This is kind of the spirit of what we heard when Barack Hussein Obama declared, “With or without this congress, I will keep taking action…” during the State of the Union message. For a President to say this of the entire legislative branch of our government shows a complete contempt for our constitution and the separation of powers the founders built into our nation’s fabric.

This is the man who considers the constitution that was designed to protect rights of individuals through restraint of government to be a hindrance to the implementation of his schemes to change the world for the good of us poor, ignorant folks who still cling to our God and our guns. That is, those of us who are too dimwitted to know any better. Never mind that we have other plans for our money, resources and our lives. The anointed one and this minions are people who know how we should live… and we should just just quietly follow them.

Many years ago, C.S. Lewis noted, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive”. We have been told that expansion of the national government power is for our own good. We are told that the power of government will keep bad things from happening. We are told that the government can give us better health care if only we are willing to sacrifice our potential well being for the good of the overall society.

Unfortunately, it is the power of government that keeps good things from happening. It is the excess of regulation and interference that has destroyed not only jobs, but entire industries. It has turned happy, prosperous cities into towns struggling with despair and joblessness. The President’s answer to this problem is to expand the unemployment insurance. This is indicative of the myopic approach to all our problems… just think about it. If city after city lands on the skids and survives on the unemployment insurance that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi says creates jobs, will there not come a point when more cities are taking than giving and driving the rest into poverty? How about us as individuals – when more of us are surviving on resources of those who earned them?

In the The Treasure of Sierra Madre, the impersonators came to a bad end. They pretended to be people with authority and power to protect the people. They were not people with authority and power to protect the people. They were liars and thieves. They paid the price and suffered the fate of an imposter. What will be the price that Barack Hussein Obama pays for the destruction of America… both now and forever.

Congress? We don’t need no stinkin’ congress!

[We live in a secularized world of nation states in which traditional religion, especially Christianity, is unwelcome. Rooted in the “Enlightenment,” this view supports a secularized and authoritarian public square enforced by government and that progress requires forcing religion ever backward into remote corners of society. In short, America has become a secular theocracy with a civic religion of national politics (nationalism) occupying the public realm in which government has replaced God.]

Continued from Part 1:

During the Enlightenment, nationalism became the new civic religion, in which the nation state was not merely a substitute for the church, but a substitute for God, and political religion benefited from being more tangible than supernatural religion in having the physical means of violence necessary to enforce mandatory worship and funding. Nation states provided a new kind of salvation and immortality; one’s death is not in vain if it is “for the nation,” which will live on.

This “myth of religious violence” lived on with legal theorist John Rawls who claimed that the modern problem is a theological one and the solution is political. For Rawls, since people believe in unresolvable theological doctrines over which they will kill each other, a secular state must rule. Similarly, Stanford law professor Kathleen Sullivan, a secularist, has claimed that as a necessary condition for peace to avoid a “war of all sects against all,” religion must be banished from the public square.

As William Canavaugh notes, “[O]nce the state had laid claim to the holy, the state voluntarily relinquished it by banning religion from direct access to the public square . . . then what we have is not a separation of religion from politics but rather the substitution of the religion of the state for the religion of the church.”

Hence, in Abington Township School District v. Schempp, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan stated that the function of public schools is:

the training of American citizens in an atmosphere in which children may assimilate a heritage common to all American groups and religions. . . . This is a heritage neither theistic nor atheistic, but simply civic and patriotic. A patriotic and united allegiance to the United States is the cure for the divisiveness of religion in public.

In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart correctly warned that the Abington ruling would be seen “not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

The reality of today’s secular theocracy is its hypocritical authoritarianism that circumvents the natural-law tradition of Christian teachings. Cavanaugh well sums up the incoherence of the secular theocrat who claims that, “Their violence—being tainted by religion—is uncontrolled, absolutist, fanatical, irrational, and divisive. Our violence—being secular—is controlled, modest, rational, beneficial, peace making, and sometimes regrettably necessary to contain their violence.” The appalling problem with the “myth of religious violence” is not that it opposes certain forms of violence, but that it not only denies moral condemnation of secular violence but that it considers it highly praiseworthy.

