Troublesome Bible Examples

I have often wondered what would happen if Christians today were to actually follow the examples which we find in the book of Acts. I imagine that it would raise some eyebrows, and if it a minister was involved, perhaps it would even result in some disciplinary action. The teachings and traditional practices of many of the denominations today directly conflict with the words and/or actions of some of the men acting and/or speaking by inspiration in the book of Acts.

Example #1

In this example from the second chapter of the book of Acts, Peter gives his first sermon in Jerusalem. In this sermon he explains that Jesus, whom they had just crucified, was in fact the Christ, the Son of God (Acts 2:14-36). Those who heard him were convicted. Realizing what they had done, they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?' (Acts 2:37). And Peter said to them;

"If you believe these things then pray this prayer, 'Father in heaven, I come to you confessing that I am a sinner, completely lost and without hope. I repent of my sinful ways and ask for Your forgiveness. I believe in my heart that Christ Jesus is the Son of God, that He completely paid for all of my sins by His death on the cross, and that You raised Him from the dead. I confess that Jesus is my Savior and Lord. I trust in Him, and Him alone, for my salvation. I believe that through His shed blood I have eternal life. I will pray, study, meditate and live by Your Word the rest of my life. Father, I ask that You fill me with the Holy Spirit. Please come into my heart and save and sanctify my soul. I love you, Lord, and offer myself to You completely and without reservation. In the precious name of Jesus I pray. Amen.' Only faith in Jesus Christ alone can save you, and if you prayed this prayer, and meant it in your heart, you are saved."

This, of course, is not how Peter answered the question, but it is how a denominationalist minister today might have answered it. What Peter actually said is this, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Can you imagine if a baptist minister were to respond with these words to a similar question posed by some individuals to whom he had just preached Jesus? Can you imagine if a minister, at the end of his sermon, offered an invitation which closed with the words, "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name (Acts 22:16). Can you imagine the commotion, the whispers, the phone calls to other ministers, the demands from church members for an explanation? Why should it be the case that a preacher cannot say what those in the New Testament said, without some sort of addendum or disclaimer? Is it not an indication that something is amiss?

Example #2

In the eighth chapter of the book of Acts we find the story of Philip preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:25-39).

"Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, 'Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?' And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him." (Acts 8:35-38)

Now, let's consider a modern day scenario. A preacher is fishing when he meets another man, and in the course of their conversation, he preaches Jesus to him. The man readily accepts the gospel and decides that he wants the preacher to baptize him then and there. Now, depending upon the denomination to which the preacher is attached, he might have to refuse to comply with the desires a man who simply wants to obey the gospel. Why? Because there are no witnesses present? There were none to witness the baptism of the eunuch. Because any baptism is contingent upon some committee's review of the testimony of the new convert and deciding whether the conversion is a valid one? There was no such process which preceded the eunuch's baptism.

It should be troubling to any who sincerely wish to follow the Scriptures if they have any reservations about following the examples which they find there in. The Scriptures should be our only map in all matters of faith and religion. When we find that the trail that we are trodding, no longer resembles the map, it is a sure sign that we have become lost.

The Real Holocaust in America

A few days ago, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl) went onto the floor of the House and accused Republicans of wanting Americans to die, and die quickly. Many Republicans were outraged by this inexcusable characterization and called upon him to apologize. Grayson's response was considerably less than apologetic. See both videos below.





Grayson claims that there are 44,000 uninsured individuals in America who die each year and he calls it a 'holocaust'. What hypocrisy! Forty four thousand (a dubious figure at best) is nothing compared to the nearly 1.5 million annual deaths which Grayson supports and sanctions.
I am of course referring to the 'real American holocaust' which is ongoing under Roe v. Wade. Since the 1973, 55 million + babies have been aborted under the notion that a woman has a right to murder her unborn child. Democrats have actively fought to sustain this unspeakable horror.

The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal indicted and convicted ten Nazi leaders for "encouraging and compelling abortions," an act which the Tribunal characterized as "a crime against humanity." As with their other crimes against humanity, the Nazis protested that "we were just following orders." Lieutenant General Richard Hildebrandt, the SS (Schutzstaffel) Chief of the RKFVD's Race and Settlement Office in Berlin, stated that "Up to now nobody had the idea to see in this interruption of pregnancy a crime against humanity." - Nuremberg Military Tribunals,IV:1081-84. Nuremberg: NO-3512.

Grayson represents a district that is largely conservative and won his seat by misrepresenting himself as a conservative. Unless he can deceive his constituents again in 2010, Grayson will likely lose his seat.

Some Primary Rules for the Interpretation of Scripture

A great many of the diverse teachings and practices which divide Christians one from another are the result of a failure to follow prudent and reasonable methods of interpreting the Scriptures. Because many have commented to me that my approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures betrays a methodology to which they are unfamiliar, I thought it best to explain the rules of interpretation which I have always followed.

1. I let the Bible instruct me (exegesis). I do not approach the Scriptures with any preconceived notions that I then try to foist onto the text (eisegesis). To this end, I let the Bible interpret itself by examining all that the Lord has to say on a particular topic. By doing this, I avoid the uncomfortable position of trying to explain away passages which do not fit neatly into a doctrinal puzzle that I am trying to construct.

2. For the Bible to be all that it claims to be (2 Tim. 3:16-17) there can be no contradictions. Any perceived contradictions are an indication of a misinterpretation. There are many hard to understand passages in the Scriptures, and many so called contradictions usually involve one of these. In these cases, I do not have to know what a passage means, to know what it does not mean. Again, letting the Bible interpret itself.

3. I keep in mind that the Bible teaches in one of four ways;

• By express command of the Lord.


• Through someone writing by inspiration.


