It’s Time To Fight and Reclaim America

It’s Time To Fight – Reclaim America

Faced with Congress’s repeated, continued failure to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution – to check the tyranny and injustices of the executive and judicial branches; and most certainly, to legislate according to the direction of the majority of American citizens; don’t you think that it’s time to fight and Reclaim America?

It’s Time To Fight – Reclaim America

Seeing the results of the polls below; and faced with Congress’s repeated, continued failure to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution – to check the tyranny and injustices of the executive and judicial branches; and most certainly, as evidenced by the polls below, to legislate according to the direction of the majority of American citizens; don’t you think that it’s time to fight and Reclaim America? Gratefully, the tea parties, and the other grassroots organizations protesting the loss of freedom to the out-of-control government bureaucracies and judicial activism have called Americans loyal to the original intention of the Constitution to responsibility. Hopefully, these patriots will continue their oversight and efforts to make all government accountable. The attack on America from the injustices of politicians, or as some may be called “domestic enemies” is raging in this new great civil war which will determine whether “this Nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth“.
Act now!!!!!! Reclaim America!!!!! Require all candidates for public office to sign a legally binding contract to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution in order to be endorsed by The Committee for the Constitution. Make your vote informed, and make it count! Know what candidates for public office really stand for, and hold them accountable.

Grade Obama’s First Year in Office

Posted by CBSNews.com Leave Comment

With President Obama completing his first year in office this week,
we are giving you the chance to weigh in on how you think he has done on the job.
Below are 10 categories for you to give the president your grade (in A-F format),
including an overall grade at the end.

Cast your grades below.
Your answers will change when you mark your choice.

  • Quick Poll
The Economy
A
B
C
D
F
Foreign Policy
A
B
C
D
F
Health Care
A
B
C
D
F
Afghanistan
A
B
C
D
F
Iraq
A
B
C
D
F
Threat of Terrorism
A
B
C
D
F
Energy and the Environment
A
B
C
D
F
Social Issues
A
B
C
D
F
Bipartisanship
A
B
C
D
F
Obama’s Overall Job as President
A
B
C
D
F
Results

The Economy


A:
4.77%
B:
4.56%
C:
5.27%
D:
17.80%
F:
67.60%

Foreign Policy


A:
6.80%
B:
4.19%
C:
7.67%
D:
21.66%
F:
59.68%

Health Care


A:
7.14%
B:
3.01%
C:
2.87%
D:
8.31%
F:
78.67%

Afghanistan


A:
5.67%
B:
13.60%
C:
25.96%
D:
22.84%
F:
31.93%

Iraq


A:
5.79%
B:
10.08%
C:
24.39%
D:
23.77%
F:
35.96%

Threat of Terrorism


A:
6.63%
B:
4.92%
C:
9.74%
D:
21.19%
F:
57.52%

Energy and the Environment


A:
5.66%
B:
5.56%
C:
12.70%
D:
21.03%
F:
55.04%

Social Issues


A:
6.71%
B:
4.69%
C:
10.82%
D:
18.95%
F:
58.84%

Bipartisanship


A:
6.60%
B:
3.12%
C:
4.00%
D:
8.08%
F:
78.20%

Obama’s Overall Job as President


A:
6.28%
B:
4.03%
C:
3.69%
D:
22.25%
F:
63.76%

94% of the American public didn’t want the Senate to confirm Kagan
Posted by CBSNews.com

Question 1

How much of Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings did you watch?

  • A Lot

    17%

  • Some

    43%

  • A Little

    26%

  • None

    14%

Question 2

From what you saw or read about the hearings, how do you grade Elena Kagan’s performance?

  • A

    3%

  • B

    4%

  • C

    13%

  • D

    33%

  • F

    48%

Question 3

How do you grade the performance of the Democratic senators during Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing?

  • A

    1%

  • B

    2%

  • C

    5%

  • D

    20%

  • F

    72%

Question 4

How do you grade the performance of the Republican senators during Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing?

  • A

    8%

  • B

    23%

  • C

    34%

  • D

    21%

  • F

    14%

Question 5

Which senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee do you think asked the best questions of Elena Kagan?

  • Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)

    20%

  • Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

    1%

  • Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

    9%

  • Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)

    14%

  • Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

    0%

  • Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

    1%

  • Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)

    31%

  • Arlen Specter (D-Pa.)

    1%

  • Someone Else

    3%

  • None

    19%

Question 6

What’s your opinion of the Supreme Court?

  • Too Liberal

    83%

  • Too Conservative

    3%

  • Just Right

    10%

  • Note Sure/Don’t Know Enough

    3%

Question 7

Who is your favorite current Supreme Court justice?

  • Samuel Alito

    6%

  • Stephen Breyer

    1%

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    2%

  • Anthony Kennedy

    1%

  • John Roberts

    33%

  • Antonin Scalia

    19%

  • Sonia Sotomayor

    1%

  • Clarence Thomas

    26%

  • None of the Above

    11%

Question 8

Many, including Elena Kagan herself, have complained about how little Supreme Court nominees reveal during confirmation hearings. In that light, do you think Kagan was forthcoming enough during the hearings?

  • Yes

    3%

  • No

    94%

  • Not Sure

    3%

Question 9

What do you think should be more important in choosing a Supreme Court justice?

  • Experience

    17%

  • Legal Philosophy

    18%

  • Both Equally

    54%

  • Neither – Something Else

    11%

Question 10

Do you think the Senate should confirm Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice?

  • Yes

    4%

  • No

    94%

  • Not Sure

    2%

Ground Zero Mosque

Ground Zero Mosque
Frank Gaffney
August 13th, 2010

At a White House celebration of Ramadan tonight in the company of representatives of several of the Nation’s most prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, President Obama announced his strong support for one of their most immediate objectives: the construction of a mega-mosque and ‘cultural center’ at Ground Zero.

Ground Zero Mosque
Frank Gaffney
August 13th, 2010

At a White House celebration of Ramadan tonight in the company of representatives of several of the Nation’s most prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, President Obama announced his strong support for one of their most immediate objectives: the construction of a mega-mosque and ‘cultural center’ at Ground Zero. In so doing, he publicly embraced the greatest tar-baby of his presidency.

In the process, Mr. Obama also inadvertently served up what he likes to call a ‘teachable moment’ concerning the nature of the enemy we are confronting, and the extent to which it is succeeding in the Brotherhood’s stated mission: – “Eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

As the AP reported, President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed building a mosque near Ground Zero saying the country’s founding principles demanded no less. “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,” Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York and the nation. “That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

“Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us, a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.”

So much for the pretense that, as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had previously declared, the President would not get involved because the Ground Zero mosque (GZM) controversy was ‘a local matter’. (As opposed, say, to the arrest of a Harvard professor on disorderly conduct charges.)