In Politics as Religion, Emilio Gentile notes that the “religion of politics” is “a system of beliefs, myths, rituals, and symbols that interpret and define the meaning and end of human existence by subordinating the destiny of individuals and the collectivity to a supreme entity.” A religion of politics is a secular religion because it creates “an aura of sacredness around an entity belonging to this world.” And according to Cavanaugh, “People are not allowed to kill for ‘sectarian religion’. . . . Only the nation-state may kill. . . . it is this power to organize killing that makes American civil religion the true religion of the U.S. social order.”

Among most Christians in the U.S. for example, very few would agree to kill in Christ’s name, while killing and dying for the nation state in war and supporting “our troops” is taken for granted. The religious-secular split enables public loyalty by Christians to the nation state’s secular violence, including invasive wars, torture, and “collateral damage,” while avoiding direct confrontation with Christian beliefs about the supremacy of God and natural law teachings.

Hence, the secular theocracy exalts a sovereign and powerful state that pervades all of life and compels obedience not just to its mandates but to the secular nationalism of the Zeitgeist itself, for which the populace is forced to conform to and fund. This worldview dominates public schools, colleges and universities, elite media, entertainment, and an ever-expanding array of government domains in law, health care, welfare, retirement, transportation, commerce, parks and recreation, etc. Not coincidentally in the modern era when nation states have displaced God, Cavanaugh notes, “it does not matter that the U.S. flag does not explicitly refer to a god. It is nevertheless a sacred—perhaps the most sacred—object in U.S. society and is thus an object of religious veneration.” And worship in the secular theocracy in schools and at public events consists of singing the “National Anthem” and saluting the flag in “The Pledge of Allegiance,” which as described by its socialist author Francis Bellamy, “is the same with the catechism, or the Lord’s Prayer.”

In contrast, C.S. Lewis understood that natural law applies to all human behavior including government officials, and he clearly saw that government power was a dangerous force that needs to be strictly limited.  Contrary to secular interpretations of the Establishment Clause, the issue is not “the separation of church and state” into distinct and conflicting realms but the reduction of state power to micro-minute levels in order to eliminate the establishment of a state-backed church of any kind. Individuals have property rights that are sacred and need to be protected under a uniform rule of law, Christianity instructs us in the civic virtues upon which such law depends, and good ends can only be pursued using good means. The result is the recognition that compelling people into some collectivist regimentation is evil and produces immense human suffering. Lewis noted that:

I do not like the pretensions of Government—the grounds on which it demands my obedience—to be pitched too high. I don’t like the medicine-man’s magical pretensions nor the Bourbon’s Divine Right. This is not solely because I disbelieve in magic and in Bossuet’s Politique. I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every Government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ it lies, and lies dangerously.

The point is that the natural law is rooted in the religio of Christianity and sets the epistemic and moral foundation and context for the existence of all people as individuals and that such laws make the cooperation, norms, and relationships of community possible. To break the natural law in the name of a secular theocracy is to simultaneously break the relational bonds of community that are the basis for the natural rights of all individuals to be free and responsible.

Moreover, the solution is to end secular theocracy by de-socializing the public square, not seek to “take over” this theocracy. This means privatizing government schools, transportation, welfare, retirement, parks and recreation, commerce, civic areas of all types, etc., and allowing covenants and other private institutions and communities to flourish. Those who believe that such government domains are workable and should be exempt from natural law tenets are hubristically fooling themselves and end up embracing the moral relativism of utilitarianism. As Lewis further noted:

[S]ince we have sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The only remedy has been to take away the powers…. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us.

Washington DC – The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that under the First Amendment churches are entitled to a “ministerial exception” and thus dismissed a wrongful termination suit against the church. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, the Court recognizes that the ministerial exception applies beyond the head of a religious congregation to others, such as the teacher in this case, who are viewed as ministers or those carrying the message of the Church.

Chief Justice John Roberts stated that, “By requiring the Church to accept a minister it did not want, such an order would have plainly violated the Church’s freedom under the Religion Clauses to select its own ministers.” He also states that to award compensation such as back pay “would operate as a penalty on the Church for terminating an unwanted minister, and would be no less prohibited by the First Amendment than an order overturning the termination.”

