All Australians could be implanted with microchips for tracking and identification within the next two or three generations, a prominent academic says.
Michael G Michael from the University of Wollongong’s School of Information Systems and Technology, has coined the term “uberveillance” to describe the emerging trend of all-encompassing surveillance.
“Uberveillance is not on the outside looking down, but on the inside looking out through a microchip that is embedded in our bodies,” Dr Michael told ninemsn.
Microchips are commonly implanted into animals to reveal identification details when scanned and similar devices have been used with Alzheimers patients.
US company VeriChip is already using implantable microchips, which store a 16-digit unique identification number, on humans for medical purposes.
“Our focus is on high-risk patients, and our product’s ability to identify them and their medical records in an emergency,” spokesperson Allison Tomek said.
“We do not know when or if someone will develop an implantable microchip with GPS technology, but it is not an application we are pursuing.”
David Gutierrez - NaturalNews - Friday, Jan 30, 2009
The FDA has admitted that meat and milk from the offspring of cloned mammals such as cows, pigs, goats and sheep could very well have already entered the food supply in the United States. “It is theoretically possible,” agency spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey said.
In January, the FDA declared that foods derived from cloned animals and their offspring were safe for human consumption. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, however, asked food companies to voluntarily maintain a ban on products from clones.
The voluntary ban did not extend to the offspring of cloned animals.
Clones are organisms artificially developed directly from the DNA of a single organism, rather than the mixing that is difficult in sexual reproduction. They are made by implanting the nucleus of an adult cell into an egg cell, which is then incubated by a surrogate mother.
According to critics of the technology, very little research has been conducted on the safety of consuming meat or dairy products from clones or their offspring, thus making it premature to bring such products to market.
“It worries me that this technology is out of control in so many ways,” said Charles Margulis of the Center for Environmental Health. He said that the FDA’s announcement that clones’ offspring might already been food supply “is just another element of that.” [...]
Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury The Washington Post: January 27, 2009
Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies.
HFCS has replaced sugar as the sweetener in many beverages and foods such as breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments. On average, Americans consume about 12 teaspoons per day of HFCS, but teens and other high consumers can take in 80 percent more HFCS than average.
“Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply,” said the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy’s Dr. David Wallinga, a co-author of both studies.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul has warned that passing the latest proposed economic stimulus package would be akin to pouring kerosene on an already raging fire.
Paul, who is also a member of the House Financial Services Committee, warned that such measures will cause a recession to turn into a full scale depression possibly worse than that of the 1930s.
During a Television interview with CNN, Paul explained why he believes stimulus funding is such a destructive policy.
“It’s because the government is spending it. If the people were spending it it would be fine, but the government never does anything productive. They have to take money from productive individuals and spend it in non productive ways, so it’s just digging a bigger hole, getting us into bigger debt, and that is the problem.” Paul said.
“This stimulus package is going to cost each and every American $6700 of more debt, so how can that be beneficial? If debt was the answer we would of never had a problem.”
“We are doing exactly what we did in the 1930s, we are taking a recession and working very hard to try and turn it into a depression.” The Congressman added.
“What we’re worried about right now, well certainly I am, is that it’s worse than the 30’s because we’re on the verge of destroying the dollar. So if you think the financial crisis is bad, and the financial system isn’t working, wait ’til you find out when the Dollar doesn’t work.” [...]
Senator Warns White House Will ‘Create Crisis’ and ‘Panic’ to Push Stimulus Jeff Poor - Business & Media Institute - January 28, 2009
Is the new Obama administration taking cues from the Bush administration to get Congress to act? It certainly seemed that way to, South Carolina’s junior Republican senator, Jim DeMint.
DeMint, speaking Jan. 27 at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., explained the Obama administration will “create crisis and widespread panic” just like its predecessor in order to get Congress to act expeditiously.
“I’ve been around long enough to know whenever someone tells me I have to make a decision right now, my response is no,” DeMint said. “That clears it up right away and I think more and more the Bush administration and now this administration knows that they’re not going to get a quick reaction out of Congress unless they create crisis and widespread panic. And that’s going to be their M.O. to get Congress to act.”
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Thomas Jefferson once said: "When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hang on." As the global financial system pushes on a string, investors are desperately trying to hold tight.
The New World Order is upon us, full of hope, promise and a fair amount of fear. In our recent discussion regarding the direction of our country, we noted the risks of catering to conventional wisdom and the implications for the U.S. dollar. [...]
For years, the notion of an "invisible hand" was conspiracy theory until we learned that the Working Group on Financial Markets was a central policy tool.
And now, as we gaze across our historically significant horizon, we must open our minds to thoughts and ideas that may seem foreign to folks conditioned by the past and stunned by the present. [...]
Canadian economist Herbert Grubel first introduced a potential manifestation of this concept in 1999. The North American Currency -- called the "Amero" in select circles -- would effectively comingle the Canadian dollar, U.S. dollar and Mexican peso. [...]
Paul Watson reports on the bill before Congress that would establish military detention facilities for Americans:
The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of "national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill.
Sounds innocuous enough. After all, what's wrong with the government helping people out during an emergency? Well, consider the following language in the legislation, and ponder how a would-be tyrant might utilize this legislation to put political dissidents or other enemies of the state into camps. Watson points out,
Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.
"As determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security."
Martial law, concentration camps, outright tyranny: "It could never happen here," so it is often said. The more that the people put their guard down, believing this lie, the greater the possibility that martial law and FEMA camps will be instituted in America. Thomas Jefferson stated, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." If we're not eternally vigilant, there is no doubt that we will allow tyranny to advance on our own soil.
America is indeed exceptional, but only to the extent that we keep our government within the bounds of the Constitution. We're not doing that. So be prepared for tyranny, so common throughout history, to happen here.
We've previously posted (here and here) on the possibility of this happening in America, and the actual plans that have been in place since the 1980s to do so.
