The White House Attack on Religion Continues: Repealing Conscience Protection - by David Barton

The White House Attack on Religion Continues: Repealing Conscience Protection - by David Barton

Posted on August 31st, 2009 by David-Crockett
The Betrayal

Some of the first acts of the new presidential administration make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White House. For example, when the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office.

A second visible change was related to hiring protections for faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations only on a “case-by-case” basis. 1

Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as Catholic Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant, Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values – for example, Evangelical organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, pro-life groups don’t have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc.

[Read more →]

Read online, download or send for your copy of these free booklets:
The United States and Great Britain in Prophecy
Fourteen Signs Announcing Christ's Return

Obama Was A Natural Born SUBJECT :

by Leo Donofrio
Natural Born Citizen

Excerpt:
Our current US President was a Great British citizen at the time of his birth. He then became a Kenyan citizen followed by what appears to be citizenship in Indonesia. Perhaps he is currently a citizen or subject of a nation other than the US. (That question will be the focus of my next article.)

Obama’s own web site carried an admission that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. That admission was published by Obama’s Fight The Smears web site as quoted from a discussion of Obama’s UK citizenship written by Factcheck.org.

The Factcheck.org essay went even further than the admission quoted by Obama’s site. It further stated:

• 
  “In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC…Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived.”

Neither Obama nor Factcheck.org dispute that Obama was a British citizen at birth. As you can see, it has been admitted. All those who continue to dispute this fact are delusional. Obama was a British citizen at birth. Fact. Checked. Established. The only question that remains on the issue is whether he’s still a British citizen or subject. (And that’s the topic of my next post.)
Having been a British citizen at birth, Obama was therefore a natural born subject of Great Britain. Justice Gray – writing for the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark – quoted the following from a prior US District Court decision:

• 
  “In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”

Birth and allegiance go together. Obama’s father conveyed British citizenship upon his son at birth. His son, Obama Jr., was a natural born subject of the British monarchy. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii and was a US citizen at birth, nothing can change the fact that he was also a natural born subject of Great Britain as well as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

The fact that Obama is a natural born subject has – up until this article – gone largely unnoticed. According to Blackstone’s Commentaries:

• 
  “all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;”

Obama’s allegiance was – at the time of his birth – divided. And the framers would never have considered him eligible to be President. The same can be said for the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark which also indicated that the native born son of an alien was not natural born.

Now we shall turn our attention to the fears expressed by our founding fathers as to the possibility that foreigners might gain political footholds in our federal government. The issue was discussed explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in Essay 68 of the Federalist Papers wherein he stated:

• 
  Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? (Emphasis added.)

...The main stream media would have you believe that a natural born subject – a citizen at birth of Great Britain – entangled closely with the nation of Kenya where he was a citizen until at least the age of 21 – and still may be according to Kenyan law – would be eligible to the office of President of the United States and to be its Commander In Chief. And they push this propaganda down your throat as if it weren’t even a serious issue.

They are lying to you and the depths of their lies betray their genuine recognition that a Constitutional crime has been committed against the Document and the judgment of the founders.

Your press, members of Congress, Senate and current Supreme Court have sold you out, America.

Something wicked this way comes.

And that wickedness comes in the form of a “citizen of the world” who declares our Constitution a flawed document out of one side of his mouth, while allegedly declaring an oath to protect it from the other. (Although the oath was taken in private, so who really knows.) When I recently said I wasn’t worried about Obama, what I meant was that I wasn’t worried about him anymore than the Bush cabal or the Clintons. They all perpetrated crimes against the Constitution.

There are many enemies of the Constitution in high places. But you only care about Obama? None of the above bothered so many of you. But now you want to preserve the Constitution?

You’re too late.

This nation will not exist as a Constitutional republic for much longer. Nothing can be done to stop the utter dismantling of the Constitution. It will continue in name only. But the protections it once granted will be ancient relics of a failed experiment in liberty: not failed because our founding fathers didn’t prepare us – failed because we prostituted our ethics for revenge.

I’ve made the legal case that Obama is not a natural born citizen and should not be President. But he is President and Commander In Chief. Nothing will change that.

This country does not have the will power to change it...

CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.

Read the entire posts:
Obama Was A Natural Born Subject: the Founders’ Greatest Fear As To Commander In Chief.
and: « The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President.

