A Bit of Perspective

Tired of all the healthcare discussion? Tired of hearing about all mr. obama's unconstitutional shenanigans? Tune in to today's show with Arkady Faktorovich and be reminded why it is important to oppose tyranny in all it's guises and why America is worth saving.

"That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."~ Deut 16:20

A Person is a Person, No Matter How Small

So says Dr. Seuss in Horton Hears a Who. So says God and so say I. Sadly, devastatingly so, there are two Australian "bio - ethicists" who disagree. According to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, a newborn baby is no more a person than is an unborn baby. "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life,"

I would argue that being alive is enough to ascribe someone a right to life. The Declaration of Independence clearly states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The pro-death lobby has, for nearly a century now, succeeded in redefining the moment of creation to be some nebulous time after the third month of gestation, rather than the logical and biologically correct moment of conception. For Christians, the Bible says that we are alive and known by God from before conception, but, as we are unable to perceive that existence, we can hardly address it morally or legislatively.

Appalling as this is,and reminiscent of Philip K. Dick's short story "The Pre-Persons", it is not the only attack against the sanctity of human life and the unalienable right to reproduce oneself coming to light in Australia.

Many have argued that Roe v Wade was a slippery slope. A small step along the way towards allowing the government to decide who lives and who dies in total disregard of the individuals God given and unalienable right to life. The argument is that once that slope has been breached, what is to stop the government from deciding who should reproduce and when? Who should be euthanized and when? Who should receive health care and what type and by whom shall it be administered? Since obamacare is currently awaiting a SCOTUS decision on some of these very issues, this opinion, by these two so called "ethicists" seems to come at a good time for the obama administration.

This should alert us to the grave danger the world is currently facing. It is one thing to tolerate such opinions when they are mere exercises in theory, but we are fast approaching a time when they are more than ideological exercises. There is no need to enumerate the many threats to our unalienable rights under obamacare here in the US. We are aware of them, indeed, it would be difficult to be unaware of them if one is at all politically aware. What may not be so evident is that this threat is encompassing more than the US at this point in time.

While we sit back, astonished at such a conclusion by these Australians, it behooves us to look a little deeper. To discover, by what possible mechanism, these two would dare to advance such an opinion, that infanticide is perfectly okay, in a major journal, without some inkling that their opinion would be taken seriously by people in a position to do something about it. As it turns out, they do seem to have been given such an inkling. In an article titled "Children able to consent to sterilisation and 12 year olds to consent to psychosurgery and electroshock without any parental consent in W.A." The government of Australia indicates that it has very little respect for life or parental rights. This is not not law yet, but the parents of Australia have only until the 9th of March(today) to communicate their disagreement to their legislators. (H/T to Ima Iggymom)

Life is sacred. The right to life is unalienable and God given. Every person is intrinsically valuable, priceless and irreplaceable. If this is not to be the underlying premise of our existence, then we are lost. Utterly and inescapably lost as the only known intelligent life in a very wide universe. The sanctity of life must underlie our governments, our societies and our civilizations. Without it, as we have seen in every instance of the atheistic communist/socialist attempts at government, the death toll will be horrific. Even islamic countries, with all of their heinous practices, have not killed as many people as communist/atheist governments.

We have been told for decadess that we are overpopulating the Earth. Such a dire prediction would seem to indicate that measures like infanticide and sterilization are "reasonable" or even "necessary", but I wonder. The numbers coming from studies such as those quoted in Mark Steyn's "America Alone" seem to indicate that our populations are, for the most part, shrinking. I have to wonder if the overpopulation story is just as accurate as the global warming story. (It was global cooling when I was younger btw)

Now is the time to stand up for life, if ever there was one. I do not abandon my fight for the restoration of my nation, but if the sanctity of life is lost, so too is this nation and all others.

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." ~Jer 1:5

R.I.P. Mr. Breitbart

The first time I heard of Andrew Breitbart was when Big Hollywood broke the story of the attempt to "bribe" Hollywood artists into supporting mr. obama's healthcare agenda through turning their work into propaganda for the administration in exchange for NEA grants. In the intervening years, although I have not always agreed with him, I have been impressed by his tenacity, his boldness and his absolutely unapologetic manner when confronting some of the evils of our day.

He will be missed. May God send us another to show us the attitude we need when standing on principle.

Rest In Peace Mr. Breitbart and my condolences to your family and friends.