Watson also mentions previous moves in the direction toward mass detention of Americans:
The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.”
As far back as 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.
A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor program, was more recently updated and the revision details a “template for developing agreements” between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.”
Pentagon’s terror ‘recidivism’ claims blasted as ‘propaganda’ David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster - Raw Story - Saturday, Jan 24, 2009
Ever wonder how many of President Bush’s terror war detainees were released, only to “return to the fight”?
“Their numbers have changed from 20, to 12, to seven, to more than five, to two, to a couple, to a few, 25, 29, 12, and then 24,” quoted Keith Olbermann on Thursday’s edition of Countdown.
The latest figure, 61, which was carried unchallenged by CNN, the MSNBC host noted, appears to be nothing but “propaganda.”
A study published by Seton Hall Law Professor Mark Denbeaux on Jan. 15 finds the Pentagon wrongly altered its figures on terrorist ‘recidivism’ 43 times, with the latest figure being “the most egregiously so.”
Denbeaux first shared his findings a week prior with MSNBC host Rachael Maddow.
“Once again, they’ve failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which their report relies,” the professor wrote. “Every time they have been required to identify the parties, the DOD has been forced to retract their false IDs and their numbers. They have included people who have never even set foot in Guantánamo—much less were they released from there.”
“They have counted people as ‘returning to the fight’ for their having written an Op-ed piece in the New York Times and for their having appeared in a documentary exhibited at the Cannes Film Festival. The DOD has revised and retracted their internally conflicting definitions, criteria, and their numbers so often that they have ceased to have any meaning—except as an effort to sway public opinion by painting a false portrait of the supposed dangers of these men.”
Alex Jones' The Obama Deception will be the first hard-hitting film to expose Obama, his agenda & handlers cutting through all the media hype, side-issues and Left/Right rhetoric.
Alex has made several films exposing the Bush agenda and will approach the Obama Administrations plans from the same non-partisan point of view looking past the frontman in the White House to the real owners on Wall Street, in the Bilderberg group and at the Federal Reserve. [...]
School-children are now pledging allegiance to the flag with a large image of Obama projected up onto the screen. No pun intended, but this should send up red flags for the freedom-lover.
Obama's Pentagon has already killed civilians in Afghanistan. Obama apparently won't hesitate to kill innocents ("collateral damage"), as he prosecutes Bush's war on terror. Lew Rockwell comments:
Obama seemed like a decent guy, but as president, he has no hesitation in killing a group of people in Pakistan, including three little children. But what is murder in the private sector is just public policy for the state, and Obama is head of state, so he wields his terrible, swift Predator on people he doesn't know, and of whom he knows nothing. During the campaign, he famously said that if missiles were endangering his daughters, he would "do anything" to stop them. Think anyone else feels the same way? (Via Antiwar.com)
Those who expected a peace president in Obama are going to be sorely disappointed. But, Obama-as-hawk comes as no surprise to the astute reader.
The Obama administration warned the US public yesterday to brace itself for an increase in American casualties as it prepares to step up the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan.
Against a background of widespread protests in Pakistan and Afghanistan over US operations since Obama became president, the vice-president, Joe Biden, said yesterday that US forces would be engaged in many more operations as the US takes the fight to its enemies in the region.
One can't help but point out the irony of Robert Gates' statement that "civilian casualties are doing us enormous harm in Afghanistan" (emphasis mine). If the Pentagon is harmed by killing children in Afghanistan, then how much more are those families being harmed? But this is the logic of human governments: it's about "our" national interest. It's not about right and wrong.
Ron Paul continues to say what he has been saying since the campaign: Obama brings no change in foreign policy:
Michael Rozeff comments on the continuity of the Obama administration, rather than the change, arguing that Obama "reads off the same neo-con script" that the Bush administration had dutifully read:
Obama isn't changing anything. It's all more of the same. There is not even a hint of a fresh start or perspective. See, for example, his fifth press conference here.
I can't find even a shred of boldness here or any courage to confront the established interests that run America. There are not even small public signals of such an intention. It is remarkable that the party and election process is able to produce such homogeneous figureheads that parrot the same lines. It is remarkable that so many Americans become enthusiastic over these stooges.
All Obama brings in his remarks that are remotely new are his themes of (a) unity, and (b) globalism. These are signals of even more mischief.
The remarks of his associates are more of the same, which is to say, an incredibly paranoid portrayal of an embattled country beset by threats, forces, and enemies. Their agendas are lengthy.
Army rabbi 'gave out hate leaflet to troops' Ben Lynfield in Jerusalem UK Independent: Tuesday, 27 January 2009
The Israeli army's chief rabbinate gave soldiers preparing to enter the Gaza Strip a booklet implying that all Palestinians are their mortal enemies and advising them that cruelty is sometimes a "good attribute".
The booklet, entitled Go Fight My Fight: A Daily Study Table for the Soldier and Commander in a Time of War, was published especially for Operation Cast Lead, the devastating three-week campaign launched with the stated aim of ending rocket fire against southern Israel. The publication draws on the teachings of Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, head of the Jewish fundamentalist Ateret Cohanim seminary in Jerusalem.
In one section, Rabbi Aviner compares Palestinians to the Philistines, a people depicted in the Bible as a war-like menace and existential threat to Israel.
In another, the army rabbinate appears to be encouraging soldiers to disregard the international laws of war aimed at protecting civilians, according to Breaking the Silence, the group of Israeli ex-soldiers who disclosed its existence. The booklet cites the renowned medieval Jewish sage Maimonides as saying that "one must not be enticed by the folly of the Gentiles who have mercy for the cruel".
Breaking the Silence is calling for the firing of the chief military rabbi, Brigadier-General Avi Ronzki, over the booklet. The army had no comment on the matter yesterday.
Rabbi Arik Ascherman, the executive director of the Rabbis for Human Rights group, called the booklet "very worrisome", adding "[this is] a minority position in Judaism that doesn't understand the ... necessity of distinguishing between combatants and civilians."