Gone too is the option of continuing to conceal an extraordinary fact: the Obama administration is endorsing not only this ‘local matter’, but explicitly endorsing the agenda of the imam behind it – Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf is the Muslim Brother, who together with his wife Daisy Khan (a.k.a. Daisy Kahn for tax purposes, at least) runs the tellingly named ‘Cordoba Initiative‘. He is believed to be on a taxpayer-underwritten junket and/or fund-raising tour of the Middle East, courtesy of the State Department, which insists that he is a ‘moderate’ in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. Interestingly, the President’s rhetoric, like that of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other apologists for and boosters of the GZM, tracks perfectly with the Muslim Brotherhood line about why we need to allow what Lieutenant General William (Jerry) Boykin has correctly described as an ‘Islamist victory arch‘ close by some of America’s most hallowed ground. It is, we are told, all about ‘religious freedom’ and ‘tolerance’.

Actually, it is all about submission to shariah, arguably the most intolerant of theo-political-legal codes, ironically particularly when it comes to respect for freedom of religion. Rauf’s mosque complex and the shariah ideology/doctrine that animates it, the same program that animated the jihadists who destroyed the World Trade Center and many of its occupants on 9/11, has everything to do with power, not faith.

As notable as what the President said is the company he keeps. Consider a few examples from this year’s Iftar dinner guest list:

Ingrid Mattson heads the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the country, the Islamic Society of North America. ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in the biggest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history and was identified as a Brotherhood, associated or friendly, group in documents introduced as evidence uncontested in that Holy Land Foundation prosecution. Ms. Mattson now presides over the selection, training and certification of Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military and prison system, interestingly, a job formerly in the hands of Muslim Brother Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and first head of the American Muslim Council, who is currently serving a 23-year sentence on terrorism charges.

Salam Al-Marayati is president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). In 1999, then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt withdrew his nomination of Al-Marayati to a leadership position on the National Commission on Terrorism when it became public that Al-Marayati claimed that the terrorist group, Hezbollah, was a legitimate organization and has the right to attack the Israeli Army.

Dalia Mogahed runs the insidious Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and advises President Obama on Muslim affairs as a member of the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In an October 2009 interview with the London Telegraph, she made the following astounding assertions: “I think the reason so many women support shariah is because they have a very different understanding of shariah than the common perception in Western media. The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with shariah compliance. The portrayal of shariah has been oversimplified in many cases.”

The most prominent American public figure to directly challenge such pap is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who, in remarks before the American Enterprise Institute last month, declared, “Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of shariah.”

In a brilliant appreciation of Mr. Gingrich’s address, Andrew McCarthy, an accomplished former federal prosecutor (he put away the ringleader of the first effort to destroy the World Trade Center, ‘the Blind Sheikh’, Omar Abdel-Rahman) and author of the superb New York Times bestseller, The Grand Jihad , wrote in National Review Online: “Henceforth, there should be no place to hide for any candidate, including any incumbent. The question will be: Where do you stand on shariah”

For Barack Obama, the answer is now pretty clear: He stands with shariah.

One Nation Under God

One Nation Under God

Moslems thumbing their noses at America in seeking to place a mosque so close to Ground Zero of 9/11, and having their efforts supported by politicians should again warn all loyal Americans that we are truly again in the midst of a great civil war.

One Nation Under God

Moslems thumbing their noses at America in seeking to place a mosque so close to Ground Zero of 9/11, and having their efforts supported by politicians should again warn all loyal Americans that we are truly again in the midst of a great civil war. Not just here in this, heretofore, “land of the free”, but around the world, the evil and injustices of money and power envelop the less powerful and any tolerating them. Whether our “enemies, foreign and domestic” hide under the liberal mantra of political correctness or socialism, they are all seeking to destroy any “nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal“. These traitors in our midst call for tolerance of their evil and injustice. Yet, that tolerance, when granted by a Christian people, is rewarded with the intolerance and discrimination of a minority usurping the rights of the majority. Tolerating the injustices arising from various socialist, humanist agendas and religions only results in their spreading their lies and destruction. The Bill of Rights has no standing in the hearts and minds of those attacking America. Loyal Americans must now stand and fight the tyrants and injustices just as those patriots before us did over two centuries ago.
Insidious as they are, be it Obama’s fly-over of New York, his failure to recognize Eagle Scouts, his failure to attend any church of God, even on Christmas, while glorifying Islam and vilifying American sacrifices for others around the globe, the mosque at Ground Zero, cap and trade, lost jobs, Obamacare, the border crisis in Arizona, and on and on, America has been repeatedly warned. Talk radio, tea parties, protests, and other voices of truth have made us aware of the affliction and war at hand, but now is the time for action. Reason, truth, history, and science are weapons against which the various religions of humanism have no defense.
Unfortunately, the money and power of the “special interests” have used propaganda, spewing from the liberal media and the morally bankrupt of Hollywood and others having underserved, unearned wealth, affluence, and influence, to lay the smokescreen of lies and deceptions before a public now becoming awakened by results of failing to hold the politicians of injustice and tyranny accountable. “Tolerance is the enemy of justice.”


One Nation Under God

Peter Heck
(originally published in Perspectives at OneNewsNow.com as “Slouching Toward Jihad)
In Federalist #2, Founder John Jay addressed the dangers of foreign force and influence. In the course of the essay, he celebrated, “With equal pleasure, I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” Jay understood that perhaps America’s greatest protection against the threat of foreign manipulation was our overriding sense of unity as a people.
That’s why Jay and the other Founders insisted that immigrants be willing to embrace and adopt our values and principles. George Washington wrote, “By an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendents, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”
Unfortunately, in the name of political correctness, we are trampling this very notion of unity in deference to the sacred cow of “diversity.” No clearer can this tragic reality be witnessed than in our developing societal embrace of Islam. Unlike other religions, Islam is simultaneously a religious and a political order. It seeks a state-imposed caliphate…a theocratic regime that orders allegiance to Islamic law. Those are the expectations of anyone who follows the Koran.
When Dr. Daniel Shayesteh (the former co-founder of the Islamic terror group Hezbollah) appeared on my radio program, I asked him whether true adherents to Islam could peacefully assimilate into American culture and embrace constitutional law and order. He responded, “It is impossible for a person who follows Mohammed and says, ‘I am a Muslim’ and follows the instruction of the Koran to align himself with other laws and cultural values. That’s impossible, because everything other than Islamic culture and principle is evil.”
That chilling admission should set off warning bells. Yet, despite this plainly stated position, Americans continue to suffer the foolishness of political correctness that tells us we should celebrate the growth of Islam here in America. Let me ask a hypothetical question: would you vote for someone who ran on the platform of obliterating U.S. sovereignty, discarding the U.S. Constitution, subjugating women, and executing homosexuals and all non-adherents to an established national religion?
Of course not. Then why do we consider it a feather in our cap as a people,and hail our virtuous diversity when practicing Muslims are elected to office? Because either professing Muslims like Andre Carson (D-IN) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) – both of whom serve in Congress – believe in those aforementioned principles, or they are not true adherents to Islam.
Don’t believe me? Omar Ahmed, chairman of the supposedly moderate Council on American-Islamic Relations, reportedly told a group of California Muslims in 1998, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”
I know that addressing all this makes many people so uncomfortable that they choose not to pay attention. Perhaps that stems from our fear of violence if we do (see Comedy Central’s recent capitulation to “Revolution Muslim”).But more likely it comes from our mounting cultural indoctrination in political correctness – the same garbage that infected Europe decades ago.What have been its fruits there? Entire regions of many modern European countries are now completely under the authority of local Muslim leaders who ignore national laws and impose their own Sharia law instead.
And here? The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently taken the side of Muslims who seek to uphold their cultural practice of female genital mutilation. Islam holds that women should not receive the same sexual pleasure that men do, and therefore many Muslims in the United States send their young daughters overseas to have those sensitive areas removed.Rather than stand against this barbaric act, the AAP has begun advocating for the U.S. to change its laws to allow this practice to occur here legally. We must be open-minded, you know.
And though the construction of Islamic mosques have historically been to signify dominance over conquered foes, the New York community board and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg are okaying plans to construct not one, but two mosques at the site of the World Trade Center attacks. Another triumph for diversity!
This is a matter of self-preservation. The more we loosen our grip on our Founders’ insistence on assimilation and unity for those who make America their home, the quicker we hasten our march towards cultural oblivion…or the jihadists’ paradise.
Peter Heck (peter@peterheck.com) hosts a two-hour, daily call-in radio program, “The Peter Heck Show” on WIOU (1350 AM) in Kokomo, Indiana.

