying to reverse every single action thru legislation.

So I am calling on the both of you once again to use your power and influence and call for Congress and its committees to hold public hearings on whether America’s putative president was and is constitutionally to be in the office he currently holds and to take all steps to remove him at the earliest opportunity. Impeachment shouldn’t be a consideration here since such applies only to qualified presidents.  Obama is not qualified, numerous attorneys have said so but more importantly the Constitution says so.  He should be removed sans delay.  Start the process now.

Additionally, here is what the U.S. House should do, also without delay.  Thank you for leading the vote to repeal Obamacare but we must go much further.  Start here.

  1. Secure the borders without delay and finish building the fence.  Deport all illegals.  Pass legislation to ensure that no further importation of foreign workers will be allowed and that all verified illegals currently holding American salaried jobs be promptly terminated in order that those jobs be made available to legal Americans.  Employers refusing to use E-Verify to weed out those illegally employed will lose their right to operate their business and/or be fined and jailed.  After dealing with the eligibility issue, the border crisis and its effect on jobs need to be expeditiously addressed.  It can no longer be dismissed.
  2. Reverse all laws and policies that have exported jobs to China, India and other nations.
  3. Bring all troops home from Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere and put them on the borders.
  4. Defund the abortion industry in full.  Reverse public funding of embryonic stem cell research.  And yes, pass a ban on abortion on demand – isn’t 50 million babies enough?
  5. Reverse the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; it is a moral outrage and against God’s divine law to force government sanctioned homosexuality on America’s troops and the country.
  6. Cut government and federal spending to unprecedented levels.  Investigate all czars for constitutional legitimacy. Those deemed unconstitutional shall promptly be defunded.
  7. Repeal all laws restricting constitutional liberty.  Abolish the EPA and Interior Depts.
  8. Pass a bill that no U.S. representative or senator serves more than 12 years in Congress.

Beyond these agenda items, there’s little else I see for the Congress to do.  It’s encouraging in one sense that it wants to meet less than the previous Congress.  This sends a message that the current Congress (at least the U.S. House) recognizes that the longer it stays in session, the greater the risk of American liberties will be encroached.  I like that a lot.  However, given the oppressive measures the 111th Congress foisted on the American people (and to a somewhat lesser extent the previously Congresses), it may be necessary to be in session longer to remedy and reverse what it did.  I would like to see the House meet on a regular basis throughout the entire year to fix the matters above and then drastically shorten the second session next year.

As I close, I want to reiterate the first issue here, that being the constitutional qualifications of Barack Obama and his authorization to lead this country.  Please, I beg of you, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, grow some spine.  Yes, I know that calling Obama out on his likely ineligibility is certain to rankle Washington Democrats and even put you in fear.  I fully understand the human element here.  However, there is no substitution for doing what is right.  In light of the public opinion of the millions of Americans who question and doubt the credentials of the man in the Oval Office, the lawsuits filed, the court cases heard (none of which has been addressed on the merits) and the numerous legislatures taking up this matter in various fashions, it is imperative for Congress to not bury or pooh-pooh this issue.  It doesn’t matter what clueless politicians think or say.  It matters to us, the American people and the rule of law.  Thus it should matter to you.

Please hear what I and millions of Americans have to say and do not ignore us.  The future of this country (and your jobs) may well depend on what you do and don’t do in the next 23 months.

I am praying for you do to the right thing.


Nedd Kareiva

Categories: Uncategorized

A Call to Close All U.S. Abortion Clinics

January 20, 2011 Leave a comment

Dear Readers:

The former chief of staff for the Obama Administration told us that we should never let “a serious crisis go to waste”.  I totally concur.  And in memory of Rahm Emmanuel and his run for mayor of Chicago , I will take him up on his offer.

As was extensively reported by the lame stream media (and highly likely against their heartfelt wishes), America got a big glimpse of what occurs at America’s so-called friendly abortion clinics. And to put it very mildly, it wasn’t pretty at all – literally.

