Timely Churchill Quote

March 31, 2009


“Egalitarians create the most dangerous inequality of all — inequality of power. Allowing politicians to determine what all other human beings will be allowed to earn is one of the most reckless gambles imaginable. Like the income tax, it may start off being applied only to the rich but it will inevitably reach us all.”

Winston Churchill

If  Barney Frank  was paid based on performance, what would he make?



March 30, 2009

Pastors defy IRS




Today’s dilemma for people of conscience



By Allan Erickson




If we face the truth squarely, asking what has allowed so much evil to overwhelm our country, surely we must admit the silence of good people has contributed enormously.


Our pastor—God bless him—is a man of faith and honor, someone to respect and uphold in prayer.  Sunday, his sermon raised compelling questions about faith, submission to authority and obedience to the counsel of Scripture.


Part of his sermon referenced Romans 13:1—


“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”


The passage goes on to explain that anyone who rebels against the government is rebelling against what God has established, bringing judgment upon themselves. Obedience to government authority is therefore a matter of conscience.


Our pastor pointed out that Paul wrote these words while imprisoned for two years, suffering serious mistreatment at the hands of the government of the time.  He pointed out that Believers must wrestle with these things, allowing the weight of Scripture to inform our thinking and our behavior.  He also said that for him, it was a straightforward matter: obey the government, pay your taxes and support your President, your reasonable service.


I’m wrestling.   I find myself suffering severe cognitive dissonance: contradictory thoughts fighting for prominence in my mind and my soul.


I hear the Lord’s voice telling me all Scripture is God-breathed, render to Caesar, store up treasure in heaven.


I also hear the news: the President is using tax dollars to fund abortion overseas; he promotes Planned Parenthood; he is working to destroy all limits on abortion passed by state legislatures; he promotes homosexuality; he is considering a proposal to force doctors to perform abortions even if they object as a matter of conscience; he supports partial birth abortion and has supported the practice of allowing babies to die if they survive an abortion; his appointee to the number two position in the Justice Department has a long track record of defending child pornography; and, AIG and CITI bailout money (our tax dollars) is being channeled to Shariah compliant organizations which fund terrorism.


How does one uphold Scripture and, at the same time, submit to such a government, allowing your tax money to be spent in such ways?


One might say one’s civic and spiritual duty is to pay taxes and let God judge, for He will repay, and He will judge.


Another will say “No! I will not pay taxes, I will not fund the murder of innocent babies, I will not participate in atrocities and grievous sin being practiced by my government!”


Further along in Romans 13 we are admonished to pay taxes, followed immediately by passages reminding us about the commandments, including “do not murder.”


This is a terrible dilemma.  For those of us who consider abortion murder, paying taxes to this government amounts to subsidizing murder, it amounts to participating in murder.  It is a grave matter of conscience.


What will American pastors do if the government makes it a hate crime to preach against the sin of homosexuality?  Will they submit to the government or to God?


The American people have made it clear on many occasions: we do not want tax money funding abortion, we believe doctors should be allowed to follow the dictates of conscience, we believe it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals just as we believe gay marriage is wrong, we do not support partial birth abortion, and we strongly object to government bailouts, especially when that money finds its way into the hands of terrorists.


Does this President respect our wishes and like a good public servant respond to the wishes of the people?  No!  He dictates and manipulates and decrees by executive order we comply with his agenda, his policies, and his spending priorities, even if they violate the deepest points of conviction and conscience.  Like King George, he imposes his will indiscriminately: a tyrant by any definition.


Is this then a point of no return? 


Are there more compelling Scriptural requirements of a Believer at such time as government becomes overwhelmingly evil? 


Certainly, Corrie ten Boom was not a scriptural ‘rebel’ for hiding Jews from the Nazis.  


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a ‘rebel’ for exercising his right to redress grievances. 


Abolitionists who helped slaves to freedom, and Christians who fought child labor, were they ‘rebels’ for addressing the great evils of their day?  


Was Henry David Thoreau a ‘rebel’ for refusing to pay taxes to protest the Mexican-American War and slavery?


Were the Founding Fathers ‘rebels’ in a scriptural sense for Declaring Independence and throwing off the tyranny of Great Britain?


Eight years ago Baptist Pastor Greg Dixon wrote a column titled “Rethinking Romans 13.”  It is well worth reading.  (*Pastor Dixon was arrested and his church was seized by the government because he refused to comply with government taxation policies involving the status of church workers, see Resources below for detail.)




Here are some poignant excerpts:



In recent years, Christians have interpreted Romans 13 as a command for unlimited submission to government by God. Many proponents of this belief have sat passively by, in the soft pews of their place of worship, while evil has triumphed in most areas of family and church life. In our pacifistic smugness, many have allowed government to become god without even knowing.


The opponents of unlimited submission to government are deemed as rebellious, anarchist and disobedient. However, there is no practical, historical or biblical consistency in the shallow agreements of these simpletons.


In July of 1774, our forefathers met in Fairfax County, Va., and considered ways of forcing Great Britain to redress American grievances. George Washington and George Mason were the instrumental agents in drafting what has come to be known as the “Fairfax Resolves.”