This ruling is clear to completely protect the church. It states “The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful – a matter ‘strictly ecclesiastical,’ is the church’s alone.” The Court rejected the government’s extreme argument that there should be no such ministerial exception, stating: “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “This decision is a landmark ruling by the High Court that recognizes the strong protections of the First Amendment Religion Clause with regards to church autonomy. Churches have the right to decide who to employ to communicate their religious message. The government’s extreme view that churches have no right to control who will communicate their message would allow the government to control churches. It makes no sense to tie the hands of a church when the messenger is undermining the message. The Supreme Court rightly rejected the government’s extreme secular argument.”

[This came to me yesterday and it had so much common sense about government regulations and their enforcement that I felt I had to share it.]

Perhaps you have experienced a similar situation: walking into your living room to find your spouse sitting on the floor, the vacuum cleaner flipped upside down, the bag sitting across the room, the bottom cover removed, and screws strewn about. Around your spouse is a collection of small devices – a pencil, a screw driver, scissors, a paper clip – clearly the tools of choice in unearthing whatever they are looking for. Older vacuum cleaners in particular have an affinity for catching string in the rotating brush in such a way that it becomes so tightly wound, causing the whole thing to stop working. The tightly wrapped string has the strength of steel. No tool can clear it in one easy swoop, testing the patience of even the most even-keeled individuals. It takes intention, precision, and a whole lot of persistence to unwind it.

Regulatory red tape in Washington is a little bit like that. It has become so tightly wound around American businesses that it is inhibiting business owners and entrepreneurs from focusing on the operation of their businesses. And its steel-like strength leaves many business owners feeling frustrated or helpless.

Not all regulations are bad, nor are all regulations completely inconsistent with free-market principles. The ability of the federal government to set parameters for the basic protection of American citizens is important – this is true in areas of fraud protection, prescription drug safety, preservation of natural resources, among many others. But the lack of accountability in the regulation process has allowed the red tape to begin to choke seeds of innovation and competition that are so vital to business success. Americans from small business owners, to manufacturers, to farmers, to property owners are affected.

There has been a 23% drop in the rate of new business creation since 2007, resulting in as many as 1.8 million fewer jobs for Americans. Why? The National Federation of Independent Business believes the increasing role of government in the lives of businesses is partly to blame. A 2010 report by the Small Business Administration found that, American businesses paid, on average, $8,086 per employee to comply with federal regulations.

Businesses are forced to comply with new standards at an increasing rate, causing some plants to shut-down because of the cost of the new rules. Just a couple of months ago, Dominion Power announced it was closing its Chesapeake, VA plant and laying off employees due to excessive costs to upgrade the plant to meet new federal environmental standards. Whether it’s the Department of Energy reviewing urinal efficiency, the federal government’s lawsuit against Boeing for moving into right-to-work state South Carolina, or the phase-out of non-toxic incandescent light bulbs to a government-preferred compact fluorescent bulb, federal heavy-handedness trickles down from the largest to the smallest of companies.

With these regulations come inconsistent and unpredictable changes. The result is uncertainty for business owners and stalling job creation for Americans Without consistency, businesses cannot safely invest, because they cannot tell whether new regulations will make their investments unprofitable. Without new investment, we cannot expect new jobs for our economy.

At a time of record high unemployment, bureaucrats are focused on the wrong problems. Instead of focusing on creating a regulation nation, we need to be focused on creating a prosperous nation. The federal government was not intended to be a barrier to economic growth and I believe we must closely examine federal regulations to identify and address those that hurt economic growth.

While regulation reform alone will not rebound our economy from the current state – we have a whole host of other issues that we must address alongside regulations – regulatory reform would put us on a positive track forward. I have joined with my colleagues in the House over the past couple of weeks in passing several key bills to reform the legislation process:

Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act (HR 10)

The REINS Act requires that Congress take an up-or-down vote on every new major rule (i.e., those having an economic effect of at least $100 million) before it could be enforced on businesses and the American people.
Read the bill.
Passed the House by a vote of 241 to 184.

Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (HR 527)

In 1980, Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which mandated that federal agencies examine the impact of their proposed rules on small businesses. However, the law did not require that they choose the least burdensome choice.  The Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act improves the examination process by requiring consideration of “indirect costs, grants the Small Business Association authority to intervene in agency rulemaking, and improves the ability of small businesses and other small entities impacted by an agency’s regulations to challenges to those rules in court. Essentially, the bill forces agencies to consider how their actions affect small businesses and other small entities.
Read the bill.
Passed the House by a vote of 263 to 159.

Regulatory Accountability Act (HR 3010)

In 1946, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was enacted. Its purpose was to place restrictions on the federal rulemaking process. However, the APA only places a handful of light restrictions. Since that point, the current regulatory state has gained an expensive and overwhelming reach. The APA is out of date, encourages regulatory overreach, and is in strong need of reform. The Regulatory Accountability Act brings the APA up to date, requiring that agencies assess the costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives.  Unless interests of public health, safety or welfare require otherwise, agencies must adopt the least-cost alternative that achieves the regulatory objectives Congress has established.
Read the bill.
Passed the House by a vote of 253 to 167.

These bills improve the regulatory process. At the same time, we have to work at removing the regulatory burden that already exists for American businesses. To that end, I have also supported several pieces of legislation that repeal or improve onerous existing regulations. You can read about those bills on my website.

Addressing federal regulations is no simple task. The red tape has become so tightly wound that it will take intention and precision to unwind it. But our goals are clear: create a predictable economic environment for businesses to invest and grow, encourage job growth, increase competitiveness, and create more accountability in Washington.  Each of these improvements brings us one step closer to those goals.

“But how effective has that 10-year spending spree been?

“‘The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It’s basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year,’ said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.”

The LA Times report goes on to say, “Like the military-industrial complex that became a permanent and powerful part of the American landscape during the Cold War, the vast network of Homeland Security spyware, concrete barricades and high-tech identity screening is here to stay. The Department of Homeland Security, a collection of agencies ranging from border control to airport security sewn quickly together after Sept. 11, is the third-largest Cabinet department and—with almost no lawmaker willing to render the U.S. less prepared for a terrorist attack–one of those least to fall victim to budget cuts.

“The expensive and time-consuming screening now routine for passengers at airport boarding gates has detected plenty of knives, loaded guns and other contraband, but it has never identified a terrorist who was about to board a plane. Only 14 Americans have died in about three dozen instances of Islamic extremist terrorist plots targeted at the U.S. outside war zones since 2001–most of them involving one or two home-grown plotters.”

The report also notes, “Large sums of Homeland Security money, critics complain, have been propelled by pork barrel politics into the backyards of the congressionally connected.”

See the LA Times report.

Add to the LA Times report a report by Madison Ruppert. In the report, Ruppert notes that it is clearly the Bill of Rights–especially the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms–that are suffering the most egregious attacks from the federal government’s “war on terror.”

Ruppert concludes his report saying, “In short, despite the fact that all the statistics and data in the world directly contradict the report’s findings and the claims made by clearly biased ‘experts’ on the threat of terrorism, especially of the homegrown variety, the HSPI and other bodies continue to fearmonger and lie to the American people to keep us scared while they empty our pockets and continue their imperialistic adventures in the Middle East and now North Africa.”

See Ruppert’s column.

Back to the Times report, not only do we Americans have about an equal chance of dying at the hands of a terrorist as we do dying in our own bathtubs, we have a much greater risk of dying at the hands of prescription drugs–something lawfully encouraged and tightly controlled by the US government. According to a recent report, more people now die each year from prescription drugs than from automobile accidents. That’s some 37,000 deaths via prescription drugs annually! (Come to think of it, how many people do you know who have died from marijuana?) And as hard as it will be for some people to accept, this number is gigantically greater than those who die from hard drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine. In fact, the prescription drug Vicodin, by itself, has killed more people than cocaine and heroin combined.

See the report on prescription drug deaths.