It was downright sickening.  It was abhorrent.  It was ghastly.  It was and is every bit against the nature of a civilized society.

But this is nothing new.  It has occurred at countless other facilities.  And it very likely is occurring today at many clinics across the country.

And as in Mr. Emmanuel’s words, we’re not going to let it go to waste.

But it’s going to take your help and that of your friends, family, churches and colleagues at work and wherever else you socialize to make the difference.  It’s going to require a little activism to do so, even if you have never done so.  It will involve your use of the keyboard, printer and a fax, if you have one.  If you don’t have a printer, find someone who does or go to your local library and use theirs.  If you don’t have access to a fax and can’t find someone who does, then get a few business envelopes and postage stamps.

Because you will be God’s and America’s instrument to forever end the American Holocaust.

It doesn’t matter how old or young or intelligent you are.  If you understand basic biology and the definition of abortion and don’t have a cold heart, you are more than qualified to be America’s voice and the voice of all babies residing in women’s wombs somewhere across the fruited plain.

We will not wait another 40 years before abortion is legally history.  We will not wait another 30, 20, 10, 5, 4, 3 or even 2 years put our imprimatur on it.

We shall do so this year.  And we shall do so without the help of Congress, despite an upcoming measure in the U.S. House to defund it.  It is likely to comfortably pass, even with some Democrat support.  However, there is little chance such would pass the pro-abortion U.S. Senate and most certainly not America’s premier pro-partial birth abortion, pro-infanticide and putative president.

But it will get traction.  And with your help and God’s, it will happen.  How so?  By two avenues:

  1. Your state attorney generals
  2. Your state senators and representatives (unless you reside in Nebraska where you have but one legislative body)

The reason the attorney generals (or as some call them, attorneys general) go first is due to the power they currently wield by the nature of their position.  We do not have to wait for an act of the state legislature to intervene, though that is what we will push for.  We are under no illusions that state lawmakers in heavily pro-abortion states like California, New York and others across the East & West Coasts will want to take up any measures restricting abortion, despite the grewsome (and yes, that is one way to spell it) acts that were discovered in the state of Pennsylvania.

We will attempt to get these legislators to act since they are duly elected representatives of the people in the districts they reside.  However, regardless of their interest (or indifference), our first goal is to secure the help, resources and full weight of each attorney general’s office and that in conjunction with each state’s health department.  The reason for this is twofold:

  1. The attorney general is the chief law enforcement official in his or her respective state and wields immense power to ensure compliance with state laws.
  2. The health departments of each state have power to legally act on behalf of the attorney generals and are regulated by the legislatures and the laws legislatures have approved.

Based on points 1 & 2, we are initially urging and insisting that the state attorney generals launch inspections into all surgical abortion clinics operating in their states, particularly those that have previously been under investigation or controversy.  And there are plenty but should you need a couple examples to aid your understanding, check out this one and this one.

And if you think you can stomach reading more, go visit this page.

According to Life Dynamics, there are roughly 750 abortion clinics in America.  From this writer’s research and knowledge, having lived in both Illinois and Indiana, with all due respect to the great work Mark Crutcher and his group do for the unborn, this number may be in error.  Some of those clinics may not be doing or no longer be doing surgical (or chemical) abortions.  They may also simply be doing contraceptive distribution (which is morally wrong in of itself but for the moment I will not address it) or provide other services which may or may not carry a moral compass.

A search at the excellent Priests for Life website, which used to have a page devoted to clinic locations, currently came up empty but an e-mail was sent to its main address to see if a link still exists.  If it does, we will post it once we hear from Father Pavone or one of his staff.

But regardless of what we do have for locations and whether they are currently up to date, the fact is each attorney general and state health department know which clinics exist, which don’t and which does abortions in any capacity and which don’t.  That is the basis for the following letter that we ask you to send to the attorney general for your state.  Since he or she is an elected official, he or she has the obligation to enforce the law and investigate reported violations.

