Rednecks for Romney!

Steve Routszong - Contributor

On Wednesday the Obama campaign launched "African Americans for Obama 2012."

Surprised? No, of course not!  Apparently, the POTUS hasn't taken lessons in class from Morgan Freeman, who sees February as nothing more than the month between January and March. But Mr. Freeman, we CAN'T stop talking about it. If we stop talking about it, what is the NAACP going to do with all that spare time?  What are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and all the other race baiters going to do for a living?

Now, let's flip the coin over for a minute..

For the full story, go HERE!

Steve Routszong is a self-made Monopoly Millionaire (which has nothing to do with him being the banker all the time), and all around snarky contributor to MilktheCrisis.com.  Seriously though, he is the 1% in that game.  

The Third War for Independence

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace.
We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

This is our finest hour.

Food and Drugs and Food and Drugs and....

With the VICE PRESIDENT of Monsanto being appointed as the new "Food Safety Czar" to the FDA(story HERE), it's got me thinking: "You know what? Maybe there is something to the fact that the average American is becoming more and more unhealthy at an earlier age."

I mean, I don't have pretend to be Mel Gibson with my eyes taped open being chased by Patrick Stewart to know that America has had the most cases of preventable diseases we've ever had in our nation's history.

 

NOBODY KNOWS!!  NOBODY KNOWS!! Although, I really feel like it sometimes...

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way, shape, or form an expert on anything organic or nutritious. I really just feel like the little kid watching the emperor running around naked while everyone else is complimenting him on that garment's particular hue of purple. The problem is you get called a cuckoo bird any time you even breathe a whisper about the connection between the two industries that make up the name of the department that oversees them both. I mean, it's really not all that sinister, is it? The fact that 90% of the food we eat is genetically modified, we get more and more diseases younger and younger in life, and have to go to a pharmacy to pick up a drug to alleviate the symptoms of said illness?  It is all just some kind of massive coincidence, right?  Apparently not.  Even to the point where hundreds of thousands of organic farmers are taking Monsanto to court to keep their garbage out of pure fields. (Story HERE)  

So, while we're not always in the forefront of political controversy here in North Carolina, we do hit the news every once in awhile.  This past week has seen an example from a particular school in the town of Raeford, where their "Star Rating" was threatened by a parent who dared to pack her child's lunch.  We as a nation can't stand for that!  After all, a drop in star ratings might affect federal money designated to the county.  The Monsanto raised, FDA approved (and don't forget inspected!) cafeteria food is MUCH more nutritional than ANYTHING kept in a person's house.  The federal government can't be expected to inspect every single citizen's pantry and fridge... yet. But the government run school is a much safer environment to ensure every child (owned by the state) is given a proper dose of genetically modified food to ensure the pharmaceutical industry has lots and lots of prospective clients in 20 years. (Story from Raeford HERE)

The good news is that, for every family here in Carolina content to eat the poison offered by Monsanto, there is another family fighting to protect our food supply from genetic modification. Well, maybe not an equal ratio, yet, but the more awareness that is raised, the more options are presented, the healthier we and our children will be.  Here's a great video from the western end of our fair state - (sorry about the subtitles)

Let's hope that the families affected by "The Fat Police" will have the bravery to challenge the state for the authority to make decisions concerning their children's nutrition.

PICK UP YOUR "FAT POLICE" SHIRT HERE!

This is our finest hour.

A Call to Return

There was a time in this country where our leadership reveled in the exploits of patriots in great days gone-by.  There was once even a time when our leadership was not content to simply do so, but to try to match those exploits with exploits of their own.  A time when men and women were not merely content to read and remember words and deeds that made and shaped this nation for the cause of liberty, but had to add their voice and hands to that cause for future generations.  There was a time when men and women were not for sale, where their voice and vote was not up for grabs, not up for debate.  A time when principles shaped hearts and minds and decision making.  A time when public office was something to be taken up reluctantly, where it was viewed as something higher than the person aspiring to hold it, when it was something viewed as a most serious duty.  A time when an oath was a solemn oath, not to be violated in fear of judgment of the people, and judgment before God.  A time when accountability was king at all times, not just during an election year.  A time when journalism was feared and respected... FULL STORY HERE!

The Excuse We Needed: War with Iran Draws Near

From Truth and Culture-Dr. Brian Phillips

American-Iranian relations have been strained for some time, as the U.S. has raised continual concerns that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  Iran has denied all such charges, claiming that they have only been using nuclear materials for energy development – a practice allowed by international law.

