As you can see, it is quite easy to follow the Latin mass.
The whole mass is so beautiful, and reverent, as
it was meant to be. To turn it into the Protestant
celebration, with hand clapping, shouting, dressing
up as clowns by the priests, having people dancing
around the altar, was not the intention originally
set forth by the Apostles.
Not meaning to demean the Ordino Mass, which for
those who are just fulfilling their obligation, works for them, but to those who wish to show reverence, and receive the full measure of blessings, you will gravitate sooner, or later,
to the reverence of the Latin Mass.
Do you Catholics realize that you are receiving
the Body,Blood,Soul, and Divinity of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and that he is present there on the
Altar? Do you understand that you are becoming one
with our Lord as you receive the Host?
I am changed each time I receive our Lord at Mass, and ask for him to become Blood of my Blood,
Flesh of my Flesh, and to make me free of Sin, and to make my Soul his dwelling place.
Just like a cleaned piece of furniture, which is sparkling new when cleaned, but one week later,
it must be dusted, and sprayed to be kept like new,
so to , must we go to confession very often.
Not for just the big sins we may commit, but for the little ones that lead to the bigger ones.
Just as the dust, if not cleaned up, will become
embedded into the wood, and grow to the point that
real cleaning, and rubbing with force is needed to
restore it, so to must the dust on our souls, be
cleaned regularly.
Would you want to live in filth and dirt, and the stench that comes from that? If that same stench and odor came up from your soul, would you be able to ignore that? It is something that you will have to pay for, after your time on earth is ended, and those that are faithful Catholics should read
a book called "Purgatory", and read what the Saints have written about it. It is just as real as everything you experience in your life, and I
am sure that it will change your outlook on things
you do every day. Do not think that I don't have to ask for forgiveness 100 times a day, for the things I say or think. Praying is the only way that
I try to keep myself on the right path, leading to
the NARROW GATE, not the WIDE GATE, that leads to
HELL, but to wash away those sins, and be "Clean",we must go to confession regularly.
This is not to admonish anyone, but to have you
realize that we are all sinners, and need to be constantly reminded of our faults, that could lead to sins.
Praying for your souls and mine in Jesus,
Itzik
Friday, April 30, 2010
The Latin Mass revisited!
C. In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Introibo ad altare Dei.
C. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. I will go in to the altar of God.
R. Ad Deum, qui laetificat juventutem meam.
R. To God, who gives joy to my youth.
C. Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me.
C. Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from an ungodly nation: deliver me from an unjust and deceitful enemy.
R. Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea: quare me repulisti, et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me inimicus?
R. For you are my strength, O God: why have you cast me off? Why do I go around sadly while the enemy afflicts me?
C. Emitte lucem tuam, et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt et adduxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernacula tua.
C. Send out Your light and Your truth; they have led me and brought me to Your holy hill, into Your tabernacles.
R. Et introibo ad altare Dei: ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
R. And I will go in to the altar of God: to God who gives joy to my youth.
C. Confitebor tibi in cithara, Deus, Deus meus: quare tristis es anima mea, et quare conturbas me? C. I will praise you on the harp, O God, my God. Why are you sad, my soul, and why do you trouble me?
R. Spera in Deo, quoniam adhuc confitebor illi: salutare vultus mei, et Deus meus.
R. Hope in God, for I will continue to praise Him, my salvation and my God.
The priest bows his head to the Cross for the Gloria Patri, at the end of the psalm - and at any other time the prayer is said during Mass.
C. Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto.
C. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost..
C. Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini.
C. Our help is in the name of the Lord.
R. Qui fecit coelum et terram.
R. Who made heaven and earth.
In a humble confession of his sins before God and the people, the priest bows profoundly with his hands joined and begins the Confiteor. This prayer recalls the confession of the Jewish priests of the Old Law before they offered sacrifice. At the mea culpa, the priest places his left hand below his breast and strikes his breast three times with the extended and joined fingers of his right hand.
C. Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistae, sanctis apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus sanctis, et vobis, fratres: quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, beatum Michaelum Archangelum, beatum Joannem Baptistam, sanctos apostolos Petrum et Paulum, omnes sanctos, et vos, fratres, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum.
C. I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints and to you, brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed (strikes breast three times): through my fault, through my fault, through my own most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints and you, brethren, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
C. Aufer a nobis, quaesumus, Domine, iniquitates nostras: ut ad sancta sanctorum puris mereamur mentibus introire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
C. Lord, we pray you to take away our wickedness from us, so that we may worthily enter into the Holy of Holies with pure minds, through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Bowing moderately, the priest rests his joined hands on the edge of the altar, the tips of his little fingers against the front of the edge as he says silently the Oramus te Domine. Recalling the saints whose relics are in the altar, he places his hands flat on the altar outside the corporal, and kisses it in the middle.
C. Oramus te, Domine, per merita sanctorum tuorum, quorum reliquae hic sunt, et omnium sanctorum: ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea. Amen.
C. We beseech You, Lord, by the merits of Your saints whose relics are here, and of all the saints, to deign to forgive me all my sins. Amen.
Continuing the prayer, the priest then moves directly to the Epistle side where, facing the altar, he makes the Sign of the Cross and begins, in an audible voice, the Proper of the Day by reciting the Introit with his hands joined. This Sign of the Cross marked the opening of the liturgy at the time of St Patrick. The Introit was formerly a psalm sung as the priest entered the church - hence the word introit. At the Gloria Patri, the priest turns slightly and bows towards the crucifix. He does not cross himself when repeating the antiphon.
After the Introit, the priest returns to the centre of the altar. With joined hands and without bowing to the crucifix, he immediately begins the Kyrie, the only surviving Greek prayer in the Mass, taken from a fourth century Byzantine rite.
Introit, Kyrie,
Gloria
C. Kyrie eleison. C. Lord, have mercy.
R. Kyrie eleison. R. Lord, have mercy.
C. Kyrie eleison. C. Lord, have mercy.
R. Christe eleison. R. Christ have mercy.
C. Christe eleison. C. Christ have mercy.
R. Christe eleison. R. Christ have mercy.
C. Kyrie eleison. C. Lord, have mercy.
R. Kyrie eleison. R. Lord, have mercy.
C. Kyrie eleison. C. Lord, have mercy.
As soon as the Kyrie is finished, the priest starts the Gloria, the canticle of praise to the Trinity, attributed to Pope Telesphorus 130 years after Christ.(The Gloria is omitted when the vestments are black or violet and during certain votive Masses.) As the priest begins the prayer, he separates his hands horizontally and raises them to shoulder level before rejoining them and bowing his head at the word Deo. Standing erect, with hands joined, he continues to the end, reading from the centre altar card if necessary. He bows to the crucifix at the words adoramus te, gratias agimus, Jesu Christe, suscipe deprecationem and Jesu Christe again. At the words cum Sancto Spiritu he makes the Sign of the Cross. After the Amen, without rejoining his hands, he places his hands outside the corporal and kisses the centre of the altar.
C. Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis. Laudamus te, benedicimus te, adoramus te, glorificamus te, gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam: Domine Deus, Rex coelestis, Deus Pater omnipotens. Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe: Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris: Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis; qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram; qui sedes ad dexteram Patris, miserere nobis. Quoniam tu solus Sanctus, tu solus Dominus, tu solus Altissimus: Jesu Christe, cum Sancto Spiritu: in gloria Dei Patris. Amen.
C. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace to men of goodwill. We praise You, we bless You, we adore You, we glorify You, we give You thanks for Your great glory, Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father. Lord Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, You take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; You take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer; You are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For You alone are the Holy One, You alone are Lord, You alone are Most High: Jesus Christ, with the Holy Ghost in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
Rejoining his hands and turning by the Epistle side with downcast eyes, the priest greets the people with the Dominus vobiscum, while extending his hands to the width of his shoulders horizontally, rejoining them and turning back by the Epistle side.
C. Dominus vobiscum
C. The Lord be with you.
R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
R. And with your spirit.
Collect, Epistle,Gospel
From the center of the altar, the priest moves to the Missal. Facing the altar, he says Oremus, bowing his head to the Cross, extending his hands to shoulder height and width, rejoining them and extending them again. During the reading of the ancient Collects, the priest bows his head to the Cross at the Holy Name and bows his head to the Missal at the name of Mary, the Saint of the day or the Pope. At the end of the prayer, on the words per Dominum or in unitate, the priest rejoins his hands for the Amen.
After the Collects comes the first lesson, the Epistle. The priest places the palms of his hands on the Missal during the reading - though he may pick up the book if he wishes. He may give a sign to the server that the reading is over by raising his left hand or laying it on the altar momentarily.
The response Deo gratias was originally a sign from the presiding Bishop that the reading had gone on long enough!
R. Deo gratias.
R. Thanks be to God.
Following the Epistle come the Gradual, Alleluia or Tract and, on five major feastdays, the Sequence. These are the remnants of the chants which separated the original three lessons at Mass. The priest reads them aloud, still holding the Missal, and bows as during the Collects.
From the Epistle side, the priest moves with joined hands to the centre of the altar where he lifts his eyes to the Cross, then casts them down and bows profoundly - without laying his hands on the altar - to say silently the Munda cor meum, a fourteenth century prayer asking God to purify his lips and heart.
C. Munda cor meum ac labia mea, omnipotens Deus, qui labia Isaiae prophetae calculo mundasti ignito: ita me tua grata miseratione dignare mundare, ut sanctum Evangelium tuum digne valeam nuntiare. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
C. Cleanse my heart and my lips, almighty God, who cleansed the lips of the prophet Isaias with a live coal. In your mercy, deign to cleanse me so I may be worthy to proclaim Your holy Gospel: through Christ our Lord. Amen.
C. Jube, Domine, benedicere. Dominus sit in corde meo et in labiis meis: ut digne et competenter annuntiem Evangelium suum. Amen.
C. Bless me, O Lord. May the Lord be in my heart and on my lips, that I may be fit and worthy to proclaim His Gospel. Amen.
The Missal is moved by the server to the right hand side of the altar (so called because the right hand of the crucifix points to that side) and placed diagonally on the altar. The congregation stand to greet the word of God. Standing before the Missal with joined hands, the priest says aloud the Dominus vobiscum. At the Sequentia, the priest lays his left hand on the book, while he makes the Sign of the Cross with the thumb of his open right hand, first at the beginning of the Gospel passage. Then - with his left hand on his breast - he traces the cross with his thumb on his forehead, mouth and breast.
C. Dominus vobiscum
C. The Lord be with you.
R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
R. And with your spirit.
C. Sequentia (or Initium) sancti Evangelii secundum N.
C. A passage from (or The beginning of) the holy Gospel according to N.
R. Gloria tibi Domine.
R. Glory to You, Lord.
The priest reads the Gospel aloud with his hands joined. If he needs to bow his head or genuflect, he does so to the Missal. If he has to turn a page, he uses his right hand, laying the left on the altar. At the end of the Gospel, the priest lifts the Missal with both hands, and bows to kiss it where he signed the cross, saying the Per evangelica dicta.
C. Per evangelica dicta, deleantur nostra delictur.
C. Through the words of the Gospel, may our sins be wiped away.
R. Laus tibi, Christe.
R. Praise to You, O Christ.
Standing erect, the priest replaces the Missal on the stand which he moves diagonally closer to the middle of the altar next to the corporal. At this point, the priest may move to the pulpit or lectern to read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular and to deliver a sermon. If so, he removes his maniple and lays it aside.
The Epistle and Gospel readings must be according to the old calendar and may not be taken from the new rite of Mass. The 1982 Vatican instruction forbids any mixing of rites. The homily - in the people's own language - dates back to the time of the Apostles. St Paul himself preached at the Eucharist, as we read in the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.
Following the homily, the priest moves to the centre of the altar for the Creed and, if necessary, puts his maniple back on. As he says the words Credo in unum Deum, he extends his hands, lifts them to the height of his shoulders and rejoins them at his breast, bowing at the same time to the Cross.
The Nicene Creed, which dates from the Council of Nicaea in the early fourth century, is a late addition to the liturgy, after people had become used to the declaration of faith as a protest against the heretics. The Eastern Churches first adopted the prayer in the sixth century.
From there it spread to Spain, to Gaul in the eighth century and it was only introduced in Rome in 1014 at the request of the German Emperor St Henry II. Pope Benedict VIII told the Emperor the Creed had never been needed in Rome because the Church there had never been stained by heresy!
The priest bows when he mentions the Holy Name. At the words Et incarnatus est, the priest lays his hands on the altar outside the corporal and genuflects slowly on his right knee, without bowing his head. He rises after the words Et homo factus est. The priest bows his head at the words simul adoratur. At the end of the Creed, with the words et vitam venturi saeculi, he makes the Sign of the Cross. At the Amen, the priest places his hands flat on the altar outside the corporal and kisses the altar.
Creed, Offertory,
Preface, Sanctus
C. Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum. Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero. Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri: per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostrem salutem descendit de coelis.(genuflects) Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine: ET HOMO FACTUS EST.(stands) Crucifixus etiam pro nobis: sub Pontio Pilato passus, et sepultus est. Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. Et ascendit in coelum: sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, judicare vivos et mortuos: cujus regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur; qui locutus est per Prophetas. Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum. Et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.
C. I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, maker of everything, visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all time; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven,(genuflects) by the power of the Holy Ghost, He became incarnate of the Virgin Mary AND WAS MADE MAN.(stands) For our sake too, He was crucified. He suffered under Pontius Pilate and was buried. On the third day, He rose again from the dead, according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and Son, He is adored and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
This point marks the end of the Mass of the Catechumens, that part of the liturgy which was attended by intending converts to Catholicism. What follows is the Mass of the Faithful, formerly reserved to baptized Catholics alone.
(I will continue tomorrow. I hope you have enjoyed this experience of the Holy mass in Latin with english explanations. It is a joy to experience,
and the reverence to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord, is like no other mass!)
Deo gratias
C. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. I will go in to the altar of God.
R. Ad Deum, qui laetificat juventutem meam.
R. To God, who gives joy to my youth.
C. Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me.
C. Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from an ungodly nation: deliver me from an unjust and deceitful enemy.
R. Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea: quare me repulisti, et quare tristis incedo, dum affligit me inimicus?
R. For you are my strength, O God: why have you cast me off? Why do I go around sadly while the enemy afflicts me?
C. Emitte lucem tuam, et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt et adduxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernacula tua.
C. Send out Your light and Your truth; they have led me and brought me to Your holy hill, into Your tabernacles.
R. Et introibo ad altare Dei: ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
R. And I will go in to the altar of God: to God who gives joy to my youth.
C. Confitebor tibi in cithara, Deus, Deus meus: quare tristis es anima mea, et quare conturbas me? C. I will praise you on the harp, O God, my God. Why are you sad, my soul, and why do you trouble me?
R. Spera in Deo, quoniam adhuc confitebor illi: salutare vultus mei, et Deus meus.
R. Hope in God, for I will continue to praise Him, my salvation and my God.
The priest bows his head to the Cross for the Gloria Patri, at the end of the psalm - and at any other time the prayer is said during Mass.
C. Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto.
C. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost..
C. Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini.
C. Our help is in the name of the Lord.
R. Qui fecit coelum et terram.
R. Who made heaven and earth.
In a humble confession of his sins before God and the people, the priest bows profoundly with his hands joined and begins the Confiteor. This prayer recalls the confession of the Jewish priests of the Old Law before they offered sacrifice. At the mea culpa, the priest places his left hand below his breast and strikes his breast three times with the extended and joined fingers of his right hand.
C. Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistae, sanctis apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus sanctis, et vobis, fratres: quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, beatum Michaelum Archangelum, beatum Joannem Baptistam, sanctos apostolos Petrum et Paulum, omnes sanctos, et vos, fratres, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum.
C. I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints and to you, brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed (strikes breast three times): through my fault, through my fault, through my own most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints and you, brethren, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
C. Aufer a nobis, quaesumus, Domine, iniquitates nostras: ut ad sancta sanctorum puris mereamur mentibus introire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
C. Lord, we pray you to take away our wickedness from us, so that we may worthily enter into the Holy of Holies with pure minds, through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Bowing moderately, the priest rests his joined hands on the edge of the altar, the tips of his little fingers against the front of the edge as he says silently the Oramus te Domine. Recalling the saints whose relics are in the altar, he places his hands flat on the altar outside the corporal, and kisses it in the middle.
C. Oramus te, Domine, per merita sanctorum tuorum, quorum reliquae hic sunt, et omnium sanctorum: ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea. Amen.
C. We beseech You, Lord, by the merits of Your saints whose relics are here, and of all the saints, to deign to forgive me all my sins. Amen.
Continuing the prayer, the priest then moves directly to the Epistle side where, facing the altar, he makes the Sign of the Cross and begins, in an audible voice, the Proper of the Day by reciting the Introit with his hands joined. This Sign of the Cross marked the opening of the liturgy at the time of St Patrick. The Introit was formerly a psalm sung as the priest entered the church - hence the word introit. At the Gloria Patri, the priest turns slightly and bows towards the crucifix. He does not cross himself when repeating the antiphon.
After the Introit, the priest returns to the centre of the altar. With joined hands and without bowing to the crucifix, he immediately begins the Kyrie, the only surviving Greek prayer in the Mass, taken from a fourth century Byzantine rite.
Introit, Kyrie,
Gloria
C. Kyrie eleison. C. Lord, have mercy.
R. Kyrie eleison. R. Lord, have mercy.
C. Kyrie eleison. C. Lord, have mercy.
R. Christe eleison. R. Christ have mercy.
C. Christe eleison. C. Christ have mercy.
R. Christe eleison. R. Christ have mercy.
C. Kyrie eleison. C. Lord, have mercy.
R. Kyrie eleison. R. Lord, have mercy.
C. Kyrie eleison. C. Lord, have mercy.
As soon as the Kyrie is finished, the priest starts the Gloria, the canticle of praise to the Trinity, attributed to Pope Telesphorus 130 years after Christ.(The Gloria is omitted when the vestments are black or violet and during certain votive Masses.) As the priest begins the prayer, he separates his hands horizontally and raises them to shoulder level before rejoining them and bowing his head at the word Deo. Standing erect, with hands joined, he continues to the end, reading from the centre altar card if necessary. He bows to the crucifix at the words adoramus te, gratias agimus, Jesu Christe, suscipe deprecationem and Jesu Christe again. At the words cum Sancto Spiritu he makes the Sign of the Cross. After the Amen, without rejoining his hands, he places his hands outside the corporal and kisses the centre of the altar.
C. Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis. Laudamus te, benedicimus te, adoramus te, glorificamus te, gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam: Domine Deus, Rex coelestis, Deus Pater omnipotens. Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe: Domine Deus, Agnus Dei, Filius Patris: Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis; qui tollis peccata mundi, suscipe deprecationem nostram; qui sedes ad dexteram Patris, miserere nobis. Quoniam tu solus Sanctus, tu solus Dominus, tu solus Altissimus: Jesu Christe, cum Sancto Spiritu: in gloria Dei Patris. Amen.
C. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace to men of goodwill. We praise You, we bless You, we adore You, we glorify You, we give You thanks for Your great glory, Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father. Lord Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, You take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; You take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer; You are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For You alone are the Holy One, You alone are Lord, You alone are Most High: Jesus Christ, with the Holy Ghost in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
Rejoining his hands and turning by the Epistle side with downcast eyes, the priest greets the people with the Dominus vobiscum, while extending his hands to the width of his shoulders horizontally, rejoining them and turning back by the Epistle side.
C. Dominus vobiscum
C. The Lord be with you.
R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
R. And with your spirit.
Collect, Epistle,Gospel
From the center of the altar, the priest moves to the Missal. Facing the altar, he says Oremus, bowing his head to the Cross, extending his hands to shoulder height and width, rejoining them and extending them again. During the reading of the ancient Collects, the priest bows his head to the Cross at the Holy Name and bows his head to the Missal at the name of Mary, the Saint of the day or the Pope. At the end of the prayer, on the words per Dominum or in unitate, the priest rejoins his hands for the Amen.
After the Collects comes the first lesson, the Epistle. The priest places the palms of his hands on the Missal during the reading - though he may pick up the book if he wishes. He may give a sign to the server that the reading is over by raising his left hand or laying it on the altar momentarily.
The response Deo gratias was originally a sign from the presiding Bishop that the reading had gone on long enough!
R. Deo gratias.
R. Thanks be to God.
Following the Epistle come the Gradual, Alleluia or Tract and, on five major feastdays, the Sequence. These are the remnants of the chants which separated the original three lessons at Mass. The priest reads them aloud, still holding the Missal, and bows as during the Collects.
From the Epistle side, the priest moves with joined hands to the centre of the altar where he lifts his eyes to the Cross, then casts them down and bows profoundly - without laying his hands on the altar - to say silently the Munda cor meum, a fourteenth century prayer asking God to purify his lips and heart.
C. Munda cor meum ac labia mea, omnipotens Deus, qui labia Isaiae prophetae calculo mundasti ignito: ita me tua grata miseratione dignare mundare, ut sanctum Evangelium tuum digne valeam nuntiare. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
C. Cleanse my heart and my lips, almighty God, who cleansed the lips of the prophet Isaias with a live coal. In your mercy, deign to cleanse me so I may be worthy to proclaim Your holy Gospel: through Christ our Lord. Amen.
C. Jube, Domine, benedicere. Dominus sit in corde meo et in labiis meis: ut digne et competenter annuntiem Evangelium suum. Amen.
C. Bless me, O Lord. May the Lord be in my heart and on my lips, that I may be fit and worthy to proclaim His Gospel. Amen.
The Missal is moved by the server to the right hand side of the altar (so called because the right hand of the crucifix points to that side) and placed diagonally on the altar. The congregation stand to greet the word of God. Standing before the Missal with joined hands, the priest says aloud the Dominus vobiscum. At the Sequentia, the priest lays his left hand on the book, while he makes the Sign of the Cross with the thumb of his open right hand, first at the beginning of the Gospel passage. Then - with his left hand on his breast - he traces the cross with his thumb on his forehead, mouth and breast.
C. Dominus vobiscum
C. The Lord be with you.
R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
R. And with your spirit.
C. Sequentia (or Initium) sancti Evangelii secundum N.
C. A passage from (or The beginning of) the holy Gospel according to N.
R. Gloria tibi Domine.
R. Glory to You, Lord.
The priest reads the Gospel aloud with his hands joined. If he needs to bow his head or genuflect, he does so to the Missal. If he has to turn a page, he uses his right hand, laying the left on the altar. At the end of the Gospel, the priest lifts the Missal with both hands, and bows to kiss it where he signed the cross, saying the Per evangelica dicta.
C. Per evangelica dicta, deleantur nostra delictur.
C. Through the words of the Gospel, may our sins be wiped away.
R. Laus tibi, Christe.
R. Praise to You, O Christ.
Standing erect, the priest replaces the Missal on the stand which he moves diagonally closer to the middle of the altar next to the corporal. At this point, the priest may move to the pulpit or lectern to read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular and to deliver a sermon. If so, he removes his maniple and lays it aside.
The Epistle and Gospel readings must be according to the old calendar and may not be taken from the new rite of Mass. The 1982 Vatican instruction forbids any mixing of rites. The homily - in the people's own language - dates back to the time of the Apostles. St Paul himself preached at the Eucharist, as we read in the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.
Following the homily, the priest moves to the centre of the altar for the Creed and, if necessary, puts his maniple back on. As he says the words Credo in unum Deum, he extends his hands, lifts them to the height of his shoulders and rejoins them at his breast, bowing at the same time to the Cross.
The Nicene Creed, which dates from the Council of Nicaea in the early fourth century, is a late addition to the liturgy, after people had become used to the declaration of faith as a protest against the heretics. The Eastern Churches first adopted the prayer in the sixth century.
From there it spread to Spain, to Gaul in the eighth century and it was only introduced in Rome in 1014 at the request of the German Emperor St Henry II. Pope Benedict VIII told the Emperor the Creed had never been needed in Rome because the Church there had never been stained by heresy!
The priest bows when he mentions the Holy Name. At the words Et incarnatus est, the priest lays his hands on the altar outside the corporal and genuflects slowly on his right knee, without bowing his head. He rises after the words Et homo factus est. The priest bows his head at the words simul adoratur. At the end of the Creed, with the words et vitam venturi saeculi, he makes the Sign of the Cross. At the Amen, the priest places his hands flat on the altar outside the corporal and kisses the altar.
Creed, Offertory,
Preface, Sanctus
C. Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum. Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero. Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri: per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostrem salutem descendit de coelis.(genuflects) Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine: ET HOMO FACTUS EST.(stands) Crucifixus etiam pro nobis: sub Pontio Pilato passus, et sepultus est. Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. Et ascendit in coelum: sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, judicare vivos et mortuos: cujus regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur; qui locutus est per Prophetas. Et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum. Et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.
C. I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, maker of everything, visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all time; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven,(genuflects) by the power of the Holy Ghost, He became incarnate of the Virgin Mary AND WAS MADE MAN.(stands) For our sake too, He was crucified. He suffered under Pontius Pilate and was buried. On the third day, He rose again from the dead, according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and Son, He is adored and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
This point marks the end of the Mass of the Catechumens, that part of the liturgy which was attended by intending converts to Catholicism. What follows is the Mass of the Faithful, formerly reserved to baptized Catholics alone.
(I will continue tomorrow. I hope you have enjoyed this experience of the Holy mass in Latin with english explanations. It is a joy to experience,
and the reverence to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord, is like no other mass!)
Deo gratias
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Born in the USA?
Eligibility sponsor fears GOP protecting Obama
Only this week left to vote on demand candidates prove 'natural born' status
Posted: April 27, 2010
10:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Arizona state Sen. Robert Burns
A bill in Arizona that would require candidates for president to document their constitutional eligibility needs only an affirmative vote from the state Senate to advance to the governor, but its sponsor told WND she's concerned GOP leadership will end up protecting President Obama's secrets.
State Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND today her bill was approved by the House but now is being "held" by Senate President Robert Burns.
She explained Burns told her that in light of the controversy over the state's immigration law – targeted by pro-amnesty immigrants and open-border activists – "he didn't want to take on another one."
Burns was on the floor of the Senate or in caucus much of today and couldn't be reached directly for comment. A spokesman, Mike Philipsen, told WND only that the issue is "in the process." He did not respond to requests to confirm the bill will be given to senators for a vote.
Burns represents District 9 and is a Republican from Peoria. He serves as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Gov. Jan Brewer has not said whether she supports the bill.
The text of the Arizona bill is available online.
Arizona has been targeted by calls for boycotts, violent protests and public ridicule for adopting a law that requires law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of people they stop. In effect, it makes being in the country illegally under federal requirements illegal under state law, too.
Public ridicule also has targeted the state for even considering a law that would require presidential candidates to document their eligibility, even though several other states also have adopted a similarly questioning stance.
The Arizona Republic quoted Democrats who said "presidential candidates already have to prove their citizenship," and it added, editorially, "Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who lives in the real world, not on conspiracy island, points out that it could be unconstitutional for a state to impose its own requirements on federal office."
The newspaper called the plan "worse than a foolish waste of time."
"It suggests Arizona is a place where any crackpot whim can be enshrined in law."
But Burges told WND the disputes over immigration laws make now the right time to advance the argument over Obama's eligibility to the level of state law.
"I think it is a perfect time," she said.
She noted that the state legislative session is scheduled to conclude this week, and next year's legislature may not be willing to look at the facts about Obama's eligibility.
WND has reported no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president. The Constitution requires that the president be 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."
An image of a "Certification of Live Birth" that has been posted on the Internet fails to prove "natural born" status since the document was available at the time Obama was born to children not born in Hawaii.
Besides his actual birth documentation, documentation that remains concealed for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Georgia state Rep. Mark Hatfield
"At some point, I think, you have to do the best job for the greatest number of people," Burges said, echoing the feelings of Georgia state Rep. Mark Hatfield, who just days earlier introduced legislation modeled after Arizona's plan.