To say that the state of Pennsylvania failed to protect the women and children who entered the abortion clinic in West Philadelphia is a colossal understatement.  As the AP reported, the clinic had no inspections for over 17 years.  This is thoroughly unacceptable as hospitals and veterinary clinics are highly regulated and inspected, often, if not always, unannounced.  The blame here falls on, as the story goes, state regulators (prosecutors and the state health dept.) and that stems all the way to the top to the most recent attorney general and now governor, Tom Corbett.

While it appears that state officials are scrambling to throw the book at the abortionist and his employees (and rightly so), it is imperative that the office of acting attorney general, William Ryan, needs to initiate inspections against the remaining abortion clinics.  There is little doubt now that abortion proponents like the oxymoronic National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and its legal ally the ACLU will aggressively fight such at any and every turn, citing privacy and confidentiality claims. However, the spotlight is shining ever so brightly upon those who commit such sinister acts at these clinics.  Most any rational people who normally pay little or no attention to abortion now wonder if perhaps these deeds go on at other clinics.  They should be rest assured that they do but due to political and other pressure are not inspected. That needs to change now.  And if we have any say so, by the grace of God, it will.

There is no mention of this abortionist and this story on the state attorney general’s website, though there are others.  There also is nothing on the governor’s site, though we should temporarily give him the benefit of the doubt since his transition team is in the process of assuming control. But this has to change, regardless of any political darts thrown their way.  If the brutal murders of these babies by a ghoulish abortionist (with all apologies to ghouls) do not take center stage on their websites, then we should ask ourselves why.  You certainly won’t find any comment or condemnation of the abortionist and his gang on the NOW site, the NARAL site (though you will find condemnation of the House repeal yesterday of Obamacare) or the ACLU.

Therefore, it is imperative that we American patriots force the hands of Mr. Ryan and all 50 attorney generals without delay.  To that end, I have devised a letter that I will send to the office of my state’s attorney general, Greg Zoeller of Indiana with a CC to the PA A/G.  Please read it and then follow the instructions and guidelines after its conclusion.

Mr. Greg Zoeller
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
302 W. Washington, 5th Floor
Indianapolis, IN  46204

Fax: (317) 232-7979

Dear Mr. Zoeller:

I am writing about an issue of great concern to me as well as millions of American patriots.  However, before continuing, may I express my gratitude for the superb work you and the Indiana A/G’s office are doing in defending its citizens against the oppressive legislative act known in political circles as Obamacare.  With over half the nation’s states now challenging this federal statute, I believe the momentum is on our side to overturn it and return health making decisions, as well as all others, to the people the state serves.  Thank you for helping lead the way.

As you may have read or heard at some point a Philadelphia abortionist was arrested yesterday, along with his wife and 8 other employees, including a 15 year old girl, for a series of horrific acts that took place at his clinic.  Out of respect for your office, I will refrain from graphically detailing the chilling series of events that reportedly occurred as media reports seem to have done that surprisingly well.  However, the findings of Pennsylvania authorities should shock every state attorney general and health department to the point that current procedures for inspecting and closing abortion clinics in their respective states be reviewed and updated without delay.

It is generally understood by the public that medical facilities operating in all 50 states undergo stringent examinations for obvious sanitary and safety reasons prior to practice.  Any hospital or surgery center seeking to conduct business will not be allowed to do so if such measures do not thoroughly satisfy state personnel granting such authorization. Generally speaking, veterinary clinics and restaurants have rigorous standards that must be met before they are permitted to publicly operate, standards that seldom, if at all, are applied to facilities where abortions occur.

Without going into great detail, two of the states bordering our own Indiana have had ghoulish experiences that, had state officials taken the initiative and treated their respective clinics like any other, may very well have not occurred or else prematurely ended.  Two of the more disturbing ones involved a body parts for sales operation (no exaggeration) in downstate Illinois and babies found in dumpsters in Michigan (on more than one occasion).  You may well be aware of these cases but if you are not, you will be able easily research them on the Internet.  The Illinois case ended up with the savages fleeing the state to an unknown location while the two Michigan ones concluded with no prosecutorial action due to being hamstrung by current state law.