Look Who’s ‘Nativist’ Now!
“Nativism in American politics has become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Republican circles for a judge to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign courts and their legal rulings.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 3, 2010

The New York Times runs this same smug editorial every few months — at least I think it’s the same editorial — to vent its spleen at conservatives who object to American judges relying on foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution. But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see “Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.”)

Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil. Take Sweden — one of the left’s favorite countries. Not only is there no birthright citizenship, but even the children of legal immigrants cannot become Swedish citizens simply by being born there. At least one parent must be a citizen for birth on Swedish soil to confer citizenship. (Applicants also have to know the lyrics to at least one ABBA song, which explains why you don’t see groups of Mexicans congregating outside Ikea stores.)

Liberals are constantly hectoring Americans to adopt Sweden’s generous welfare policies without considering that one reason Sweden’s welfare policies haven’t bankrupted the country (yet) is that the Swedes don’t grant citizenship to the children of any deadbeat who manages the spectacular feat of giving birth on Swedish soil.

In Britain, only birth to at least one British citizen or the highest class of legal immigrant, a “settled” resident with the right to remain, such as Irish citizens, confers citizenship on a child born in England. And if the British birthright is through the father, he must be married to the mother (probably a relic from Victorian times when marriage was considered an important institution).

Even Canada, the country most similar to the United States, grants citizenship upon birth — but excludes the noncitizen parents of anchor babies from receiving benefits, such as medical care, schooling and other free stuff given to Canadian citizens.

After MSNBC’S favorite half-black guest, professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, made the dazzling point last week that “all babies are anchor babies” because “I certainly know my 8-year-old has anchored the heck out of my life,” thereby winning this week’s witty wordplay contest, she claimed to be stumped on how citizenship could possibly be determined if not by location of birth. “I want Americans to pause for a moment and ask themselves,” Harris-Lacewell said portentously, “on what basis would you determine citizenship, if not based on where a child is born?” (Luckily for Harris-Lacewell, U.S. citizenship is not granted on problem-solving abilities.) Harris was off and running, babbling: “Do you have to have two parents who are citizens? How about grandparents? How about great-grandparents?”

I don’t know — how does Sweden do it? How about Denmark? Maybe we should check the laws of every other country in the universe — especially the ones liberals are relentlessly demanding we emulate! Or is Ms. Lacewell one of those chest-thumping, nationalistic nativists who becomes hysterical when anyone brings up foreign law? Where is The New York Times when we need it?

The Times‘ editorial denouncing “nativist” conservatives ended with this little homily: “(Republicans) might want to re-read James Madison’s description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: ‘He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations.'” Of course, conservatives’ objection to judges looking to foreign law is that they’re judges, not legislators — least of all “ideal legislators.” Judges are supposed to be interpreting a constitution and laws written by legislators, not legislating from the bench. Hey, whose turn is it to remind The New York Times that the legislative branch of our government is different from the judicial branch? As the Times‘ own august quote from James Madison indicates, he was referring to “the ideal legislator,” not “the ideal Supreme Court justice.”

In its haste to call conservatives names, the Times not only gave away that they think judges are supposed to be “legislators” — a point they’ve been denying for decades — but also provided a ringing endorsement for ending birthright citizenship. Not being an easily frightened nativist like Harris-Lacewell, I think we should look at other countries’ laws, then adopt the good ones and pass on the bad ones. For example, let’s skip clitorectomies, arranged marriages, dropping walls on homosexuals, honor killings and the rest of the gorgeous tapestry of multiculturalism. Instead, how about we adopt foreign concepts such as disallowing frivolous lawsuits, having loser-pays tort laws, and requiring that both parents be in the U.S. legally and at least one parent be a citizen, for a child born here to get automatic citizenship? Or (to paraphrase my favorite newspaper) has nativism in American politics become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Democratic circles for a legislator to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign countries and their laws? If so, then Democrats might want to re-read James Madison’s description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: “He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations.”


Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Slander,” ““How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” “Godless,” “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” and most recently, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.

What Happened To “Government Of the People, By the People, For the People”

What Happened To “Government Of the People, By the People, For the People”

94% of the American public didn’t want the Senate to confirm Kagan

Adding the results of the poll below to Congress’s repeated, continued failure to act according to the Constitution , and most certainly according to the direction of the majority of American citizens, allowing a homosexual, activist judge in California to unconstitutionally rule against the expressed will of the people, don’t you think that the time for protesting and talking are over? Americans loyal to the original intention of the Constitution need to act. This war is raging in our Nation. Act now. Reclaim America!!!!! Require all candidates for public office to sign a legally binding contract to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution in order to be endorsed by the Committee for the Constitution.

What Happened To “Government Of the People, By the People, For the People”
94% of the American public didn’t want the Senate to confirm Kagan

Adding the results of the poll below to Congress’s repeated, continued failure to act according to the Constitution , and most certainly according to the direction of the majority of American citizens, allowing a homosexual, activist judge in California to unconstitutionally rule against the expressed will of the people, don’t you think that the time for protesting and talking are over? Americans loyal to the original intention of the Constitution need to act. This war is raging in our Nation. Act now. Reclaim America!!!!! Require all candidates for public office to sign a legally binding contract to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution in order to be endorsed by the Committee for the Constitution.

Question 1

How much of Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings did you watch?

  • A Lot

    17%

  • Some

    43%

  • A Little

    26%

  • None

    14%

Question 2

From what you saw or read about the hearings, how do you grade Elena Kagan’s performance?

  • A

    3%

  • B

    4%

  • C

    13%

  • D

    33%

  • F

    48%

Question 3

How do you grade the performance of the Democratic senators during Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing?

  • A

    1%

  • B

    2%

  • C

    5%

  • D

    20%

  • F

    72%

Question 4

How do you grade the performance of the Republican senators during Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing?