CIVICS NEWS Comment: Who are these "Gentiles" that he's criticizing for having mercy on their enemies? Clearly, he's referring to Christians who follow a different kind of handbook--the New Testament. We follow teachings that require us to love our enemies. The sad part is...actually we don't follow it, we simply claim to follow it. How many evangelical Christians would join me in criticizing the excesses of the Israeli oppressors versus how many defend nearly any action undertaken by the state of Israel? Do you hear "support Israel" in Christians circles more? Or do you more often hear phrases like "love your enemy" in Christian circles?
Obama calls for people to serve him, the newly elected "leader," and the coercive force known as a human government. McCain called us to put "country first."
I'll take the power of a suffering servant over any manifestation of governmental power. I'll serve only him.
(Thanks to Sean for the pic.)
During the first century, Christians brilliantly co-opted the political slogans of the Roman Empire, that oppressive beast. Whereas Caesar had slogans such as, "Caesar is Lord," and "There is no name given under heaven by which we can be saved other than Caesar," Christians flipped those on their heads and inserted Jesus in place of Caesar.
So, in the spirit of those first century dissidents, those brave martyrs who subverted the empire through courageous love, we say to our fellow followers of Jesus, "In Christ...Together We Can." We can expose the misdeeds of the state, and unmask the true nature of government. We can hold true to the gospel of Christ, refusing to be caught up in the religious fervor or the first days of the new presidency. We can rebuke the oppressor, and defend the cause of the oppressed.
Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.
The new administration laid out its plans on the Web site–whitehouse.gov–at 12:01 p.m. EST, during Obama’s swearing-in ceremony.
The Defense of Marriage Act was an attempt by the Congress to assure that federal judges would not impose one state's marriage rules upon another state. This act preserved the principle of federalism whereby each state gets to set its own rules on matters that are not delegated to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Congress is fully within its powers in doing so. According to the Constitution, federal judges take their marching orders from Congress, as Congress created the federal courts and has the power to set the jurisdiction of those courts. Congress should be applauded for restraining the arbitrary rule of unelected judges. No doubt, if the Defense of Marriage Act was to be repealed, federal judges would eventually impose on all of the states marriage rules that take place in Massachusetts.
Notice the commentary here has nothing to do with imposing the Christian view of marriage upon anybody. I am for the de-politicizing of marriage altogether. Each state legislature would be wise to get out of the marriage business to defuse this divisive and distractionary issue. But it remains a state issue in which federal courts should not intervene. This is why the Defense of Marriage Act needs to stay.
AFP reports that Obama might do something good out of the gates:
President Barack Obama was to sign Thursday a series of executive orders to close the Guantanamo “war on terror” prison, end harsh interrogation tactics and shutter secret prisons, marking a dramatic reversal of policy from his predecessor.
I still fully expect for imperialism and fascism to advance under Obama, but we have to give credit where credit is due. If they follow through with ending the practice of torturing people, that's something to applaud. (UPDATE 2/2/09: THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH with ending this practics: see recent post, Can we torture? "Yes we can!" )
Forgive me for not trusting in politicians, but the danger remains that certain positive acts will be taken to get some good PR and a lot of political capital out of it--political capital that will no doubt be used to advance the rest of the political program that the elite have prepared for the Obama presidency. They will get a lot of mileage out of Obama, given how popular he is domestically and abroad. And this act of ending the torture will no doubt only add to that image of "change."
"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." ~ LysanderSpooner
As James Bovard says, if the government continues to be lawless and oppressive, elections in America today are just "reverse slave auctions," where slaves choose their masters. Elections do not equal freedom.
Freedom means that no government is confiscating one-third of your wealth each year. Freedom means that the state leaves you alone. We do not live in a free country.
OK, it could have been an honest mistake; maybe the person who made this poster didn't realize that it reads like "Obama: Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done." But why associate Obama with the coming of the Kingdom of God? I have to strongly correct this Christian who made this sign. God's kingdom does not come through human governments. Don't take my word for it; let the Scriptures speak for themselves.
My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil 3:20).
Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)
[...] ...the rulers of this age [...] are passing away (1 Corinthians 2:6)
For more on the subject of how human kingdoms are completely different (and actually contrary to) the Kingdom of God, read The Way, the Truth and the Sword.
UPDATE: 1/21/08 The day after writing my initial article on the subject, even more idolatrous statements have been made about Obama as a biblical hero and even the Messiah. Steve Watson reports on this trend,
Celebrities, including Jay-Z, Smokey Robinson, Don King, Denzel Washington, and Oprah Winfrey, spoke in the hours before the inauguration just a few feet from the rostrum where Obama was sworn-in as the nation’s 44th president, CNS News reports.
They spoke about how Obama had changed their lives and which Biblical character they think he most resembles, the report states.
“I would say that he would be Joshua going across to the Promised Land,” Boxing promoter Don King said. “Martin Luther King Jr. went to the mountaintop like Moses, and he said, ‘I might not get there with you, but I can see the Promised Land.’ But we gonna’ get to the Promised Land. So Joshua carried them across. Martin Luther King, Jr. was prevented from going into the Promised Land.”
R&B singer Smokey Robinson described Obama as a “world leader” and said that “There are so many Biblical figures who had the same task,” as the new president. [...]
Lennis Washington, the mother of actor Denzel Washington described Obama as being like any of the biblical leaders. “The apostle Paul, Moses, John the Baptist – any one of them. Seriously, he is like one of those apostles for our day. He came to lead us to the original design of what we are supposed to do on this earth.” she said. [...]
The image of Obama as Messiah is being pushed evermore by the corporate media. The London Telegraph reports that a vast amount of pictures taken over the past few days and weeks have shown the new president and his wife with a light source behind him so that light is thrown around his head like a halo. “Obviously this plays well for the image of Obama the messiah and it can result in some stunning pictures.” the newspaper comments.