I assure you that these are not isolated incidents, Mr. Zoeller.  I cannot guarantee that Indiana has similar cases and clinics that will be found to live in infamy if such deplorable deeds are discovered.  But I can assure you that ghastly deeds in the form of abortion on our own children in the name of “choice” are done in all 50 states, including our own Indiana, and it is up to you and the Indiana Dept. of Health to find out the extent of it by conducting onsite investigations (preferably unannounced) of all facilities performing any sort of abortion (surgical, chemical, saline) in this state.  State laws regulating notification and consent are not considerations in how abortionists operate.  Laws are frequently broken because of lack of oversight.  The Philadelphia story claims that no clinic inspections took place since 1993. That is totally unacceptable as any rational person can deduce that between then and now, countless laws may have been broken.

Groups like Planned Parenthood will scream bloody murder (no pun intended) if they get word that one of their clinics is facing an inspection or investigation, often contacting their legal allies like the ACLU if wrongdoing is suspected, let alone found.  The fact is no business operating legally and ethically will ever refuse to be inspected (announced or unannounced) if it fully believes it has been abiding by current state and federal laws.  The fact that groups like PP complain as much as they do should send signals that necessitate looking into their operation.

The sad thing is that public officials are often intimidated on the rare occasions they believe a facility performing abortions warrant a visit.  There is no reason for that since the state holds an enormous amount of law enforcement power to back up any adverse findings by state officials.  Concerns about lawsuits from the likes of the ACLU do have merit as states find themselves today in short supply of funds.  However, wrongdoing should never take a back seat to money and politics, though sadly this occurs too often today.

As a result of the events in Philadelphia and the historic national neglect of monitoring abortion clinics, I am asking your office, in conjunction with the state health dept., to promptly initiate and conduct visits (preferably unannounced) to each and every medical facility that does abortions in the state of Indiana and that political considerations be set aside to do so.  I ask that any facility found in violation of current health, safety and sanitary standards (which will very likely be most of them, though Indiana has very few such clinics) be immediately shut down

Most anyone reading what took place in Philly will find themselves repulsed and revulsed and based on the hundreds of thousands of posts at various websites covering this house of horrors, want action against the perpetrators of these crimes, starting with the abortionist.  Seeing this story only further compels our culture to become a more affirming and accepting one towards the unborn.  The fact that abortions are steadily declining (though one abortion is one too many) and the fact that abortionists are dying out and not being replaced stand as a testament to our culture moving to cease its hostility to the unborn.

I will also be asking the Indiana state legislature (both houses) to introduce the ACHE Act.  ACHE stands for Abortion Clinic Health Enforcement.  The ACHE Act will involve reviewing current health and sanitary procedures pertaining to such clinics, updating them as necessary and addressing, enforcing and strengthening current law.  It will also require the state health dept. and law enforcement officials (as deemed appropriate by the legislature) to conduct regular timely visits (again, preferably unannounced), draft a document that will serve as an official abortion clinic report and to post such reports online for public viewing. Personal private details of patients and workers may be redacted as necessary.  Any clinic refusing official access or found to be in violation of current and any newly enacted laws will immediately be shut down.  The days where the abortion industry gets special treatment and exemptions are coming to a close.

I urge your support of these measures and welcome your thoughts and comments.  Thank you very much for your time and anticipated response.


Nedd Kareiva
(City, State, Zip)

CC: Mr. William Ryan
Action Attorney General, State of Pennsylvania
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA  17120
Fax: (717) 787-8242

My friends, I am initially asking each of you to send at least two letters or faxes, one to your own state attorney general and the other to Mr. Ryan.  However, if you are willing to do so, please consider sending such a letter to every state bordering your own.  For example, if you live in my state of Indiana, you can send one also to each attorney general in Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan.  Depending on where you live, you may have only one surrounding state or you may have many.  Only if you’re in Alaska or Hawaii you will obviously have none.