"For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." ~ Isaiah 9:5

Breaking the Contract

There is an implied contract between the American people and our military. Between the troops and the people and between the troops and the president.
That contract involves the voluntary sacrifice of the exercise of one's unalienable rights to serve in the armed forces of this nation. That sacrifice is necessary to make our military the best it can be.

In return, our troops expect that we, the American people, will maintain the republic and support them in their efforts to keep us safe. They also expect the president to have enough concern for their lives and their sacrifices to not put them in harm's way unnecessarily.

To our everlasting shame and sorrow, that contract has been broken. Not by the troops, they have kept their part, serving and dying at the orders of the individual currently occupying the office of the commander in chief. The contract has been broken by the American people and the individual currently occupying the office of the president of the United States.

The people have allowed the election and elevation of a usurper to the office of the president and they have not removed that usurper, creating a Constitutional crisis in the republic. The consequences of that are bad enough. But that is not the only breach of that contract.

The contract has been breached, and that egregiously so, by that individual occupying the office of the president. Among other breaches, he ceded the command of our troops to NATO in the recent Libyan uprisings.

That grant of authority is directly responsible for the meat of today's post and tomorrow's show. Now, the republic of Afghanistan is confirming that "NATO officials promised to meet Afghan nation’s demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident and it was agreed that the perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice as soon as possible."
To what incident does this refer? The quran burning incident that took place in the Bagram airbase. From my reading, the situation is this: Prisoners at the Bagram prison were using the quran to pass messages to one another. They would do this by writing in the qurans. writing in a quran, by sharia standards is considered a desecration of that quran. So these prisoners desecrated qurans to pass messages to one another. When our military personnel found out, they took the qurans and burned them. This resulted in protests in which 2 of our servicemen were killed.

So, NATO has agreed to put US military troops on trial to appease the Afghan people, for essentially doing their jobs. In addition, NATO has agreed that Afghanistan will now provide the personnel for the Bagram prison.

This is so wrong, for so many reasons.

First and foremost, our military is made up of free American citizens. Citizens who voluntarily give up the exercise of certain of their unalienable rights and agree to be governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) to serve in our military. They do this to protect this nation from threats. THIS nation, not to be the police force of the world. They sign up to serve under the administration of the commander in chief, NOT to be handed over to some foreign entity to fight and die for them. They agree to be governed by the UCMJ, NOT the rules and regs of NATO and certainly not the legal code of Afghanistan.

Will these soldiers-the guards and personnel at Bagram prison be tried under the UCMJ, the Regs of NATO or the laws of Afghanistan? Because at least one of those will be a death sentence. (Don't give me "if they are convicted" of course they will be convicted, their ostensible CiC as well as a high ranking officer have been falling all over themselves to apologize for the "incident")

The command of our military should NEVER have been turned over to NATO in Libya and NATO should not have any jurisdiction over our troops now. They agreed to serve under the UCMJ and if they are to be charged, then their own CiC should be busting every rule in the book to get every single one of those men back to the states to make sure that such is the case. Instead, he is apologizing left and right. This is a breach of contract. This man is not fit to hold the position of CiC, he has ceded it formally at least once to a foreign entity and he is now leaving American troops hanging in the wind, possibly to be killed for doing their job by disposing of already desecrated qurans that were being used by our enemies to pass messages.

Second, this would allow Afghan soldiers into Bagram airbase. Perhaps I am misjudging the Afghan people, but who else thinks there will be no further need for the prisoners to use qurans to pass messages if this comes to pass?

Third, the sitting CiC has already prejudiced any case that will be brought against our soldiers by issuing an apology to the Afghan people that acknowledges the burning of the quran by these soldiers but does not make any mention of why it was done.

Do I really need to go on? Call your federal legislators. And when you have done that, give the folks on this list a call too.

Call the President
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Ms. Pelosi :
Office of the Democratic Leader
H-204, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

Mr. Cantor:
Office of the Majority Leader
H-329, The Capitol
House of Representatives
P: 202.225.4000

Mr. Boehner:
Speaker of the House
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
P (202) 225-0600
F (202) 225-5117

Harry Reid:
Senate Majority Leader
522 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Toll Free for Nevadans:
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)

Mitch McConnell
Senate Minority Leader
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2541
Fax: (202) 224-2499

"For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed." ~ Isaiah 9:16

JudgeRight: Narration

JudgeRight: Narration
This is an excellent article on, among other things, the legalization of drugs and why our hesitancy to do so may well be the symptom of a deeper problem than not trusting our neighbors to do the "right" thing or to accept the fact that some of them will not.