Many Americans defend the idea of military action against Iran because the assumption is that they are guilty of developing a nuclear arsenal, even though there is no proof of those assertions.  After all, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist group (only designated as such by George W. Bush’s executive order)!  How dangerous the world would be, the thinking goes, if Iran had a nuclear weapon! Wouldn’t they attack Israel?

Well, one could simply ask Egypt and Syria what happens to a nation that attacks Israel.  They were both embarrassingly defeated, though they attacked Israel together.  Additionally, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons in its arsenal.  Do Americans really have to worry about their well-being?  It would seem that if America is deeply concerned about Israel’s safety, the simplest move would be to get out of the way.

Perhaps there are other motives for picking a fight with Iran?

David Broder of The Washington Post, one of the more well-respected journalists in recent history and 400 time guest on Meet the Press, argued that starting a war with Iran would be the surest way for Barack Obama to garner conservative support, help the economy, and save his presidency.

Spend 2011-2012 attacking Iran, Broder advised the President, and enjoy your reelection.  Apparently the time has come…

The story broke today that U.S. authorities foiled a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.  Two men - Manssor Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri – have been charged in the plot and each of them is claimed to have strong ties to the Iranian government.

In fact, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder minced no words on the connection between the alleged assassins and Iran.  He said, “High-up (Iranian) officials…were responsible for this plot.  I think one has to be concerned about the chilling nature of what the Iranian government attempted to do here.”

The Iranian government quickly disavowed any involvement in the plot and released this statement on their English television network – “The Islamic Republic of Iranhas rejected U.S. accusations of the country plotting to assassinate the Saudi envoy to Washington as a prefabricated scenario.”  The denial was repeated by the Iranian spokesman to the United Nations.

Such denials, however, did not stop Holder from calling this a “flagrant violation of U.S. and international law” and promising that the U.S. will hold Iran accountable.

It would seem an open and shut case.  The two men were apprehended and, though both are said to have confessed everything to law enforcement.  Arbabsiar, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was read his Miranda rights and given a public defender (as opposed to the “droning” he would have received on foreign soil).

Arbabsiar reportedly approached a Mexican drug cartel for help in the plot, but his contact turned out to be an agent of the D.E.A.

Yes, indeed, an open and shut case.  And even though Iran denies the allegations of their involvement, all Americans know they are liars, right?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told The Associated Press that, “the idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador, nobody could make that up, right?”

Wait…was she asking or telling?

It remains to be seen what “hold accountable” means, but it seems the war hawks are circling again.  After all, it is election season.

Article also appeared on Antiwar.com – October 12, 2011

I Am a History Teacher & I Lie to My Students

Taken from "Truth & Culture" by Dr. Brian Phillips

On September 30, 2011, I woke up and began my daily routine, preparing for another day of teaching history to high school students.  In the course of an average school year, I literally teach the history of the world – ancient history, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and modernity.  My eleventh grade students take U.S. History, a required course for any student who plans to graduate.

In that class, we spent a great amount of time going, nearly line by line, through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I tell them that nothing else in U.S. History matters as much as their understanding of these documents.  The Constitution is what protects us, guides us, and rules us as a people.  The Bill of Rights, I say, guarantees that government does not overstep the bounds laid out for it by the Founding Fathers.  Those amendments help protect our dignity, our liberty, and our lives.

I am lying to them…

What I tell them about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is true, but I fear that, for them and their children (and for my own children) these wonderful documents will rank with the other insignificant dates and dead people of history.  The Founding Fathers will simply be dead guys who had a pretty good idea a few centuries ago.

The proof of this depressing claim is legion – from unconstitutional government programs and departments, to the tyrannical taxes levied against us, to the undeclared wars and “selective service” that will likely take some of the young men in my classes to die in foreign nations (even before they are allowed to drink beer).  Yes, all of these things show it quite clearly.

Our government has trampled what my students memorize, and the rights of the people continue to diminish in shameful ways.  But, surely none can be more shocking than what I witnessed on that morning of September 30^th.  As I drank coffee and ate breakfast, I took a moment to catch up on the morning news.  Fox News led the nation in rejoicing with a “Breaking News” segment that celebrated the death of terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki.

Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone attack in Yemen and, as the Associated Press later reported, he was the intended target of the attack.  Another man, Samir Khan, was also killed in the bombing.  Both were U.S. citizens.

According to the same article, Al-Awlaki was the suspected mastermind of several terrorist plots, including “the attempted 2009 Christmas Day bombing of a U.S.-bound aircraft. The official said that al-Awlaki specifically directed the men accused of trying to bomb the Detroit-bound plane to detonate an explosive device over U.S. airspace to maximize casualties.”

Born in New Mexico, al-Awlaki was never charged with any crime, never received a trial, and though the military could pinpoint his exact location, there was no actual attempt to arrest him.