Obama's Birth Issue EXPLODES!

Read full article: “Birther” Issue EXPLODES!

By JB Williams
Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Excerpt:
Just yesterday, I released Obama Media Machine Rushing to Derail Treason Charges and the column went viral within moments of its release. Take a few minutes to read my up-to-date report on the issue driving the Obama White House, congressional Marxists and their media minions insane!

Within hours, every network news agency was in damage control mode, spinning their twisted set of false facts and missing evidence into a demonstration of unbridled outrage aimed at American citizens who simply want to know who the mystery messiah is, residing in their White House.

Within hours, every network news agency was in damage control mode, spinning their twisted set of false facts and missing evidence into a demonstration of unbridled outrage aimed at American citizens who simply want to know who the mystery messiah is, residing in their White House.

Are “birthers” Getting too close for Comfort?...

If Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen” – Why Can’t he Prove it?...

Even “Right-wing” Pundits are Running for Cover
So-called “right-wing” talking heads like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly are also carrying water for Obama by downplaying the “birther” (aka constitutionally concerned citizen) demand to know who the mystery messiah really is.

What’s in Obama’s records, that is so dangerous to his current standing, that NOBODY wants to open those files? Whatever it is, members of the House would rather pass a resolution declaring Obama a “citizen” than ask him to open those files… Why?

Real Conspiracy or Just a Theory?

Robert Gibbs Lame Parsing of Words
Reacting once again to press corps softballs tossed up for Gibbs to hit out of the park, White House press secretary Gibbs parsed his words very carefully....

CBS News reports – “Gibbs lashed out Monday at the so-called “birthers” who believe President Obama is not a legal U.S. citizen despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
Notice the absence of the term “natural born citizen.” Gibbs and CBS both know that we are NOT discussing “legal US citizenship” but rather the Founder’s “natural born citizen” requirement, unique to the Oval Office...

What is a Natural Born Citizen?
But the subject is really quite simple…
To know with certainty what the Founders meant by “natural born citizen,” one need look no further than the “natural law” at the foundation of everything they did...

Natural law says, when a father has a son, the son is the “natural born” descendent of the father, assuming his sir name and his citizenship by “birth right.” No man-made law is needed to establish the “birth rights” of the son...

No Room to Run
House Resolution 593 is NOT binding. It is only symbolic.
Still it demonstrates the lengths to which the federal government, both Democrats and Republicans, are willing to go to avoid whatever hard evidence on the matter might exists in Obama’s official birth, adoption, college and passport records..


Related article: Media Viciousness and Obfuscating the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

Iran Threatens Strike on Israel's Nuclear Facilities if Attacked

Threat of Attack
Saturday, July 25, 2009
FoxNews

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said Saturday the country would strike Israel's nuclear facilities if Tel Aviv attacked the Islamic state, Reuters reported state television as saying.

"If the Zionist Regime (Israel) attacks Iran, we will surely strike its nuclear facilities with our missile capabilities," Mohammad Ali Jafari, Guards commander-in-chief, said.
Jafari said Israel was entirely within the reach of Iran.

"Our missile capability puts all of the Zionist regime (Israel) within Iran's reach to attack," Jafari said.

Iranian leaders have said Iran would respond to any attack from Israel by targeting U.S. interests and Israel.

Jafari said Iran "was not scared" of Israel's military capabilities.

"It is part of the psychological war that the West has launched against Iran," Jafari said.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said this week a nuclear Iran could be contained by a U.S. "defense umbrella," setting off tremors in the Middle East.

Since making the remark on a television chat show in Thailand, Clinton has backpedaled, saying she was only restating existing policy and not referring to any sort of formal guarantees of protection under an American "nuclear umbrella."

And when Israeli officials raised alarms that she seemed to suggest the U.S. was resigned to a nuclear-armed Iran, Clinton and senior State Department officials hastily insisted such a prospect was still unacceptable and that no policy had changed.

The Obama administration is dispatching four of its most senior foreign policy and security figures to Israel this coming week to urge the country to shelve any plan for a military strike to sabotage Iran's nuclear facilities, arguing that Obama's offer of engagement and talks with Iran deserves time to bear fruit.

