Sunday, March 28, 2010

It's Official...U.S. Loses Cold War

From Martin Luther King Jr., to Barack Obama...The World Wide Goal of Marxism is being achieved in your lifetime! Our families, Our children, and Our Vets deserve an apology! America is falling Fast! Most Americans have never read the Marxist/Communist Program under Soviet Russia, and realized with the fall of Communist Russia, that America won the Cold War, when in reality, America didn't win the Cold War, the ideas that Communist/Marxist Russia wanted to spread to the United States right after World War II was successful. See if you see the difference between the Marxist/Communist Program and what we have in this Country today before World War II and after World War II. Were we really on the right side?

1. Full integration of the races, interracial marriage legalized.
2. Sexual freedom outside of marriage and same sex marriage legalized
3. Full abortion rights and mercy killings legalized
4. Progressive Income Tax/centralized tax collection agency (IRS)
5. Billions of dollars to third world countries while our citizens in need.
6. Central government control of schools and board of Ed. established.
7. Thought crimes-ENDA Act soon to be passed by Obama led Congress to make it illegal for preachers to speak against homosexuality, employers and homeowners will be forced to hire/rent/sell to sodomites!
8. Prive property rights diminished/govt. confiscation of land through planned economic instability/more power to the banks.
9. Limit ability of citizens to defend against tyranny-More gun laws.
10. exploitation of women/economic force women into menial labor jobs.
11. Unchecked immigration means multi-racial/multi-cultural nation and leads to destruction of Western Christian Civilization.
12. Men and women loyal to Christianity and racial integrity labeled haters!


Wednesday, March 24, 2010

How Well Do You Know Billy Graham?

From The Torch, published by Thomas Robb Ministries -

Many people are unaware of the betrayal of Billy Graham. His statements on more than one occasion helped prepare America for racial miscegenation. His February 25th,1974 syndicated column (My Answer) which appeared in the Newspapers all around the country made plain intent, (and perhaps the reason the media made him into an evangelist icon). I have a copy of the column which was obtained from The Atlantic Constitution. In this issue he writes, "In Chattanooga, Tennessee back in 1953 we began insisting that our meetings be purposely mixed. I took this stand before the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and before I had ever heard the word "Integration."

In another issue of this column a white mother asked Graham whether there was any thing in the Bible that would forbid her daughter to marry a Negro. Graham answered emphatically "Certainly Not!"

Billy Graham without shame boasts of his close friendship with Martin Luther King, Graham actually invited King to speak at one of his Team Retreats. This was a gathering of young people who Graham was teaching to be his ambassadors. According to Graham in his autobiography "Just as I am" , "King came "To help us understand the racial situating in America." Graham says that he called King, 'Mike" as King requested. Grahams intent was to break down white resistance in the south. Graham helped accomplish the goal. "The dinner was held in honor of (Mike) Martin Luther King, Jr. -Graham invited Southern Baptists leaders from the Untied States to come. I wanted to build a bridge between Blacks and Whites in our own South, and this seemed like a good opportunity to move toward that goal."

"During our brief stay, some Mississippi Baptists came up to Grady (Grady Wilson, a Graham associate) to welcome him. As they were talking Mike came by and slapped Grady on the shoulder and greeted him warmly. Our friendly relationship with Mike made the point with my Baptist Friends."

"Early on, Dr. King and I spoke about his method of using nonviolent demonstrations to bring an end to racial segregation. He urged me to keep on doing what I was doing-preaching the Gospel to integrated audiences and supporting his goals by example- 'Not to join him in the streets.'"

Graham continues quoting from the words that King spoke to him, "You stay in the stadiums, Billy," he said. "Because you will have far more impact on white establishment there than you would, if you marched in the streets. Besides that you have a constituency that will listen to you, especially among the White people, who may not listen so much to me. But if leaders get far out in front of the people they will lose sight of him and not follow him any longer."

Graham said, "I'll follow his advise."

Graham further displayed his treason in the May 28th,1973 edition of the Mainichi Daily News of Tokyo, Japan. In this newspaper Graham is quoted as saying, "I think communisms appeal to youth and is its structure and promise of the future utopia. Mao Tse Tung eight precepts are basically the same as the Ten Commandments. In fact if we cannot have the Ten Commandments to read in our schools, it'll settle for Mao's precepts."

In an interview with Robert Schuller (May 31, 1997), the founder and pastor of the Crystal Cathedral, Graham stated that in effect Jesus Christ is not really necessary for salvation, but that a person simply has to follow “the light” and he will be saved. Here is what Graham said, “He (Christ) is calling people out of the world for His name . . . They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven . . . I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they've believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they've tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.”