  • A

    8%

  • B

    23%

  • C

    34%

  • D

    21%

  • F

    14%

Question 5

Which senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee do you think asked the best questions of Elena Kagan?

  • Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)

    20%

  • Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

    1%

  • Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

    9%

  • Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)

    14%

  • Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

    0%

  • Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

    1%

  • Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)

    31%

  • Arlen Specter (D-Pa.)

    1%

  • Someone Else

    3%

  • None

    19%

Question 6

What’s your opinion of the Supreme Court?

  • Too Liberal

    83%

  • Too Conservative

    3%

  • Just Right

    10%

  • Note Sure/Don’t Know Enough

    3%

Question 7

Who is your favorite current Supreme Court justice?

  • Samuel Alito

    6%

  • Stephen Breyer

    1%

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    2%

  • Anthony Kennedy

    1%

  • John Roberts

    33%

  • Antonin Scalia

    19%

  • Sonia Sotomayor

    1%

  • Clarence Thomas

    26%

  • None of the Above

    11%

Question 8

Many, including Elena Kagan herself, have complained about how little Supreme Court nominees reveal during confirmation hearings. In that light, do you think Kagan was forthcoming enough during the hearings?

  • Yes

    3%

  • No

    94%

  • Not Sure

    3%

Question 9

What do you think should be more important in choosing a Supreme Court justice?

  • Experience

    17%

  • Legal Philosophy

    18%

  • Both Equally

    54%

  • Neither – Something Else

    11%

Question 10

Do you think the Senate should confirm Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court justice?

  • Yes

    4%

  • No

    94%

  • Not Sure

    2%

The “Black Regiment”

The “Black Regiment” was responsible for providing the conviction and wisdom necessary for winning the War for Independence. It referred to the American clergy, who, during and following the “Great Awakening” of the 1730s, prepared the hearts and minds of those who conceived and gave birth to these United States of America for the sacrifice and struggle ahead.

Chuck Baldwin
Friday, 04 September 2009 02:41

Black RegimentMost Americans today would probably still recognize the stirring words from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Concord Hymn”: “By the rude bridge that arched the flood,/ Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,/ Here once the embattled farmers stood,/ And fired the shot heard round the world.” Most of us are still aware that those embattled farmers won for us the freedoms we too often take for granted today.

But how many of us are aware of the extent to which faith motivated those farmers to leave their families and homes and risk their lives for a cause that most would have considered hopeless at the time? How many are aware of the extent to which preachers actively participated in our War for Independence — and not just rhetorically from the pulpit, though the great sermons on behalf of the freedom fight provoked many parishioners to action? How many are familiar with the phrase “Black Regiment”?

That phrase encapsulates what Colonial America possessed in its War for Independence that is sadly lacking today.

The Black Regiment is a moniker that was given to the patriot-preachers of Colonial America. They were called the “Black Regiment” owing to the fact that so many of them had a propensity to wear long, black robes in the pulpit.

According to historian/educator Reverend Wayne Sedlak, in his article “The Black Regiment Led the Fight in Our War for Independence”:

It was British sympathizer Peter Oliver, who actually first used the name “Black Regiment.” He complained that such clergymen were invariably at the heart of the revolutionary disturbances. He tied their influence to such colonial leaders as Samuel Adams, James Otis and others of prominence in the cause. He quotes colonial leadership in its quest to gain the voice of the clergy. In one instance, he disparagingly cites a public plea of James Otis who sought the help of the clergy in a particular manner:

“Mr. Otis, understanding the Foibles of human Nature advanced one shrewd position which seldom fails to promote popular Commotions, that ‘it was necessary to secure the black Regiment.’ These were his Words and his meaning was to engage ye dissenting Clergy on his Side…. Where better could he fly for aid than to the Horns of the Altar?… This order of Men … like their Predecessors of 1641 … have been unceasingly sounding the Yell of Rebellion in the Ears of an ignorant and deluded People.”

So influential were the patriot-pulpits of Colonial America that it was said by Prime Minister Horace Walpole in the British Parliament, “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson.” In fact, America’s War for Independence was often referenced in Parliament as “the Presbyterian Revolt.” And during the Revolutionary War, British troops often made colonial churches military targets. Churches were torched, ransacked, and pillaged.

Legendary Exploits
These patriot-preachers were staunchly patriotic, seriously independent, and steadfastly courageous. They were found in almost all of the various Protestant denominations at the time: Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregational, Anglican, Lutheran, German Reformed, etc. Their Sunday sermons — more than Patrick Henry’s oratory, Sam Adams’ and James Warren’s “Committees of Correspondence,” or Thomas Paine’s “Summer Soldiers and Sunshine Patriots” — inspired, educated, and motivated the colonists to resist the tyranny of the British Crown, and fight for their freedom and independence. Without the Black Regiment, there is absolutely no doubt that we would still be a Crown colony, with no Declaration of Independence, no U.S. Constitution, no Bill of Rights, and little liberty.

The exploits of the Black Regiment are legendary. When General George Washington asked Lutheran pastor John Peter Muhlenberg to raise a regiment of volunteers, Muhlenberg gladly agreed. Before marching off to join Washington’s army, he delivered a powerful sermon from Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 that concluded with these words: “The Bible tells us there is a time for all things and there is a time to preach and a time to pray, but the time for me to preach has passed away, and there is a time to fight, and that time has come now. Now is the time to fight! Call for recruits! Sound the drums!”

Then Muhlenberg took off his clerical robe to reveal the uniform of a Virginia colonel. Grabbing his musket from behind the pulpit, he donned his colonel’s hat and marched off to war. And as he did, more than 300 of his male congregants followed him.

Muhlenberg’s brother quotes John Peter as saying, “You may say that as a clergyman nothing can excuse my conduct. I am a clergyman, it is true, but I am a member of society as well as the poorest layman, and my liberty is as dear to me as any man. I am called by my country to its defense. The cause is just and noble. Were I a Bishop … I should obey without hesitation; and as far am I from thinking that I am wrong, I am convinced it is my duty so to do — a duty I owe to my God and my Country.”

Remember, too, it was Pastor Jonas Clark and his congregants at the Church of Lexington who comprised that initial body of brave colonists called Minutemen. These were the men, you will recall, who withstood British troops advancing on Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms and arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, and fired “the shot heard round the world.”

The “Supreme Knight” and great martyr of Presbyterianism was Pastor James Caldwell of the Presbyterian church of Elizabethtown (present-day Elizabeth), New Jersey. He was called the “Rebel High Priest” and the “Fighting Chaplain.” He is most famous for the story “Give ’em Watts!” It is said that at the Springfield engagement, when the militia ran out of wadding for their muskets, Parson Caldwell galloped to the Presbyterian church and returned with an armload of hymnbooks, threw them to the ground, and exclaimed, “Now, boys, give ’em Watts! Give ’em Watts!” — a reference to the famous hymn writer, Isaac Watts. General Knyphausen’s expedition took Elizabethtown in 1780, burning Caldwell’s church and shooting his wife. Later Caldwell himself was shot. (Source: Humphrey, Nationalism and Religion in America, 1924)

Then there was the Baptist, Joab Houghton, of New Jersey. Houghton was in the Hopewell Baptist Meeting-house at worship when he received the first information of Concord and Lexington, and of the retreat of the

James Caldwell

Not an easy path: Presbyterian minister James Caldwell, who gained fame during the battle of Springfield, New Jersey, when he gathered Watts hymnals from a church for use as rifle wadding and shouted to the troops as he handed them out, “put Watts into them,” was killed in the war, as was his wife.