So, what has this trillion-dollar “war on terror” accomplished? If it’s not making us more secure, what is it doing? Well, for one thing, it has created a stupendous surveillance society. Virtually every piece of public communication is now captured and stored by the federal government. Surveillance cameras are now ubiquitous throughout the United States. We have a gargantuan federal police department (which is anathema to the US Constitution): the Department of Homeland Security. We have thousands of Orwellian laws, most of which were spawned by the Patriot Act. And more and more often, law enforcement agencies are demonizing US citizens for their religious and political beliefs and statements–even categorizing them as potential domestic terrorists based simply on those religious and political beliefs.

To refresh reader’s minds regarding how Americans have been labeled, profiled, and denigrated as “terrorists” because of their religious or political beliefs, please peruse the material on this web page.

Fortunately, it does appear that the combination of an emerging police state and a declining economy that has resulted from this “war on terror” is finally starting to catch the attention of the American people. According to a Brooking Institution report, “Six in ten Americans believe that that the United States weakened its economy by overspending in its responses to the 9/11 attacks. In particular, respondents felt this was especially true of the U.S. mission in Iraq. Two out of three Americans perceive that over the decade since 9/11, U.S. power and influence in the world has declined.”

A Rasmussen report further revealed, “As with the recent turmoil in Egypt, most Americans (67%) say the United States should leave the situation in the Arab countries alone.”

The LA Times is right to question what Americans are getting for their $75 billion a year contribution to the “war on terror.” Some could even argue–with convincing data–that the “war on terror” is in reality a “war on freedom.”

For more by Chuck Baldwin, go to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/

My friend, Dr. Ed Berry, has written a very astute summary and analysis of HR 1505 on his web site, PolyMontana.com. I am going to be borrowing heavily from his research in this column.

Dr. Berry rightly notes that the DHS is the giant head of no less than seven federal agencies: Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Customs & Border Protection (CBP), US Citizenship & Immigration Services (CIS), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), US Secret Service (SS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and US Coast Guard (USCG).

Dr. Berry says pointedly, “FEMA is the one with the small cages to put you in if you do not behave. TSA is the one that gives you a useless body scan before you get on an airplane, bus, etc. DHS is the one adding its sensors to streetlights around America and the promoter of E-Verify and Real ID as a cradle-to-grave biometric tracking system for every American.” And it is CBP that the DHS is using to seize property along the US northern border.

According to Denny Rehberg, the reasons the DHS needs to seize all this property are: 1) to stop the “turf war” between federal agencies, 2) Drug growers are hiding in our forests, 3) to catch criminals hiding in our forests, 4) to stop illegal aliens from coming in America.

Let’s first acknowledge that the federal government has absolutely no natural right or constitutional jurisdiction to claim (much less seize) land and territory outside of the District of Columbia. In many of the western states of the US, for example, the vast majority of land in any given State is now regarded as “federal” land. Ask yourself, where is the constitutional authorization for this federal land grab? When did the various State legislatures vote to give these properties to the federal government? When did the various State governors sign the State laws giving these properties to the federal government? When did the citizens of the various states vote to give these properties to the federal government? The answer is, nowhere, and they didn’t!

How is it, then, that we have elected representatives such as Denny Rehberg–people who took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States–who are either so ignorant of the Constitution that they took an oath to uphold, or who are so flippant and careless about that oath, that they so quickly and routinely trample, not only the federal Constitution, but the natural laws and principles of God, and the sovereign rights and authority of the several states?

Now, let’s look at Rep. Rehberg’s reasons why he supports HR 1505 one at a time:

To stop the “turf war” between federal agencies

This is a very specious argument, to say the least! No federal agency has any claim to State land! The land doesn’t belong to those miscreants inside the Beltway! It belongs to the people of the several states! Therefore, it is the responsibility of the State governor and county sheriff to determine who is and who is not allowed access to these lands. All this talk of a “turf war” between federal agencies is just a bunch of hooey!

On this point, we must note that Rep. Rehberg has introduced a “Sheriffs First” amendment to HR 1505. If approved, this amendment would recognize county sheriffs’ law enforcement power over federal agencies and personnel. Of course, this is power sheriffs already have!

For the record, I don’t believe for one second that Denny Rehberg cares one whit whether county sheriffs exercise their authority over these Nazi-like federal agencies. He came up with this amendment as a way to mollify the people of Montana after he discovered that a sizeable number of his constituents are rightfully “mad as hell” about his support for this draconian piece of legislation. After all, he is campaigning for a US Senate seat.