Graham was interviewed by Larry King on June 16, 2005. The whole section of this interview is given at the end of this article. Here is another example of Billy Graham denying the value of the Cross and the gift of the Blood Atonement. You can watch the actual interview here,
King: “What about those like the Jews, the Muslims, who don't believe (in Christ).”GRAHAM: “That's in God's hands. I can't be the judge.”KING: “You don't judge them?”GRAHAM: “No.”

May 31, 1997. This is an EXACT transcript of a segment toward the end of the Robert Schuller broadcast.
SCHULLER: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?
GRAHAM: Well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven.

On January 21, 1997 Larry King asked: Are you . . . are you comfortable with Judaism?
GRAHAM: Very comfortable - In New York, they have had me to the Rabbinical Council to talk with them and Rabbi Tannenbaum, who was a great friend . . . he gave me more advice and more counsel, and I depended on him constantly theologically and spiritually and in every way . . .

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

The political firestorm over 'deem and 'pass': What it is and why it matters

“Deem and pass”: It sounds either like a gentlemanly gambit on a State Dinner dance floor or the most polite entry in an NFL playbook. But in the fierce endgame of Washington’s health care debate, the maneuver is provoking a partisan firestorm.

It all began Monday, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a gathering of political bloggers that although the deem-and-pass gambit is “more inside and process-oriented than people want to know … I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”

What the ‘deem’ part means
The House can “deem” that it’s endorsing the body of a bill passed by the Senate when the Senate submits the reworked language needed to make both versions of a bill win ultimate passage. Critics of the present, hypothetical proposal to deem the Senate version of the bill passed also call it “the Slaughter rule” – both because it sounds so thuggish and because House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter of New York would be executing the tactic.

Under deem-and-pass, the House Rules Committee (which lays out the terms of debate for any bill the chamber considers) essentially stipulates that the legislation has passed both chambers, ensuring that the body votes only on the final Senate adjustments to the bill.

The move would have the effect of passing the Senate bill without anyone voting to endorse it – and as Pelosi indicated, many House Democrats don’t want to go on record backing the Senate measure. Liberal Democrats like Pelosi don’t like the Senate bill because it doesn’t include the “public option” of a government-run health insurance plan. And moderate Democrats (or, really, any Democrats facing an uphill re-election fight this November) don’t like the pork-laden side deals folded into the Senate bill to secure the votes of wavering moderate Democratic senators like Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

What the ‘pass’ part means
The reason that leaders like Pelosi are pondering this shift in tactics is that it will permit House Democrats to essentially sidestep a formal vote on the Senate bill – and all the political controversy that comes with it. The House had formerly been planning to amend the bill the Senate eventually passes, via its own controversial, debate-shortening method of reconciliation. A House-amended version of the reconciled Senate bill would allow House members to assure their constituents they were “fixing” the parts of the bill that were too unpalatable – or too unpopular – to win their endorsement otherwise. But the Senate parliamentarian ruled out that approach last week, announcing that the House could amend the Senate measure only after President Obama had signed it into law.

So under deem-and-pass, House Democrats get to claim credit for moving along an ambitious and historic overhaul of the health care system – but they will also have plausible deniability when they confront voters upset about features in the legislation like Ben Nelson’s infamous $45 million “Cornhusker Kickback” (something that the White House has pledged to drop as well).

Will they actually do it?
In one sense, the deem-and-pass maneuver is nothing exotic on Capitol Hill. It has been used to move other controversial measures through Congress, such as a ban on using statistical sampling in the 2000 census and the employment verification system to weed out illegal immigrants. And as with reconciliation, it is not the monopoly of either party. Brookings congressional scholar Thomas Mann told USA Today that the deem-and-pass maneuver was employed 36 times in 2005 and 2006, when the GOP had majorities in Congress, and 49 times in the Democratic-controlled sessions of 2007 and 2008.

That, understandably, is not how conservative opponents of the health care package see things. As a Wall Street Journal editorial argues, the tactic has mainly come into play in resolving fairly technical disputes over a legislation’s wording – “but never before to elide a vote on the entire fundamental legislation.” And indeed, legal scholars tend to agree that if the House presses forward with the method, it could expose the final health care law to serious constitutional challenges.