British to Boston with heavy losses. His great-grandson gave the following eloquent description of the way he treated the tidings:

Stilling the breathless messenger, he sat quietly through the services, and when they were ended, he passed out, and mounting the great stone block in front of the meeting-house, he beckoned to the people to stop. Men and women paused to hear, curious to know what so unusual a sequel to the service of the day could mean. At the first words a silence, stern as death, fell over all. The Sabbath quiet of the hour and of the place was deepened into a terrible solemnity. He told them all the story of the cowardly murder at Lexington by the royal troops; the heroic vengeance following hard upon it; the retreat of Percy; the gathering of the children of the Pilgrims round the beleaguered hills of Boston. Then pausing, and looking over the silent throng, he said slowly: “Men of New Jersey, the red coats are murdering our brethren of New England! Who follows me to Boston?” And every man of that audience stepped out into line, and answered, “I!” There was not a coward nor a traitor in old Hopewell Baptist Meeting-house that day. [Source: Cathcart, The Baptists and the American Revolution, 1876]

Consider, too, Pastor M’Clanahan, of Culpepper County, Virginia, who raised a military company of Baptists and served in the field, both as a captain and chaplain. Reverend David Barrow “shouldered his musket and showed how fields were won.” Another Baptist, General Scriven, when ordered by a British officer to give up Sunbury, near Savannah,
sent back the answer, “Come and get it.” Deacon Mills, of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia, “commanded skillfully” 1,000 riflemen at the Battle of Long Island, and for his valor was made a brigadier general. Deacon Loxley of the same church commanded the artillery at the Battle of Germantown with the rank of colonel. (Source: McDaniel, The People Called Baptists, 1925)

A list drawn up by Judge Curwen, an ardent Tory, contained 926 names of British sympathizers living in America — colonial law had already exiled a larger number — but there was “not the name of one Baptist on the list.” Maybe this is why President George Washington, in his letter to the Baptists, paid the following tribute: “I recollect with satisfaction that the religious society of which you are members has been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friend to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious Revolution.” Maybe it explains why Thomas Jefferson could write to a Baptist church, saying, “We have acted together from the origin to the end of a memorable Revolution.” (Source: Ibid.)

Faith and Conviction
These were not the acts of wild-eyed fanatics; they were the acts of men of deep and abiding faith and conviction. Their understanding of the principles of both Natural and Revealed Law was so proficient, so thorough, and so sagacious that their conscience would let them do nothing else. Hear the wise counsel of the notable colonial preacher Reverend Samuel West (1730-1807):

Our obligation to promote the public good extends as much to the opposing every exertion of arbitrary power that is injurious to the state as it does to the submitting to good and wholesome laws. No man, therefore, can be a good member of the community that is not as zealous to oppose tyranny, as he is ready to obey magistracy.

Reverend West went on to say:

If magistrates are ministers of God only because the law of God and reason points out the necessity of such an institution for the good of mankind, it follows, that whenever they pursue measures directly destructive of the public good, they cease being God’s ministers, they forfeit their right to obedience from the subject, they become the pests of society, and the community is under the strongest obligation of duty both to God and to its own members, to resist and oppose them, which will be so far from resisting the ordinance of God that it will be strictly obeying his commands.

This was the spirit of 1776; this was the preaching that built a free and independent nation; this is what Colonial America had that, by and large, America does not have today.

David Barrow

Moral underpinnings: Baptist minister David Barrow gave his whole being to causes he joined. He was nearly drowned by vigilantes for preaching as a Baptist in areas dominated by the Church of England, and he took up a gun to fight in the Revolutionary War.

In the thinking and preaching of the Black Regiment, freedom and independence were precious gifts of God, not to be trampled underfoot by men; human authority was limited and subject to proper divine parameters; and the mind of man was never to be enslaved by any master, save Christ Himself.

Membership in the Black Regiment was unofficial and without human oversight. Preachers of the black robes were young and old, loud and soft-spoken, rough and gentle, urban and rural. They differed on secondary doctrines and never surrendered their theological distinctives. Yet they formed an irresistible and indefatigable army that neither King George nor the demons of hell could stop.

As one reads the colonial history of the United States, one must be struck with the observation that the American people, on the whole, seemed to appreciate the courage and independence of their preachers. Even America’s early political leaders shared in this appreciation.

For instance, John Adams once remarked,

It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach against such sins as are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as are most wanted. For example, if exorbitant ambition and venality are predominant, ought they not to warn their hearers against those vices? If public spirit is much wanted, should they not inculcate this great virtue? If the rights and duties of Christian magistrates and subjects are disputed, should they not explain them, show their nature, ends, limitations, and restrictions, how muchsoever it may move the gall of Massachusetts?

The problem today is that America’s preachers have taken off the black robes and put on yellow ones. Where is the preaching against prevalent sins? Where is the spiritual, scriptural explanation concerning the rights and duties, or limitations and restrictions of civil magistrates from America’s pulpits today?

The famed 19th-century revivalist Charles G. Finney had some trenchant words on this subject. He said,

If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discrimination, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in religion, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.

Black Regiment Today

Yes, indeed. It was the patriot-pulpit that delivered America from bondage; and it is the timid pulpit, on the part of those who do or should know, that is helping to deliver America to the brink of destruction and judgment.


THE BLACK REGIMENT LED THE FIGHT IN OUR WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE

By Reverend Wayne C. Sedlak

During the War of Independence there was a group of heroic men referred to as the “Black Regiment”. The very name enraged the British armies. As heroes in the war, their courage and leadership were hailed throughout the colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia. As a “regiment”, they never once drilled together, yet the strategic impact of their highly disciplined attacks was overwhelming. As a unit, they never fought together on a particular field of battle, yet without question, their leadership provided the spark which ignited victory after victory.

This “Black Regiment” was responsible for providing the conviction and wisdom necessary for winning a war against the cruelty of an unjust government. What was the “Black Regiment”? Actually, it wasn’t a regiment at all. It referred to the American Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Baptist clergy.

British sympathizers (Loyalists), so named them because of the black robes worn by the ministers when they ascended their pulpits each Lord’s Day. The name “stuck”. Colonial enemies knew that the seeds of what the British called “sedition” or “revolution” were being sown in the pulpits of America. Without the outspoken, tenacious and courageous leadership exhibited by the pastors of the “Black Regiment”, it is doubtful whether American independence could ever have been achieved.

Today, while confronting usurped power in the moral swamp of our culture, appeals are made to various authorities such as “morality”, “justice”, “civil rights”, “humanity”, our “heritage” and a host of others. Each appeal creates a clientele of its own who appeal to it for ultimacy. The result is confusion. In the face of such confusion, it remains the duty of the clergy to proclaim absolute authority and law. Once that is done and believed, all authoritative pronouncements will take on the status of derived authority, at best.