Both bills require documentation regarding a candidates "natural born" status.
Hatfield told WND his plan calls for a candidate to submit an affidavit regarding status, citizenship and age, and "append a document proving the natural born citizen status."
The text of Hatfield's proposal also is found online.
The Arizona plan calls for political parties to "submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen. …"
Both documents provide that absent proof, the candidates name should not be on the ballot in that state.
Hatfield said it's really the responsibility of members of Congress to make sure a foreign-born individual or dual citizen isn't installed in the White House.
But he said without the leadership in Washington necessary to do that, it is up to states to tackle the issue. Arizona's plan is closest to adoption, awaiting only approval from the state Senate and a governor's signature.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Oklahoma also has pending in a legislative committee a referendum that could be put before voters.
The organization says during 2009, various plans to require documentation from presidential candidates were considered in Maine, Oklahoma, Missouri and Montana but were not adopted.
But that track record is not at all unusual for controversial issues such as a requirement for documentation for a presidential candidate's eligibility.
NCSL records also show that other election proposals were considered that were much more vague about whether they would apply to presidential candidates or not.
Listen to an interview with Rep. Mark Hatfield:
The Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
"The bill is basically a bill that would provide some teeth to the Article 2, Section 1 by requiring presidential candidates in the future to submit an affidavit showing their citizenship and age, and their residency, and appending to that documents that would prove citizenship, age and residency," Hatfield said.
The issue arose with the candidacy of then-Sen. Barack Obama, who has written that he was born in Hawaii of an American mother and a Kenyan national father. Lawsuits erupted over the issue before his election and have been continuing to this date. Some claim he was not born in Hawaii and others allege the founders of the U.S. excluded dual citizens from the presidency.
"No citizen of the United States should ever have any doubts about the qualifications of the individual who occupies the highest office in the land," Hatfield said on the Liddy show.
A recent CBS–New York Times poll revealed that only 58 percent of Americans even "think" that Obama was born in this country.
According to the NCSL database, a New Hampshire proposal was pending concerning "inserting the presidential qualifications contained in the U.S. Constitution."
In New York, a proposal by a freedom-of-information organization to state lawmakers would have provided "an individual seeking placement on the New York State's election ballot(s) for the office of president or vice president of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution."
In South Carolina, there was discussion over a plan to prohibit the name of a candidate on a ballot "unless that person shows conclusive evidence that he is a legal citizen of the United States."
Questions also remain about the wording of various proposals. In Obama's situation, the question specifically refers to his status as a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution, not any status as a "citizen" or even "native born citizen."
The proposals essentially are moving the same direction as a federal measure proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
Posey's H.R. 1503 states:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
The bill also provides:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.
But whatever support Posey's plan has, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrats, as well as a president whose own status could be impacted by its requirements.
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 500,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Only this week left to vote on demand candidates prove 'natural born' status
Posted: April 27, 2010
10:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Arizona state Sen. Robert Burns
A bill in Arizona that would require candidates for president to document their constitutional eligibility needs only an affirmative vote from the state Senate to advance to the governor, but its sponsor told WND she's concerned GOP leadership will end up protecting President Obama's secrets.
State Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND today her bill was approved by the House but now is being "held" by Senate President Robert Burns.
She explained Burns told her that in light of the controversy over the state's immigration law – targeted by pro-amnesty immigrants and open-border activists – "he didn't want to take on another one."
Burns was on the floor of the Senate or in caucus much of today and couldn't be reached directly for comment. A spokesman, Mike Philipsen, told WND only that the issue is "in the process." He did not respond to requests to confirm the bill will be given to senators for a vote.
Burns represents District 9 and is a Republican from Peoria. He serves as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Gov. Jan Brewer has not said whether she supports the bill.
The text of the Arizona bill is available online.
Arizona has been targeted by calls for boycotts, violent protests and public ridicule for adopting a law that requires law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of people they stop. In effect, it makes being in the country illegally under federal requirements illegal under state law, too.
Public ridicule also has targeted the state for even considering a law that would require presidential candidates to document their eligibility, even though several other states also have adopted a similarly questioning stance.
The Arizona Republic quoted Democrats who said "presidential candidates already have to prove their citizenship," and it added, editorially, "Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who lives in the real world, not on conspiracy island, points out that it could be unconstitutional for a state to impose its own requirements on federal office."
The newspaper called the plan "worse than a foolish waste of time."
"It suggests Arizona is a place where any crackpot whim can be enshrined in law."
But Burges told WND the disputes over immigration laws make now the right time to advance the argument over Obama's eligibility to the level of state law.
"I think it is a perfect time," she said.
She noted that the state legislative session is scheduled to conclude this week, and next year's legislature may not be willing to look at the facts about Obama's eligibility.
WND has reported no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution's requirements to be president. The Constitution requires that the president be 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."
An image of a "Certification of Live Birth" that has been posted on the Internet fails to prove "natural born" status since the document was available at the time Obama was born to children not born in Hawaii.
Besides his actual birth documentation, documentation that remains concealed for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
Georgia state Rep. Mark Hatfield
"At some point, I think, you have to do the best job for the greatest number of people," Burges said, echoing the feelings of Georgia state Rep. Mark Hatfield, who just days earlier introduced legislation modeled after Arizona's plan.
Both bills require documentation regarding a candidates "natural born" status.
Hatfield told WND his plan calls for a candidate to submit an affidavit regarding status, citizenship and age, and "append a document proving the natural born citizen status."
The text of Hatfield's proposal also is found online.
The Arizona plan calls for political parties to "submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen. …"
Both documents provide that absent proof, the candidates name should not be on the ballot in that state.
Hatfield said it's really the responsibility of members of Congress to make sure a foreign-born individual or dual citizen isn't installed in the White House.
But he said without the leadership in Washington necessary to do that, it is up to states to tackle the issue. Arizona's plan is closest to adoption, awaiting only approval from the state Senate and a governor's signature.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Oklahoma also has pending in a legislative committee a referendum that could be put before voters.
The organization says during 2009, various plans to require documentation from presidential candidates were considered in Maine, Oklahoma, Missouri and Montana but were not adopted.
But that track record is not at all unusual for controversial issues such as a requirement for documentation for a presidential candidate's eligibility.
NCSL records also show that other election proposals were considered that were much more vague about whether they would apply to presidential candidates or not.
Listen to an interview with Rep. Mark Hatfield:
The Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
"The bill is basically a bill that would provide some teeth to the Article 2, Section 1 by requiring presidential candidates in the future to submit an affidavit showing their citizenship and age, and their residency, and appending to that documents that would prove citizenship, age and residency," Hatfield said.
The issue arose with the candidacy of then-Sen. Barack Obama, who has written that he was born in Hawaii of an American mother and a Kenyan national father. Lawsuits erupted over the issue before his election and have been continuing to this date. Some claim he was not born in Hawaii and others allege the founders of the U.S. excluded dual citizens from the presidency.
"No citizen of the United States should ever have any doubts about the qualifications of the individual who occupies the highest office in the land," Hatfield said on the Liddy show.
A recent CBS–New York Times poll revealed that only 58 percent of Americans even "think" that Obama was born in this country.
According to the NCSL database, a New Hampshire proposal was pending concerning "inserting the presidential qualifications contained in the U.S. Constitution."
In New York, a proposal by a freedom-of-information organization to state lawmakers would have provided "an individual seeking placement on the New York State's election ballot(s) for the office of president or vice president of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution."
In South Carolina, there was discussion over a plan to prohibit the name of a candidate on a ballot "unless that person shows conclusive evidence that he is a legal citizen of the United States."
Questions also remain about the wording of various proposals. In Obama's situation, the question specifically refers to his status as a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution, not any status as a "citizen" or even "native born citizen."
The proposals essentially are moving the same direction as a federal measure proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
Posey's H.R. 1503 states:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
The bill also provides:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.
But whatever support Posey's plan has, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrats, as well as a president whose own status could be impacted by its requirements.
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 500,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
What Part of Illegal Don’t You Understand?
By Bob Beers Wednesday, April 28, 2010
This line from the first page of the Arizona Immigration Reform Bill, Senate Bill 1070, is what upsets most liberals:
NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
The text is displayed in all caps in the original, and it is probably the portion that Obama calls “ill-considered and irresponsible”. How dare those uppity Arizonans, those “states-righters” think that they can dictate what laws will be enforced in their state? So what if Arizona has over 500,000 undocumented aliens sucking up resources needed for legal citizens? So what if the Mexican drug war has turned Phoenix into the ransom capital of the United States? So what if Washington D.C has essentially said to the Border States, “You’re on your own. We like the fact that the chaos in Mexico is turning you into a no mans land. This means more illegal votes for our guys”. The bill goes on to describe what the police are allowed to do and what they are supposed to do in enforcing this law. It also describes to those employers who have been giving jobs to illegals in preference to citizens just how costly that little bit of larceny will become.
Arizona was forced into doing the right thing and you know that the last thing the Democrat axis of evil (Obama-Pelosi-Reid) wants any government to do is “the right thing”. The 10th amendment to the US Constitution states that anything not specifically given as power or responsibility to the Federal Government is left to the states. It does not specify what is left for a good reason, and this situation is a perfect example. If and when the feds fall down on the job it is required by the constitution for the state to take over, just don’t expect a Supreme Court ruled by liberals to see that.
Liberal lies, Jim Crow Laws
As is typical, the liberal talking point is being repeated over and over again, “this evil law will bring back the days of Jim Crow. It is going to lead to (gasp!) Profiling!” How? Let me ask you this, when a TSA agent at the airport gate asks you for your ID, are they profiling? When you are asked to show your ID to cash a check, use a credit card or any other of the myriad ways we use identification, are we being profiled? So why is this so evil? I will tell you why, because it cuts into the planned ongoing destruction of the liberals’ chief enemy, a free prosperous United States. I have read the full text of the law. Nowhere within its 17 pages is anything that could be constituted as a mandate to racially profile in the manner that the hysterical left has determined. What it does do is force the legal law enforcement community to carry out their jobs and actually enforce our immigration laws. Oh the humanity!
This is the definition of the word, “illegal”: Not according to or authorized by law.” Seems quite simple to me, but the problem is that so many people have found a way to profit from folks coming into our country without using proper, authorized channels, including our past 4 presidents, that the idea of being right with our immigration law has become controversial. Folks, Arizona actually had to write a law that says illegal means ILLEGAL. What is wrong with this picture?
If we were to follow our constitution’s dictates we would be using our National Guard for the purpose they were created, as a national guard. Whether or not you choose to accept it, illegals do not have civil rights; they are criminals just as much as the thief who steals from a convenience store or jacks a car out of a parking lot is. Crossing the border without checking to see if it is ok with the authorities is as much a crime as what Bernie Madoff did; the cost is just a bit different. Bernie s
was less!
This line from the first page of the Arizona Immigration Reform Bill, Senate Bill 1070, is what upsets most liberals:
NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
The text is displayed in all caps in the original, and it is probably the portion that Obama calls “ill-considered and irresponsible”. How dare those uppity Arizonans, those “states-righters” think that they can dictate what laws will be enforced in their state? So what if Arizona has over 500,000 undocumented aliens sucking up resources needed for legal citizens? So what if the Mexican drug war has turned Phoenix into the ransom capital of the United States? So what if Washington D.C has essentially said to the Border States, “You’re on your own. We like the fact that the chaos in Mexico is turning you into a no mans land. This means more illegal votes for our guys”. The bill goes on to describe what the police are allowed to do and what they are supposed to do in enforcing this law. It also describes to those employers who have been giving jobs to illegals in preference to citizens just how costly that little bit of larceny will become.
Arizona was forced into doing the right thing and you know that the last thing the Democrat axis of evil (Obama-Pelosi-Reid) wants any government to do is “the right thing”. The 10th amendment to the US Constitution states that anything not specifically given as power or responsibility to the Federal Government is left to the states. It does not specify what is left for a good reason, and this situation is a perfect example. If and when the feds fall down on the job it is required by the constitution for the state to take over, just don’t expect a Supreme Court ruled by liberals to see that.
Liberal lies, Jim Crow Laws
As is typical, the liberal talking point is being repeated over and over again, “this evil law will bring back the days of Jim Crow. It is going to lead to (gasp!) Profiling!” How? Let me ask you this, when a TSA agent at the airport gate asks you for your ID, are they profiling? When you are asked to show your ID to cash a check, use a credit card or any other of the myriad ways we use identification, are we being profiled? So why is this so evil? I will tell you why, because it cuts into the planned ongoing destruction of the liberals’ chief enemy, a free prosperous United States. I have read the full text of the law. Nowhere within its 17 pages is anything that could be constituted as a mandate to racially profile in the manner that the hysterical left has determined. What it does do is force the legal law enforcement community to carry out their jobs and actually enforce our immigration laws. Oh the humanity!
This is the definition of the word, “illegal”: Not according to or authorized by law.” Seems quite simple to me, but the problem is that so many people have found a way to profit from folks coming into our country without using proper, authorized channels, including our past 4 presidents, that the idea of being right with our immigration law has become controversial. Folks, Arizona actually had to write a law that says illegal means ILLEGAL. What is wrong with this picture?
If we were to follow our constitution’s dictates we would be using our National Guard for the purpose they were created, as a national guard. Whether or not you choose to accept it, illegals do not have civil rights; they are criminals just as much as the thief who steals from a convenience store or jacks a car out of a parking lot is. Crossing the border without checking to see if it is ok with the authorities is as much a crime as what Bernie Madoff did; the cost is just a bit different. Bernie s
was less!
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Obama exposed!
Cloward-Piven Government
By James Simpson
It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.
In September of last year, American Thinker published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then, the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O'Reilly, and now Mark Levin.
The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.
The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level."
They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.
As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited.
ACORN's vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.
The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.
It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations, and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."
The real goal of "health care" legislation, the real goal of "cap-and-trade," and the real goal of the "stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.
This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized, and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Charles Rangel* said, "the middle class will be too distracted to fight."
These people are our enemies. They don't use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined, and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.