Obama's senior military advisers say a strike could cause more problems than it solves in the short run, but Israeli leaders are firm that their small country in Iran's line of fire must make such calculations for itself.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Bible Bashed In the Name of Art

Word of God takes a beating
July 24, 2009
Article from: The Australian

Visitors to a gallery in Scotland have been defacing the Bible in the name of art.

The Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow has invited art lovers to write their thoughts down in an open Bible on display as part of its "Made in God's Image" exhibition.

Next to the Bible lie several pens with a note saying: "If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it."

Several visitors have already taken up the offer, choosing to leave messages of abuse and obscenity rather than support for the words of God.

"This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all," one message read.

Another scrawled over the first page of Genesis: "I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this."

Others wrote: "The Gospel According to Luke Skywalker", "F... the Bible" and "Fascist God".
The exhibition, which also includes a woman ripping pages from a Bible and stuffing them into her underwear, has outraged the Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland.

But the gallery's artist in residence, Anthony Schrag, is unrepentant. "Any offensive things that have been written are not the point of the work," he said.

"It was an open gesture. Are those who say they are upset offended by the things that people write, or just by the very notion that someone should write on a Bible? If we are to open up the Bible for discussion, surely we have to invite people to speak out."

The Metropolitan Community Church proposed the exhibition as a way of reclaiming the Bible as a sacred text.

AAP

For biblical perspective, send for these free booklets:
The Bible: Fact or Fiction?
The Real God: Proofs and Promises
Fourteen Signs Announcing Christ's Return

Obama ambushed Netanyahu in the Oval Office

Obama ambushed Netanyahu in the Oval Office
M E N O R A H
July 23, 2009

Without any preparation or advance warning, Obama placed his ultimatum in front of Netanyahu.

Instead of acting as a good friend or counselor, he became the bad cop. That is how he turned Netanyahu from an admirer into an adversary in the blink of an eye.

But Obama did not settle for that. Soon after the confrontation in Washington he renounced the commitments made by previous administrations on the settlement blocs. More

Related posts:
National Jewish Leader Turns against Obama
U.S. warns Israel not to build up West Bank corridor

Abortion, economics, and Ireland’s dilemma

By Wyatt Ciesielka
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Lcg.org

Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty in 2008, and Eurocrats are again near despair over another potential Irish “no vote.” The Beast is growing, and it wants Ireland. Consequently, Brussels’ bureaucrats are paying lip service to Irish demands on military neutrality, taxation autonomy and anti-abortion laws. Ireland can gain economic advantage and, in return, Europe requests Ireland’s sovereignty, its future, and its children. How will Ireland decide?

An analysis of Brussels’ intentions and the law shows their dubious “concessions” are nothing more than political pandering and it is doubtful that they would ever be fully granted (The Irish Times, “Lisbon Treaty and abortion,” July 18, 2009).

At the moment, Ireland appears determined to defend the Eighth Amendment to its constitution, added in 1983, which strictly outlaws abortion and prevents it from being legalized in the future…so long as Ireland remains a sovereign nation, of course! This is a point which biblically based Christians should understand, and on which interestingly, the Catholic church is also adamant (The Irish Times, July 16, 2009). Scripture shows that God knows and loves the unborn baby. David and others were known by God, and were special to God, even “in the womb” (Psalms 139:13-16).

Whether killed through Caesarean abortion (where the preterm baby is extracted and suffocates to death), or partial-birth abortion (where the baby is partially delivered, only to have his or her brains suctioned out), or through other procedures, scripture plainly shows that God knows and loves the unborn baby and considers it a living human being. (See, Abortion: A Deadly Game of Terminology for more on this.)

Ireland may have noble intentions, and may delude itself into believing it has solved its anti-abortion dilemma, but what of its national dilemma?

Under E.U. pressure and amidst political promises, on July 13, the Irish approved holding another Lisbon referendum this coming October 3 (The Irish Times, July 13, 2009). This is a major step toward membership. And, following Iceland’s July 17 “yes vote” (The Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2009), and considering dubious E.U. assurances to Irish demands, the pressure on Ireland to ratify Lisbon has never been greater.

Furthermore, if Ireland votes “yes,” and global economics further deterioriate, then the pressure on Britain to succumb will be unprecedented. The E.U. knows this, and is moving fast on both Ireland and Britain, especially before a Euro-skeptic British Conservative party replaces Britain’s Euro-friendly Labor government in coming months (Financial Times, June 18, 2009).