It was British sympathizer Peter Oliver, who actually first used the name “Black Regiment”. He complained that such clergymen were invariably at the heart of the revolutionary disturbances. He tied their influence to such colonial leaders as Samuel Adams, James Otis and others of prominence in the cause. He quotes colonial leadership in its quest to gain the voice of the clergy. In one instance, he disparagingly cites a public plea of James Otis who sought the help of the clergy in a particular matter.

Mr. Otis, understanding the Foibles of human Nature advanced one shrewd position which seldom fails to promote popular Commotions, that “it was necessary to secure the black Regiment”. These were his Words and his meaning was to engage ye dissenting Clergy on his Side…Where better could he fly for aid than to the Horns of the Altar?…This Order of Men…like their Predecessors of 1641… have been unceasingly sounding the Yell of Rebellion in the Ears of an ignorant and deluded People. (1) *

The clergy of the “Black Regiment” were believers in that ministerial distinctive described by Saint Paul in the New Testament: How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Rom.10:14)

From the Greco Roman world, the Apostle Paul borrowed a term. He used it here as he described the function for a “preacher”. That Greek term was “kerux”. An imperial kerux was the emperor’s herald who was sent to cities and provinces to announce to them the will of the emperor himself. It was the commission of the herald to announce to the people how they must order their affairs (“LAW”) as a preparation for the coming of the king. The herald also announced any areas of displeasure which the king had discovered (“SIN”); any remedies he might mandate (“REPENTANCE”); and any sanctions which he would implement if his directives were not obeyed (“JUDGMENT”). The herald had absolute authority to announce such directives, remedies and sanctions. No authority on earth could safely abuse him…nor disregard his commissioned proclamation.

The Rev. Samuel Davies was one such colonial “kerux”. He was self consciously an Imperial herald of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, “King Jesus”. As such, he believed it to be his duty to expose any evil or corruption which violated God’s Righteous Law. His preaching would precede and impress itself upon that of the Black Regiment.

During the French and Indian War, the colonists had been badly defeated on every front and, out of cowardice, many fled from the call of duty. Davies mounted the pulpit, addressed the sin of cowardice in the face of duty and preached one of the most compelling sermons in history…one which was reprinted over and over and, quite literally, helped reverse the tide of that war. Note the conviction of mind which distinguished this Imperial “kerux” of King Jesus:

Such, my brethren, such, alas! is the present state of our country. It bleeds in a thousand veins…And, in such circumstances, is it not our duty, in the sight of God, is it not a work to which the Lord loudly calls us, to take up arms for the defense of our country?

Our countrymen, in general, have acted as if beings of their importance and merit might certainly rest in the quiet, unmolested possessions of their liberty and property without anyone daring to disturb them, and without their doing anything for their own defense; or as if neither God nor man could strip them of their enjoyments. What vain, self confident presumption, what intolerable insolence is this, in a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, who have forfeited every blessing, even the ground they tread upon and the air they breathe in, and who live merely by unmerited grace and bounty of God?

Ye that complain of the burden of our public taxes; ye that love ease and shrink from the dangers of war; ye that wish to see peace restored once more; ye that would be happy beyond the grave and live forever attend to my proposal. It is this: A Thorough National Reformation. (2)

It was this same “kerux” whose preaching, on one singular occasion, stunned the King of England. Davies was preaching with the King in attendance, for the King had heard of his immense reputation as a preacher. During the message, the King and his retinue stood up, preparing to leave. This caused a small disturbance as all eyes were suddenly fixed upon the King. It was, of course, rude of the King so to disrupt the message. However, kings are accustomed to being rude. In any event, Sam Davies stopped his message and directed his gaze toward the king and spoke to him, saying:

When the lion roars, the beasts of the field tremble. When the Lord speaks, the kings of the earth are silent!

It is no wonder that a young boy of that era would be so struck with the power and authority of that pulpit that the impress would shape the destiny of America’s courageous orator and statesman…Patrick Henry.

In 1760, royalist colonial Governor Pownall of Massachusetts warned that once the ministers of the colonies joined in the resistance against the power politics of Great Britain there would be no stopping the colonial movement. “The spirit of their religion…will, like Moses’ serpent, devour every other passion and affection,” he said.

So influential were the pulpits that it was said by Prime Minister Horace Walpole in Parliament, “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson.”

The pulpits of that era were anything but neutral. And they certainly did not subscribe to that error of reasoning so dominant in the churches today which says that the only proper subject of concern for the pulpit pertains to individual salvation and one’s personal preparation for heaven. That, with a few moral platitudes thrown in for good measure, accounts for most of the “spiritual” concern in the preaching of the church.

Not so with the Black Regiment. Peter Oliver complained that the strength of the colonial boycotts of British goods came from the unction supplied by the pulpits. “…They preached about it and about it; until the Women and Children, both within Doors and without, set their Spinning Wheels a whirling in Defiance of Great Britain.” (3) *

Of course, some wonder why colonial pulpits would inveigh against British goods. Properly speaking, those pulpits had reached the point of realization which condemned the socialism (even though they didn’t use the term) of British “mercantilism” as an arbitrary, hate mongering system of governance. They had no illusions about a corrupt system such as mercantilism which, through regulation, licensure and taxation, deliberately kept the colonies from developing industrial capacity (a point which escapes the grasp of most historians.) As a result, the colonies were only to produce raw materials for the mother country and remain dependent upon it for finished goods. Dependence, of course, is everything it’s cracked up to be…dictated terms through political process. The colonists themselves used the biblical language of the pulpit to decry their servitude when they complained, “…we shall be nothing more than hewers of wood and drawers of water.”

Of course, the brutal suppression of colonial economic interests impoverished whole cities, destroyed families and brought near starvation to many. Resistance to such decrees meant severe reprisals such as the burning of the city of Falmouth, Maine (before the war) and the attempt to starve Boston by closing its port (again, before the war).

Symbolic of this brutality was Captain Codman’s Mark in Massachusetts. Captain Codman’s Mark was a mummified body of a servant who had risen up against his master. The servant was executed, mummified and hung up publicly, remaining on display by order of the British government for many years prior to the war as an object lesson to the colonists. Put simply, it was meant to teach the colonists what happens to slaves if they dare to rise up against their masters. Need we offer any further examples of the spiritual necessity for sermons which, in a practical manner, addressed such concerns?

