Please Donate Today...A $17.76 donation, or any other amount would be greatly appreciated.
Help Save our Nation!
great link for news at bottom of their page
News Title (in Alphabetical Order):
News Title (Sort by Date):
Bookmark and Share
California Town Stops Accepting Cash! 01/28/2011
Search Engine Friendly URL:

Jim Kelly



California Town Stops Accepting Cash!

A quick scan of the paper money in your wallet reveals a simple phrase printed on each bill no matter what the denomination:
“This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.”
It is a fairly simple concept, unless you live in the California town of Discovery Bay where cash is no longer accepted when paying for services provided by the city.  Starting this Spring, residents will not be allowed to pay water bills or purchase park permits using cash, they must have a credit/debit card, a check or money order.  Why?  Discovery Bay had a small problem with four or five residents who were requesting copies of PUBLIC INFORMATION and doing so anonymously (allowed by California law).  Instead of dealing with this inconvenience, they changed the rules and have added more irritation and annoyance to all 17,000 residents of the city.
Resident Don Flint, who is often critical of the board, noted that the district began receiving anonymous records requests last fall — it has so far received four — and charged that the board was attempting to limit access to public information.
“I‘m troubled that the board takes steps to limit people’s access to records,” he said. “I think that you guys are overstepping if not the letter then the spirit of the law.”
This story is ridiculous and a prime example of the unintended consequences caused by knee-jerk reactions by governments gone awry.
One might say this is kind of like completely overhauling an entire healthcare system that generally does a good job serving 275 million people in order to provide medical care and support to 40 million who are without it.  Instead of solving the problem of the minority, we are inconveniencing everyone (except those chosen to be exempted).
This is not about service or care, it’s about control.
The Blaze
Pentagon: Chaplains can Quit or "Reconcile" with Homosexual Sin 01/27/2011
Search Engine Friendly URL:
Jim Kelly
patriot freedom
Pentagon:  Chaplains can Quit or "Reconcile" with Homosexual Sin 

The Obama Administration has now begun writing policies that will result in discharge of Christian Chaplains and troops who cannot "reconcile" with homosexual sin.  After forcing open homosexual aggression on our troops against their will by repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Congress did not spell out details of how to implement, delegating important Pentagon policies which are now being written, and could soon force Christian Chaplains to choose: either stop preaching God's Word or quit military service. Below are four shocking proof examples revealing how the purge has already begun, and why we must fight back NOW by demanding Congress investigate and pass strong laws defending our troops right to religious freedom starting with H.R. 268 which has not yet passed in 6 years, clearly defending military chaplains' right to pray publicly "in Jesus name."  

1.  Report: Chaplains who can't "reconcile" with homosexual sin will be separated. 

The newly released Pentagon plan to purge Christians entitled "DADT Report: Support Plan for Implementation" specifically requires Christian chaplains to "reconcile" with homosexual sin or face administrative discharge. It repeats twice on pages 30 and 57: "If a chaplain is unable to reconcile serving with or caring for gay and lesbian Service members with his or her faith, the chaplain may request that the relevant endorsing agency withdraw its ecclesiastical endorsement for him or her. This would trigger an administrative separation under DoDI 1304.28."  Wow.  Now the Obama Administration is officially on record pressuring Chaplains to quit the service if they cannot "reconcile" with homosexual sin that violates their Christian conscience.  This "plan" alone should alarm the new conservative Congress to the need for bold protection of Chaplains' rights.  Let's help... 
2.  Chaplains will have religious freedom only in "context" of Sunday chapel. 

The Pentagon report dubiously promises to protect Chaplains' freedoms, "in the context of their religious ministry," claiming they won't need to change their sermons, counseling, prayers, or worship.  But speaking from personal experience as a former Navy chaplain, I can decode the secret word "context" to mean chaplains clearly WON'T have religious freedom outside of that "context."  As proof, in my case the Navy twice declared the only safe religious "context" was ONLY inside a Sunday chapel.  As a chaplain I was punished in writing three times for quoting the Bible EVEN inside chapel, but since the optionally-attended worship service was held on a Saturday, not a Sunday, Navy investigators sided with the Commander who punished my sermons.  Later a Navy judge ruled that my Thursday prayers outside the White House were "not public worship" which was only safe in the context of Sunday chapel, instead finding me guilty of the misdemeanor crime of "worshipping in public" in uniform which he said was NOT protected by federal law, so my commander could order me to stop "worshipping in public" in uniform.  Say what?   Because my prayers in Jesus name were not said in the proper "context," they were properly punished, the Navy judge ruled to punish the chaplain.  

3.  Battalion Commander relieved of duty for refusing to teach how to respect sin. 

One Senior Officer in the Army National Guard has already been relieved of his battalion-level commanding officer job after stating his conscience would not allow him to participate in "re-education" training that will soon force young Christians to learn how to respect homosexual sin.  "Today is my last day in command," the career Army officer told, anonymously for fear of losing his retirement.  "From now on I'll be a staff officer without a bunch of people working under me, so I won't have the moral conflict with having to enforce this new policy on them...When I retire I will speak on the record. I don't know how much I can do before that. Sooner or later I'm going to get told to shut up. If I continue to make statements, it might become a witch hunt. I don't want to lose my retirement unless it comes to the point they tell me I have to attend the [pro-'gay'] training."  