It just doesn't stop. Just yesterday, I posted a lengthy report on the American Civic Religion. And now, on inauguration day, the worship service has begun, and there's so much to cover.
The latest outrage is that Obama is again being compared to Moses, leading America through the wilderness. This quotation by Ed Koch invents another American equivalent to the biblical story, making the American story a counterfeit copy of the Bible. It is disgusting to see sacred history usurped by a human kingdom, a worldly government. Here's Koch:
"We have chosen our leader to lead us across the desert and now we must help him with our political support and for those who believe in the Almighty, our prayers as well and for those who don't, their good wishes."
We have chosen? Think again. The same elite are behind both parties, and therefore we have no real choice.
Our leader? If that isn't reminiscent of the fuhrer, I don't know what is. (Fuhrer actually means "leader.") Even the headline at MSNBC states that a new "leader" has been inaugurated, not a new "president."
Bumper stickers with Obama's head with a halo are being put on peoples' cars. Hey, America! The campaign is over! You don't need to promote Obama anymore! Well, this is the new America, where we glorify our leaders.
Louis Farrakhan is even calling Obama the Messiah, albeit in a somewhat veiled fashion. He says Obama speaks and the youth listen. Then he says "when the Messiah speaks, the youth listen." Not that veiled; I know.
This is the civic religion taken to the next level, where the "leader" is being deified and compared to the heroes of the biblical narrative, and even to Christ, himself. For all the excesses of the religious right (of which I've been the harshest of critics), the left is dwarfing anything that the right came up with on the matter of the religion of the state. As Butler Shafer points out, "As goofy as the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell often revealed themselves to be, a president transformed into a pharaoh is a far more troubling phenomenon in American politics."
The religious right were and are dangerous, but this Obamamania is down-right scary.
No doubt, Obama is going to dupe a lot of Christians. In his inauguration, he quoted Scripture, and referred to the national service agenda as God's "calling" upon Americans. Oh how it turns my stomach to hear the rulers of this world hi-jack the holy words of Scripture and the sense of servitude to God, not to the state.
Then he idolatrously referred to the American "charter [that has been] expanded by the blood of generations," as that which "lights the world." The civic religion could not be more potent and more of a counterfiet of biblical Christianity. Not the blood of Jesus, but the blood of American soldiers; not Jesus as the light of the world, but the "American charter" as the light of the world. As a Christian, I can barely handle this.
I guess there's one item of good news on inauguration day. The more hope that people put in this man, the greater the disappointment will be, which will lead to a serious re-thinking of peoples' priorities. As Manuel Laura points out, "once the god-president fails, the disillusionment will be deliciously widespread." Then true political change will come, as Americans call for a return to the Constitution. But more importantly, people will have a spiritual crisis, as their god, the state, fails them, at which time they will turn to Jesus Christ and his Kingdom. The American Civil Religion might give way to the advancement of the one true Gospel.
Many years ago, Jim Wallis declared that the Religious Right was engaging in idolatry, and I agreed 100 percent. Yet, now that his government is in power, now the unadulterated state worship has begun in earnest, as is demonstrated in two postings on Wallis' "God's Politics" blog. (I always have thought it to be arrogant for a man to declare that HIS politics are the very politics of the Almighty, but, then, I am not part of the Beltway crowd.)
These two entries (here and here) pretty much present a picture of the worship of Obama and his new government (which will look pretty much like the old government that Wallis declared was NOT of God). So much for the "prophetic" voice of Wallis, who has warned American Christians not to fall prey to the idols of the state.
As I have said before, despite his self-proclaimed moniker as a "prophet," I have another moniker for Wallis: political operative.
In the final weeks of Bush's presidency, he and his advisors set about to try to paint Bush in a positive light, attempting to write the history books ahead of time. Their goal was to invent out of whole cloth a "legacy" that would sustain Bush's reputation for decades to come. The people aren't buying it, of course, because as dumb as the American population is, nobody is dumb enough to think that Bush was a great president. In fact, only 22 percent of the country "approve" of the job he did, let alone do they admire his presidency. Bush is the least popular president in the history of approval ratings.
So, what is Bush's true legacy? Rachel Maddow and Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turleydiscussed the reality of the matter, and how the Bush administration will be perceived over-seas for years to come:
"Do you think that Obama and his team realized how hot an issue this would become and would stay?" Maddow asked Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley.
"I don't think so," Turley replied. "I don't think the people in that building thought it," he added, pointing to the Capitol. "I mean, that building is where principles go to die. And they haven't, because there's been this groundswell of people saying, 'Look, you might be able to get away with an electronic surveillance program and say that's just a crime we're not going to allow to be prosecuted, but these are war crimes., these are a special category.'"
"I think that the new Barack Obama, the President Obama, is going to find it very hard to go round the world and to say that we're now again the nation of rules of law," Turley suggested, "if the first act he commits as president is to talk away from a confirmed war crime."
"Are we literally looking at a possibility," Maddow asked, "where administration officials from this [previous] administration cannot travel abroad to the other 145 countries that have signed the torture treaty because they might get arrested?"
"Most certainly," Turley replied. "The status of George Bush is not that different from Augusto Pinochet. They've both been accused of running a torture program. And outside this country, there's not this ambiguity about what to do with a war crime. ... Most people abroad are going to view you not as former President George Bush, they're going to view you as a current war criminal."
As one of his first actions, Obama plans to immediately resume the policy of forcibly taking tax dollars from working Americans to fund international "family planning" groups. Of course, "family planning" translates into population reduction and abortion under the guise of "sustainability" and "choice."
In one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama is planning to lift a rule that prevents federal money from going to international family planning groups that counsel women on abortion or perform the procedure.
Obama's repeal of the abortion aid policy is one of several executive actions that he will take soon after his inauguration today, according to several Obama transition aides.
We also previously reported on Obama's plan to facilitate the passage of the "Freedom of Choice Act," a law that would reverse all state and local legislation that has attempted to hold back the tide of abortions that take place.