It was considered spiritual to comment upon the arbitrary abuse of power by governing authorities. Typical of the pulpiteering were positions like that taken by Rev. Samuel West:

Our obligation to promote the public good extends as much to the opposing every exertion of arbitrary power that is injurious to the state as it does to the submitting to good and wholesome laws. No man, therefore, can be a good member of the community that is not as zealous to oppose tyranny as he is ready to obey magistracy…” (4)

However, the reasoning given for such a strong opinion was not grounded upon human rights and liberties, nor economic interests and political favor. The issue was the absolute authority of the Lord as given in His Law:

If magistrates are ministers of God only because the law of God points out the necessity of such an institution for the good of mankind, it follows, that whenever they pursue measures directly destructive of the public good they cease being God’s ministers, they forfeit their right to obedience from the subject, they become the pests of society, and the community is under the strongest obligation of duty both to God and to its own members, to resist and oppose them, which will be so far from resisting the ordinance of God that it will be strictly obeying his commands.” (5)

So hateful was the presence of such tyranny that the people demonstrated against it publicly. One such demonstration led to a confrontation with British police and the soldiers, responding to taunts, in an unwarranted display of force, fired upon the crowd. This “Boston Massacre” led to the trial of the soldiers involved. When one of the soldiers was asked by the chief justice what objection he had to offer why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, that soldier replied in heated anger, “May it please your Honors! I pray the death of the clergy.”

So potent was the preaching which compelled the colonists that, quite often, the War of Independence was referenced in Parliament as “the Presbyterian Revolt”. In retaliation, during the war, British troops made Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches military targets. Churches and Christian colleges in British occupied cities were used as barracks and horse stables.

So impressive was the pulpit in providing leadership, that the Sons of Liberty often organized their followers in the church buildings and through the church officers. The Minutemen very often found their leadership in elders and deacons of the churches. And did you ever wonder why “one if by land and two if by sea” was to be signaled from Old North Church tower?

Of course, when the epic struggle began, church authority was responsible for calling men to action. Pastors often led the colonists in actual battle. The Rev. Jonas Clark was with his flock at Lexington green. In fact, “Old Jonas” had sworn never to run from British guns and proved it when he fell from a musket ball. Trying to fire from the ground, he was “run through” with a British bayonet.

Another “member” of the “Black Regiment”, the Rev. James Caldwell became famous when, during battle, he supplied the much needed paper wadding for the muskets from his church hymnals. Returning to the battle front with an armful of Isaac Watts hymnals he exclaimed, “Now boys, give ’em Watts!”

The Rev. Naphtali Daggett, professor of divinity at Yale, dashed off with his fowling piece in hand when the British arrived at New Haven. Others, such as Timothy Dwight were chaplains in the Continental Army. So valuable was such service that Gen. Washington repeatedly pleaded with the Continental Congress to provide him with more chaplains, else, he feared, the Lord would turn His back upon their noble cause.

Actual military leadership was not lacking either. The Rev. General Muhlenberg led his brigade against Cornwallis at the battle of Brandywine. According to historian J. R. Sizzo, at the time of the ultimate surrender of the British at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. In addition, more than half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the war were Presbyterians. (6)

Such were the clergy and the church at large in the formation of this great Republic. But…the question remains. Will such leadership distinguish the clergy of this generation?

Footnotes:

1) Peter Oliver’s Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion, Stanford Univ. Press, p. 29

2.) The Annals of America Volume 1

3.) Peter Oliver’s Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion, Stanford Univ. Press, p. 63 64

4.) Wilkins, Steve, America: The First 350 Years

5.) ibid

6.) Boettener, Lorraine

*Grammar, usage and capitalization retained as in the original.

Impeach, Remove, Recall, or Reject

Impeach, Remove, Recall, or Reject
Any candidate for public office or any incumbent currently in office not obtaining the endorsement of The Committee for the Constitution seeking election or reelection needs to be summarily prevented from holding any office in any jurisdiction in these United States of America. Further, any official failing to uphold their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and the Constitutions of the various States needs to be removed from office. Judicial activism and misinterpretation of the original intentions of the makers of our laws need to end, here and now!
Any and all legislators, judiciary, and bureaucrat, at every level – Federal or State, not voting bound by their oath of office or pledged to protecting the original intention of Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of their various State need to be impeached or otherwise removed from every position of public trust.
Impeach, Remove, Recall, or Reject
Any candidate for public office or any incumbent currently in office not obtaining the endorsement of The Committee for the Constitution seeking election or reelection needs to be summarily prevented from holding any office in any jurisdiction in these United States of America. Further, any official failing to uphold their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and the Constitutions of the various States needs to be removed from office. Judicial activism and misinterpretation of the original intentions of the makers of our laws need to end, here and now!
Any and all legislators, judiciary, and bureaucrat, at every level – Federal or State, not voting bound by their oath of office or pledged to protecting the original intention of Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of their various State need to be impeached or otherwise removed from every position of public trust.
The attack on America from the traitors, or as some may be called “domestic enemies” is raging in this new great civil war which will determine whether “this Nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth“.
Glaring examples of the treason and tyranny impacting us are found in the Federal government’s failure to justly address everything from the economic collapse brought about by Congress, with the likes of Barney Frank; to the crises at our borders; to the abysmal failure to address healthcare reform; all while legislators unjustly reaping undeserved compensation and benefits denied the public impose unjust taxes on working Americans to fund their liberal, socialist agendas. Below are but three examples. The Constitution explicitly highlights the failure, and some might call it treason, of Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, in regard to their attack on Arizona.
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the legislature or the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.” – U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 4


ICE Union Takes Unanimous Vote of No Confidence in Leadership

Documents surfaced last week showing that AFGE Council 118 ICE, the union that represents over 7,000 detention and removal agents within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), issued a vote of no-confidence in ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director of the ICE Office of Detention and Policy and Planning, Phyllis Coven. According to a statement issued by the Union, the action reflects “the growing dissatisfaction among ICE employees and Union Leaders that Director Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven have abandoned the Agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and enforcing public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies relating to amnesty…” (AFGE National Council 118 Letter, June 25, 2010).

In the scathing release, the ICE union also accuses Director Morton and Assistant Director Coven of:

  • Dedicating “more time to immigration reforms aimed at large-scale amnesty legislation, than advising the public and Federal lawmakers of the severity of the illegal immigration problem;
  • Misleading the public regarding the effectiveness of the Secure Communities program and using it as a selling point to move forward with amnesty legislation;
  • Refusing to alert Congress as to the severity of the problem regarding criminal aliens and to request additional resources to provide better enforcement and support of local agencies;
  • Prohibiting the majority of ERO agents from making arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (i.e. jail) setting; and
  • Implementing detention reforms that have created a “resort like living conditions to criminal aliens.”

When asked about criticism of him and his agency, Morton was dismissive. “You develop a thick skin in a job like this,” said Morton. “I’d imagine that for some other senior leaders in government, the day when someone calls for their resignation would be the day they’d remember throughout their career. That’s just part of the territory here.” (Washington Post, July 19, 2010). However, Janice Kephart, Director of National Security Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, noted that a unanimous rebuke from one’s entire workforce of agents is under no circumstances a typical critique of a government official. Morton, she states, cannot do his job unless the agents can do theirs. But then again, she notes, maybe this is the point. (CIS blog, August 4, 2010)

Republican Leaders Voice Support for Re-Examining Birthright Citizenship

In a fast-paced turn of events over the past week, Republican leaders in both the House and Senate have voiced their support for examining the issue of birthright citizenship. The debate over birthright citizenship was revived nearly ten days ago when amnesty advocate Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced he may introduce a constitutional amendment to end the practice of automatically granting citizenship to children born in the United States regardless of the parents’ immigration status. (Politico, July 29, 2010) Graham’s statements immediately grabbed headlines and sparked furious opposition from amnesty advocates.