"And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another." ~ Romans 15:14

INFILTRATED NATION: 10 Things That Every American Should Know About Th...

INFILTRATED NATION: 10 Things That Every American Should Know About Th...: The Economic Collapse What would happen if the Federal Reserve was shut down permanently?  That is a question that CNBC asked recently , ...

I highly recommend that every eligible voter read this BEFORE the elections and choose your candidates wisely-even if they have to be write - ins. It is time for this generation of Americans to say "the buck stops here."

"Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts." ~ Proverbs 22:26

First they came for the Walnuts....

... but I didn't speak up, because I was not fond of walnuts...

It was mildly amusing when the FDA told Diamond Walnuts that they could not sell walnuts because they are making statements about the health benefits of walnuts on their packaging. Surely this would be cleared up in a few weeks. Surely the FDA wasn't really going be this foolish and nit picky. Walnuts are a natural food-of course they are going to have health benefits. How wacko is this nation's zeal for imposing more regulations?

Then they came for the cherries and products containing cherry juice, but, again I didn't speak out because I didn't use a lot of cherry containing products and only ate cherries once in a while...

There came the article about the FDA making the same demands on the producers of cherries. Because cherries have been said to have an anti-inflammatory effect on arthritis and gout, if the growers of cherries should attempt to say so on the packaging of any cherries or cherry products, that makes cherries a drug and they must have FDA approval before they can be sold.

By this point, rational people are saying "riiight" and having a decent chuckle at the expense of the bean counters and nit-pickers at the FDA. Hold onto your hats, folks because this next one is going to floor you.

Then they came for me, and I couldn't speak out because all of the conventional foods had been declared to be illegal drugs by the FDA and I was too weak from lack of good, nutritious, natural food to speak out...

The FDA, in it's infinite maze of regulatory burdens waiting to be imposed, is now saying that your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce, possibly because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states.

So, if you are going to travel across state lines to have your own stem cells removed from your own blood to treat yourself, the FDA thinks they have the authority to regulate you.

"(This is the FDA's) latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-SD™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells.

The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Clinic for two reasons:

Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)

The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.”"

Where is all this nonsense originating? In the court documents for the stem cell case, the FDA says straight out that they want to protect the market for FDA approved drugs. That would seem to indicate that crony capitalism is alive and well in the FDA. However, things are seldom so simple. It seems that the FDA lost a case in 1999, Pearson vs Shalala, because the court ruled that the FDA had no evidence demonstrating that disclaimers could not correct for deceptiveness and overturned existing regulations as not giving sufficient deference to first amendment considerations.

In order to address that defeat, in 2000, the FDA sent out notices that they would be exercising "enforcement discretion" with regard to certain categories of dietary supplement health claims. Then, not satisfied with that degree of "helpfulness", (or one could say, not content with any infringement of it's overarching power) the FDA, in 2002, expanded that "enforcement discretion" action to include conventional foods as well as dietary supplements. No one paid much much attention and, Viola!, here we are today.

Hmmm..... Seems to me that we have a self evident right to choose our own food, supplements and health care procedures whether the FDA approves or not. It is not the job of the FDA, (at least not as I understood it) to provide a market monopoly for themselves or for particular businesses. It is the job of the FDA to say whether or not something meets their safety guidelines for an intended use. They are supposed to be a safeguard, giving us information regarding the safety and efficacy of those drugs and treatments which they have looked at and found to be reasonably safe and effective. Not to block the use of drugs and treatments that people may turn to because they don't like the ones so approved.

In other words, they are to act as an information provider, not a dictator. We have the self evident freedom to make our own choices. Do people get upset when they find that they are occasionally duped by snake oil salesmen when they are desperate for a cure? Yes. That's one of the inherent risks of the choice to avoid the FDA approved products and procedures. But really-cherries, walnuts, all conventional foods and our own stem cells?

I don't need the FDA to approve walnuts, cherries or my own cells. There is a legitimate place for an agency that tests food and drugs to see if they are safe, but this is not it. Simply because something is not included in the Constitution, does not mean it is not a self evident right. I have the self evident right to feed myself and make my own medical decisions. I may choose to consult with a doctor or other health care professional, but, if I do, it is always MY decision what to do with regard to their advice.

My stem cells are none of the FDA's business. Neither is what I eat. And I encourage my fellow Americans to let congress know that the FDA is exceeding their authority.

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." ~ Genesis 1:29