Stealing and killing. What a fitting way to begin a new presidency, given the authoritarian implications of what the presidency has become in America.
What should Christians do in the face of this out-of-the-gates criminality? The same thing that the prophet Elijah did when King Ahab engaged in murder and theft. We should speak truth to power by reminding the president, and the government in general, that they are not above God's law. We should remind them that they have an oath of office to obey the Constitution, and that if they go beyond the bounds of the Constitution, they are violating the supreme law of the land, and thus are guilty of supreme criminality.
We are supposed to have a rule of law system of government in America, not a rule of man system. This means that the Constitution rules, not the whims of man. What is our government in America? It is the Constitution. Christians must submit to the legitimate government, the Constitution, and hold our public servants accountable to that supreme law. Barack, there is nothing in the Constitution that permits you to take money forcibly from Americans and fund anything in foreign countries, let alone abortions.
The moment he takes this action, my reply is: impeach Obama!
Isn't it fitting that the inauguration of a new Imperialist-in-Chief (he is going to immediately resume the reigns of the American Empire, and I use this term as a libertarian, not as a socialist) was immediately followed by a display of artillary fire from a massive killing machine? Was this mock-killing ritual supposed to be cool or presidential or stately or something? Lew Rockwell asks the rhetorical question, "Remember when the US made fun of those huge state pageants in North Korea, with millions assembled to hail the dear leader with religious and militaristic fervor?"
OK, it's a slight exaggeration, but the difference is in degree rather than in kind.
And ABC has gone and made the same mistake so many media outlets make. They have said that "we" have now sworn in "our" new Commander in Chief. Seriously, we're not a military state...yet at least. "We" don't have a Commander in Chief. You only have a Commander in Chief if you're in the military, which is still seperate from the civilian government. I guess I should just get over it and realize that we have a military form of government. [UPDATE: 6:58 PST... I just heard it again from the TV, which is on in the other room (a rare thing in my house): "we have a new commander in chief."]
Here's the clip where you can see the killing machine that makes the inauguration a military ceremony.
UPDATE: 1/22/08 Some argue that "it's just a 21-gun salute; they've been doing this for a hundred and fifty years! Why are you making a big deal out of this?" Admittedly, there are worse things to point out about the in-coming Obama administration. I simply make this post (with its admittedly charged rhetoric) to make a point to Christians that this thing called government is inherently this way--violent, militaristic. It's a question of the degree of coercive force that governments employ, but they all exist on the very basis of violence. It is extremely troublesome to me that we have a Christian pastor opening the ceremony in prayer, we have a president who cites Scripture and invokes the name of God...and all of this Christian stuff is adulterated by its association with the state, which is inherently an agency of force and military violence.
Forgive the annoyingly heavy terminology used, but using different language for things just might help my brothers and sisters in Christ re-think their association with the state.
Look out. Obama has stated that he is going to "re-make America." This is not going to be good. Isn't America, as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution sufficient? Why do we need to re-make it? In order to re-make something, you have to do away with its former identity. This could get really ugly.
Like the bumper sticker says about Obama, "You're going to be disappointed."
Ten thousand National Guardsmen, 7,500 active-duty soldiers, 25,000 cops from “99 federal, state and local law-enforcement agencies.” A city “honeycombed” with “communication command centers” spying on supposedly free Americans with 5,265 surveillance cameras. And, as if we aren’t already up to our eyeballs in goons, an entire brigade of the US Army on call. The cost for this hyperbolic hysteria? Hundreds of millions at a time when many taxpayers can’t scrape together the next month’s mortgage. All for an inauguration that has attracted no “specific threats.”
“Critics” contend that this is overkill. Go figure.
The piranhas swarming the security food-chain beg to differ. After all, they aren’t squandering their own money [...]
CIVICS NEW Comment: Don't you wish you could throw a multi-million dollar party in your own honor, paid for by money that was confiscated by people at the point of a gun? Oh wait...no, good people would not want to do something like that, but what is considered moral and just for regular folks is subverted by the state, which operates according to an entirely different set of moral rules. The state is above God's law (or the "moral law" or "natural law" if you will). Or it claims to be, that is.
UPDATE: 1/20/09 Add to the original report (re-printed below) an outrageous call by a collection of entertainers for Americans to live how their great leader wants them to live, which includes getting rid of our vehicles that are "obnoxious" to Obama, turning our lights off to limit the life-giving carbon dioxide life-cycle gas that we emit, avoiding flushing the toilet after peeing, and even to SERVE OBAMA. This is a twilight zone episode! Ashton Kutcher even tells us “to make a first person commitment of service to our new President." Isn't he a public servant who serves at our pleasure and for the people? This is being reversed, as we are called to serve Obama. He is our master. Be like Anthony Kiedis, and "be of service to Barack Obama."
Paul Joseph Watson's description of the last moments of the clip capture the seriousness of this propaganda offensive:
At the end of the clip, in perhaps the creepiest moment, Moore and Kutcher pledge to “be a servant to our President” as the shot pans out to show all the actors echoing a cult-like mantra, “because together we can, together we are and together we will be the change that we see,” as the shot morphs into the now familiar Marxist motif 1984-style image of Obama.
Also read Kenneth Libby's analysis of Obama's "service" agenda being nothing more than "universal civilian service."
The creeping conscription/national service movement has just advanced two more steps in the direction of literally enslaving the American people. 1) Starbucks is propagandizing on behalf of the Obama administration's call for Americans "serve" the state; and 2) A new series of calls for the draft are being heard in the circles of power. All-out conscription and compulsory national service is unlikely at this moment; however, we could very quickly move in that direction if the right crisis came along as a catalyst. (See here, here, and here for previous reports on the Obama-Emmanuel national service agenda.)
“Starbucks will honor each person who pledges with a free tall brewed coffee beginning Wednesday, Jan. 21 through Sunday, Jan. 25. The goal of the effort is to raise pledges in excess of one million hours of service from all over the country,” a Starbucks press releases states.