• By example (the Lord or someone acting by inspiration did the thing in question).


• Implication or necessary inference (where the thing in question is a matter of necessary inference in order to make sense of the passage).

4. I follow the time tested elementary principles of interpretation. The following are a few which I have found to be very profitable. They are from the Elementary Principles of Interpretation by Johann August Ernesti and Moses Stuart, published 1842.

• "To every word in Scripture there is unquestionably assigned some idea or notion, otherwise words are useless, and have no more signification than the inarticulate sounds of animals." pg. 19
• "The literal meaning of words is the sense that is so connected with them as to be spontaneously presented to the mind as soon as the sound of the word is heard, and that is the first order." pg. 19
• "All men in their daily conversation and writings attach but one sense to a word, at the same time and in the same passage, unless they design to speak in enigmas. The sense of a word can not be diverse or multifarious at the same time and in the same passage or expression." pg. 21
• "There can be no certainty at all in respect to the interpretation of any passage, unless a kind of necessity compels us to affix a particular sense to a word, which sense must be one, and unless there are special reasons for a tropical meaning, it must be literal." pg 22
• "Words are proper or tropical, literal or figurative. First: A proper or tropical is a definite name given to a certain thing. Originally, words were undoubtedly used in their proper and literal sense. Second: Tropes or metaphorical words are called by Aristotle strangers, foreigners." pg. 34
• "In no language can a word have more than one literal meaning in the same place." pg. 34

By these rules we understand that a word can have but one literal meaning in the same place and at the same time, and that the primary meaning of a word is the literal meaning unless there is a special reason for it's removal.

I have found these guidelines to be very profitable to me and I will undoubtedly be referring my readers back to them from time to time.

I have no problem with any published 'literal' translations of the Scriptures into the English. Paraphrased versions I completely reject, and I will not allow anyone to get away with making an argument based on the wording of a passage of scripture from a paraphrased version alone. The very existence of paraphrased versions of the Bible betray a great disregard for the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. They are an aberration which should never have been conceived. The fact that they have found a market among the faithful is somewhat disturbing.

The Universalist Argument, Part 2

In the second book of Kings there is a story that is told of how God's people began to follow their own path, and put aside the commandments of the Lord. In time the Law that God had delivered to His people was lost and forgotten. In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah, the book of the Law was found by Hilkiah, the high priest. The book was brought before the king and read in his presence.

When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord's anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us." - 2 Kings 22:11-13.

Now, imagine that some in our current culture would have their way, and the Bible fall out of use and be forgotten. Many years pass and the Lord's church disappears from all knowledge or memory. Then Providence intervenes and a copy of the New Testament is found, read, believed, and obeyed; and the Lord adds those fortunate finders to His church ( Acts 2:37-47). These new Christians would no doubt look to the New Testament for guidance in determining the doctrines, practices, and worship of the newly restored church of Jesus Christ. What is the likelihood that the result would be a grotesque monstrosity comprised of thousands of sects, all bearing different names, teaching different doctrines, engaging in different religious practices, and worshiping in different ways, but all claiming to follow the same guide? Yet, that is the current state of the Lord's church according to the Universalists.

The absurd rationalizations of the Universalists serve no good purpose and lend legitimacy to a condition in Chistendom which is clearly condemned in the scriptures (1Cor. 1:10). When factions do exist, they exist "in order that those who are approved may ...become evident" (1 Cor. 11:19), and conversely, expose those who are not. To determine which is which, one must turn to the scriptures, our only guide in all matters of faith and religion (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:16).

There is a slogan used by many today; "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it". This is a positive statement about faith, and there is great truth in it. That truth is equally great when we examine the negative; "God did not say it, therefore, I do not believe it, and that settles it." In the practice of the Christian religion one cannot by faith do anything which is not approved by God through his revealed word (Rom. 10:17). Faith began with the revelation of His word to the world through inspired men, and faith must end where that revelation ends. If someone were to say, "As a Christian, I cannot eat meat during certain phases of the moon", this would be a practice that is not from faith since there is no justification for it in the word of God. And since it is not from faith, the incorporation of it in the practice of the Christian religion would in fact be a sin (Heb. 11:6; Rom. 14:23). The scriptures exhort us to not only test ourselves (2 Cor.13:5), but to test the teachings of others as well (1 John 4:1, 2:3-4; 2 John 9-11; Matt. 7:15).

Nevertheless, the Universalist maintain that regardless of how far a denominations teachings and practices may be from the scriptures, the members thereof are saved by virtue of their faith in Christ alone, and, as such, are members of the universal church. This is a logical argument. If a person is saved at the point of faith alone, before and without any other acts of obedience, and since the saved person is added to the Lord's church by God (Acts2:47), said person is a member of the church by virtue of their saved condition. This argument hinges on the truth of the proposition that 'a person is saved at the point of faith, before and without any other acts of obedience.

The proponents of this doctrine typically cite Rom. 3:28-30; "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Now, if a man is justified by faith alone, he is justified by it to the exclusion of all else. Yet, the scriptures teach that we are also justified by a number of other things. Rom. 3:24 says that we are justified by grace. Acts 13:39 says that we are justified by Christ. Rom. 5:9 says we are justified by His blood. James 2:24 says we are justified by works. 1 Cor. 6:11 says that we are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet again, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1). Now, how can we be justified by all these things, and be justified by any one of them alone? Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that we are justified by faith alone, in fact, the word 'alone' is used only once in the New Testament to modify faith, and in that passage, the writer says that we are not justified by it (James 2:24).