4.  Left demands punishment of Christian Colonel who is taking a stand. 

Atheist bloggers and anti-Christian complainers are demanding punishment for one heroic career Army officer, Lt. Col. Stacy L. Maxey, who said he will exercise his legal right to take a stand for Jesus against homosexual sin by publicly expressing his Christian beliefs.  

In a letter to Stars and Stripes entitled "Won't Choose To Deal With It," Lt. Col. Maxey took a stand, and wrote:  

"So let me see if I understand this: The Defense Department is proposing to let people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle serve 'openly' in the armed forces, but won’t allow Christians such as myself the freedom to 'openly' share the good news of Christ with our co-workers — as the faith we’ve chosen requires? 

"DOD officials plan to tell servicemembers who have a problem with those living a homosexual lifestyle to 'learn to deal with it,' but they are prepared to counsel and/or slap Christians with paperwork if someone feels “offended” by our witness? Wearing sexual lifestyle choices on your sleeve is OK, but not your faith? 

"Military chaplains who teach that homosexuality is antithetical to and incompatible with Christianity (which it is) can either muzzle their objections or 'leave,' but gays will be permitted to parade their lifestyle choices in front of all? 

"Bottom line: So I’m free to express myself if I’m a homosexual, but not if I’m a Christian? What disgraceful hypocrisy.

"Here’s the truth: I will continue to witness to who I want, when I want and where I want. My commitment to my God supersedes my commitment to the DOD and, if officials are upset about that, then I guess they can 'learn to deal with it.' 

"Department of Defense? More like the Department of Double Standards." 

                                                              --Lt. Col. Stacy L. Maxey, Afghanistan 

This officer deserves a bronze star for his courage.  But do you think he's being hailed as a hero by the pro-homosexual community?  No, they're demanding this Christian be punished.  Mikey Weinstein of the Militant Religion Foes Foundation (MRFF) issued an imperious, vicioustic, contagious anti-Christian statement that villified Maxey as a criminal: 

"Lt. Col. Stacy L. Maxey is the quintessentially perfect example of a poisonous Poster Child of the vast legion of fundamentalist Christian proselytizing-oppressors operating with unfettered access in today's U.S. armed forces. He and his illegitimate ilk of pernicious spiritual predators must be stopped now and very publicly!  Thus, MRFF demands that the United States Air Force immediately and forthwith subject Lt. Col. Maxey to the most severe punishment possible for his disgustingly brazen and incontrovertibly insubordinate screed which is clearly violative of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as his sworn oath to the United States Constitution."  [Take a breath, Mikey...Jesus loves you.] 

Perhaps these attacks by MRFF help you see why we must fight to defend chaplains and Christian heroes like Lt. Col. Stacy L. Maxey from punishment, when they simply wish to express the same freedom of religion, which they fight and die to give to others, including you and me.  Let's take a stand for Jesus, for our troops, for freedom, and demand Congress protect our chaplains and troops free speech and religion...
Friends, our Christian chaplains and troops are under fire, now more than ever, unless Congress passes strong laws to protect their free religious expression.  Let's take a stand today, and demand Congress pass laws protecting their religious rights. 
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Homeland Security to replace color-coded terror alerts 01/26/2011
Search Engine Friendly URL:

Homeland Security to replace color-coded terror alerts

WASHINGTON — The color-coded terror alert system that has greeted travelers at airports since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings is being phased out, the government will announce today.
Long a joke on late-night talk shows, the color codes are being replaced by a system designed to give law enforcement and potential targets critical information without unnecessarily alarming or confusing the public, according to a Department of Homeland Security briefing paper on the change and lawmakers.
The five-step color codes, ranging from green to red, will be phased out in the next 90 days. Among the changes: Passengers will no longer hear the public-service recordings at airports announcing the alert level. The aviation threat has been on orange, or "high" alert, since 2006.
"The old color-coded system taught Americans to be scared, not prepared," said Rep. Bennie Thompson , D-Miss., the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee. "Each and every time the threat level was raised, very rarely did the public know the reason, how to proceed, or for how long to be on alert."
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the chairman of the committee, also praises the move.
"Though the system served a valuable purpose in the terrible days and months following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, it was clearly time for the current color-coded system to be replaced with a more targeted system," he said.
Clark Ervin, a former inspector general at Homeland Security, says that the color codes created confusion with the public because changes in the security level were often not explained by government officials. Ervin served on a task force that advised the department to come up with a better alert system.
The government will not abandon alerts completely. According to the Homeland Security briefing paper, the agency may decide to issue specific warnings to local law enforcement agencies, airlines or businesses if it fears there is heightened risk of an attack. Or it could issue broader alerts through public announcements, it says.
"When a threat develops that could impact the public, we will tell you," the briefing paper says. "We will provide whatever information we can so you know how to protect yourselves, your families, and your communities."
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will announce the changes today at her first "State of America's Homeland Security" address.
Abortion Clinics NOT Inspected--for 17 Years-Even a hot dog stand gets an investigation twice a year 01/26/2011
Search Engine Friendly URL:
Jim Kelly
Abortion Clinics NOT Inspected--for 17 Years
January 26, 2011, 07:37 PM      
In Pennsylvania, the State suspended inspection of abortion mills--17 years ago.  Even a hot dog stand gets an investigation twice a year.
Abortion Clinics NOT Inspected--for 17 Years
Written by CA Political News on January 26, 2011, 07:37 PM
Why a Gruesome Pennsylvania Abortion Clinic Had Not Been Inspected for 17 Years