Starbucks wants to “make it easy to participate in the President-elect’s call for national service.” Back in September, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Obama plans to “leverage volunteerism in communities across the country” and make government “cool again.”
Fortunately, a lot of people are beginning to realize government is never cool, as the founders warned a couple hundred years ago.
I have to marvel at the brilliance of the government's propaganda. How do you convince individualist, liberty-minded Americans to become servants of the state (or what they call instituting "national service")? You begin by divorcing your "national service" plan from the concept of conscription...that can come later. Then you propagandize your "national service" agenda by associating it with good, old fashioned, community service. You know...cleaning up trash in your town, serving the homeless...good things. Make it voluntary and rosy, then it's much easier twist it into something compulsory and oppressive later.
Can't we see through this propaganda? Obama and Emmanuel are not exerting their efforts so that we will develop strong, local communities. The agenda is to have the population subservient to the federal government. These are the first steps in the direction of compulsory national service. By "service", they mean involuntary servitude. By serving the "nation" they mean serving the government. Hence, slavery to the state. They want a national security force as big as the Department of Defense. Listen to the words directly from Obama's mouth:
And here is Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, calling for compulsory national service:
Coinciding with this push by Starbucks is Charles Rangel'sintroduction of a bill calling for a return of the draft. The Hill reports, "Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) likely will introduce his controversial legislation to reinstate the draft again this year, but he will wait until after the economic stimulus package is passed."
And it's not just the Democrats and the Obama administration. Hyper-nationalists, such as the neo-conservatives are naturally disposed to favor the draft and "national service." Washington Times columnist, Tony Blankley, just this week called for a draft on Fox News:
By whatever name, compulsory service to the state is slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution outlawed "involuntary servitude" in America, except in punishment for a crime. The Fifth Amendment states that Americans have the right to their lives, liberties, and property, and that none of these can be taken away unless one has committed a criminal act and has been convicted through due process. The draft, or any kind of compulsory national service, is just another form of slavery. It's a violation of an individual's natural rights, and it's a blatant violation of the Constitution. (Unless of course, you consult the Supreme Court's Selective Draft Law Cases of 1918, where the court ruled that the draft is constitutional because other national governments do it, and therefore it it an inherent power that the U.S. Government also has. This is the constitutional law equivalent of "but my friends were doing it!")
The draft is particularly dangerous because, not only is the state aggressing against individuals in the process of conscripting them, but the state then uses those newly enslaved persons as cannon fodder in its imperial ambitions (i.e. further acts of aggression that actually kill and maim innocent people). During their more honest moments, the elite tell us how they really feel about American soldiers. Henry Kissinger is famously quoted as calling them military men "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.
House Resolution 5 proposes repealing the 22nd Amendment, that part of the Constitution that limits a president's reign to two four-year terms. The 22nd Amendment was ratified after FDR stayed in office waaaaay too long.
Christopher Ketcham points out that the inauguration ceremonies alreadywreak of monarchy:
The American presidency in its outward show and innermost tendency has since World War II increasingly shown all the markings of monarchy. The president is hovered over and catered to by hundreds of aids and sycophants, his every whim answered at notice. He enjoys a private army in the guise of the paramilitaries in the intelligence agencies. He lives in a “White House” that is itself a court contained in a bubble where the troubles of the average man cannot penetrate. He certainly does not walk often among the people, but when he does, he allows the people to touch him as they would a king, the black-suited guard walling him off, his contempt expressed in direct proportion to the ceremony, noise, trumpets, curtains, light, music, and entertainments meant to ensure that we understand this is no mere man but an ur-expression of power itself.
In chapter seven of The Way, the Truth and the Sword I analyze the American Civic Religion, and I critique the tendency for Christians to leave the pure way of Jesus, merging Christianity with the civic religion.
A story in the Washington Times today, reminded me of this civic religion. The Times reported that Obama’s inauguration today, just as those of preceding presidents, will include the ages-old Freemasonic rituals. The Times explains, “The inaugural parade […] began as a Masonic procession from the still-unfinished White House to Capitol Hill, where [George] Washington traveled on Sept. 18, 1793, to lay the cornerstone for the Capitol.”
“Washington also ensured the boundaries of the District - each 10 miles along - formed a perfect square, which symbolizes ultimate virtue in Masonry,” the Times reports.
The Times article goes on: “Whole books have been written about the Masonic imagery on buildings around the District. Many of their cornerstones were laid with Masonic ceremonies involving oil, wine and corn.” In fact, George Washington actually laid the Capitol cornerstone in his Masonic apron with a Masonic trowel, and he subsequently noted that the portrait of him doing so was his favorite portrait of all. Apparently there was more truth in the National Treasure movies than most people thought.
And it wasn’t just George Washington. A full one-third of the signers of the Constitution were Freemasons. Most of the first presidents of the U.S. (Thomas Jefferson excepted) were Freemasons.
What is the point here? There is a myth among Christians that the religion of the American state has been Christianity. David Barton, Peter Marshall, Marshall Foster, and many others have taken great pains to try to prove that the American government was intended by the founders to be a Christian government. And the lynch-pin in their argument is the claim that the founding fathers were Christians.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Just take the issue of Freemasonry for example. Is a dedicated Freemason, like George Washington, a Christian? Clearly not. Freemasonry is contrary to Christianity. The Times article even points out the universalistic philosophy of the Masons: “Calling themselves a ‘spiritual organization,’ Masons need only believe in a Supreme Being.” Should Christians join a "spiritual" fellowship with non-believers?
According to Christian scholar, John Warwick Montgomery, “Freemasonry … holds to a unitary Supreme Being, the so-called Great Architect of the Universe, denies Christ’s unique saviorship and atonement, and reduces religion to a moralistic observance of allegedly common ethical principles. … all meet together … and pray and worship together to the same one-and-only indivisible God whom all religions acknowledge and venerate.” Should Christians worship and pray to the "Great Architect of the Universe" with non-believers?