Repentance is an indispensable condition of salvation (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 3:19). If persons are saved at the point of faith, before and without any other acts of obedience, they are saved before they obey the command of the Lord to repent. But an objector says, "It is true that one must repent in order to be saved, but repentance precedes faith". Now, how could this be? What would motivate a person to obey the Lord's commandment to repent before they believe in the Lord? And, even if they did, the motivation would not be faith, and without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6), therefore, that repentance would not be pleasing to God. Once more, if a person were to repent before hears and believes the word that he must (Rom. 10:17), and since whatever we do in religion which is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23), such repentance would be sin. The absurdity of this notion is self evident. No one can perform an act as part of a religion which they have not yet embraced.

And what of the confession spoken of by Paul in Rom. 10:9? Paul says in that passage that, "with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation". Here we have yet another act of faith in the gospel plan of salvation which may not be dispensed with, and with it we could make the same argument. We could make many more arguments to prove that the doctrine of the Universalists is false, but what we have so far is more than sufficient. The doctrine of the Universalists has no basis in the word of God, and if not from God, it is not of faith, and if not of faith, it is sinful to teach or adhere to it.

The Universalist Argument, Part 1

In the book of Matthew, chapter 16, beginning at verse 13, the Bible says;

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Notice that Jesus says, "I will build My church". It is His church, and He is the One who built it. It was not built by John the baptist, (who by this point in the chronology was already dead, Matt. 14:8-10), nor was it built by some guy named Wesley, Luther, or Smith. Notice also that the foundation upon which He would build the church is the fact that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

As I pointed out in my last post, there are some 38,000 different sects of the Christian religion globally, each differing from on another in doctrine, practice, and traditions. The situation begs the question; which one is the one that Jesus built? To the universalist, the answer is; all of them. They reason that since they believe that Jesus is the Christ, they all have the common foundation, and therefore, are all His. They are all part of the 'universal church'. When Jesus said, "I will build My church", He was speaking of the church in a 'universal' sense. The reasoning of the universalist is sound, as far as it goes.

It is true that the scriptures speak of the church in both a universal sense (Eph: 3:21 & 5:24; Phil. 3:6) and as individual congregations (Gal. 1:22; 2 Thess. 1:4; 1 Cor. 11:8). It is true that the foundation of the church is faith that Jesus is the Christ. Where the universalist argument falls short is that faith in Christ is but the foundation. Jesus said that He would build His church on that foundation. By using the word build, Jesus is implying the erection of a structure of some sort on that foundation.

In the construction of anything, there is a foundation, yes, but there are also building blocks, mortar to bind it together, a method of construction, and a design or blueprint. We know from the scriptures that the building blocks of the church are individual Christians, (Matt. 18:20; Rom. 16:5; and Col.4:15). The word 'church' in the Greek New Testament is 'ecclesia', which literally means 'an assembly'. The 'mortar' that binds them together is 'faith', 'hope', and 'love', Heb. 11:1; 1 Cor. 13:13). The method of construction is the plan of salvation, (Acts 2, note especially verses 38-47). To these things the universalist readily agrees. But, as to the design, the blueprint; this is where the universalist argument begins to fall apart. It is the blueprint that determines the form, the shape, the appearance of a structure. The universalist must admit that the various denominations certainly do not conform to the same blueprint.

The universalists dismiss this as unimportant. There is diversity throughout all of God's creation, why not the church? Is it not also God's creation? We intend to show in part two of this series, that there is one blueprint for the church, and that it is quite important to the identity of the church as the body of Christ ( Col. 1:8).

Page Makeover: Update

As I mentioned in a previous post, Political 411 is undergoing a change in focus. As you can see there have been a number of changes. As you can see, the name has been changed. Beneath that, you will notice that there is a 'Featured Verse' section which will always complement the most recent post, ( including this one). On the side bar you will find a link list of on-line reference materials. I thought it best to provide readers with the where-with-all to get their facts straight before taking issue with me in a comment. The Koine Greek/English Dictionary is not very 'layman' friendly, I will continue to search for a more suitable one. I have designed a header graphic which has a symbolic meaning.

Of all of the religions in the world, Christianity is the most fractionalized. There are at approximately 38,000 christian denominations in the world. In the beginning it was not so. Throughout the fist couple of centuries, Christians were united in one faith. The first split occurred in 431 at the First Council of Ephesus. God never intended these divisions.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. - Eph. 4:4-6

And again,

What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? - 1Cor. 1:12-13

Believers are divided into groups by ideology, practice, and traditions; yet all claim to follow the same scriptures. The main focus of this page will be to examine the things that divide us, and hopefully strip them away.

I will be challenging you, and I am sure that you will be challenging me. In the process, we will all learn from the experience.

A Special Notice to My Readers

As I was growing up, there came a time when my mother felt that it was time to instruct me in the finer points of social interaction. She told me what many mothers have told their offspring, that there were two subjects which should be avoided in casual conversation; politics and religion. Naturally, both became passions which I found it very difficult to avoid.

The first political blog that I started was The Patriot Page. I struggled at first to generate traffic, part of the problem was that Googlebot was not crawling my page. So I decided the start Political 411 as well, to see which page would become the more successful. As it turns out, The Patriot Page now generates more than twice the traffic of this page.

I have decided therefore, to change the focus of this page, and dedicate the subject matter to my other passion. Over the next week Political 411 will undergo a makeover. While the subject matter will be faith based, political issues will be addressed in such cases where it should be of particular concern to Christians. I would invite those readers who are more interested in political issues to visit The Patriot Page. For those of you who may be interested in seeing how this page progresses along the new path that I have set for it, please be forewarned, you will find the subject matter very thought provoking. I have studied the Scriptures for many years and find myself frequently at odds with conventional theology. As always, feel free to engage me on any issue which you feel a need to. I will be looking forward to the engaging dialogue.