Pressure to join the E.U. is becoming irresistible. Europe is already an economic and political colossus, and will also temporarily become a religious and military superpower (the Beast of Revelation 13:15-18). Perhaps well-meaning and practical from a human perspective, this final revival of the “Holy Roman Empire” will temporarily enrich those who accept its rules and will be sanctioned and even directed by a powerful religious system (Revelation 17:2-5). Note that this religious system will also exert religious pressure to re-gather her wayward religious “daughters” (Isaiah 47:8).

However, this economic and military empire will be fraught with political division (Daniel 2:33-34). Today, we see a Roman Catholic-backed European empire rapidly coalescing exactly as Scripture and God’s Church has long warned!

So-called guarantees are nothing more than political promises, and post-referendum, E.U. law will be law. Regardless of temporary economic advantage, Ireland, the U.K. and the other European nations are warned against “fornicating” with this system. To disregard this warning is to disregard God’s admonition to “come out of her” or share in her plagues (Revelation 18:3-4).

Ireland’s dilemma is not just about whether or not to trust E.U. political rhetoric. Like our individual choices, Ireland’s dilemma is really about whether or not to compromise, to commit spiritual fornication, and suffer God’s wrath. How will Ireland decide? How will we, individually decide?

Please request The Beast of Revelation: Myth, Metaphor or Soon-Coming Reality?
and read Behind the Mists of Ireland to learn more.

If you appreciate these insights – click here to receive them by email.

Bill O'Reilly: The United States Will Be Bankrupt By End of Year & Media Won't Report It (Video)

Bill O'Reilly sounds the alarm:
by Gateway Pundit

"If we continue to go in this direction, the country will be bankrupt perhaps by the end of this year."

The nation's top cable news host warned viewers that Barack Obama is bankrupting the country and the leftwing media won't even report on it:



O'Reilly also reported that Obama's health care plan will create more debt than the country will ever be able to repay.

Visit www.gatewaypundit.blogspot.com: Bill O'Reilly: The United States Will Be Bankrupt By End of Year & Media Won't Report It (Video)

2012: The Hype and the Truth

By Wallace G. Smith
Saturday, July 18, 2009

As my wife and I walked into the local cinema, before us stood one of the largest movie advertisement displays I’ve ever seen. It depicted a coastal city being completely ripped apart by unprecedented seismic activity—tossing vast swaths of the city into the sky and dumping entire neighborhoods into a hungry ocean. It was a scene of utter devastation that clearly would have taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. And it was a fitting advertisement for the movie 2012, the new End-Of-The-World epic written and directed by Roland Emmerich, coming out this November.

No stranger to such movies, with 2012 Mr. Emmerich is capitalizing on a growing public fascination: the idea that the world will end on December 21, 2012...

Why 2012?

It seems the Mayans—the well-known and much-studied ancient Mesoamerican empire—kept many calendars, including one known as the “Long Count Calendar.” This calendar will reach the end of a 5,100-year-long epoch on—you guessed it—December 21, 2012.

Is there anything to the hype? Should we expect doomsday to come on 12/21/2012—or, perhaps, a New Age paradise?

Read more: 2012: The Hype and the Truth

'Science Czar' John P. Holdren's disturbing beliefs about America, capitalism and humanity

'Science Czar' John P. Holdren's disturbing beliefs about America, capitalism and humanity
July 16, 7:18 AM
Kathy Shaidle
Conservative Politics Examiner

John P. Holdren has been named President Barack Obama's 'Science Czar."

Holdren's official titles are: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

...Holdren is no stranger to controversy.

Holdren's radicalism dates back to the late 1960s. In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.”

That same year, he and (the now largely discredited) professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: “If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.”

Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich in 1973 called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries.

“De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” "
In a new report “inspired by this article in FrontPage,” undercover videoblogger “Zombietime” (known for his “candid camera”-style exposes of leftist activists and protesters) got hold of a copy of Holdren & Ehrlich’s 1977 book, entitled Ecoscience, and verified the quotations and page citations provided in the FrontPage Magazine article, by scanning and posting them on the Internet.

To this day, Holdren lists the book on his CV.

Among other things, Holdren and Ehrlich wrote in Ecosystems:

• 
  Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
• 
  It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
• 
  Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

For Biblical perpective on what lies ahead for America read the free booklet: The United States and Great Britain in Prophecy