One might wonder who this god is that all religions pray to. Perhaps this interesting video-taped conversation with a Shriner might give us some insight:
But it's not Just Washington, the Masons, and George W. Bush who believe that all religions pray to the same God. This Masonic creed is exactly that of the major founding fathers. They believed in a Supreme Being, but they denied scriptural revelation, the trinity, and other biblical essentials. To the founders, just like to the Masons, any religion that helps bring about societal virtue, is good enough. The founders did not believe in or practice true Christianity. But don’t take my word for it. Read the words of the founders themselves on the subject. Christians will be shocked and appalled at what the supposed Christian founders said.
The point here is that the religiosity that shows up in politics is not Christianity and it never has been. While it would be inaccurate to say that the American state religion is Freemasonry, it is clear that the religion of our government is not Christianity. On the contrary, politicians throughout history usurp the religion of the majority of the people to serve their ends. This is what has happened through the course of American history, as the American Civic Religion has taken the place of Christianity for many politically-active Christians.
To state it another way, when Bush talks about “the Almighty” and Obama makes references to God…when we say “under God” in America's Pledge, and when we read “In God We Trust” on our coins…these are not references to the Trinitarian God of the Bible. We Christians do not believe in the God of the founding fathers. We do not believe in the God of Lincoln, or the god, Lincoln, for that matter. [At the Lincoln Memorial, an inscription above Abraham Lincoln’s statue reads: “In this temple, as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the Union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrinedforever.” A temple where Abraham Lincoln resides? Interesting. A temple. Enshrined on our hearts? Hmm…]
Learn more about the religion of the American state, this pseudo-Christian civic religion that has taken captive so many Christians. Chapter seven of The Way, the Truth, and the Sword covers this subject thoroughly (free excerpt here).
Christians: think about where you pledge your allegiance. The cross stands forever, while flags will be burned up. Obama, and all of the rulers of this world are passing away (1 Corinthians 2:6)--that should be the message of Christians leading up to inauguration day.
When you hear religious talk in the halls of power, it is not the religion of Jesus, who calls us out of the systems of human power:
Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25ff)
The religion that the government promotes, whether it is overtly Masonic, or whether it is just bland religious talk, is not the religion of Jesus. The religion of Jesus is a religion of dissent against coercive power. The religion of Jesus was founded as an anti-imperial religion that sought to establish a new "kingdom" way, that was entirely contrary to human kingdoms. To merge Christianity with government, as the American civic religion does, is to destroy Christianity.
School Superintendent: “Inappropriate” Obama Comments Will Not Be Tolerated Eric Schwartzberg and Marie Rossiter - Dayton Daily News - January 19, 2009
Mason school officials said they are taking a proactive educational approach in advance of next week’s planned Inauguration Day activities.
“Inappropriate comments that may make other students, staff or families feel unwelcome or uncomfortable in school or on the bus will not be tolerated,” Superintendent Kevin Bright said in an e-mail sent to parents Monday, Jan. 12.
The district, he said, expects students and staff to show respect for President-elect Obama and the incoming administration, as well as President Bush and the outgoing administration, and recognize that “while the election is a competitive process, our nation’s greatness is displayed when all sides come together for a united country.”
Jeff Schlaeger, Mason High School’s psychologist, said “inappropriate comments” occurred around election week when doctored pictures of Obama appeared at the school, including “derogatory caricatures” of him dressed like a terrorist and signs that read “Obama ‘08/Biden ‘09.” [...]
So the newly annointed god-king will instruct us to be "responsible," that is, not to live for our own selves, families, and goals, but to live for the state.
Next installment: Build, oh build, my people, the pyramid of Obama, in the best Keynesian depression style. My vizier Bernanke will supply all your needs.
Bush’s Final Approval Rating 22 Percent, CBS News-N.Y. Times Poll Finds President Will Leave Office With Lowest Final Approval Rating Ever CBS: Friday, Jan 16, 2009
President Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll showing Mr. Bush’s final approval rating at 22 percent.
Seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years.
Mr. Bush’s final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago.
The rating is far below the final ratings of recent two-term presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who both ended their terms with a 68 percent approval rating, according to CBS News polling.
Recent one term presidents also had higher ratings than Mr. Bush. His father George H.W. Bush had an end-of-term rating of 54 percent, while Jimmy Carter’s rating was 44 percent.
Network VP Dismisses Military Pundits Scandal: ‘Everyone Understands’ Pentagon Spreads Propaganda Think Progress: Sunday, Jan 18, 2009
Yesterday, the Department of Defense Inspector General released its report on the military analyst program first revealed by the New York Times last April. The report said there was “insufficient evidence to conclude that OASD(PA) conceived of or undertook the type of disciplined public relations effort” alleged by the program’s critics. The report concluded that the program “was not a secret or covert effort,” and thus not propaganda, which it defined as activities that “are covert, that is, the communications do not reveal to the target audience the government’s role in sponsoring the material.”
However, the report never addressed the fact that the news networks never disclosed that their military analysts were being briefed by the Pentagon. Indeed, the report seemed to accept such non-disclosure as business as usual:
As a network vice-president with 40 years of media experience told us, “Everyone understands that the Pentagon gives out information that is not harmful to its interests. It can’t be expected to put out information that is harmful. I consider that fair.”
The point, seemingly lost on the network VP and the DoJ IG, is not whether the Pentagon is expected to distribute negative news; it’s that everybody did not “understand” that the Pentagon was the source for the analysts’ knowledge. The public did not know this because the networks were hazy on the details themselves and, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon discouraged the analysts from volunteering the information:
Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said. […] The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.
Even after the story broke, the media refused to acknowledge its complicity in the scandal. ABC News head David Westin insisted, “I am satisfied that ABC News has acted responsibly and has served its audience well.” Most media outlets — likely out of embarrassment, according to media critic Howard Kurz — ignored the story completely. A Project for Excellence in Journalism story found that “out of approximately 1,300 news stories [following the Times story], only two touched on the Pentagon analysts scoop — both airing on PBS’s ‘NewsHour.’”