The Gratitude Campaign

www.gratitudecampaign.org

Pastor Manning Gives Obama Hell

I would love to see MSNBC try to edit this video!

DNC Tries To Rally The Troops, But RNC Turns The Tables

You gotta love this!


WASHINGTON (CNN) — National Republicans turned the tables on their political counterparts Wednesday by redirecting angry telephone calls coming into their switchboard to the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC released a Web video early in the morning accusing the GOP of inciting mob activity at town hall meetings.

At the end of the video, the DNC instructs people to call the Republican National Committee to express outrage. Callers who dial the RNC's main number to voice their concern about the DNC's charges are told to press 1, which sends them to the DNC's main switchboard.

DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse described the RNC's redirection as a "neat trick," but said it just further proves the Democrats' point about the GOP.

"The RNC is inciting angry mobs to shout out legitimate discussion at public events across the country and now they want to ignore people who deplore their tactics," Woodhouse said.

"Republicans don't want to have a discussion about the future of health care reform – they want to shout out – and now completely ignore – anyone who disagrees with them."

RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho dismissed the DNC's charge and accused Democrats of "trying to divert attention from the widespread opposition to President Obama's government-run health care experiment.

"The fact is many Democrats are opposed to the president's plan, including many Democrats in Congress," she said. "We wanted to make sure that callers who believe only 'rabid extremists' are opposing the president's health care plan have the opportunity to express those concerns to the DNC."

Libs Go Nuts Over Malkin's New Book

Michelle Malkin's New book, Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies, has reached the #1 spot in non-fiction category of the NYT best seller list.

Malkin has been a thorn in the side of the libs since her Oberlin College days when she wrote an article critical of the Oberlin's affirmative action program. Her book, which directly exposes the myths of Comrade Obama's 'hope and change' agenda, has the libs ripping out their own hair by the roots.

Neal Bortz recently rummaged through the reviews of her book at Amazon.com looking for the negative comments. The following are the ones which he found;

• Contributes to the roar of negativity and hate that is killing our political system.
  
• I have an aversion to sideshow carnivals. You know, PT Barnum's commentary about never going broke underestimating the intelligence of the American consumer. All you need is a freak show and a hook. In this regard, the book achieves its mission.
  
• This book plays right into that "hater" genre. Realizing that there are a lot of folks who are ideologically extreme, undereducated and who have grown unaccustomed to thinking for themselves [not to mention those who simply cannot accept a non-white in the White house], the author decided to throw raw meat to a pack of salivating hounds
  
• Books like this are anti-intellectual carnival sideshow fodder designed to fleece an uncritical audience
  
• Just another symptom/source of the extreme polarization of American politics; look elsewhere for truth.
  
• I suppose that everyone handing out five star reviews are having to squeeze this reading in between going to "Birther" conspiracy meetings and making signs to carry when they go out to harass their congressmen during town hall meetings... how very trite... how scarily inappropriate in a time when the nation needs ALL citizens to work hard to try and save our country from the remains of Reagan/Bush1/Bush2 !
  
• March yourselves right into the ovens, you retards - the rest of us are trying to bring this country into the current century [with health care for all and jobs for any who can work]
  
• Just another cheap hit piece paid for by the same greedy & corrupt people (the Republicans & their rich bosses) who caused The Great Depression 2 that we are just really getting into now. Pass up this junk & back our president in trying to save what's left of our nation.
  
• This book is filled with so many distortions and outrages lies it's hard to believe that anyone sane would put this trash in print. Rupert Murdoch's pet Malkin must be making a lot of money writing this stupidity. If you enjoy right wing mindless propaganda this book's for you.
  
• The FAR right is crazy about Obama, and they will publish crap like this book because they know morons on the far right will buy it

Keep up the good work Michelle!

Hat tip to Neal's Nuze.

AARP Members Take Over Meeting

Anyone who has been paying attention is aware that the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) really does not represent it's members and does not care what they think. AARP has an agenda and it is a decidedly leftist one.

As you may have seen in the MSM, last Tuesday AARP conducted a Town Hall Meeting in Dallas, in which rank and file members began to voice their discontent with the organizations support of the Obama health care plan. The AARP representatives did not want to discuss the issue, nor listen to members concerns, and cancelled the meeting.

What you may not know is that the members actually continued the meeting after the retreat of the AARP reps, as you will see if you watch the full video below. Note the complete, and even snobbish, disregard of the AARP reps toward the concerns of the members.

Your New Healthcare Plan

( Click for larger view)

Oh, Yeah! This looks like a good idea!

Check out the really scary details here.

Some Down Home Common Sense

Find more videos like this on Patriotic Resistance

Where in the World is Obama's Birth Certificate?

To date, despite numerous legal attempts to ascertain proof that Barack Obama, aka. Barry Soetoro, is a natural born citizen of the United States and thus eligible to hold the Office of President thereof, Obama still refuses to prove that he is eligible to be President. The court system, as well as his pom pom carrying cheerleaders in the mainstream media, are running interference on his behalf. Obama could easily dispel all questions regarding his eligibility by producing his birth certificate. All of us from time to time have been required to produce a birth certificate, and we are able to do so. Obama could as well. Not only has he refused to do that, he has spent no less that a million dollars to keep his birth certificate and school records under wraps. So much for transparency.

Obama supporters insist that Obama has proved his eligibility by producing a "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii. While a "Certification of Live Birth" is an official document, it is not the same thing as a "Birth Certificate". A "Birth Certificate" is a long form which contains more detailed information surrounding a live birth. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands accepts only an original "Birth Certificate" as proof that an individual is a 'genuine native Hawaiian'.