But despite such criticism, over the past week key Republican Leaders have echoed Graham’s desire to examine the issue. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stopped short of endorsing an amendment to the Constitution, but said “I think we ought to take a look at it — hold hearings, listen to the experts on it,” (The Hill, Aug. 2, 2010). McConnell’s statements were similar to Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) who said he suggested to Senator Graham that “we should hold some hearings and hear first from the constitutional experts to at least tell us what the state of the law on that proposition is.” (Id.)

Other prominent Senators have voiced their support for holding hearings on birthright citizenship. Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “It’s very much worthy of discussion,” adding that he thought hearings are a good way to do it. “I’d like to see somebody draft an amendment, and let’s see what it says.” (Politico, Aug. 4, 2010). Meanwhile Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who is in a heated primary battle, was a little more reserved in his support, stating simply that he supports “the concept of holding hearings.” (Id.)

On the House side, Minority Leader John Boehner announced his support for studying a possible change birthright citizenship on NBC’s Meet the Press. “I think it’s worth considering,” he said. (Meet the Press transcript, Aug. 8, 2010) “[T]here is a problem. To provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to come here so that their children can be U.S. citizens does, in fact, draw more people to our country….[I]n certain parts of our country, clearly, our schools, our hospitals, are being overrun by illegal immigrants, a lot of whom came here just so their children could become U.S. citizens.”

The controversy surrounding birthright citizenship stems from one clause in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” This sentence has been interpreted to automatically grant citizenship to any child born within the territorial United States, regardless of whether their parents are tourists, business travelers, or even illegal aliens. Some scholars argue that birthright citizenship was never intended to be a blanket citizenship to the children of all persons born within the territorial United States. Their research supports the argument that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to mean those having allegiance to the United States government, not those who are merely physically located on U.S. territory. (See FAIR’s Issue Brief, April 2008). They also argue that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which reads, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article,” grants Congress broad authority to define the phrase by statute.

Whether Congress moves forward with hearings on birthright citizenship is uncertain. What is clear is that the existing interpretation of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment resulting in birthright citizenship has led to significant abuse of the U.S. immigration system. Despite the fact that their parents broke U.S. immigration laws, children of illegal aliens automatically become citizens, are eligible for benefits, and are able to petition to bring their parents into the U.S. when they reach 21. Texas alone last year had approximately 60,000 such births. (Dallas Morning News, Aug. 8, 2010). At Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, data show that the hospital handled 11,071 births last year to women who could not provide proof of U.S. citizenship – or 74 percent of the total 14,872 births at the hospital. Most of these women are believed to be in the country illegally. (Dallas Morning News, Aug. 8, 2010). There has also been a rapid growth of “birth tourism,” an industry in which companies organize pregnant women from other countries to come to the U.S. to give birth so that their children will become U.S. citizens. In April of this year, ABC News reported that data from the National Center for Health Statistics showed that the number of U.S. births to non-resident mothers rose 53 percent between 2000 and 2006. (ABC News, Apr. 14, 2010).

latimes.com

A biased ruling on gay marriage in California

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker should have recused himself, but he had a legal and political statement he wanted to make.

By Tim Wildmon

August 13, 2010

The people of California spoke clearly at the polls in 2008 when they passed an amendment to the state Constitution that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The public debate was held, the media wars were fought, both sides spent millions of dollars and the people voted for Proposition 8 by a margin of 52% to 48%.

The people’s will carried the day, as it is supposed to — until U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker came along.

Last week, Walker nullified the votes of 7,001,084 people. In his decision to invalidate the constitutional amendment, he wrote: “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant.”

This judge believes that defining a person by sexual behavior is the same as defining a person by skin color. And given the fact that he is widely reported to be homosexual, it is obvious he believed this before the case was even brought to his courtroom. Walker should have recused himself, but he had a legal and political statement he wanted to make.

Colin L. Powell once said of this comparison: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

This case will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court sometime soon, and there will be a 4-4 split in opinion, leaving the decision once again to one man in a black robe — Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

The Constitution envisioned a system in which the judiciary would serve to check the excesses of the legislative or executive branches. But today, federal judges have far exceeded their intended role, becoming little gods in our republic. They have lifetime appointments, and their only accountability is the potential for impeachment.

But in the history of our country, only 15 judges have been impeached by the House of Representatives. Of those, four were acquitted, seven were convicted, three resigned and one is still pending. In other words, Congress almost never removes federal judges. For all practical purposes, the checks and balances of the federal government no longer exist. The judiciary trumps. Our country is basically now run by judges.

Thomas Jefferson warned about this possibility in a Sept. 28, 1820, letter to William Jarvis: “You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so … and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

The Founding Fathers understood the selfish and sinful nature of man and therefore divided the government up so that no one branch would be all powerful over the other branches or over the American people. What we have today is judicial tyranny and exactly what Jefferson feared. Unless Congress asserts its constitutional power of impeachment, judges will continue to impose their personal opinions on whatever controversy is before them, regardless of what the Constitution does or does not say.

In his ruling, Walker wrote: “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”

This is clearly a judge imposing his personal opinions. What Walker is saying is that you cannot hold a valid view about marriage if you base it on religion or morality. Those are illegitimate considerations in his worldview.

Contrast Walker’s dismissal of our country’s rich Judeo-Christian heritage with George Washington’s affirmation in his famous farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

If moral and religious values are no longer valid, what does the judge put in their place? I would suggest, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that we continue to rely on, and revere, “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

Tim Wildmon is president of American Family Assn., a national organization promoting traditional values.

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

Critics denounce Obama mosque endorsement
Pauline Jelinek and Julie Pace – Associated Press Writers – 8/15/2010 6:45:00 AM

PANAMA CITY BEACH, Fla. – President Barack Obama is under fire for his endorsement of a proposed mosque near the site of the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attack in New York City.

Speaking to a gathering at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Obama said that he believes “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.”

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

Asked Saturday about the issue during his trip to Florida, Obama tried to reframe his Friday remarks saying “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.”

Obama said that “my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.

The White House quickly followed up on Obama’s latest comments on the matter, with Obama spokesman Bill Burton saying that the president wasn’t backing off in any way from the remarks he made Friday.
“What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque,” Burton said.
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who was among those who met with Obama on Saturday, lauded the president’s position. Crist is running for the U.S. Senate as an independent.
“I think he’s right – I mean you know we’re a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others,” Crist said after the Florida meeting with Obama and other officials. “I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you’re supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can’t.”
Others were quick to pounce on Obama’s statements.
In a statement Saturday, House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn’t an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.
“The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do,” Boehner said. “That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding.”
Added Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.:
“President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero.”
Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida took Obama’s Friday speech to mean the president supports the construction.
“President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans,” said Greene. “Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else.”

The mosque would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

The proposed construction has sparked debate around the country that has included opposition from top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich as well as the Jewish civil rights group the Anti-Defamation League.