It may also be the case that the more tried-and-true method of backdoor arm-twisting will get enough wavering votes into the House’s “yea” column so that Democratic leaders will be spared the drastic application of deem-and-pass. President Obama logged one such win Wednesday, when single-payer supporter Dennis Kucinich of Ohio – a stalwart ‘no’ vote on previous versions of the bill – announced he’d now support the measure.

As Pelosi and her lieutenants ponder the next step forward, they might do well to heed the many political wags who have pointed out the ominous election-year undertones of the other parliamentary term for deem-and-pass: the self-executing rule.

– Chris Lehmann is managing editor of the Yahoo! News blog.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Non-White babies set to become majority in 2010.

WASHINGTON - Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.

In fact, demographers say this year could be the “tipping point” when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites.

The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years.

Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.

“Census projections suggest America may become a minority-majority country by the middle of the century. For America’s children, the future is now,” said Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire who researched many of the racial trends in a paper being released Wednesday.

Waiting to have children

Johnson explained there are now more Hispanic women of prime childbearing age who tend to have more children than women of other races.

More white women are waiting until they are older to have children, but it is not yet known whether that will have a noticeable effect on the current trend of increasing minority newborns.

The numbers highlight the nation’s growing racial and age divide, seen in pockets of communities across the U.S., which could heighten tensions in current policy debates from immigration reform and education to health care and Social Security.

There are also strong implications for the 2010 population count, which begins in earnest next week, when more than 120 million U.S. households receive their census forms in the mail.

The Census Bureau is running public service announcements this week to improve its tally of young children, particularly minorities, who are most often missed in the once-a-decade head count.

The campaign features Nickelodeon’s Dora the Explorer, the English- and Spanish-speaking Nickelodeon cartoon character who helps “mommy fill out our census form.”

The population figures are used to distribute federal aid and redraw legislative boundaries with racial and ethnic balance, as required by federal law.

“The adults among themselves sometimes forget the census is about everyone, and kids should be counted,” said Census Bureau director Robert Groves.

“If we fail to count a newborn that is born this month, that newborn misses all the benefits of the census for 10 years.”

Two-thirds of population is white

Whites currently make up two-thirds of the total U.S. population and recent census estimates suggest the number of minorities may not overtake the number of whites until 2050.

Right now, roughly 1 in 10 of the nation’s 3,142 counties already have minority populations greater than 50 percent.

But 1 in 4 communities have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point, according to the study, which Johnson co-published.

That is because Hispanic women on average have three children, while other women on average have two.

The numbers are 2.99 children for Hispanics, 1.87 for whites, 2.13 for blacks and 2.04 for Asians in the U.S.

And the number of white women of prime childbearing age is on the decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.

For example:

■In Gwinnett County, Ga., an Atlanta suburb, the population has shifted from 16 percent minority in 1990 to 58 percent minority in 2008. The number of blacks and Hispanics nearly doubled, while the number of white young people stayed roughly the same.
■The population of Dakota County, Neb., increased from 15 percent minority in 1990 to 54 percent in 2008, due largely to an influx of Hispanics who came looking for work in meatpacking and other labor.
■In Lake County, Ind., a suburb of Chicago, the minority population grew from 43 percent in 1990 to 53 percent in 2008 as the number of white children declined, the number of blacks stayed stable and the number of Hispanics increased.
The 2008 census estimates used local records of births and deaths, tax records of people moving within the U.S., and census statistics on immigrants. The figures for “white” refer to those whites who are not of Hispanic ethnicity.

Source: MSNBC.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Judge rules against religious expression

reprinted from OneNewsNow
A judge in Montana has ruled against a high school valedictorian who wasn't allowed to speak at her graduation ceremony because she wanted to give God credit for her success.

Rennee Griffith is now in her second year of college. She graduated from Butte High School in 2008 as one of the valedictorians, but when she submitted a draft of her speech to school authorities, her First Amendment rights were violated.

"She was asked, as were the other valedictorians, to speak about what helped them get through school. Some people wanted to thank the football coach or the track coach or their uncle or a particular teacher, and they were permitted to do that," explains Griffith's attorney, Bill O'Connor. "The only thing they would not permit, by their own admission, was...her to attribute any achievements to her belief in God."

The attorney reports that Griffith wanted to mention Christ once and God once in her speech, something he believes was well within her rights. "She was not doing what was forbidden by the Supreme Court or the Constitution, which is proselytizing," he argues. "She wasn't asking people to join her in her beliefs, and she wasn't praying, she wasn't asking people to join her in prayer."

O'Connor adds they plan to appeal this case to the Montana Supreme Court.