According to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands:

"In order to process your application (to verify that you are a genuine native Hawaiian), DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

Per Hawaiian law, Statue 338.13, any certified copies of the original document can serve the same purpose as the original document.

"(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18."

Obama seems willing to seriously consider making public information which should remain secret to the world and to our enemies, yet when it comes to his own "Birth Certificate", Obama will move heaven and earth to keep it secret. By virtue of his own obfuscation on the matter, Obama himself has proved that the contention that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States is a valid one. Since it seems rather self evident that Obama is holding the office of President illegally, and since there are so many who are working diligently to prove that this is the case, I wonder how long it will be before there are 'Clintonesque' style disappearances and suspicious deaths.

Pelosi Lied. No Surprise.

Speaker Pelosi has maintained that Congressional leaders were never told that waterboarding or any other enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) were used on terror suspects.

"In that or any other briefing we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel opinions that they could be used."

Her statements beg the question that if any in Congress found the types of EITs which might be used on terror suspects objectionable, or question the legality thereof, that the time to do so was before they were used. But, the fact of the matter is that Nancy Pelosi is a liar! A just released 10 page document shows that Pelosi was briefed on Sept. 4th, 2002 that EITs were used on Abu Zubaydah as show in the document page below (click for a larger view).

The report also details 40 meetings with members of Congress -- though not with Pelosi present – during which the use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques was described, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Senate intelligence committee’s chairman and ranking member, Bob Graham and Richard Shelby, were given a briefing similar to the one with Pelosi and Goss on Sept. 27, 2002, according to the report.

On Feb. 4, 2003, a briefing on “enhanced interrogation techniques” for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., revealed that interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri were taped.

In addition, that briefing “described in considerable details” the techniques used, including “how the water board was used.”

A similar briefing the following day included Goss and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who by that time had become the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, when Pelosi moved on to become minority leader.

Source: Newsmax

There was never any doubt that the Speaker was lying, it was only a matter of when and how those lies would be exposed. These days however, there seems to be a great unwillingness on the part of the Republicans to call a Democrat caught in a deliberate falsehood, a liar. So let me be crystal clear. Nancy Pelosi is not only a liar, she is a damn liar!

China Mandates Smoking Quota

I hope the new totalitarian regime in Washington does not hear about this. It seems that officials in China have been ordered to smoke 230,000 packs of cigarettes a year to keep tax revenues flowing. It also will bolster sales for locally produced cigarettes.

Officials in China have reportedly been told to puff their way through four and a half million cigarettes a year.

Staff at local government offices in Hubei province were given the order in a move intended to set an example for the rest of the nation, according to state media.

And if they fail to smoke their way through 230,000 packs of locally-produced cigarettes, the officials could face fines.

Brands such as Huanghelou have been earmarked as part of the official quota.

"The regulation will boost the local economy via the cigarette tax," local official Chen Nianzu was quoted as saying in the Global Times.

The measure may also be a ploy to boost sales of local cigarette brands, under pressure from competitors in neighbouring Hunan province.

Some 350 million Chinese - including more than half of all male doctors - currently smoke, with around a million dying from smoking-related diseases every year.

State media recently reported the government was attempting to reduce the number of doctors smoking in China.

Source: Skynews.com

To fully fund SCHIP with tobacco taxes, Obama will need 22 million new smokers. With a serious budget shortfall in the SCHIP program looming on the horizon, Obama cannot afford the loss of any current smokers. Since Comrade Obama has already done a great many tyrannical things, it may come as no surprise to some if he considers following China's example.

Will This Mistake Become One of Obama's Worst?

Now that Comrade Obama has completed his first one hundred days as the 'Dear Leader', many bloggers are referencing the piece by the New York Post; 100 Days, 100 Mistakes.

But here is one mistake which you probably will not see in the MSM, and it has the potential to be one of Obama's biggest. A year ago this month, the State Department issue the following statement;

“Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its AQ [al-Qaida] detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for interrogation or trial. Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some AQ members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan."

This last February, an Iranian government official came to Washington with an offer to turn over top al-Qaida operatives, including some on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” list. The State Department declined the offer. Read the full story here.

If you remember, back in 1996, the government of the Sudan made a similar offer to then president Bill Clinton, regarding Osama bin Laden. While that offer was not quite on a 'silver platter', many believe that Clinton did not do all that could have been done to take advantage of that offer. How many lives will this mistake by the Obama administration cost?

Turncoat Specter Finally Jumps Ship

So Arlen Specter finally comes to the realization that he is not a conservative. I've got one question for Arlen Specter; 'What took you so long?' Check out this story from the Washington Post.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota. (Former senator Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

He now finds that his political philosophy is more in line with Democrats than Republicans. How could he have only just now have come to this realization? Specter's 29 year record is one which has always betrayed his true political ideology.

- He is pro abortion.
- He believes in Roe vs. Wade as "inviolate" and that "nobody can be confirmed today who does not agree with it".
- He voted against Reagan's Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert H. Bork.
- He supported the judicial obstructionist mentality of the Democrats during the Bush administration.
- He has all but stated outright that the idea of Supreme Court rulings being limited by the principles of the constitution is abhorrent.
- He is a firm believer in race based preferences.
- He has long opposed tax reform.
- He is a supporter and friend of the International Criminal Court.

How could it be that the only person who was unaware that Arlen Specter a Democrat (at least at heart), was Arlen Specter himself. And why now? Did he suddenly bolt upright in bed this morning and exclaim, 'Oh, my God! I'm a Democrat!' Not at all. Mr. Specter has always been a opportunist, and this is just more of the same. He believes that his best chance of being re-elected in 2010 is by switching parties. "I am unwilling to have my 29-year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.