Update: Steve Benen: “Like Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.), I think yesterday’s report reads like a ‘whitewash,’ but let’s also not overlook the other angle here: the mainstream media’s culpability.”
The "conservatives" on the Supreme Court have again voted in favor of big government and against liberty. They have ruled against the Fourth Amendment and in favor of the police state. (See AP report and USA Today report, "Supreme Court OKs Use of Evidence from Illegal Search.")
For years, the courts have rightly refused to convict somebody based upon evidence that was obtained through an illegal, unconstitutional search. A legal search obeys the Fourth Amendment, which requires the search to be based upon probable cause and backed up by a warrant. The courts have gotten this one right over the years, refusing to accept evidence in court that failed to meet the criteria for a legitimate search. This way, law enforcement had an incentive to obey the Constitution, and do proper searches, rather than illegal searches.
But no more. The Fourth Amendment has been effectively repealed. Now, any the time that law enforcement makes a "mistake" that prevents them from doing a proper search, they will get away with it, and the evidence can be admitted into the court proceedings. The incentive to do the search in a legal fashion has now been removed; instead, and an incentive to do illegal searches and then say "oops" has now been introduced.
What is particularly astounding is that the reasoning of the majority had nothing to do with fidelity to the Constitution. As USA Today reports, "The Roberts majority focused on the societal costs of excluding drugs and other evidence seized." Where did the Supreme Court derive the authority to rule based upon the perceived social costs and benefits of their decision? Aren't these judges? ...And aren't judges supposed to interpret the law and rule based upon the Constitution? Or are they legislators now?
Conservatives rightly gripe about liberals who legislate from the bench. But they need to look in the mirror: "conservatives" have just legislated from the bench, and in doing so, have giving another tool to the police state. They have made it that much easier for the state to act in a lawless manner, further stripping the people of their individual liberties.
New York Times headline, "Banks are in need of even more bailout money:"
WASHINGTON — Even before word came on Tuesday that Citigroup might split into pieces to shore up its finances, an unpleasant message was moving through Congress and President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team: the banks need more taxpayer money.
The Israeli government, as it continues to attack Gaza, is promising no "knock out blow" against Hamas, which can still fire rockets and missiles against Israel despite more than two weeks of war.
So, what exactly was the point of all this suffering, destruction and death again?
**Welcome to CIVICS NEWS: Speaking against that which misrepresents Jesus...Seeking to know and follow a God who really is Love. Call it libertarianism, call it non-violence, call it reason, or simply call it love. We worship a humble carpenter and his kingdom of grace and peace.
"There is an awakening within the Christian church. Christians are recognizing the unholy alliance that the church has made with government power. We have accepted Satan’s offer to rule the kingdoms of this world with the sword, and in the process, we have distorted the message of Jesus. But it's not too late to turn back..." READ EXCERPTS HERE
6. "Discover Bible Prophecy" with David Asscherick (free video series). Finally, some TRUE hope and change. Not the state. Not a human kingdom, but the Kingdom of God. The true, the good, the beautiful...quite a contrast with the chronicle of evils exposed on this website.
The Christian church has forged an unholy alliance with the state. In picking up the sword of government power, we have betrayed the Cross and have abandoned the clear teachings of Jesus. We have accepted Satan’s offer to rule the kingdoms of this world, and in the process, we have distorted the identity of the Kingdom of God. The bride of Christ is in bed with another husband.
Unfortunately, our grasp of the Christian worldview is shallow, and our ability to carry that worldview into the civic realm is confused at best. What exactly should the Christian’s role in the civic realm be? Should we abandon the religious right in favor of a moralistic left-wing crusade against poverty and global warming? Should we disengage altogether for the sake of the purity of the Kingdom of God?
The Way, the Truth, and the Sword offers readers an alternative to the left-right status quo. This alternative is historically grounded, non-partisan, patriotic, peaceable, and most importantly… faithful to Jesus’ teachings and Biblical Truth.
We believe that Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection ARE the essence of truth, goodness, and beauty.
But, being a Christian also means that we disavow many things that are called Christian. We hope that everyone everywhere would be inspired to live a life of servitude and love, and follow this revolutionary message of Jesus, in spite of what has been done in His name. Together, we can bring more hope and love to a dark world.
Politically speaking, we believe that the best world is one where every group relinquishes the practice of using the force of government to impose its will upon others. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Personally, I may believe in helping the poor. Personally, I may believe in living a morally clean life. [And, we do believe that these ways of living are indeed absolutely, truly, the best possible way to live.] But, government is neither an effective nor an appropriate method for the advancement of my values.So we are neither socialists nor moral crusaders. The rigious right and the religious left both misrepresent Jesus and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Government is force, coercion—ultimately violence. It is unjust to forcibly take away somebody's property or liberty because I think I can make better choices for that person.
Government was the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century (upwards of 200 million killed by their own government) because of people who wanted to run other peoples' lives.
Government power, therefore, ought to be employed only to protect life, liberty, and property—punishing those who violate somebody else’s rights.
This is the philosophy of America’s founding—enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These are the ideas, fueled by a love for humanity and for the oppressed, which form the backdrop for all of our news analysis and civic activism here at Civics News.
What we're About:
~~Protecting the inalienable human rights of every person: life, liberty, and property...
~~Restoring the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, limited government, and federalism...
~~Pursuing justice and truth wherever they lead...
~~Disassociating Jesus from the evils done in His name...
~~Defending the oppressed and rebuking the oppressor...
~~Celebrating freedom, rather than power.
ALWAYS:
...motivated by love for all of humanity
...driven by hope for continued restoration and ultimate redemption
...strengthened by faithin something beyond ourselves
...refusing to bow to the gods of cynicism and self-centeredness