And if by some means you are willing to send 50 faxes or mail 50 letters (total cost $22), that would be the best way to go.  If you can do, please do so and let me know.  Thank you!

There are some guidelines that I ask of each one who volunteers to put our public officials on the hot seat.  Please obey ALL of them, especially point 7, as failure to do so could jeopardize this effort.  Our goal is 100% abortion closure, be it surgical, chemical or saline.  Here is how to help:

  1. All letters to the attorney generals are to be sent by either snail mail or fax (preferable to minimize any chance of being lost in the mail).  Please do not e-mail or use any e-mail forms on the states’ websites. There is no guarantee the content will be read if sent by those means, especially if there is a groundswell effort here (which we hope and pray is the case).  Put your convictions in writing and sign it. Calls may also be made but a paper trail is necessary to track how many letters were sent.  Again, send by snail mail or fax.
  2. Keep all letters to a max of two pages.  Any more than two pages run the risk boring the reader (it may not necessarily be the A/G his or herself).  Use modest size font (Ariel or Times New Roman preferred) instead of too big or small or anything fancy.  Use black, dark grey or dark blue font color – no bright colors. Use Microsoft Word or some other appropriate format for your letter.  If you need help formatting, ask; I may be able to help.
  3. Please know what you are writing about.  If you don’t know what you’re saying or you take a point from my letter but don’t comprehend it, don’t discuss it.  If you have a cursory knowledge of abortion and everything surrounding it, talk accordingly.  If you have advanced understanding of the issue and can speak with passion, knowledge and eloquence, do so.  But don’t be someone you aren’t.  It’s not necessarily important that you know everything on abortion.  But it is important that what you do know and put on paper can be backed with proof.  Study the issue – there are boatloads of great groups like the American Life League ( and Priests for Life where can get good info.
  4. Please do not copy word for word this sample letter.  You may use portions of it as you wish but it is critical that your thoughts and views be read as your own.  I’ve been around long enough and done enough proofreading over the years to detect canned and copied letters. This is why I have elected not to set up a petition or web page with a preset letter.  We need originality of thought, passion and conviction.  Thousands upon thousands of individually thought out letters loaded with them can have a very powerful effect on a public official, especially one who publicly expresses belief in the rule of law.
  5. Please, for God’s sake (literally) and that of this cause, be polite and professional in your letter.  Yes, I know some state officials deserve to be read the riot act.  However, that brings detriment to this vital cause.  Officials in liberal states may well give short shrift to what you say if you do or even if you don’t.  But don’t instigate.  What occurred yesterday has arguably awakened many a folk who have otherwise been indifferent or even hostile to life issues.  No one with any trace of decency can defend this abortionist and the criminal acts he and his employees have perpetrated.  Be reminded of the verse in Proverbs, “A soft answer turns away wrath but grievous words stir up anger”.
  6. Be sure to CC the PA attorney general at the end of each letter, regardless of how many you send – unless you live in PA in which case you would only contact Mr. Ryan.
  7. Please, unless you have experience and understanding in working with legislators and how legislatures work and/or are someone who is viewed as having a steel trap mind on abortion (like Judy Brown of ALL or Father Pavone), say nothing relative to the next to last paragraph in your letter.  Leave it out.  I am referring to the “ACHE” section.  The “ACHE” section is not for novices.  We want all 50 states to enact an ACHE but we know that in states like California, New York and Massachusetts that will be all but impossible due to the rabid pro-abortion stances of lawmakers in those states.  We will attempt to get one introduced but are not guaranteed of it, let alone passage.  The ACHE is this writer’s own concept.  Though no trademark or service mark will be filed for its use, as a courtesy, please reference it accordingly if you use the acronym in letter or speech.
  8. Be sure you have the proper address or fax number for the attorney general(s) you are attempting to write.  Some government websites combine some offices but even if they do, they have separate fax numbers and addresses.  Make sure you are on the A/G web page for the state you intend to write.  Use Google to find them.
  9. When you are done, you need not send me your draft to look over and comment, should you decide to do so before you mail or fax.  If you wish to do so, note that in your e-mail that you are looking for a critique of your comments.  I may be able to do so but I cannot guarantee it, depending on the volume I get.  If you do not hear from me within 48 hours of your e-mail, go ahead and mail or fax without my input.
  10. However, once you have sent out your faxes or letters (please do not handwrite), kindly convey the following to me: (1) whether you faxed or mailed your letters (2) which A/G’s did you write or fax – name the state, not the A/G – and (3) the actual letter or fax you sent. I may decide to critique a letter after I have been notified that it has been sent but I will only do so if the letter is poorly worded or lacks professionalism.  The main purpose I have in keeping copies of the letters is simple – I want to know how many went out.  I need to know how powerful this effort is going to be.
  11. The e-mail address you will use to correspond with me on all the above is