Well, Mr. Specter, on your way out, don't worry about the door, look out for the boot.

Tax Day Tea Party, Fort Myers, FL

Well, the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party protest was, I think, a big success. There were more than 800 across the country. While the MSM tries to downplay the significance of the events and underestimate the numbers of the attendees, the Tea Parties certainly could not be ignored.

As planned, we attended the Tea Party in Fort Myers, Fl. I took a few pictures at the event which I have posted below. The event was scheduled to begin at 5 pm at Centennial Park in downtown Fort Myers. We arrived at 5:10 and there were easily about a thousand people already gathered. That number swelled to at least 2000 by 6 pm. The people gathered were not a potential terror threat as Janet Napolitano would have everyone believe. Nor were they a bunch of 'confused racists'. These were just folks. Cashiers from Walmart, construction contractors, real estate agents, executives, and grand parents. Just concerned citizens, patriots, who understand that the fast track to socialism which our leaders have set us upon will lead to a reduced quality of life for all Americans.

I observed no racially motivated signage or posters. There were no cars overturned, trash cans set ablaze, or calls for violence which are typically associated with leftwing political activism. There was nothing which could justify these obscene characterizations from Garofalo and Napolitano. While it is clear that these characterizations are nothing more than an effort to cast aspersions on the protesters, it will not have the intended effect. These protests will continue and spread. The next events and activities are already being planned. See here, here, here, and here.

Now, with respect to the MSM estimates of the total numbers of protester on tax day, those estimates place the attendance between 250,000 and 500,000. Michelle Malkin uses 'liberal math' to proclaim the Tax Day Tea Party event as the Million Taxpayer March.

The Lib-tard Empire Strikes Back

There have been hundreds of 'Tea Party' events which have already been held across the country. On April 15th, there are more than 500 Tax Day Tea Parties which have been organized. This is a massive grassroots undertaking, and the libs are getting a little worried. The MSM is trying to ignore them, liberal bloggers are doing their best to minimize them, and other more activist libs are trying to obstruct and disrupt the efforts.

The Patriotic Resistance is one of the organizers of the Tax Day Tea Parties. They have been the latest target of these lib-tard efforts at disruption. Today I received an e-mail from the Resistnet National Coordinator, Darla Dawald, which describes this recent, ongoing attack. Read it below.

A message to all members of The Patriotic Resistance

All Resistnet Members

Dear Patriots,

This message is being sent to clarify some emails that have been going out to many members of several groups here at Resistnet.com.

The trolls/libs have been duplicating some of the moderators, admin, and a few other prominant members here on the site. Under that mask they proceeded to send out messages in our name. One did this acting like me and the content was disturbing. I assure you this email was not sent by me but rather by someone assumming my screen name and copying my picture as has been done to others as well.

If you should receive any more emails with questionable content pease report this to the new help desk manned by Terri M. There is a discussion to put your questions on and also you can just post it on the comment wall. Terri M or one of our staff will take care of it. If you can provide the screen name and or address of this trolls/troublemakers profile page that would be most helpful.

This is encouraging in that we are growing and are making a difference. The left is afraid of strong conservative groups. I am sure there will be more attacks and ask that you would be patient as we deal with them. But mostly we want you to know that none of us would ever send out an email with profanity, abuse of a member, or questionable content such as what was sent out recently.

On a positive note, the state groups are growing and so are the new district groups. We are making some very good strides and if you hadn't planned on joining a tax day tea party in your town we hope you will reconsider. We posted downloadable signs and flyers for you to take with you and they are great! We are all making some pretty important history right now and we have to step it up to get their attention.

We appreciate all of you who have been working very hard on taking America back to the people!

Happy Easter and may God Bless you and yours!

Darla Dawald
National Coordinator/Admin
Grassfire/Resistnet

I do not plan to attend a TaxDay Tea Party in my local area as I will be on vacation in Florida on the 15th, however, I do plan to attend a Tea Party in Fort Myers. I do not plan to live blog from the event as I will be too busy protesting against the tyranny of my government, but I will be taking lots of pictures which I will be posting for you to see.

Deliberate Under Thinking at ThinkProgress.org

Earlier this evening I was watching Neil Cavuto on Fox News and witnessed the interview he had with Leslie Marshall. Later on in the evening, I found this post by Matt Corley on the Marxist website thinkprogress.org :


Ignoring Fox News polling, Fox New's Neil Cavuto claims 'tea party' protests are 'a popular wave'.


On his Fox News show today, Neil Cavuto joined the rest of Fox News in promoting the radical anti-Obama “tea party” protests, one of which he will be attending and broadcasting from next week. Arguing with radio show host Leslie Marshall, Cavuto claimed that the protests were “a popular wave” sweeping across the country. Watch it:





But Cavuto’s claim ignores a Fox News poll released last week, which found that only 36 percent of Americans said they would “be willing to join” a “tea party” protest.

In addition to the hundreds of tea parties which have already taken place since Rick Santelli went on a rant about the bankrupt liberal agenda of the Administration and Congress, there are more than 500 tax day tea parties which have been scheduled across the country. This is a huge movement.

So, the number of people who would be willing to join a tea party protest is 'only' 36 percent. In the context of political activism, actually getting out on the street with a protest sign and publicly displaying your dissension, 36 percent is a very significant number. And, the Leftards know it!

Should I Draw You a Picture?

Frequently, usually at my place of work, I have an opportunity to speak to someone about politics. All too often I find these individuals to have totally bought into the notion that the rich make too much money and that the government should tax them more.