[Resolve #6]   “Resolved that Taxation and Representation are in their nature inseparable; that the right of withholding, or of giving and granting their own money is the only effectual security to a free people, against the encroachments of Despotism and Tyranny; and that whenever they yield to one they fall prey to the other.”




In simple terms, the Resolves offered George III two obvious choices. One was to fulfill his covenant obligations and be the king and ruler to the American Colonies that he had agreed to be or, second, to prepare for war. George III was asked to reflect upon the fact, that if he did not keep his end of the covenant, there could “be but one appeal.”


Last –and most important — it is not biblical. Daniel disobeyed Darius and went to the lions’ den. The three Hebrew children broke the law for not bowing. The parents hid baby Moses from Pharaoh. Rahab lied to protect the Hebrew spies. The Apostles went to prison for preaching Christ in the authority of Heaven. Paul and his followers in Acts 17 did contrary to all the decrees of Caesar in order to make Jesus the King. Even Jesus lived in direct opposition of the political religious leaders of his day and went to the cross for us.


. . .  we have a practical, historical and biblical mandate to fervently disobey any unconstitutional laws and all government officials who cease to be good ministers of Jesus Christ. God almighty is the only power that deserves unlimited obedience.



Most assuredly, no one is suggesting armed insurrection, or the withholding of taxes for casual reasons, to simply rob the government, the motivation being rooted in truly selfish and rebellious impulse.


However, people of conscience, Christian or no, must allow the weight of the conscience to work and inform both belief and behavior. 


If it is true this government has now become a glaring agent of immorality, acting contrary to the moral sense of the community, and indeed contrary to the clear laws of God, then all people of conscience must seriously consider which is the greater sin: giving money to such a government, or refusing to do so, in full knowledge of the consequences.


I for one see the Master in the temple with a whip, and choose to follow.





Black minister jailed for abortion stance




Because Lyndon Johnson says so, not the Constitution!



Fairfax Resolves



Church seized by the feds *






A Tax Revolt Hits The United States In 2009?



Hate crimes and muzzling pastors from preaching about homosexuality



AIG, CITI, Bailouts, Shariah, funding terror


The systemic corruption we see is no accident

March 27, 2009



‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’


The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt

By Timothy Matthews | Catholic Insight | Issue: March 2009


The article was forwarded to us by Prof. Diane Irving, PhD who commented:  This is one of the most important articles I’ve seen in a long time.  If you are over the age of 40 it will help to explain to you how we got “here”;  if you are under the age of 40 it will help to explain to you  where you are heading. — DNI

Crucial Video as well


Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’

The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.

The Family

The School’s ‘Critical Theory’ preached that the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family – an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the “Communist Manifesto”, about the radical notion of a ‘community of women’ and in The German Ideology of 1845, written disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the ‘Critical Theory’ : the necessity of breaking down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that ‘Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.’

Following Karl Marx, the School stressed how the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family—it was Marx who wrote so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and by the New Left movement in the 1960s.

They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of ‘natural society.’ Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.’ His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist pronouncements that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and television programme.

The revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.


Lord Bertrand Russell joined with the Frankfurt School in their effort at mass social engineering and spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote: ‘Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development.’ The importance of mass psychology ‘has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, [The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness] Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now completely dominate the universities, ‘teaching their own students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’-‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right’-enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School’.


Dr. Timothy Leary gave us another glimpse into the mind of the Frankfurt School in his account of the work of the Harvard University Psychedelic Drug Project, ‘Flashback.’ He quoted a conversation that he had with Aldous Huxley: “These brain drugs, mass produced in the laboratories, will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen with or without you or me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this evolution, Timothy, is the Bible’. Leary then went on: “We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.”

One of the directors of the Authoritarian Personality project, R. Nevitt Sanford, played a pivotal role in the usage of psychedelic drugs. In 1965, he wrote in a book issued by the publishing arm of the UK’s Tavistock Institute:‘The nation, seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed at all costs by expensive police activity. Only an uneasy Puritanism could support the practice of focusing on the drug addicts (rather than our 5 million alcoholics) and treating them as a police problem instead of a medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and peyote along with the dangerous ones.” The leading propagandists of today’s drug lobby base their argument for legalization on the same scientific quackery spelled out all those years ago by Dr. Sanford.

Such propagandists include the multi-billionaire atheist George Soros who chose, as one of his first domestic programs, to fund efforts to challenge the efficacy of America’s $37-billion-a-year war on drugs. The Soros-backed Lindesmith Center serves as a leading voice for Americans who want to decriminalize drug use. ‘Soros is the ‘Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization,’ claimed Joseph Califano Jr. of Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse’ (The Nation, Sep 2, 1999).


In his book The Closing of the American Mind, Alan Bloom observed how Marcuse appealed to university students in the sixties with a combination of Marx and Freud. In Eros and Civilization and One Dimensional Man Marcuse promised that the overcoming of capitalism and its false consciousness will result in a society where the greatest satisfactions are sexual. Rock music touches the same chord in the young. Free sexual expression, anarchism, mining of the irrational unconscious and giving it free rein are what they have in common.’