by Marian Wang, ProPublica, 1/21/11

While this week's indictment involving a grisly abortion mill in Philadelphia has shocked many [1], the grand jury's nearly 300-page report also contains a surprising and little-noted revelation: In the mid-1990s, the administration of Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, ended regular inspections of abortion clinics—a policy that continued until just last year. 
According to the grand jury report [2][PDF] released this week by Philadelphia prosecutors, Pennsylvania health officials deliberately chose not to enforce laws to ensure that abortion clinics provide the same level of care as other medical service providers.
The District Attorney’s office this week charged an abortion doctor, Kermit Gosnell, with murder and infanticide. Nine other workers at the abortion clinic, the Women’s Medical Society, also face charges. According to the prosecutors, Gosnell and his associates not only broke state law by performing abortions after 24 weeks—they also killed live babies by stabbing them with scissors and cutting their spinal cords. Law enforcement officials found blood-stained furniture, unsterilized instruments and fetal remains scattered about the clinic. At least one woman, a refugee from Nepal, had died under Gosnell’s care after being given repeated injections of a dangerous sedative. Prosecutors said Gosnell made millions from treating and sometimes maiming his patients, who were mostly low-income, minority women [3].
But perhaps most frightening of all? The atrocities were discovered by accident [4], as the Philadelphia Inquirer points out. Warnings—from patients and their attorneys, a doctor at a Philadelphia hospital, women’s health groups, pro-choice groups, and even an employee of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health—failed to prompt state and local authorities to investigate or take action against the clinic.
The grand jury report said that one look at the place would have detected the problems, but the Pennsylvania Department of Health hadn’t inspected the place since 1993. Here’s the grand jury report, in surprisingly strong language:
The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.
“Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety,” the report states. "Without regular inspections, providers like Gosnell continue to operate; unlawful and dangerous third-trimester abortions go undetected; and many women, especially poor women, suffer."
According to the report, the policy change occurred after 1993 when attorneys under the administration of then-governor Tom Ridge "interpreted the same regulations that had permitted annual inspections for years to no longer authorize those inspections." Thereafter, only inspections triggered by complaints were authorized. The report noted that Department of Public Health officials reinstituted regular inspections of abortion clinics in February 2010. Ed Rendell, the Pennsylvania Democrat whose second term as governor ended last week, released a statement saying he was "flabbergasted [5]" when he learned of the department's lax scrutiny of abortion clinics and immediately ordered increased inspections, the Associated Press reported.
Still, the earlier policy had its defenders. According to the grand jury report, when the Department of Health's chief lawyer was asked about it, she responded, "People die."
Given that between 30,000 to 40,000 abortions [6] are performed each year Pennsylvania, it’s unclear how many women have been put at risk in the almost two decades that regulators suspended regular inspections of abortion clinics in Pennsylvania. The grand jury report does note that many organizations perform safe abortion procedures and have high standards of care, but that’s “no thanks to the Pennsylvania Department of Health.”
The state’s Department of Health did not comment on the matter but said it would forward our request on to the governor’s press office. We've also left a message with Tom Ridge's spokeswoman. We’ll update if they respond.
Search Engine Friendly URL:

Jim Kelly



A plan in Arizona to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is approaching critical mass, even though it has just been introduced
The state's move prompted an immediate court challenge by Washington.
The proposal from state
It needs only 16 votes in the Senate to pass.
In the House, there are 25 co-sponsors, with the need for only 31 votes for passage, and Burges told WND that there were several chamber members who confirmed they support the plan and will vote for it, but simply didn't wish to be listed as co-sponsors.
Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.
Other definitions have called for a "natural born citizen" to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.
There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's "natural born citizen" status never has been documented. The "Certification of Live Birth" his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.
The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom's Kenyan terroritory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.
There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.
The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.
Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military officer, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.
Burges told WND she's asked the proposal to be assigned to the Government Committee.
"I think every American should consider it of prime importance to ensure that all candidates for the highest elected position in our nation meet all constitutional requirements," she told WND. "We do not accept the federal government's unconstitutional treatment of states as one of their extended branches."
The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."
It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."
"If both the candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate's name on the ballot in this state," the state plan explains.
The governor's office is occupied by Republican Jan Brewer, who has had no difficulty in bringing direct challenges to Washington, such as a year ago when lawmakers adopted provisions that allowed state law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law. The state's move prompted an immediate court challenge by Washington.
Posted: January 25, 2011

XML   RSS AOL   RSS Yahoo   RSS Google
Creator of Quantum Web Engine Site Powered by Quantum Web Engine Web Articles