I try to explain to them that it is the rich in our free market economy who are the 'movers and shakers'. That they have the capital to invest, to expand, and to hire. That when you increase taxes on the rich, they have fewer resources to work with and the economy slows. When you tax them too much the economy begins to decline. The 'movers and shakers' not only do not have the resources to invest, to expand, and to hire; but may have to make some reductions.
Those reductions mean job losses. Despite the higher taxes on the top 5%, the job losses from the top down equate to less revenue to the government, not more. This reduction in revenue means that there will be budget shortfalls. The government has to borrow or print more money to cover those shortfalls; which means more interest on the dollar; which means a further debauching of our currency; which leads to inflation; which leads to more job losses. It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

Try as I might , some just don't get it. It sounds too much like 'trickle down' to them and the media has told them that 'trickle down' is a fallacy. People have stopped thinking for themselves. I get so frustrated sometimes that I just want to throw up my hands and exclaim, "Should I draw you a picture".

Stealth Tyranny

In the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States we read; "Congress shall make no law....abridging....the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Merriam-Webster defines abridge; 1. a archaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish .

The Cape Coral, Florida City Council has tried to abridge these very rights. Wink News in Florida reported the following on March 27th;

Cape "tea party" canceled; City fears too many attendees
By WINK

NewsStory Created: Mar 27, 2009 at 6:10 PM EDTStory
Updated: Mar 29, 2009 at 8:24 AM EDT

CAPE CORAL, Fla. - A tea party to protest government spending and taxing is canceled. Canceled by the government.

Why? They feel too many people could show-up.

Lynn Rosko planned to hold a tax payer tea party at Jaycee Park in Cape Coral on April 1st. The idea was announced at a Cape Coral City Council meeting, then an e-mail blast by the Republican Party and it was mentioned in the local media.

With all of that attention, the City of Cape Coral felt there could be more than 500 people attending the tea party.Therefore Rosko needed to get a permit and insurance for the event. Rosko says she's not willing to get insurance and accept liability for something that a stranger could do. Rosko told WINK News, "I have rescinded any organizing or supervision or what ever you want to call it over this tea party on April 1st."

WINK News spoke to the director of parks for Cape Coral. He says that even now if Rosko is willing to get insurance for the event he'll likely re-authorize it.

For now Rosko's event is canceled, she's encouraging people to attend the April 15th Tax Payer Tea Party in Centennial Park in Fort Myers.

Freedom Works.org reports that the Cape Coral Tea Party is now back on.

If that story makes you angry, this next one, as Glenn Beck likes to say, "will make blood shoot right out of your eyes".

Gun owners in Illinois to carry $1 million insurance policy?

February 20, 10:53 AM ·

A new gun law has been proposed by Illinois State Representative Kenneth Dunkin (D-5th District) that would required that gun owners carry insurance of $1 million. It also makes gun owners liable for misues of their guns until the gun is reported stolen to police, and provide revocation of FOID cards for those who do not carry that insurance.

Under Illinois state law, gun buyers must obtain a license (FOID card) prior to the purchase of a firearm. A FOID card:

-Is required of anyone owning a firearm.
-Involves a basic background check
-No safety checks or fingerprints are required
-Is valid for five years.
-Does not automatically check or revoke the cards from people who are convicted or otherwise fall into a prohibited class after obtain the card.

The proposed law (Illinois HB0687) is now making its way through the Illinois House of Representative.

"Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful."

It is being opposed by gun owners and endorsed by gun control advocates.

No person can guarantee the actions of another. What insurance company would write such liability policies? Why would the government burden it's citizens with the expense of having to pay for such policies, if they could be had, in order to exercise their God given rights? This is nothing more than an underhanded and sneaky way of nullifying our rights. When challenged, the government can just claim that they are not revoking a right, just placing responsible conditions on the free exercise of them. I predict that we will be subjected to a good deal more of this type of 'stealth tyranny'.

Sunday Open Thread

"The Obama Youth Corps" - Update

As I predicted, HR 1388 has sailed through the Senate yesterday 79-19, and was renamed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, and Act to reauthorize and reform and national service laws (S 277). Not surprisingly, none of the 19 'nay' votes came from the Democrats.

An amendment introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) which would have barred ACORN or any of it's affiliate organizations from receiving any funding from the bill was tabled before the vote. Vitter, you might remember, also offered a similar amendment to the 'porkulus bill' which was also defeated.

In reviewing the text of the Senate version I noticed something that may be of serious concern to all of us (the house version also contained this provision, and I apologize for having overlooked it).

It is found in sec. 1304;

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
......

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Nice! As a participant in Obama's Youth Corps one forfeits all rights guaranteed under the first amendment. Congress understands that they cannot simply suspend the constitution all at once, so they are just going to render it null and void for certain people at certain times, until, before we realize it, it no longer applies to any of us.

Our rights are given to us from God. We loan those rights to our government to do for us as a whole that which we cannot do for ourselves individually. This government has long ago gone well beyond the simple mandate afforded to it by the constitution, and we have allowed it. But, our rulers are not satisfied with the power we have unwisely allowed it to usurp. It now wants the power to tell us what rights we may exercise, when we may exercise them, and under what conditions we may exercise them.

Wake up America, the hour is late.

Obama die Jugend Korps

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded" – Barrack Obama, 2008

"When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”- Adolf Hitler


"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future." - Adolf Hitler

While Americans were fully engaged in righteous indignation over the 1/10 of 1% of the TARP money that AIG paid it's employees in compliance with legally contracted agreements, the US House of Representatives passed HR1388. The media barely took notice.

On Wednesday, March 13, 2009, "Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act" (GIVE), an expansion of the 1993 AmeriCorps program, sailed though the House on a 321 to 105 vote. Even though the bill would have passed without them, 70, evidently confused Republicans joined ranks with the Democrats in passing the bill. See the text of the bill here.