I reflect over the lies I have told: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (5^thAmendment).

Samir Khan, from my own state of North Carolina, was not an intended target, but he did produce a magazine that gave instructions on how to use bombs and weapons and, the Associated Press assures us, it was read by lots of people.  He happened to be in the same caravan of vehicles as al-Awlaki, so he too was killed.  Guilt by association, I guess.

More lies: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” (6^th Amendment).

“But,” the bloggers and commentators bellow out, “these men were terrorists!  They relinquished their rights of citizenship when they turned against us!”  The government can take one’s citizenship when they break the law?

There can be little doubt that these men committed treason, so I breathe a momentary sigh of relief.  Perhaps I haven’t completely been dishonest with my students?  “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort” (Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution).  If only the framers had stopped there.

The next sentence makes me face another round of lies: “No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

The attack has been heralded as “the latest in a run of high-profile kills for Washington under President Barack Obama.”  Kills for Washington?  What will my students think?

There can be little doubt that were Khan and al-Awlaki apprehended and tried, they would have either been found guilty or confessed in open court.  But they were not tried.  They were not charged.  They weren’t even apprehended and water-boarded.  They were killed by an armed drone.  Killed for Washington.

Citizens and political leaders throughout the nation are and will continue to rejoice over this fresh kill and the deaths of these men will be used for political capital.  It is election season, after all.  Yes, the same ones who swear to uphold the Constitution will make a name for themselves by assassinating American citizens.  Does my dishonesty know no bounds?

Any right given to the government is one less right retained by the citizens.  I can hear the room of 17-year-olds reciting the 10^th Amendment.  What will become of them when their government defines “bad men” a bit differently?

I climb into my car and make the short drive to school where I must live another day with the realization that I am a history teacher…and I lie to my students.  Perhaps.  But, maybe, just maybe, they will be the ones to lift the veil.  Perhaps they will, by remembering what all others seem to have forgotten, they can reclaim what generations before are seeking to rob.

Only Tarheels and Queers… Come From North Carolina

Dave Durand - Contributor

This May, North Carolinians will have the opportunity to vote for an amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage. While it is currently illegal for gays to marry in NC, this measure would be a hefty road block for any future legislature to repeal the current law. It is also a safeguard against any overzealous judge that may feel the need to legislate from the bench.

There are several reasons often given to justify a general ban on gay marriage, but I’ve yet to hear one that convinces me of the need to restrict the personal liberty of my fellow citizens. Here are my thoughts on the main two. 

Homosexuality is a sin, and therefore gay marriage should be illegal.

As a Christian, I completely agree with the first half of this statement. The Bible is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin. But to those who feel that sins should be outlawed, allow me to let you in on a little secret…

… there is a difference between a crime and a sin. (Gasps of Horror!!!)

A sin is an act of disobedience against God. A crime is an act of force against man. These two ideas do not necessarily overlap. For instance: It is sin to get drunk, but it is not illegal. It is a sin to cheat on your spouse, but it is not illegal. It is a sin to covet, but it is not illegal. It is sin to be selfish, but not illegal.

I am not sure why Christians don’t just use the force of government and eradicate sin all together. Why not simply make it illegal to be a homosexual. After all, it is the underlying sin that drives all this gay marriage hoop-la. Why not take it a step further and make a law mandating that everyone in America must convert to some brand of Christianity. In fact, let’s get real here and makes it illegal to not accept Christ as you personal savior. Problem solved right?

Gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage.

I argue heterosexuals have done a pretty good number on the sanctity of marriage all on their own. Something like 40% of all first marriages ends in divorce, and nearly 50% of all subsequent marriages end in divorce. I am pretty sure the sanctity argument was thrown out long ago by straight couples.

Also, I just don’t get how the deeply personal relationship between you and your spouse can be somehow threatened by the existence of another relationship. Did you or did you not promise before God, your family, and your friends to uphold your marriage vows? Was there an exclusion clause in the fine print that gives you an out if two dudes tie the knot down the street? Let me ask you this. Are you any less married if gay couples are allowed to marry? Are you really worse off in any tangible way? If so, how?

So how will I vote?

Well I have to say that in the interest of liberty I will vote against the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I can see no threat to my life, liberty, or property posed by gay marriage, and therefore I will not support government standing in the way of personal choice. All things being equal, I would vote to get the state out of marriage entirely, but since we are forced to ask for the government’s permission to get married, I can only support a decrease in Raleigh’s control over us.

May God help this straight, married, liberty-minded Christian.


Dave Durand is a weekly contributor to Letters to the front, and has his own mind on matters of liberty.