It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so -- the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.
Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his or her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing, and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we elect competent, principled leaders willing to defend our Constitution and our country. Otherwise, the malevolent cabal that occupies the government today will become too entrenched.
After that, all bets are off.
By James Simpson
It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt. President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.
In September of last year, American Thinker published my article, Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then-presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Since then, the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O'Reilly, and now Mark Levin.
The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.
The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level."
They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him.
As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast vulnerabilities in our electoral system, which ACORN then exploited.
ACORN's vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.
The Motor Voter law has also been used to open another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then reliably vote Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.
It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations, and laws. As Rahm Emmanuel said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."
The real goal of "health care" legislation, the real goal of "cap-and-trade," and the real goal of the "stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to the government to control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves except in their ability to deliver power. They and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.
This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized, and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. As Charles Rangel* said, "the middle class will be too distracted to fight."
These people are our enemies. They don't use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined, and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.
It is time we fully internalized and digested this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people have violated countless laws and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so -- the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but it could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but they could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but they could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.
Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his or her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing, and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we elect competent, principled leaders willing to defend our Constitution and our country. Otherwise, the malevolent cabal that occupies the government today will become too entrenched.
After that, all bets are off.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Barbarians unleashed!
Just How Barbaric We've Become
This is just sad and pathetic
It's my sad duty to pass on to you this bit of news on just how badly we as a nation and a civilization have sunk. When a ban such as this is seen as a "victory", you know things are pretty damn low.
Here's some of the article from LifeSiteNews.com;
North Dakota Approves Petition for Abortion Decapitation, Skull Crushing Ban
DICKINSON, North Dakota, April 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A North Dakota grassroots pro-life organization is announcing the official beginning of an effort to circulate petitions for an initiated measure that would prohibit physicians from decapitating and crushing the skulls of living unborn children.
‘The Baby Decapitation and Skull Crushing Ban’ was approved for circulation by the North Dakota Secretary of State and Attorney General on Thursday. Daniel Woodard, head of the state-wide Stop Decapitation Network, aims to collect 12,844 signatures in order to place the measure on the 2010 or 2012 ballot. The ban would become law if a majority of North Dakotans vote for it.
The Petition Title reads: “This initiated measure would create a new chapter to the North Dakota Century Code making it a crime for a physician to knowingly decapitate or crush the skull of a living unborn child or to incidentally cause serious bodily injury to the mother due to a resulting skull fragment; medical treatment could be used to save the life of the mother if the death of the child is incidental to the treatment.”
“It says a lot about how far we’ve sunk as a godly nation that we would need to pass a law banning the decapitation and skull crushing of babies waiting to be born," said Woodard. "The barbarians of old were not even as savage as some abortion 'doctors.' It’s supremely ironic that we accuse Islamic governments of savagely decapitating their own people, yet they accuse Western governments of savagely decapitating their own children.
"This insane slaughter of others must stop now. None of it is justified.”
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
This is just sad and pathetic
It's my sad duty to pass on to you this bit of news on just how badly we as a nation and a civilization have sunk. When a ban such as this is seen as a "victory", you know things are pretty damn low.
Here's some of the article from LifeSiteNews.com;
North Dakota Approves Petition for Abortion Decapitation, Skull Crushing Ban
DICKINSON, North Dakota, April 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A North Dakota grassroots pro-life organization is announcing the official beginning of an effort to circulate petitions for an initiated measure that would prohibit physicians from decapitating and crushing the skulls of living unborn children.
‘The Baby Decapitation and Skull Crushing Ban’ was approved for circulation by the North Dakota Secretary of State and Attorney General on Thursday. Daniel Woodard, head of the state-wide Stop Decapitation Network, aims to collect 12,844 signatures in order to place the measure on the 2010 or 2012 ballot. The ban would become law if a majority of North Dakotans vote for it.
The Petition Title reads: “This initiated measure would create a new chapter to the North Dakota Century Code making it a crime for a physician to knowingly decapitate or crush the skull of a living unborn child or to incidentally cause serious bodily injury to the mother due to a resulting skull fragment; medical treatment could be used to save the life of the mother if the death of the child is incidental to the treatment.”
“It says a lot about how far we’ve sunk as a godly nation that we would need to pass a law banning the decapitation and skull crushing of babies waiting to be born," said Woodard. "The barbarians of old were not even as savage as some abortion 'doctors.' It’s supremely ironic that we accuse Islamic governments of savagely decapitating their own people, yet they accuse Western governments of savagely decapitating their own children.
"This insane slaughter of others must stop now. None of it is justified.”
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
The Red Tide is not the only danger in the oceans!
THIS Is Who's Propping Up Our Economy
Goodbye Uncle Sam, Hello Uncle Mao
I've been following this for years. Now it's coming to fruition... a blue water Communist Chinese fleet. And a powerful one, at that.
This is dangerous. Very dangerous. I suggest we keep this tucked in the back of your brain housing group whenever we read that we are becoming more and more beholden to these heathen Communists. Oh, and that we've WILLFULLY shipped so much of our industrial might directly to Communist China.
Here's some of the article from the New York Times; (Emphasis mine)
Chinese Military Seeks to Extend Its Naval Power
The strategy reflects China’s growing sense of self-confidence and increasing willingness to assert its interests abroad.
YALONG BAY, China — The Chinese military is seeking to project naval power well beyond the Chinese coast, from the oil ports of the Middle East to the shipping lanes of the Pacific, where the United States Navy has long reigned as the dominant force, military officials and analysts say.
China calls the new strategy “far sea defense,” and the speed with which it is building long-range capabilities has surprised foreign military officials.
The strategy is a sharp break from the traditional, narrower doctrine of preparing for war over the self-governing island of Taiwan or defending the Chinese coast. Now, Chinese admirals say they want warships to escort commercial vessels that are crucial to the country’s economy, from as far as the Persian Gulf to the Strait of Malacca, in Southeast Asia, and to help secure Chinese interests in the resource-rich South and East China Seas.
In late March, two Chinese warships docked in Abu Dhabi, the first time the modern Chinese Navy made a port visit in the Middle East.
The overall plan reflects China’s growing sense of self-confidence and increasing willingness to assert its interests abroad. China’s naval ambitions are being felt, too, in recent muscle flexing with the United States: in March, Chinese officials told senior American officials privately that China would brook no foreign interference in its territorial issues in the South China Sea, said a senior American official involved in China policy.
The naval expansion will not make China a serious rival to American naval hegemony in the near future, and there are few indications that China has aggressive intentions toward the United States or other countries.
But China, now the world’s leading exporter and a giant buyer of oil and other natural resources, is also no longer content to trust the security of sea lanes to the Americans, and its definition of its own core interests has expanded along with its economic clout.
In late March, Adm. Robert F. Willard, the leader of the United States Pacific Command, said in Congressional testimony that recent Chinese military developments were “pretty dramatic.” China has tested long-range ballistic missiles that could be used against aircraft carriers, he said. After years of denials, Chinese officials have confirmed that they intend to deploy an aircraft carrier group within a few years.
China is also developing a sophisticated submarine fleet that could try to prevent foreign naval vessels from entering its strategic waters if a conflict erupted in the region, said Admiral Willard and military analysts.
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
Goodbye Uncle Sam, Hello Uncle Mao
I've been following this for years. Now it's coming to fruition... a blue water Communist Chinese fleet. And a powerful one, at that.
This is dangerous. Very dangerous. I suggest we keep this tucked in the back of your brain housing group whenever we read that we are becoming more and more beholden to these heathen Communists. Oh, and that we've WILLFULLY shipped so much of our industrial might directly to Communist China.
Here's some of the article from the New York Times; (Emphasis mine)
Chinese Military Seeks to Extend Its Naval Power
The strategy reflects China’s growing sense of self-confidence and increasing willingness to assert its interests abroad.
YALONG BAY, China — The Chinese military is seeking to project naval power well beyond the Chinese coast, from the oil ports of the Middle East to the shipping lanes of the Pacific, where the United States Navy has long reigned as the dominant force, military officials and analysts say.
China calls the new strategy “far sea defense,” and the speed with which it is building long-range capabilities has surprised foreign military officials.
The strategy is a sharp break from the traditional, narrower doctrine of preparing for war over the self-governing island of Taiwan or defending the Chinese coast. Now, Chinese admirals say they want warships to escort commercial vessels that are crucial to the country’s economy, from as far as the Persian Gulf to the Strait of Malacca, in Southeast Asia, and to help secure Chinese interests in the resource-rich South and East China Seas.
In late March, two Chinese warships docked in Abu Dhabi, the first time the modern Chinese Navy made a port visit in the Middle East.
The overall plan reflects China’s growing sense of self-confidence and increasing willingness to assert its interests abroad. China’s naval ambitions are being felt, too, in recent muscle flexing with the United States: in March, Chinese officials told senior American officials privately that China would brook no foreign interference in its territorial issues in the South China Sea, said a senior American official involved in China policy.
The naval expansion will not make China a serious rival to American naval hegemony in the near future, and there are few indications that China has aggressive intentions toward the United States or other countries.
But China, now the world’s leading exporter and a giant buyer of oil and other natural resources, is also no longer content to trust the security of sea lanes to the Americans, and its definition of its own core interests has expanded along with its economic clout.
In late March, Adm. Robert F. Willard, the leader of the United States Pacific Command, said in Congressional testimony that recent Chinese military developments were “pretty dramatic.” China has tested long-range ballistic missiles that could be used against aircraft carriers, he said. After years of denials, Chinese officials have confirmed that they intend to deploy an aircraft carrier group within a few years.
China is also developing a sophisticated submarine fleet that could try to prevent foreign naval vessels from entering its strategic waters if a conflict erupted in the region, said Admiral Willard and military analysts.
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
Attention Seniors:
Do you realize that in addition to cutting your coverage for medicare(which you pay for and have a deductible of $155 before you start getting coverage for MD's)
Plus the Medicare advantage that runs at least around 250 on Long Island, and you do not have the right to pick a better company, that costs less, and gives the same coverage, because it is in another state?
That had the Government(starting with L.B Johnson) moved all of the money you sent in, into the General Fund, and the government left you with an I.O.U., and they spent it for their pet projects, and manditory spending grants?
That the Democrats used the scare tactics of telling you that the Republicans were trying to take away your SS and Medicare?
Social Security Facts:
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones not as whipping or snapping as you once were…) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000 ($109,000 as of 2009)
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
(Big One…)
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
(Another Big One….)
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income..
(A REALLY Big One…!!)
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now or will someday start receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money (That had already been taxed) we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away'-- you may be interested in the following:
----------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some young liberals will never learn.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!! Enough is Enough!!!!
And least we forget…
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Plus the Medicare advantage that runs at least around 250 on Long Island, and you do not have the right to pick a better company, that costs less, and gives the same coverage, because it is in another state?
That had the Government(starting with L.B Johnson) moved all of the money you sent in, into the General Fund, and the government left you with an I.O.U., and they spent it for their pet projects, and manditory spending grants?
That the Democrats used the scare tactics of telling you that the Republicans were trying to take away your SS and Medicare?
Social Security Facts:
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones not as whipping or snapping as you once were…) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000 ($109,000 as of 2009)
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
(Big One…)
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
(Another Big One….)
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income..
(A REALLY Big One…!!)
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now or will someday start receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money (That had already been taxed) we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away'-- you may be interested in the following:
----------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some young liberals will never learn.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!! Enough is Enough!!!!
And least we forget…
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The biggest cover-up ever!
Williams Saturday, April 24, 2010
Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds. (See JB’s new article on The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen)
What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.
The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search alive.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.
Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.
The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.
This is the normal language for certification of nomination for president and vice president, filed by the DNC only in the state of Hawaii…
This is the language filed by the DNC in the other 49 states, however…
Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.
Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii. A mere inconvenient technicality, I’m sure…
The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds. Although the congress passed a resolution proclaiming Senator John McCain a “natural born citizen” as the son of two US citizens, no such congressional resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama.
The press knows that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” having written on several occasions about the “Kenyan born” senator from Chicago. A number of citizens have already been arrested and jailed for asking these questions.
Over four-hundred law suits have been filed across the country asking the courts to force Obama to become the “transparent president” he promised to be, and all four-hundred are being dismissed before discovery, all on the basis that “no citizen has proper legal standing” to ask who and what their president really is…
Over a half-million citizens have now signed a petition demanding to see Obama’s birth records.
Numerous members of the US Military have refused deployment orders from Obama, on the basis that he refuses to evidence his constitutional qualifications to issue such orders. In most cases, the soldiers have simply been reassigned, so as to avoid any disciplinary action that could end in “defense discovery” which might finally force Obama to open up his files once and for all.
Now an eighteen year veteran flight surgeon and active Lt. Colonel faces court martial as he makes his demands for proof that Obama is constitutionally eligible to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief.
Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American
Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American on every possible level. Still, the answers concerning who and what Barack Hussein Obama Jr. really is remain elusive in the face of unprecedented efforts to ask the right questions.
No matter who asks, how they ask or where they ask, not one single individual in Washington DC or even state government seems willing to weigh in on the most important issue of our era. Who and what is the man sitting in the people’s White House?
How in the hell did we get an overtly anti-American resident of the people’s White House without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove who this person really is?
And why won’t a single elected representative of the people engage in the effort to force an answer to this question?
The answers to these and many more questions are likely very simple and equally chilling…
The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident
Nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident. A press that knew he was the “first Kenyan born senator” didn’t forget that he was Kenyan born when he decided to run for president.
Most importantly, the people DO have a right (read - proper standing) to ask who and what their president really is, in any court, any time. And soldiers are court-martialed for refusing orders, unless those orders were issued by an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief.
DC knows what most Americans have yet to figure out…
Obama is NOT a natural born citizen no matter where he might have been born. Obama’s birth father was at no time an American citizen and on this basis alone, Obama cannot be a constitutionally qualified resident of the White House.
They know something else that the American people have yet to figure out…
The US Constitution no longer stands as the governing law of this land. Obama’s many unconstitutional policies, Czars, executive orders and statements provide the proof, and the fact that nobody in DC cares whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States should send a shiver down the spine of every red blooded American citizen, no matter their partisan agendas.