The Media

The modern media – not least Arthur ‘Punch’ Sulzberger Jnr., who took charge of the New York Times in 1992 – drew greatly on the Frankfurt School’s study The Authoritarian Personality. (New York: Harper, 1950). In his book Arrogance, (Warner Books, 1993) former CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg noted of Sulzberger that he ‘still believes in all those old sixties notions about ‘liberation’ and ‘changing the world man’ . . . In fact, the Punch years have been a steady march down PC Boulevard, with a newsroom fiercely dedicated to every brand of diversity except the intellectual kind.’

It was these intellectual Marxists who, later, during the anti-Vietnam demonstrations, coined the phrase, ‘make love, not war’; it was these intellectuals who promoted the dialectic of ‘negative’ criticism; it was these theoreticians who dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed. It was their concept that led to the current fad for the rewriting of history, and to the vogue for ‘deconstruction’. Their mantras: ‘sexual differences are a contract; if it feels good, do it; do your own thing.’

Meanwhile, the Quiet Revolution rolls forward.







Drug Cartels & Islamic Terrorists cooperate

March 27, 2009


Hizbullah, Mexican drug cartels working together

U.S. fears drug cartels, terrorists using rail and bus systems

Border lawmakers fear drug-terrorism link

Global Terrorist And Drug Trafficking Cartels

All in a day’s work fighting, ah, er, containing, ah, er, responding too, ‘man-caused disasters.’  (Like this administration?)  DON’T SAY WAR ON TERROR!  YOU MIGHT OFFEND SOMEBODY!


Terror inmates may be released in US: intel chief

President Barack Obama’s intelligence chief confirmed Thursday that some Guantanamo inmates may be released on US soil and receive assistance to return to society.

“If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life,” said National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair at his first press conference.   (BAILOUTS FOR TERRORISTS!)






Keyes appeals case Obama eligibility

March 27, 2009

U.S. Justice Foundation lawsuit details: WND

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama walks a thin line between selling himself properly to voters who don't know him well and arrogance

Alan Keyes

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Keyes has been critical of judges’ refusal to listen to evidence in the disputes and suggestions that those who bring such allegations for review should be penalized..

“In the final analysis if the courts refuse to respect the Constitution, they are not the judges of their own action. The people must ultimately decide. Which is why I and others will use every outlet to inform them of the injustice being done not just to individuals but to the sovereign people as a whole,” Keyes said.

In a commentary on the dispute, Keyes wrote that the suggestion of sanctions against those who bring up the questions, already raised as an issue by Obama’s lawyers in his case, “confirms Obama’s ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires.

“Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won’t accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation,” Keyes said.

“As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world’s esteem,” Keyes said.

     Bob Schultz with the We The People Foundation said:

“In the end, there is no practical reason why Obama refuses to produce his original birth certificate. He… has a duty to provide evidence that he meets the explicit requirements established by the Constitution.”

     Nancy Salvato with BasicsProject.org perhaps put it best:

“What perturbs the rest of us is that President Obama has failed to produce a legitimate birth certificate. He has a team of lawyers who are opposing the examination of his sealed records in Hawaii. What he produced was a certificate of live birth… not a birth certificate. The rest of us are appalled at the lack of media examination surrounding the fact that there is no law requiring that a candidate for the highest office in our land produce an authentic birth certificate which proves natural citizenship.”

HRC to get abortion award

March 27, 2009

Clinton to appear at Planned Parenthood event by Ben Smith, Politico

Doing a rare domestic political event, and continuing the Obama administration’s forceful, if understated alliance with abortion-rights groups, Hillary Clinton will receive an award from Planned Parenthood Friday night in Houston, the group says.

“The 2009 Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Margaret Sanger Award, the organization’s highest honor, will be presented to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been a champion of women’s health and rights throughout her public service career,” according to the release.

Special T.E.A. message from Newt

March 27, 2009




On April 15, be part of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party rally in your community.  On the day you pay your taxes, Wednesday, April 15, join others across the country and in your hometown who will be participating in TEA party rallies in front of their city halls.




April 15 –  11 am protestTEA Party . Newberg City Hall


On the day you pay your taxes, Wednesday, April 15, join others across the country and in your hometown who will be participating in TEA party rallies in front of their city halls.  The TEA party rally will begin at 11:00 a.m.

Are you fed up with a Congress and a president who:


·         vote for a $500 billion tax bill without even reading it? 

·         are spending trillions of borrowed dollars, leaving a debt our great-grandchildren will be paying?

·         consistently give special interest groups billions of dollars in earmarks to help get themselves re-elected?

·         want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others?

·         punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not?

·         admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda?

·         run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China?

·         want government controlled health care?

·         want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections?

·         refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country?

·         appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department?

·         want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will?

·         want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?

·         want to reduce your tax deductibility for charitable gifts?

·         take money from your family budget to pay for their federal budget?

If so, participate in the TEA party rally, the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party.