One disagreement I have with Dr. Berry’s analysis is his statement, “The exception to a sheriff’s ultimate authority should be our Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which may be our only way to remove corruption among local police.” The way to deal with corrupt local police officials is for the governor to intervene. Per the Tenth Amendment, law enforcement is the exclusive jurisdiction of State government.

Drug growers are hiding in our forests

In this regard, Dr. Berry’s analysis is absolutely spot-on: “America’s War on Drugs is a scam. It keeps the price of drugs high by limiting supply, so drug cartels and our CIA can make money selling drugs. It hires police to catch pot growers and smokers who overflow our prisons. But wealthy drug dealers who pay off the police have a free run. The solution is not to give DHS control over our land. The solution is to stop the War on Drugs.”

Dr. Berry is also correct when he states, “Virtually all drugs used in America come across our southern border and DHS has not been able to stop it. So why should we allow DHS to control non-existent drug traffic  our northern border when they can’t stop the problem where it exists?”

To catch criminals who are hiding in our forests

Again, law enforcement is the responsibility of State and local government. If there are criminals “hiding in our forests,” it is the job of the State law enforcement agencies to find and apprehend them. Moreover, Dr. Berry astutely observes that to use this argument as justification to cede more authority and territory to DHS “shows the real intent of HR 1505 is to control American citizens.” Amen!

To stop illegal aliens from coming into America

I cannot believe Denny Rehberg could say this with a straight face! Yeah, we have a real problem with all those illegal Canucks coming across our northern border, don’t we? That’s so absurd; I doubt that anyone reading that statement could do so without laughing out loud!

For the record, I live about 75 miles south of the Canadian border, and, ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you unequivocally that there is absolutely no problem with illegal aliens coming across that northern order! In fact, the western states that border Canada enjoy some of the lowest crime rates anywhere in the country.

I’ll tell you where we have a problem will illegal aliens (not that I have to): it’s along our southern border! So, what are the DHS and the rest of the federal government doing to protect our southern border? Not much! The DHS often imprisons Border Patrol agents who attempt to do their jobs. The federal Justice Department sued the State of Arizona for its attempt to stop illegal immigration and constantly hassles and harangues Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, because of his no-nonsense enforcement of Arizona immigration laws. Furthermore, the Obama administration secretly used federal police agencies to actually supply sophisticated firearms to Mexican drug cartels–firearms that were used to murder a US Border Patrol agent, no less. Does this sound like a federal government that is truly concerned about illegal immigration to you? And now we are supposed to believe that HR 1505 is designed to stop illegal immigration where, for all intents and purposes, it doesn’t even exist? Get real!

Dr. Berry inserts one more salient point into his column: “Do you see a pattern here? All the claimed reasons for HR 1505 are the result of federal laws or lack  enforcement of our Constitution. Now the feds want another law to supposedly cure the problems they created.”

See Dr. Ed Berry’s article.

I implore readers to contact their US congressman or congresswoman and find out where he or she stands on HR 1505. This is a monstrous bill that lurches the United States forward into a federal police state in giant strides! The implications and ramifications of this bill, should it become law, are staggering–and scary!

For more by Chuck Baldwin, go to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com.

Because the man has only concern for himself and his agenda, with none for the world around him, it was obviously not a problem to shut down streets all around the fire house for hours. These security plans were even more intrusive as trucks and vans were denied access to the area hours earlier. Normal Americans, considering the area, that had the common sense not to vote for this man, sat in lines of traffic on major highways all around the Chesterfield County site, while The One pandered to his larcenous base.

While this is a major inconvenience to the good people of central Virginia for a short time, it is minor compared to the inconvenience and disruption Obama and his henchmen have inflicted on the entire country. However this really is nothing unusual for a community organizer and ACORN attorney from Chicago.

It is well known that ACORN tactics included flooding banks with angry people forcing them to make loans with no expectation of having them paid back. Force and intimidation were standard operating procedure for the group. While this afternoon’s intrusion was not necessarily done for this reason, it shows the same disregard for those around him who are not part of his plan.