Start those letters now!  This crisis will not go to waste.

For those of you who wish to solely write the A/G’s and/or are not experienced or confident enough to address the ACHE aspect with your state legislatures, your job is done for the moment. But for those who wish to go a step beyond, stay a bit longer as the following section is for you.

If you have ever called a member of Congress or someone in the state legislature, you know that you aren’t necessarily guaranteed a cordial welcome from that voice on the other end. If you have ever written, faxed or e-mailed them, you may or may not have gotten a reply. If you have ever communicated with any of them in any regularity, chances are you have learned a bit about the political process.  And if you have watched Congress on C-SPAN, state legislatures streaming online at the state’s website, or been in person to your state’s capitol while your legislature is in session, you may have a fair grasp of how lawmakers and legislatures operate.  Just getting your own Congressman, senator or state senator or representative to introduce any legislation you support is a Herculean task to undertake.

But the ACHE Act is legislation that needs to be introduced and passed in every state.  Some states already have similar measures in place to regulate clinics.  Some have laws with more teeth than others. Regardless, if such measures do exist, they need to be strengthened with a mechanism of enforcement.  America does not need to see another Philly House of Horrors.

There are three things to be done before anything else.  One is to review current law, if applicable; two is to locate a state senator and representative to sponsor ACHE and three is to get a bill filed in time.  All states have deadlines as to when bills may be filed during a particular session.  Those who fail to meet a deadline to file generally have to wait until the following year.

This is daunting, especially since some states have a short window to file bills due to the length of time the legislatures are in session.  Utah is one such example as they meet for only two months each year.  Indiana is not far behind as it meets for roughly three months on odd number years and two months on even number years.  Some will meet well beyond like Massachusetts which goes right up until the end of the summer.  But even states like those have deadlines.

So we cannot guarantee that we can even get legislation filed in time, even if we do have a state representative and senator to take this on.  But we must try.  The unborn are depending on us.

What I am looking for is one individual from each of the 50 states (minus Indiana) to lead the way on the above three points, someone who will research their own state’s law on abortion clinics as well as bill filing deadlines and seek sponsorships.  I am also seeking one person to oversee this effort and help find someone in each state to represent their respective states.

If you would like to spearhead the ACHE effort in your respective state or be the one to oversee the process over all the states, please contact me  Briefly share your Internet skills, your pro-life views, any supervisor experience you may have and any other credentials you feel fill the bill for this volunteer position.  There is no money in it, though if we get any significant Pay Pal donations, we may be able to help financially in a small way.  However, the main goal here is to eradicate abortion by shutting down every single clinic in America.  If you are passionate about that, then I want to hear from you today.

Thank you for reading this long e-mail and your willingness to end the American Holocaust.

Cordially in Christ,


P.S.  To avoid monetary distractions, we will not ask for money in this effort; however, if you feel led to contribute something towards it, e-mail me and I’ll give you the address to send your donation.

Categories: Uncategorized