The people willing to ask the tough questions are deemed crackpots and conspiracy theorists, racists or bigots. But those tough questions should be obvious questions to all Americans and every president should have to answer those questions, no matter race, creed, color or party affiliation.
I fear that those questions will only be answered at the tip of pitch forks and torches one day. Sooner or later, the people will run out of patience with a system built to exclude them. When that day comes, I fear what methods will be employed and whether or not there will be a country left to save by then.
But sooner or later, one way or another, Obama will have to answer those questions. One day, the world will know who and what this man is and there will be a day of reckoning like no other in American history.
The longer it takes for that day to arrive, the more dangerous the situation will become. A man not even qualified to hold the office is using that office to destroy the greatest nation on earth. How much patience can the people be expected to display?
Obama is not eligible for the office he currently holds and everyone in a position to know - already know.
What they don’t know is how much longer they can keep it all a secret, or what will happen next.
Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds. (See JB’s new article on The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen)
What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.
The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search alive.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.
Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.
The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.
This is the normal language for certification of nomination for president and vice president, filed by the DNC only in the state of Hawaii…
This is the language filed by the DNC in the other 49 states, however…
Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.
Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii. A mere inconvenient technicality, I’m sure…
The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds. Although the congress passed a resolution proclaiming Senator John McCain a “natural born citizen” as the son of two US citizens, no such congressional resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama.
The press knows that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” having written on several occasions about the “Kenyan born” senator from Chicago. A number of citizens have already been arrested and jailed for asking these questions.
Over four-hundred law suits have been filed across the country asking the courts to force Obama to become the “transparent president” he promised to be, and all four-hundred are being dismissed before discovery, all on the basis that “no citizen has proper legal standing” to ask who and what their president really is…
Over a half-million citizens have now signed a petition demanding to see Obama’s birth records.
Numerous members of the US Military have refused deployment orders from Obama, on the basis that he refuses to evidence his constitutional qualifications to issue such orders. In most cases, the soldiers have simply been reassigned, so as to avoid any disciplinary action that could end in “defense discovery” which might finally force Obama to open up his files once and for all.
Now an eighteen year veteran flight surgeon and active Lt. Colonel faces court martial as he makes his demands for proof that Obama is constitutionally eligible to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief.
Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American
Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American on every possible level. Still, the answers concerning who and what Barack Hussein Obama Jr. really is remain elusive in the face of unprecedented efforts to ask the right questions.
No matter who asks, how they ask or where they ask, not one single individual in Washington DC or even state government seems willing to weigh in on the most important issue of our era. Who and what is the man sitting in the people’s White House?
How in the hell did we get an overtly anti-American resident of the people’s White House without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove who this person really is?
And why won’t a single elected representative of the people engage in the effort to force an answer to this question?
The answers to these and many more questions are likely very simple and equally chilling…
The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident
Nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident. A press that knew he was the “first Kenyan born senator” didn’t forget that he was Kenyan born when he decided to run for president.
Most importantly, the people DO have a right (read - proper standing) to ask who and what their president really is, in any court, any time. And soldiers are court-martialed for refusing orders, unless those orders were issued by an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief.
DC knows what most Americans have yet to figure out…
Obama is NOT a natural born citizen no matter where he might have been born. Obama’s birth father was at no time an American citizen and on this basis alone, Obama cannot be a constitutionally qualified resident of the White House.
They know something else that the American people have yet to figure out…
The US Constitution no longer stands as the governing law of this land. Obama’s many unconstitutional policies, Czars, executive orders and statements provide the proof, and the fact that nobody in DC cares whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States should send a shiver down the spine of every red blooded American citizen, no matter their partisan agendas.
The people willing to ask the tough questions are deemed crackpots and conspiracy theorists, racists or bigots. But those tough questions should be obvious questions to all Americans and every president should have to answer those questions, no matter race, creed, color or party affiliation.
I fear that those questions will only be answered at the tip of pitch forks and torches one day. Sooner or later, the people will run out of patience with a system built to exclude them. When that day comes, I fear what methods will be employed and whether or not there will be a country left to save by then.
But sooner or later, one way or another, Obama will have to answer those questions. One day, the world will know who and what this man is and there will be a day of reckoning like no other in American history.
The longer it takes for that day to arrive, the more dangerous the situation will become. A man not even qualified to hold the office is using that office to destroy the greatest nation on earth. How much patience can the people be expected to display?
Obama is not eligible for the office he currently holds and everyone in a position to know - already know.
What they don’t know is how much longer they can keep it all a secret, or what will happen next.
Latest PEW Independent poll
(independent poll end)
Government Distrust and Midterm Politics
Hostility toward government seems likely to be a significant election issue and an important element in both midterm voting intentions and turnout. While there was widespread distrust of the federal government in the late 1990s, just 37% went so far as to say that the federal government needed “very major reform.” Today, that figure stands at 53%; increasing numbers of Republicans, independents and Democrats say that government needs very major reform. Still, far more Republicans (65%) and independents (54%) than Democrats (41%) express this view.
Consistent with this pattern of partisanship, anti-government sentiment appears to be a more significant driver of possible turnout among Republicans and independents than among Democrats. Among Republican voters who are highly dissatisfied with government, 83% say they are absolutely certain to vote in the midterm elections; that compares with 67% of Republicans who express low levels of frustration with government. By contrast, there is no difference in intention to vote among Democrats who are highly frustrated with government (63%) and those who are less frustrated (64%).
Perhaps more troubling for Democrats, the link between dissatisfaction with government and voting intentions is at least as strong among independent voters. Independents who are highly dissatisfied with government are far more committed to voting this year than are independents who are less frustrated (78% vs. 58%). Overall, independents voters slightly favor the GOP candidate in their district by a 41% to 34% margin, but those who are highly dissatisfied with government favor the Republican candidate by an overwhelming 66% to 13% margin. Independents who are less dissatisfied with government favor the Democratic candidate in their district (by 49% to 24%), but are much less likely to say they are certain to vote.
While the GOP has a decided enthusiasm advantage predicated on discontent with government, it has a potential unity problem given the appeal of the Tea Party to many of its members. Only about half of Republicans (49%) say that the GOP is the party that best reflects their views right now, while as many as 28% cite the Tea Party. Among independents who lean Republican, the problem is potentially greater: As many say the Tea Party best reflects their views right now (30%) as the GOP (29%), with nearly as many saying nobody is representing their views (28%).
Government Distrust and Midterm Politics
Hostility toward government seems likely to be a significant election issue and an important element in both midterm voting intentions and turnout. While there was widespread distrust of the federal government in the late 1990s, just 37% went so far as to say that the federal government needed “very major reform.” Today, that figure stands at 53%; increasing numbers of Republicans, independents and Democrats say that government needs very major reform. Still, far more Republicans (65%) and independents (54%) than Democrats (41%) express this view.
Consistent with this pattern of partisanship, anti-government sentiment appears to be a more significant driver of possible turnout among Republicans and independents than among Democrats. Among Republican voters who are highly dissatisfied with government, 83% say they are absolutely certain to vote in the midterm elections; that compares with 67% of Republicans who express low levels of frustration with government. By contrast, there is no difference in intention to vote among Democrats who are highly frustrated with government (63%) and those who are less frustrated (64%).
Perhaps more troubling for Democrats, the link between dissatisfaction with government and voting intentions is at least as strong among independent voters. Independents who are highly dissatisfied with government are far more committed to voting this year than are independents who are less frustrated (78% vs. 58%). Overall, independents voters slightly favor the GOP candidate in their district by a 41% to 34% margin, but those who are highly dissatisfied with government favor the Republican candidate by an overwhelming 66% to 13% margin. Independents who are less dissatisfied with government favor the Democratic candidate in their district (by 49% to 24%), but are much less likely to say they are certain to vote.
While the GOP has a decided enthusiasm advantage predicated on discontent with government, it has a potential unity problem given the appeal of the Tea Party to many of its members. Only about half of Republicans (49%) say that the GOP is the party that best reflects their views right now, while as many as 28% cite the Tea Party. Among independents who lean Republican, the problem is potentially greater: As many say the Tea Party best reflects their views right now (30%) as the GOP (29%), with nearly as many saying nobody is representing their views (28%).
Latest PEW Independent poll
(Independent poll continued)
Familiar Complaints, Growing Concerns
As in the past, poor performance is the most persistent criticism of the federal government. Fully 74% think that the federal government does only a fair or poor job of running its programs, which is on par with opinions in the late 1990s.
But another strain of criticism is that the federal government’s priorities are misguided and that government policies do too little for average Americans. More than six-in-ten (62%) say it is a major problem that government policies unfairly benefit some groups while nearly as many (56%) say that government does not do enough to help average Americans.
Since 1997, there has been a substantial increase in the percentage saying that middle-class people get less attention from the federal government than they should; 66% say that currently, up from 54% thirteen years ago. In contrast with many opinions about government, this view is shared by comparable percentages of Republicans (68%), Democrats (67%) and independents (65%). Conversely, about half of Republicans (52%), Democrats (52%) and independents (47%) say that Wall Street gets more attention than it should from the federal government.
The size and power of the federal government also engender considerable concern. A 52% say it is a major problem that the government is too big and powerful, while 58% say that the federal government is interfering too much in state and local matters.
The public is now evenly divided over whether federal government programs should be maintained to deal with important problems (50%) or cut back greatly to reduce the power of government (47%). In 1997, a clear majority (57%) said government programs should be maintained. Greater support for cutting back government programs is seen among Republicans (up 14 points) and independents (eight points); by contrast, just 27% of Democrats say programs should be greatly cut back, unchanged from 1997.
A desire for smaller government is particularly evident since Barack Obama took office. In four surveys over the past year, about half have consistently said they would rather have a smaller government with fewer services, while about 40% have consistently preferred a bigger government providing more services. In October 2008, shortly before the presidential election the public was evenly divided on this issue (42% smaller government, 43% bigger government).
Familiar Complaints, Growing Concerns
As in the past, poor performance is the most persistent criticism of the federal government. Fully 74% think that the federal government does only a fair or poor job of running its programs, which is on par with opinions in the late 1990s.
But another strain of criticism is that the federal government’s priorities are misguided and that government policies do too little for average Americans. More than six-in-ten (62%) say it is a major problem that government policies unfairly benefit some groups while nearly as many (56%) say that government does not do enough to help average Americans.
Since 1997, there has been a substantial increase in the percentage saying that middle-class people get less attention from the federal government than they should; 66% say that currently, up from 54% thirteen years ago. In contrast with many opinions about government, this view is shared by comparable percentages of Republicans (68%), Democrats (67%) and independents (65%). Conversely, about half of Republicans (52%), Democrats (52%) and independents (47%) say that Wall Street gets more attention than it should from the federal government.
The size and power of the federal government also engender considerable concern. A 52% say it is a major problem that the government is too big and powerful, while 58% say that the federal government is interfering too much in state and local matters.
The public is now evenly divided over whether federal government programs should be maintained to deal with important problems (50%) or cut back greatly to reduce the power of government (47%). In 1997, a clear majority (57%) said government programs should be maintained. Greater support for cutting back government programs is seen among Republicans (up 14 points) and independents (eight points); by contrast, just 27% of Democrats say programs should be greatly cut back, unchanged from 1997.
A desire for smaller government is particularly evident since Barack Obama took office. In four surveys over the past year, about half have consistently said they would rather have a smaller government with fewer services, while about 40% have consistently preferred a bigger government providing more services. In October 2008, shortly before the presidential election the public was evenly divided on this issue (42% smaller government, 43% bigger government).
Latest PEW Independent poll
The Perfect Storm
The recent downward trend in trust in government began in the fall of 2008, when public satisfaction plunged amid the financial crisis. In early October 2008, 11% said they were satisfied with the way things were going in this country – the lowest measure in more than two decades of Pew Research Center polling. That same month, a CBS/New York Times survey found just 17% saying they could trust the government in Washington to do what is right, which matched an all-time low seen previously only in the summer of 1994.
A second element is presidential politics. Trust in government is typically higher among members of the party that controls the White House than among members of the “out” party. However, Republicans’ views of government change more dramatically, depending on which party holds power, than do Democrats’. Republicans are more trusting of government when the GOP holds power than Democrats are when the Democrats are in charge.
This pattern is particularly evident in the Obama era. The president’s policies – especially the year-long effort to overhaul the health care system – have served as a lightning rod for Republicans. Currently, just 13% of Republicans say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right, nearly equaling a low point reached in June 1994 during the Clinton administration (11%).
A third factor is that a particular subgroup of independents, who are financially pressed, chronically distrustful of government and who typically lean to the Republican Party, appears to be especially angry today. Pew political typology surveys in the past have labeled these individuals as “disaffecteds.” This group may explain, in part, why at least as many Republican-leaning independents (37%) as conservative Republicans (32%) say they are angry with the government. And identical percentages of Republican-leaning independents and conservative Republicans (53% each) say they agree with the Tea Party movement.
Finally, record discontent with Congress – and dim views of elected officials generally – have poisoned the well for trust in the federal government. Undoubtedly, this has contributed to growing discontent with government even among groups who are generally more positive about it, such as Democrats. Today, many fewer Democrats say they trust government than did so during the later Clinton years. And just 40% of Democrats have a favorable impression of the Democratic Congress – the lowest positive rating for Congress ever among members of the majority party.
For the most part, the public sees the members of Congress themselves, rather than a broken political system, as the problem with the institution. A majority says (52%) that the political system can work fine, it’s the members of Congress that are the problem; 38% say that most members of Congress have good intentions, but the political system is broken.
Public opinion about elected officials in Washington is relentlessly negative. Favorable ratings for the Democratic Party have fallen by 21 points – from 59% to 38%– over the past year and now stand at their lowest point in Pew Research surveys. The Republican Party’s ratings, which increased from 40% last August to 46% in February, have fallen back to 37%.