This can be seen in his tacit support for the poor rich kids who think they can make a better world by “occupying” cities around the country. Nothing constructive is being accomplished. However, they are kind of in the way of the productive members of society, hoping to force the world to conform to their socialistic ideal. Generally this means that they can get more from a government that takes more from these same productive members of society.

Disruption is a way of life for community organizers and radicals from the past. They know that if their schemes were really up for debate, elementary logic would cause rejection by anyone with normal intelligence. So they follow the Cloward-Piven strategy of trying to overwhelm the system. P.J. O’Rourke summed this up nicely when he wrote, ‎”The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it.”

To those who want us to believe that the occupiers and the tea partiers are just two sides of the same coin because of their angst and anger, it should be obvious that this is not the case… kind of like most every thing we are told by the formerly mainstream media and this administration. The occupiers want the government to take more and more from the people. The tea partiers just want to be left alone.

Yet Mr. Obama, and those he surrounds himself with, are not content to leave us alone. Disrupting our lives to create the socialist utopia is their mission in life. It does not matter to them that we don’t want their solution to the problems they have created. This administration is intent on creating heaven on earth… but according to their specifications. These are specifications no on can live nor should they.

He has caused enough trouble in our land… far beyond the inconvenience of traffic jams. Disruption is a tactic we have to learn to work around and not cave in because of the inconveniences we need to endure. My concern for our country is that we have become so used to a relatively easy life that we cannot deal with inconveniences.

Galatians 6:9 reminds us “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” If we do not give up! This is what they are counting on… that we will get tired of the fight and just give up. Will they be proven right or wrong?

I must admit that when he is taking on the unions and the press I am right their cheering along with the rest his fans. He has the chutzpa we need in this world of political correctness and cowardice. It’s kind of like the attitude of the t-shirt I saw in a store window along the Asbury Park boardwalk many years age, that said, “Welcome to New Jersey, Now go home”. People are responding to a leader that is not afraid to speak up and stand against the prevailing “wisdom”.

The problem comes when he partakes of the conventional “wisdom”. Governor Cristie does this with disheartening and frightening frequency. Of course, the agenda driven formerly mainstream media hasn’t really given the public much of a heads up on some of his more controversial positions.

The double named governor believes in the idea of man made global warming. He has led the Garden State in directions to combat this supposed menace. To his credit, he does believe most efforts to contain the mythical threat are inefficient and excessively expensive. Yet, he is willing to burden his constituents and take their money in pursuit of this fantasy.

He also fails to see eye to eye with most of us on illegal immigration. Most of us do not see it as simply an administrative matter… even those who overstay their visas and refused to go home. In publicly proclaiming support for creating a path to citizenship, one must understand it to mean a new path as we already have a path for those coming into our country by obeying the rules. One would have to question his commitment to the sanctity of our borders and the welfare of American workers displaced by those with no legal right to be working in this country. During his tenure as US Attorney from 2002 to 2007, Cristie only prosecuted 13 such cases. It obviously is not a priority with the governor.

This same New Jersey governor says there are too many guns in his heavily populated state. He says he is concerned about the safety of his state and local police officers… as are we all. However, he has fallen victim to the progressive thinking that all guns in all hands are equally bad, unless the hands are those of the government. He sees a gun in the hand of the citizen looking to protect himself to be just as harmful to the public safety as a gun in the hand of a hardened criminal.

The fallacy of this thinking can be seen my far more enlightened home state of Virginia, where the circuit courts “shall” issue concealed handgun permits to all applicants where a background check shows no felony convictions or diminished mental capacity acquittals. There is no “may” issue. There is no discretion on the part of judges or sheriffs making decisions based on their own elitist or authoritarian views. To date, no officer has been shot by such a permit holder, yet many potential victims lives have been saved as people have been able to defend themselves in life threatening situations. New Jersey has some of the most restrictive fire arms laws and the chief executive shows little or no willingness to try to bring some sanity to his land.