Proponents of the bill suggest that volunteerism and charity are acutely needed in tough economic times, and that this legislation answers that need. Yep, we can't let a good crisis go to waste. Opponents, on the other hand, are concerned about several aspects of the bill;

1) That community organizations which will be utilized in the 'community service' structure will be of the leftwing 'ACORN' variety; and that re-education and indoctrination would be an integral part of the training. Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union had this to say about the bill,

"It's allowing taxpayer funding of the left-wing organizations. I think this is a problem that is rife throughout the federal government. When you dramatically expand the program, then you dramatically expand the ability for these left-wing advocacy organizations to get more funding. I don't see a lot of attention being paid to that, even from those who are critical. That's where the focus should be. Republicans tend to say its not that they oppose the program, they just want to spend less money. It's the program that's bad."

2) That the bill will be too costly, especially on top of the obscene spending that Congress has already done. Fox News reports that Corporation for National and Community Service, which administers AmeriCorps received an estimated $260 million in fiscal 2009. GIVE is an expansion of AmeriCorp, so one would expect that the funding will be increased accordingly. The legislation is estimated to cost $6 billion over the next five years.

3) That many young 'volunteers' would be forced into lengthy service due to the attractive 'benefits' and 'grants' offered to participants, but which come with length of service requirements attached. There are also very disturbing hints in the bill which suggest that mandatory service for all young people would be eventually required. From Fox News again;

The bill creates a "Congressional Commission on Civic Service." The bipartisan commission will be tasked with exploring a number of topics, including "whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation."

I have reviewed the text of the bill and disturbing does not begin to describe the uneasiness I feel about the organization that this legislation will create and how it might be used. But given how easily it passed though the House, I expect that it will likely pass the Senate as well.

So, look out America, here comes the Obama Youth Corps.

Common Sense 2009

Amen To That!!!!!

Pelosi Calls Illegal Aliens "Patriotic"

Speaking at St. Anthony's Church in San Francisco to an audience of both legal and illegal aliens, House Speaker Pelosi said that the current practices employed in the enforcement of our immigration laws are "un-American" and referred to the members of her audience as "very patriotic". See the full story here.



Only through the prism of the liberal mind is it un-American to enforce the laws of our country, and patriotic to violate them. An America under liberalism is an America where good is evil. Where God is the devil. Where criminals are victims. Where terrorists are freedom fighters and NRA members are terrorists. Where success is punished and slothfulness rewarded. Where forced confiscation of wealth is considered patriotic contributions. Where freedom of speech only exists when the are no dissenting voices. Where consensual sex between men and women is rape, and homosexuality is natural act. Where putting convicted murderers to death is immoral, but putting innocent children to death is a 'choice'.

How is liberalism not a mental disorder?

Oath Keepers

This is a repost from The Patriot Page.

Americans Will Not Be Standing Alone

Oath Keepers-Guardians of the Republic is a webblog devoted to reminding current militatry members, vets, and members of law enforcement that their oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not to the politicians.



Oath Keepers mission statement reads;

Oath Keepers is an association of currently serving military, veterans, and peace officers who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.

We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders."
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means.

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.

If you are currently in the military, are a veteran, or are a peace officer, please submit your written and/or video testimony on your oath, so you can help us win that battle for hearts and minds. Your submission may be anonymous.

Guardians of the Republic, fulfill your oath. Join us.

This is what real patriotism is all about, standing up for what is right. Thank God that, thanks to these patriots, Americans will not be standing alone.

More Obama Merchandising

This time it's a German frozen food company marketing a product called Obama Fingers. See the full story from SPIEGEL ONLINE below.

GERMAN FRIED CHICKEN

Tender, Juicy Obama Fingers Hit the Shelves
By Charles Hawley

A German frozen food company hopes to raise sales with a new product: Obama fingers. The tender, fried chicken bits come with a tasty curry sauce. The company says it was unaware of the possible racist overtones of the product.


Selling products has, of course, become a bit more difficult than usual these days. No wonder then that companies everywhere are turning to optimistic marketing messages in an effort to counteract the steady drum beat of negativity coming from front page headlines around the globe.

Many sales executives have drawn the same conclusion: What better poster child for hope than US President Barack Obama? There are Obama dolls, Obama T-shirts, Obama soap-on-a-rope. There is even Obama thong underwear on offer.

Not wanting to miss the boat, a German food company has now gotten into the act. Sprehe, a company that has all manner of frozen delicacies on offer, has come up with a new product it calls "Obama Fingers." Far from being real digits, though, the "fingers" in question are "tender, juicy pieces of chicken breast, coated and fried," as the product packaging claims.

"We noticed that American products and the American way of eating are trendy at the moment," Judith Witting, sales manager for Sprehe, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Americans are more relaxed. Not like us stiff Germans, like (Chancellor Angela) Merkel."

The idea, she claimed, was to get in on the Obama-mania which is continuing to grip Germany. The word "fingers" in the name refers to the fact that it is a finger food. "It's like hotdogs," Witting said. "No one would ever think they are actually from dogs."

For Americans in Germany, though, there is a risk that the product might be seen as racially insensitive. Fried chicken has long been associated with African-Americans in the US -- naming strips of fried chicken after the first black president could cause some furrowing of brows.

Witting told SPIEGEL ONLINE the connection never even occurred to her. "It was supposed to be a homage to the American lifestyle and the new US president," she said.

Well, I am not too keen on the idea of Obama chicken fingers, but if Sprehe needs an idea for a product that I might be more inclined to buy, how about Obama Toilet Tissue? The American people are about to be royally screwed by the 'stimulus bill', so make them extra soft. We can use all the comfort we can get.