When asked about a series of criticisms of elected officials in Washington – that they care only about their careers, are influenced by special interests, are unwilling to compromise, and are profligate and out-of-touch – large majorities (no fewer than 7
The recent downward trend in trust in government began in the fall of 2008, when public satisfaction plunged amid the financial crisis. In early October 2008, 11% said they were satisfied with the way things were going in this country – the lowest measure in more than two decades of Pew Research Center polling. That same month, a CBS/New York Times survey found just 17% saying they could trust the government in Washington to do what is right, which matched an all-time low seen previously only in the summer of 1994.
A second element is presidential politics. Trust in government is typically higher among members of the party that controls the White House than among members of the “out” party. However, Republicans’ views of government change more dramatically, depending on which party holds power, than do Democrats’. Republicans are more trusting of government when the GOP holds power than Democrats are when the Democrats are in charge.
This pattern is particularly evident in the Obama era. The president’s policies – especially the year-long effort to overhaul the health care system – have served as a lightning rod for Republicans. Currently, just 13% of Republicans say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right, nearly equaling a low point reached in June 1994 during the Clinton administration (11%).
A third factor is that a particular subgroup of independents, who are financially pressed, chronically distrustful of government and who typically lean to the Republican Party, appears to be especially angry today. Pew political typology surveys in the past have labeled these individuals as “disaffecteds.” This group may explain, in part, why at least as many Republican-leaning independents (37%) as conservative Republicans (32%) say they are angry with the government. And identical percentages of Republican-leaning independents and conservative Republicans (53% each) say they agree with the Tea Party movement.
Finally, record discontent with Congress – and dim views of elected officials generally – have poisoned the well for trust in the federal government. Undoubtedly, this has contributed to growing discontent with government even among groups who are generally more positive about it, such as Democrats. Today, many fewer Democrats say they trust government than did so during the later Clinton years. And just 40% of Democrats have a favorable impression of the Democratic Congress – the lowest positive rating for Congress ever among members of the majority party.
For the most part, the public sees the members of Congress themselves, rather than a broken political system, as the problem with the institution. A majority says (52%) that the political system can work fine, it’s the members of Congress that are the problem; 38% say that most members of Congress have good intentions, but the political system is broken.
Public opinion about elected officials in Washington is relentlessly negative. Favorable ratings for the Democratic Party have fallen by 21 points – from 59% to 38%– over the past year and now stand at their lowest point in Pew Research surveys. The Republican Party’s ratings, which increased from 40% last August to 46% in February, have fallen back to 37%.
When asked about a series of criticisms of elected officials in Washington – that they care only about their careers, are influenced by special interests, are unwilling to compromise, and are profligate and out-of-touch – large majorities (no fewer than 7
Latest PEW Independent poll
April 18, 2010
Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor
The People and Their Government
From: To:
Overview
By almost every conceivable measure Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days. A new Pew Research Center survey finds a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government – a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.
Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation’s top problems, the public now wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed. With the exception of greater regulation of major financial institutions, there is less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation’s problems – including more government control over the economy – than there was when Barack Obama first took office.
The public’s hostility toward government seems likely to be an important election issue favoring the Republicans this fall. However, the Democrats can take some solace in the fact that neither party can be confident that they have the advantage among such a disillusioned electorate. Favorable ratings for both major parties, as well as for Congress, have reached record lows while o pposition to congressional incumbents, already approaching an all-time high, continues to climb.
The Tea Party movement, which has a small but fervent anti-government constituency, could be a wild card in this election. On one hand, its sympathizers are highly energized and inclined to vote Republican this fall. On the other, many Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the Tea Party represents their point of view better than does the GOP.
These are the principal findings from a series of surveys that provide a detailed picture of the public’s opinions about government. The main survey, conducted March 11-21 among 2,505 adults, was informed by surveys in 1997 and 1998 that explored many of the same questions and issues. While a majority also distrusted the federal government in those surveys, criticism of government had declined from earlier in the decade. And the public’s desire for government services and activism was holding steady.
This is not the case today. Just 22% say they can trust the government in Washington almost always or most of the time, among the lowest measures in half a century. About the same percentage (19%) says they are “basically content” with the federal government, which is largely unchanged from 2006 and 2007, but lower than a decade ago.
Opinions about elected officials are particularly poor. In a follow-up survey in early April, just 25% expressed a favorable opinion of Congress, which was virtually unchanged from March (26%), prior to passage of the health care reform bill. This is the lowest favorable rating for Congress in a quarter century of Pew Research Center surveys. Over the last year, favorable opinions of Congress have declined by half – from 50% to 25%.
While job ratings for the Obama administration are mostly negative, they are much more positive than the ratings for Congress; 40% say the administration does an excellent or good job while just 17% say the same about Congress.
Federal agencies and institutions also are viewed much more positively than is Congress. Nonetheless, favorable ratings have fallen significantly since 1997-1998 for seven of 13 federal agencies included in the survey. The declines have been particularly large for the Department of Education, the FDA, the Social Security Administration, as well as the EPA, NASA and the CDC. In terms of job performance, majorities give positive ratings to just six of 15 agencies or institutions tested, including the military (80% good/excellent) and the Postal Service (70%).
Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor
The People and Their Government
From: To:
Overview
By almost every conceivable measure Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days. A new Pew Research Center survey finds a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government – a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.
Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation’s top problems, the public now wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed. With the exception of greater regulation of major financial institutions, there is less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation’s problems – including more government control over the economy – than there was when Barack Obama first took office.
The public’s hostility toward government seems likely to be an important election issue favoring the Republicans this fall. However, the Democrats can take some solace in the fact that neither party can be confident that they have the advantage among such a disillusioned electorate. Favorable ratings for both major parties, as well as for Congress, have reached record lows while o pposition to congressional incumbents, already approaching an all-time high, continues to climb.
The Tea Party movement, which has a small but fervent anti-government constituency, could be a wild card in this election. On one hand, its sympathizers are highly energized and inclined to vote Republican this fall. On the other, many Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the Tea Party represents their point of view better than does the GOP.
These are the principal findings from a series of surveys that provide a detailed picture of the public’s opinions about government. The main survey, conducted March 11-21 among 2,505 adults, was informed by surveys in 1997 and 1998 that explored many of the same questions and issues. While a majority also distrusted the federal government in those surveys, criticism of government had declined from earlier in the decade. And the public’s desire for government services and activism was holding steady.
This is not the case today. Just 22% say they can trust the government in Washington almost always or most of the time, among the lowest measures in half a century. About the same percentage (19%) says they are “basically content” with the federal government, which is largely unchanged from 2006 and 2007, but lower than a decade ago.
Opinions about elected officials are particularly poor. In a follow-up survey in early April, just 25% expressed a favorable opinion of Congress, which was virtually unchanged from March (26%), prior to passage of the health care reform bill. This is the lowest favorable rating for Congress in a quarter century of Pew Research Center surveys. Over the last year, favorable opinions of Congress have declined by half – from 50% to 25%.
While job ratings for the Obama administration are mostly negative, they are much more positive than the ratings for Congress; 40% say the administration does an excellent or good job while just 17% say the same about Congress.
Federal agencies and institutions also are viewed much more positively than is Congress. Nonetheless, favorable ratings have fallen significantly since 1997-1998 for seven of 13 federal agencies included in the survey. The declines have been particularly large for the Department of Education, the FDA, the Social Security Administration, as well as the EPA, NASA and the CDC. In terms of job performance, majorities give positive ratings to just six of 15 agencies or institutions tested, including the military (80% good/excellent) and the Postal Service (70%).
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Why isn't this question asked and answered?
Not "native" or "naturalized" or "citizen," but only "natural born" citizens can hold the office of president.
The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen
By JB Williams Wednesday, April 21, 2010
I write this follow up in response to reader mail regarding my column DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office. Even many conservative columnists and pundits seem confused on the issue of natural born citizen, even though the matter is really quite clear.
History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.
The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.
Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama.
As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.
However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;
The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.
The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”
The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Note the following text—“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Further clarification—“The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”
And the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;”
Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.
The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born.
A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.
Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?”
Only the people can decide…
But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore.
If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life.
If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands.
Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?
The Bottom Line on Natural Born Citizen
By JB Williams Wednesday, April 21, 2010
I write this follow up in response to reader mail regarding my column DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office. Even many conservative columnists and pundits seem confused on the issue of natural born citizen, even though the matter is really quite clear.
History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.
The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.
Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama.
As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.
However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;
The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.
The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”
The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Note the following text—“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Further clarification—“The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”
And the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;”
Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.
The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born.
A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.
Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White House. Does it matter? Does the “will of the people” trump the US Constitution via the outcome of an election which happened as a result of fraud, in which the candidate concealed the fact that he is not a “natural born citizen?”
Only the people can decide…
But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore.
If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life.
If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands.
Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?
"“German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques”
Cardinal Roger Mahony blasts recently adopted Arizona immigration law
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony has come down hard a law passed by the Arizona legislature that has been described in the press as “one of the toughest illegal immigration laws in the United States.” The bill would make it a crime in Arizona to be in the state illegally and give local police the power to enforce federal immigration laws. (And this is a bad thing?)
Writing on Sunday, April 18, on “Cardinal Roger Mahony Blogs L.A.,” the Archbishop of Los Angeles called the Arizona law “the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law… The tragedy of the law is its totally flawed reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder, and consume public resources. That is not only false, the premise is nonsense.” (The good Cardinal is lying, and he knows it. Illegal aliens cost the taxpayers of this nations billions and billions of tax dollars every year. And Mahony knows it.)
Cardinal Mahony raised an alarming scenario in his commentary on the new Arizona law: “I can't imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation,” he wrote. (This is patently pathetic. The law enforcement officials of this nation have just been compared to Nazis and Communist thugs. Shame on Roger Mahony.... SHAME!)
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
My Comments
Cardinal Mahony, had better get his facts straight:
Kidnapping Capitol of America, Second in the World
Published Wednesday, by Lacey Loftin
It has been reported that Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America. With 370 cases alone last year, Phoenix is now second in the world only to Mexico City. Phoenix Police Chief Andy Anderson says the Mexican Drug Cartels have ‘expanded business across the border’ from Texas to California. News investigations discovered cases of chopped-off hands, legs and heads when a victim’s families don’t pay quickly enough. A majority of the victims are illegal aliens whose families back in Mexico are contacted for ransom. To combat the crime wave, the Phoenix police created the Home Invasion Task Force, a special unit comprised of officers from all departments.
According to the Department of Justice, kidnapping makes up 2% of all violent crimes against juveniles. Risk of kidnapping steadily increases with age, increases greatly from 10-35 years, after which the risk steadily decreases. Several distinct kinds of kidnapping exist: 49% of all kidnappings are “family kidnappings,” 27% are “acquaintance kidnappings,” and 24% are “stranger kidnappings.” The FBI states that 85% to 90% of the 876,213 persons reported missing in 2000 were juveniles. Between 1982 and 2000, the number of persons kidnapped in a year has risen 468%
Those remarks by Mahony should be saved for the Leaders of our Country, who are trying to subvert our Constitution
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony has come down hard a law passed by the Arizona legislature that has been described in the press as “one of the toughest illegal immigration laws in the United States.” The bill would make it a crime in Arizona to be in the state illegally and give local police the power to enforce federal immigration laws. (And this is a bad thing?)
Writing on Sunday, April 18, on “Cardinal Roger Mahony Blogs L.A.,” the Archbishop of Los Angeles called the Arizona law “the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law… The tragedy of the law is its totally flawed reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder, and consume public resources. That is not only false, the premise is nonsense.” (The good Cardinal is lying, and he knows it. Illegal aliens cost the taxpayers of this nations billions and billions of tax dollars every year. And Mahony knows it.)
Cardinal Mahony raised an alarming scenario in his commentary on the new Arizona law: “I can't imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation,” he wrote. (This is patently pathetic. The law enforcement officials of this nation have just been compared to Nazis and Communist thugs. Shame on Roger Mahony.... SHAME!)
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
My Comments
Cardinal Mahony, had better get his facts straight:
Kidnapping Capitol of America, Second in the World
Published Wednesday, by Lacey Loftin
It has been reported that Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America. With 370 cases alone last year, Phoenix is now second in the world only to Mexico City. Phoenix Police Chief Andy Anderson says the Mexican Drug Cartels have ‘expanded business across the border’ from Texas to California. News investigations discovered cases of chopped-off hands, legs and heads when a victim’s families don’t pay quickly enough. A majority of the victims are illegal aliens whose families back in Mexico are contacted for ransom. To combat the crime wave, the Phoenix police created the Home Invasion Task Force, a special unit comprised of officers from all departments.
According to the Department of Justice, kidnapping makes up 2% of all violent crimes against juveniles. Risk of kidnapping steadily increases with age, increases greatly from 10-35 years, after which the risk steadily decreases. Several distinct kinds of kidnapping exist: 49% of all kidnappings are “family kidnappings,” 27% are “acquaintance kidnappings,” and 24% are “stranger kidnappings.” The FBI states that 85% to 90% of the 876,213 persons reported missing in 2000 were juveniles. Between 1982 and 2000, the number of persons kidnapped in a year has risen 468%
Those remarks by Mahony should be saved for the Leaders of our Country, who are trying to subvert our Constitution
And Obama won't let us use our weapons? what then? Sticks and Rocks?
Russia is the world's biggest non-Muslim sponsor of Islamic terrorism
Russia, Georgia, and Islamic Terrorism
By Daniel Greenfield Wednesday, April 21, 2010
It is no secret that Russia is the world’s biggest non-Muslim sponsor of Islamic terrorism. Russian weapons and rubles flow into Iran and Syria, and from there to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. Russian personnel train the Iranians, who in turn train Iraqi Shiite terrorists on the best way to kill American soldiers.
While the US was getting ready to take down Saddam Hussein, Russia was using its best delaying tactics in the UN, while rushing its top of the line weapons into Iraq. Putin knew that Saddam was finished and that Iraq’s debt to Russia would never be paid. Nevertheless, the doomed Saddam got the best the Russian armories had to offer in order to kill as many American troops as possible. After the invasion, Russian officials would boast of the increased demand for their weapons in the Muslim world.