One last nod to progressive thinking is his embrace of the Obama regimes “Race to the Top” program that shovels even greater amounts of borrowed money to the states in the form of grants to reform educational systems. He talks of Education Secretary Arne Duncan by saying, “He has been a great ally to try to reform education for kids across America,”

Chris Cristie is a decent man, doing a tough job in a state I chose to leave over twenty years ago. He does not have horns protruding from his head. What he is not, is a conservative – or libertarian for that matter. His actions show him to be a moderate who has a knack for saying things our itching ears want to hear.

We want to hear someone with the strength of conviction to stand up and read the riot act to the people doing so much to damage our country. Other candidates could learn a few things from Governor Cristie in his rise to popularity by plain speaking that calls things for what they are.

He has said he is not going to run for president. Others, with their own agenda, want him to have a go at it. The fact is that making the decision to run is one should only be made by those who really want the job. Party insiders should respect his wishes, even though they don’t seem to be interested in respecting the wishes of the people. The lure of the power is difficult for the politicians ego to resist. Cristie may yet yield to it. Just keep in mind that while he sounds good on some issues, we need a complete package, not just one with great sound bites. That’s what voters went for last time around.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the supposed dissolution of the Soviet Union, it was widely assumed that communism was no longer a threat to our country. President Reagan had won the victory and we could relax and let our guard down. Unfortunately, we forgot Wendell Phillips warning that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Curtis Bowers recalls a time from his youth where he had a glimpse into the destruction our own citizens planned for our country. We were too involved in our own lives… minding our own business to see what was going on around us. This is what conservatives do. We mind our own business. Contrary to the word spread by the formerly main stream media, we don’t try to inflict our will on those around us. We do have a form of morality and standards of behavior for a polite and functional society that we expect from those around us. Even those we don’t push too much… which may have been our first mistake. Our second mistake was not being the salt and light in the world. Once again, we were just too busy to spread the word of Jesus love to the world around us.

In any case, as much as we just want to be left alone, the time that we can get by with this thinking is past. The battle is ongoing, no matter what we think or wish.

Freedom is never an achieved state; like electricity, we’ve got to keep generating it or the lights go out. – Wayne LaPierre

Washington, DC – The U.S. State Department is promoting an anti-Israel propaganda campaign. The extent of the campaign and the misinformation raises serious concern. The most recent misinformation surfaced last week when the U.S. issued a “warning” to all U.S. citizens the day of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Courage” event on August 24 in Jerusalem.

On the same day, the Consulate General of the United States released an “Emergency Message” stating that “Jerusalem is under a heightened Security Alert.” U.S. citizens in Jerusalem were told to “exercise extra vigilance and avoid large crowds during upcoming rallies and religious holidays, particularly in and around Jerusalem’s Old City.” The “warning” continued: “On Wednesday, August 24, 2011, there will be a rally held near the south east [sic] corner of the Old City.” The areas where the “Restoring Courage” event was being held “are off limits to official U.S. Government personnel from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on that day due to recent clashes in the area.”

Beck’s event began at 5:00 p.m. in the exact area referenced above. “As one who spoke at Glenn Beck’s event outside the Southern Wall of the Old City on August 24, I can say that the U.S. State Department’s ‘warning’ was false political propaganda designed to advance an anti-Israel agenda,” said Mat Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law. “There had been no ‘clashes’ in the area prior to the ‘Restoring Courage’ event, and there were none during or after the event,” said Staver. “When U.S. citizens who attended Glenn Beck’s event learned of the State Department’s ‘warning,’ they were outraged because they knew it to be untrue,” Staver added. Staver also said, “At the event I spoke with Israelis who work in the highest level of government. If anyone would have had intelligence suggesting danger, these people would have, and yet they appeared at the event.

The District of Columbia is far more dangerous than Jerusalem or the entire nation of Israel. As of August 26, there were 71 murders in the District, down from a high of 479 in 1991. In all of Israel last year there were 139 homicides, but in the District there were 132. Considering only Jerusalem, the number of homicides or violent crimes pales compared to the District.

The U.S. Consulate General for Jerusalem issued a press release promoting a folk rock concert, funded by U.S. tax dollars, to “promote dialogue and mutual understanding between Palestinians and Americans” held in Jerusalem and the “West Bank” only one month prior to Beck’s event.  The same website lists 7 pro-Palestinian programs and no pro-Israeli programs.