In Lebanon, once again Russian weapons flowed to Hezbollah (the Party of Allah) terrorists. Top-of-the-line Russian weapons destroyed Israeli tanks and killed Israeli soldiers. And once again Russian officials boasted about their weapons being behind it all. And when Israel pulled out, Russia sent two detachments of its Chechen Muslim troops to Lebanon.
According to President Putin, the Chechens, as Muslims, will find it easier to “establish contacts with the local population” (Interfax, October 10). Alu Alkhanov, president of Chechnya’s pro-Russian administration, observed: “Importantly, all of these men strictly observe the Muslim rites which will play a role in Lebanon”
Remember Russia’s Chechen Muslim soldiers because you’ll see them again soon. This time marching into Georgia.
The Cedar Revolution failed. the radical Islamists of Hizbullah became a major player in Lebanon’s new order. Which meant that Iran and Syria were major players. Which meant that Russia, which stood behind them both, was a major player again. And all it took was a few thousand dead.
Meanwhile, Putin and Medvedev are not just supplying weapons to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the rest of the elite in Iran, but providing them with nuclear technology. Technology that puts Iran on track toward a nuclear bomb, which when detonated over Israel will not only remove the biggest obstacle in Russia’s longtime plans to control the Middle East, but to execute a Second Holocaust as well.
Some people may wonder how, in the wake of Beslan and the numerous bombings by Muslim terrorists on its own soil, can Russia continue to support and work together with Muslim terrorists? The answer is that Putin and his merry band of ex-KGB operatives do not object to Muslim terrorists. They like them a lot, they helped train them, they continue to supply to them—so long as they’re not fighting against Russia.
Putin, like nearly every Russian leader before him, views Muslim terror as a valuable strategic tool. Russia’s tightly controlled mosques preach Jihad… they just preach it against Russia’s enemies, as when the Supreme Mufti of Russia, Talgat Tadzhuddin, called for a “single-’(Russian)-Orthodox Islamic’ Jihad against the empire of Satan” when the US overthrew Saddam Hussein. Unlike Putin’s critics, he didn’t end up in a jail cell strapped down in a psychiatric hospital or dead of a suspicious suicide. Perish the thought, here he is with Vladimir Putin. And he remains well funded by the Russian government.
Russia fights against Islamic seperatists, in order to control them and turn them into loyal subjects and troops again, as was done during the days of the USSR. And Russia’s campaign in Chechnya is not about fighting Islamic terror, but about consolidating its hold on all the countries it used to control. And those campaigns are not limited to Muslim regions, but Christian ones as well. They include the Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia… and Georgia as well. Because Christian or Muslim, it makes no difference to the Ex-Communists in power. They are determined to once again rule over them all.
Russia’s KGB masters have used many tools to achieve their objectives. They’ve employed blackmail, intimidation, poison, election fraud, street violence, and of course, outright invasion by Russian “peacekeepers”. But above all else, the KGB has excelled at one tool—propaganda.
And so we come to Georgia once again. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 failed to achieve its goals. But that doesn’t mean that Vladimir Putin has decided to take a break and spend all his time posing and primping with tigers, karate outfits, and rap stars for the adulation of his own government-controlled media. The FSB/KGB propaganda machine, which over the last few years has accused Georgia and President Saakashvili of every conceivable thing is now trying to plant stories claiming that Georgia is in league with Muslim terrorists against Russia.
As the world’s largest non-Muslim sponsor of Islamic terror, Russia accusing anyone else of collaborating with Muslim terrorists is already obscene. Numerous top ranking KGB defectors, including former KGB General Oleg Kalugin, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former head of Romania’s intelligence service, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy, and others, who have stated repeatedly that Russia was behind much of the world’s Islamic terror and that it continues to play that role today. They have even drawn connections between Al Queda and the KGB/FSB. While these allegations are debatable, Al Queda’s number 2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri spent some time in Russia, and ex-KGB agents have alleged that he was trained by them.
But let’s put Russia’s own extensive ties to Islamic terrorism on hold for a minute, and focus on the situation in Georgia.
Russia’s assault on Georgia is a virtual carbon copy of the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia. Like the Clinton Administration, Vladimir Putin used phony claims of ethnic cleansing to invade Georgia in order to force the independence of two regions with sizable Muslim populations inside Georgia. Essentially it was a mirror image of what happened in Yugoslavia, except this time Russia was the invader, Georgia was the victim, and rather than Kosovo and Croatia—the two statelets in question were, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. (South Ossetia is a “country” of some 50,000 people which is only recognized by Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and former Sandinista terrorist leader Daniel Ortega, which should tell you something right there.)
Now Russia is spreading claims that Georgia is in league with Muslim Jihadis and plotting against it. There’s one problem with that. Georgia is a mostly Christian country, while both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that hold sizable Muslim minorities. Do Muslim terrorists really want to prevent independence for two regions that demographically are much more Muslim than Georgia?
Especially when the Mufti of Abkhazia, Timur Dzyba, has called on the Muslim world to recognize Abkhazian independence and laid out extensive plans for Islamizing it by importing Muslims from Turkey.
It was Russia who took its Muslim Chechen troops and marched them into Georgia. Those Muslim soldiers carried South Ossetian flags (you remember that thriving nation of 50,000 people, whose independence Russia was fighting for), and who were those Chechen troops fighting for Russia under a South Ossetian flag? They were former Chechen Muslim terrorists and guerrillas who switched sides and fought for Russia under Sulim Yamadayev as the Vostok Battalion.
Sulim Yamadayev, a Muslim thug, had been responsible for numerous gruesome atrocities committed by him and under his command. His men were known for the classic Muslim beheading, as well as carrying out gruesome tortures on their bodies, while hiding the bodies. In Georgia, this battalion of Muslim throat-slitters participated in the murder, rape, plunder and abuse of Georgian Christians in a pogrom designed to ethnically cleanse the city of Gori.
It was Putin who brought Muslim terrorists in uniform into the heart of Georgia, to rob and kill, backed by the full might of the Russian military. It was the Russian Government that did it in order to carve out two parts of Georgia with a sizable Muslim minority, and turn them into full fledged countries. And all of this was done under the command of the GRU, the Russian foreign military intelligence directorate created by Leon Trotsky, that has long since become an object of horror to anyone in the region.
Unlike the Russian propaganda about their intelligence services seizing a briefcase from a dead terrorist that supposedly contained notes incriminating the Georgian government—these are all facts. (These are the same intelligence services which report that people in their custody somehow keep committing suicide.) They are events that large numbers of people witnessed. They are part of the historical record. They represent information that can be researched independently without relying on the Russian security services or their Western stooges.
But let’s continue exploring the credibility of their accusation that it is Georgia, not Russia, that is allied with Muslim terrorists.
Russia’s attempt to carve up Georgia was enthusiastically endorsed by Muslims.
The support of Russia’s actions on the part of the Islamic community of the Caucasus and several other Muslim states shows that the Islamic world still remains Russia’s staunch ally despite the virtual isolation of the country on the part of the West. There is no other European country that can boast of such a position in the Muslim community, representatives of the Islamic clergy of Russia, North Ossetia and Abkhazia said during their meeting with reporters.
When President Medvedev officially announced the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Muslim clergy of the Caucasus was one of the first communities to have approved the Kremlin’s decision. Muslim clergymen congratulated the people of the two republics on their long-awaited independence and urged the world Islamic community to follow Russia’s example.
“I would like to address the Islamic world to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, deputy mufti of Abkhazia, Timur Dzyba said.
Timur incidentally has big plans for Islamizing Abkhazia by importing millions of Muslims from Turkey. Turkey’s Islamist government and Ahmadinejad in Iran, have both pledged to cooperate with Moscow in “rebuilding” Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Russia’s military and political actions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are likely to have another unintended consequence: they are likely to make it easier and more attractive for Muslim émigrés from the North Caucasus to return there and change the ethno-religious balance not only in these two republics but in the region more generally.
At present, Muslims constitute approximately 35 percent of the populations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but both Muslim leaders there and analysts in Moscow say that the new situation which has arisen in the wake of Russia’s moves in Georgia is certain to increase that figure, possibly to the tipping point of more than 50 percent.
In an interview given to “NZ-Religii” and published today, Timur Dzyba, the mufti of Abkhazia, said that Muslims in his republic – including Abkhaz, North Caucasians, Tatars, Bashkirs and Turks – have been able to maintain their share of the population in recent times but now expect to expand it.
All this is unsurprising as Muslims in Georgia had been complaining that President Saakashvili was “Christianizing” Georgia by placing a cross on the flag and inserting too many of the country’s past Christian values. Of course, under an Abkhazian state, in which Russia will help funnel Muslim immigrants to expand the territory under control, that won’t be a problem;
During the Soviet period, Abkhazian Islam became weaker, but it would seem that since the fall of the USSR, the establishment of links between Abkhazians of Georgia and descendants of Abkhazian immigrants in Turkey has somewhat favoured an Islamic revival
And eventually Georgia will go the way of Abkhazia as well. That is Putin’s plan.
As a Christian country surrounded by Muslim countries, Georgia has made attempts to reach out to them. Less so than most Western European countries. What it has not done is employed Muslim terrorists in its armed forces—as Russia has. It has not financed and armed Muslim terrorists, as Russia has. It has not provided nuclear technology to Muslim terrorists, as Russia has. It does not control mosques which preach Jihad against the United States—as Russia does.
After all the horrors perpetrated by the KGB, anyone who takes claims made by the same people who were in the KGB as fact… sight unseen, is making a profound mistake. And anyone who supports the side of the ex-Communist thugs who not only tortured innocents, trained terrorists, assassinated dissidents in the past—but are still doing it today, need to ask themselves if they aren’t playing Dhimmi to monsters who filled mass graves every bit as enthusiastically as the Nazis did.
But if anyone wants evidence of a meeting between a top leader in the South Ossetian war with Islamic terrorists, that’s easy to come by.
In 2006, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov met with Hamas terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal. That same year Vladimir Putin invited Hamas leaders to visit him in Moscow, and stated that he does not consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization.
These are not secret revelations from intelligence sources, but open stories in major media outlets of top Russian officials meeting with and welcoming Islamic terrorists.
I do not believe that the Serbian people, despite their closer ethnic ties to Russia than to Georgia, would want to see what was done to them, done to another country in their name. In fact, a major Abkhazian site uses NATO’s actions in Kosovo as a precedent for what Russia is doing in Georgia. Is that really what anyone who is outraged by NATO’s actions in Yugoslavia wants to support?
Nor is arguing for Russia’s partition of Georgia, any kind of counter-Jihad effort. Russia’s goal is to create two states that will have larger Muslim population percentages than Georgia as a whole. And those populations are meant to continue expanding through repatriation from Turkey. That means Russia will eventually have created its own Kosovo out of parts of Georgia. How in the world is supporting the party that used Muslim troops and is creating countries where Muslims will eventually become a majority, counter-Jihadist?
And to dismantle the last leg of this stool, the Obama Administration is not supporting Georgia at the expense of Russia. In fact, the Obama Administration has turned its back on Georgia, in favor of a reboot with Russia. Obama snubbed Saakashvili in favor of Putin’s pet, Medvedev. Obama had earlier compared the Russian invasion of Georgia, with the US invasion of Iraq. So opposing Georgia and supporting Russia is not the anti-Obama line—it is Obama’s line. You are not opposing Obama if you support appeasing Russia and betraying Georgia. You are supporting Obama.
When McCain looked into Putin’s eyes, he said that he could see three letters, KGB. Ask yourself. Do you see what McCain sees, or do you see what Obama sees?
Because beyond the politics, there’s the question of conscience. While the countries involved are far away, this debate carries a burden of flesh and blood. Russian propaganda claims that Georgia is in league with Muslim terrorists operating in its territory, and that Georgian leaders are actively involved in planning attacks on it. Russia has tried to sell this same line before, but it has implications far beyond plain propaganda. By promoting and distributing this claim, those who do it are providing Russia with a casus belli for invading Georgia, the next time a terrorist attack happens in the Caucasus.
Do you remember Russian tanks suppressing the uprising in Hungary? Do you remember them in the streets of Prague? Do you want part of the responsibility for those tanks in the streets of Tbilisi? Do you want the Muslim butchers of Gori roaming through a peaceful city, robbing, raping and murdering? Because this is not academic. This is not just about words in which no one gets hurt and we all go home afterward. This is about a totalitarian country which has murdered hundreds of reporters, imprisoned dissidents in psychiatric hospitals and jailed their lawyers, carried out assassinations worldwide, that is now determined to conquer a country it once controlled. And it wants to use you to do it.
We may not always do good, but we can always refuse to collaborate with evil. That is our choice. For those brave Russians and Jews who defied the KGB in Soviet times, this was a dangerous and costly choice. For us it is as easy as doing the right thing.
Supporting Russia’s campaign against Georgia does not hurt the Jihad, it helps it. It does not hurt Obama, it runs in tandem with what he is already doing. It does not reject NATO’s actions in Yugoslavia, it copies them and endorses them. But above all else, there’s a simple question to be answered here.
Do you want to help the KGB thugs who provided Saddam with the weapons used to murder US soldiers? Who are providing Iran with nuclear technology in order to commit genocide? Who are the largest non-Muslim state sponsoring Islamic terrorism?
We always have the ability to do the right thing. To refuse to collaborate with evil. To refuse to be Dhimmis for either Islam or the KGB. That is the power of moral choice. That is the power of doing the right thing. That is the power of refusing to collaborate with evil. That is the power of being free. Because the power of evil comes from its ability to seduce you, to trick you, or to finally compel you to serve its ends. The power of good comes from refusing to do its bidding. And that is why only those who refuse to collaborate with evil, are truly free.
Russia, Georgia, and Islamic Terrorism
By Daniel Greenfield Wednesday, April 21, 2010
It is no secret that Russia is the world’s biggest non-Muslim sponsor of Islamic terrorism. Russian weapons and rubles flow into Iran and Syria, and from there to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. Russian personnel train the Iranians, who in turn train Iraqi Shiite terrorists on the best way to kill American soldiers.
While the US was getting ready to take down Saddam Hussein, Russia was using its best delaying tactics in the UN, while rushing its top of the line weapons into Iraq. Putin knew that Saddam was finished and that Iraq’s debt to Russia would never be paid. Nevertheless, the doomed Saddam got the best the Russian armories had to offer in order to kill as many American troops as possible. After the invasion, Russian officials would boast of the increased demand for their weapons in the Muslim world.
In Lebanon, once again Russian weapons flowed to Hezbollah (the Party of Allah) terrorists. Top-of-the-line Russian weapons destroyed Israeli tanks and killed Israeli soldiers. And once again Russian officials boasted about their weapons being behind it all. And when Israel pulled out, Russia sent two detachments of its Chechen Muslim troops to Lebanon.
According to President Putin, the Chechens, as Muslims, will find it easier to “establish contacts with the local population” (Interfax, October 10). Alu Alkhanov, president of Chechnya’s pro-Russian administration, observed: “Importantly, all of these men strictly observe the Muslim rites which will play a role in Lebanon”
Remember Russia’s Chechen Muslim soldiers because you’ll see them again soon. This time marching into Georgia.
The Cedar Revolution failed. the radical Islamists of Hizbullah became a major player in Lebanon’s new order. Which meant that Iran and Syria were major players. Which meant that Russia, which stood behind them both, was a major player again. And all it took was a few thousand dead.
Meanwhile, Putin and Medvedev are not just supplying weapons to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the rest of the elite in Iran, but providing them with nuclear technology. Technology that puts Iran on track toward a nuclear bomb, which when detonated over Israel will not only remove the biggest obstacle in Russia’s longtime plans to control the Middle East, but to execute a Second Holocaust as well.
Some people may wonder how, in the wake of Beslan and the numerous bombings by Muslim terrorists on its own soil, can Russia continue to support and work together with Muslim terrorists? The answer is that Putin and his merry band of ex-KGB operatives do not object to Muslim terrorists. They like them a lot, they helped train them, they continue to supply to them—so long as they’re not fighting against Russia.
Putin, like nearly every Russian leader before him, views Muslim terror as a valuable strategic tool. Russia’s tightly controlled mosques preach Jihad… they just preach it against Russia’s enemies, as when the Supreme Mufti of Russia, Talgat Tadzhuddin, called for a “single-’(Russian)-Orthodox Islamic’ Jihad against the empire of Satan” when the US overthrew Saddam Hussein. Unlike Putin’s critics, he didn’t end up in a jail cell strapped down in a psychiatric hospital or dead of a suspicious suicide. Perish the thought, here he is with Vladimir Putin. And he remains well funded by the Russian government.
Russia fights against Islamic seperatists, in order to control them and turn them into loyal subjects and troops again, as was done during the days of the USSR. And Russia’s campaign in Chechnya is not about fighting Islamic terror, but about consolidating its hold on all the countries it used to control. And those campaigns are not limited to Muslim regions, but Christian ones as well. They include the Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia… and Georgia as well. Because Christian or Muslim, it makes no difference to the Ex-Communists in power. They are determined to once again rule over them all.
Russia’s KGB masters have used many tools to achieve their objectives. They’ve employed blackmail, intimidation, poison, election fraud, street violence, and of course, outright invasion by Russian “peacekeepers”. But above all else, the KGB has excelled at one tool—propaganda.
And so we come to Georgia once again. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 failed to achieve its goals. But that doesn’t mean that Vladimir Putin has decided to take a break and spend all his time posing and primping with tigers, karate outfits, and rap stars for the adulation of his own government-controlled media. The FSB/KGB propaganda machine, which over the last few years has accused Georgia and President Saakashvili of every conceivable thing is now trying to plant stories claiming that Georgia is in league with Muslim terrorists against Russia.
As the world’s largest non-Muslim sponsor of Islamic terror, Russia accusing anyone else of collaborating with Muslim terrorists is already obscene. Numerous top ranking KGB defectors, including former KGB General Oleg Kalugin, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former head of Romania’s intelligence service, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy, and others, who have stated repeatedly that Russia was behind much of the world’s Islamic terror and that it continues to play that role today. They have even drawn connections between Al Queda and the KGB/FSB. While these allegations are debatable, Al Queda’s number 2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri spent some time in Russia, and ex-KGB agents have alleged that he was trained by them.
But let’s put Russia’s own extensive ties to Islamic terrorism on hold for a minute, and focus on the situation in Georgia.
Russia’s assault on Georgia is a virtual carbon copy of the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia. Like the Clinton Administration, Vladimir Putin used phony claims of ethnic cleansing to invade Georgia in order to force the independence of two regions with sizable Muslim populations inside Georgia. Essentially it was a mirror image of what happened in Yugoslavia, except this time Russia was the invader, Georgia was the victim, and rather than Kosovo and Croatia—the two statelets in question were, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. (South Ossetia is a “country” of some 50,000 people which is only recognized by Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and former Sandinista terrorist leader Daniel Ortega, which should tell you something right there.)
Now Russia is spreading claims that Georgia is in league with Muslim Jihadis and plotting against it. There’s one problem with that. Georgia is a mostly Christian country, while both Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that hold sizable Muslim minorities. Do Muslim terrorists really want to prevent independence for two regions that demographically are much more Muslim than Georgia?
Especially when the Mufti of Abkhazia, Timur Dzyba, has called on the Muslim world to recognize Abkhazian independence and laid out extensive plans for Islamizing it by importing Muslims from Turkey.
It was Russia who took its Muslim Chechen troops and marched them into Georgia. Those Muslim soldiers carried South Ossetian flags (you remember that thriving nation of 50,000 people, whose independence Russia was fighting for), and who were those Chechen troops fighting for Russia under a South Ossetian flag? They were former Chechen Muslim terrorists and guerrillas who switched sides and fought for Russia under Sulim Yamadayev as the Vostok Battalion.
Sulim Yamadayev, a Muslim thug, had been responsible for numerous gruesome atrocities committed by him and under his command. His men were known for the classic Muslim beheading, as well as carrying out gruesome tortures on their bodies, while hiding the bodies. In Georgia, this battalion of Muslim throat-slitters participated in the murder, rape, plunder and abuse of Georgian Christians in a pogrom designed to ethnically cleanse the city of Gori.
It was Putin who brought Muslim terrorists in uniform into the heart of Georgia, to rob and kill, backed by the full might of the Russian military. It was the Russian Government that did it in order to carve out two parts of Georgia with a sizable Muslim minority, and turn them into full fledged countries. And all of this was done under the command of the GRU, the Russian foreign military intelligence directorate created by Leon Trotsky, that has long since become an object of horror to anyone in the region.
Unlike the Russian propaganda about their intelligence services seizing a briefcase from a dead terrorist that supposedly contained notes incriminating the Georgian government—these are all facts. (These are the same intelligence services which report that people in their custody somehow keep committing suicide.) They are events that large numbers of people witnessed. They are part of the historical record. They represent information that can be researched independently without relying on the Russian security services or their Western stooges.
But let’s continue exploring the credibility of their accusation that it is Georgia, not Russia, that is allied with Muslim terrorists.
Russia’s attempt to carve up Georgia was enthusiastically endorsed by Muslims.
The support of Russia’s actions on the part of the Islamic community of the Caucasus and several other Muslim states shows that the Islamic world still remains Russia’s staunch ally despite the virtual isolation of the country on the part of the West. There is no other European country that can boast of such a position in the Muslim community, representatives of the Islamic clergy of Russia, North Ossetia and Abkhazia said during their meeting with reporters.
When President Medvedev officially announced the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Muslim clergy of the Caucasus was one of the first communities to have approved the Kremlin’s decision. Muslim clergymen congratulated the people of the two republics on their long-awaited independence and urged the world Islamic community to follow Russia’s example.
“I would like to address the Islamic world to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, deputy mufti of Abkhazia, Timur Dzyba said.
Timur incidentally has big plans for Islamizing Abkhazia by importing millions of Muslims from Turkey. Turkey’s Islamist government and Ahmadinejad in Iran, have both pledged to cooperate with Moscow in “rebuilding” Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Russia’s military and political actions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are likely to have another unintended consequence: they are likely to make it easier and more attractive for Muslim émigrés from the North Caucasus to return there and change the ethno-religious balance not only in these two republics but in the region more generally.
At present, Muslims constitute approximately 35 percent of the populations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but both Muslim leaders there and analysts in Moscow say that the new situation which has arisen in the wake of Russia’s moves in Georgia is certain to increase that figure, possibly to the tipping point of more than 50 percent.
In an interview given to “NZ-Religii” and published today, Timur Dzyba, the mufti of Abkhazia, said that Muslims in his republic – including Abkhaz, North Caucasians, Tatars, Bashkirs and Turks – have been able to maintain their share of the population in recent times but now expect to expand it.
All this is unsurprising as Muslims in Georgia had been complaining that President Saakashvili was “Christianizing” Georgia by placing a cross on the flag and inserting too many of the country’s past Christian values. Of course, under an Abkhazian state, in which Russia will help funnel Muslim immigrants to expand the territory under control, that won’t be a problem;
During the Soviet period, Abkhazian Islam became weaker, but it would seem that since the fall of the USSR, the establishment of links between Abkhazians of Georgia and descendants of Abkhazian immigrants in Turkey has somewhat favoured an Islamic revival
And eventually Georgia will go the way of Abkhazia as well. That is Putin’s plan.
As a Christian country surrounded by Muslim countries, Georgia has made attempts to reach out to them. Less so than most Western European countries. What it has not done is employed Muslim terrorists in its armed forces—as Russia has. It has not financed and armed Muslim terrorists, as Russia has. It has not provided nuclear technology to Muslim terrorists, as Russia has. It does not control mosques which preach Jihad against the United States—as Russia does.
After all the horrors perpetrated by the KGB, anyone who takes claims made by the same people who were in the KGB as fact… sight unseen, is making a profound mistake. And anyone who supports the side of the ex-Communist thugs who not only tortured innocents, trained terrorists, assassinated dissidents in the past—but are still doing it today, need to ask themselves if they aren’t playing Dhimmi to monsters who filled mass graves every bit as enthusiastically as the Nazis did.
But if anyone wants evidence of a meeting between a top leader in the South Ossetian war with Islamic terrorists, that’s easy to come by.
In 2006, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov met with Hamas terrorist leader Khaled Meshaal. That same year Vladimir Putin invited Hamas leaders to visit him in Moscow, and stated that he does not consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization.
These are not secret revelations from intelligence sources, but open stories in major media outlets of top Russian officials meeting with and welcoming Islamic terrorists.
I do not believe that the Serbian people, despite their closer ethnic ties to Russia than to Georgia, would want to see what was done to them, done to another country in their name. In fact, a major Abkhazian site uses NATO’s actions in Kosovo as a precedent for what Russia is doing in Georgia. Is that really what anyone who is outraged by NATO’s actions in Yugoslavia wants to support?
Nor is arguing for Russia’s partition of Georgia, any kind of counter-Jihad effort. Russia’s goal is to create two states that will have larger Muslim population percentages than Georgia as a whole. And those populations are meant to continue expanding through repatriation from Turkey. That means Russia will eventually have created its own Kosovo out of parts of Georgia. How in the world is supporting the party that used Muslim troops and is creating countries where Muslims will eventually become a majority, counter-Jihadist?
And to dismantle the last leg of this stool, the Obama Administration is not supporting Georgia at the expense of Russia. In fact, the Obama Administration has turned its back on Georgia, in favor of a reboot with Russia. Obama snubbed Saakashvili in favor of Putin’s pet, Medvedev. Obama had earlier compared the Russian invasion of Georgia, with the US invasion of Iraq. So opposing Georgia and supporting Russia is not the anti-Obama line—it is Obama’s line. You are not opposing Obama if you support appeasing Russia and betraying Georgia. You are supporting Obama.
When McCain looked into Putin’s eyes, he said that he could see three letters, KGB. Ask yourself. Do you see what McCain sees, or do you see what Obama sees?
Because beyond the politics, there’s the question of conscience. While the countries involved are far away, this debate carries a burden of flesh and blood. Russian propaganda claims that Georgia is in league with Muslim terrorists operating in its territory, and that Georgian leaders are actively involved in planning attacks on it. Russia has tried to sell this same line before, but it has implications far beyond plain propaganda. By promoting and distributing this claim, those who do it are providing Russia with a casus belli for invading Georgia, the next time a terrorist attack happens in the Caucasus.
Do you remember Russian tanks suppressing the uprising in Hungary? Do you remember them in the streets of Prague? Do you want part of the responsibility for those tanks in the streets of Tbilisi? Do you want the Muslim butchers of Gori roaming through a peaceful city, robbing, raping and murdering? Because this is not academic. This is not just about words in which no one gets hurt and we all go home afterward. This is about a totalitarian country which has murdered hundreds of reporters, imprisoned dissidents in psychiatric hospitals and jailed their lawyers, carried out assassinations worldwide, that is now determined to conquer a country it once controlled. And it wants to use you to do it.
We may not always do good, but we can always refuse to collaborate with evil. That is our choice. For those brave Russians and Jews who defied the KGB in Soviet times, this was a dangerous and costly choice. For us it is as easy as doing the right thing.
Supporting Russia’s campaign against Georgia does not hurt the Jihad, it helps it. It does not hurt Obama, it runs in tandem with what he is already doing. It does not reject NATO’s actions in Yugoslavia, it copies them and endorses them. But above all else, there’s a simple question to be answered here.
Do you want to help the KGB thugs who provided Saddam with the weapons used to murder US soldiers? Who are providing Iran with nuclear technology in order to commit genocide? Who are the largest non-Muslim state sponsoring Islamic terrorism?
We always have the ability to do the right thing. To refuse to collaborate with evil. To refuse to be Dhimmis for either Islam or the KGB. That is the power of moral choice. That is the power of doing the right thing. That is the power of refusing to collaborate with evil. That is the power of being free. Because the power of evil comes from its ability to seduce you, to trick you, or to finally compel you to serve its ends. The power of good comes from refusing to do its bidding. And that is why only those who refuse to collaborate with evil, are truly free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)