Some Things I Oppose and Some I Prefer

here are some things I oppose. Why? I think their basic purpose is to destroy America. Therefore, I believe they are not patriotic:

The ACLU--created by a communist, exactly for its purposes--communism. All ACLU members need to rethink their loyalty positions and what they are about. Rarely, if ever, does the ACLU take up a case for the benefit of a conservative cause. Have you noted that? And, by the way, it is a 501-c3 organization in the IRS code--that is, non-profit status and non-taxable.

Planned Parenthood. It has demonstrated its purpose is to see that as many abortions as possible can be encouraged. Do they offer alternatives? Some might claim so, but not likely as a basic principle. It is tied to the same push that the global warming crowd, the reduction of the earth's population and control of the masses. Abortions are numbering at 55 million since Roe vs. Wade, and rising. These are clearly murders of potential citizens, that is, many of them.

The Liberals push this agenda like crazies, then yelp about the growing shortage of viable taxpayers to fund their liberal causes. Had those millions been allowed to live and mature, they would no doubt have contributed greatly to the hoped reversal of Medicare's apparent demise in the few years ahead. What a bunch of dummies!

And, it too, is a 501-c3 organization, non-taxable under the IRS code.

Have you seen the IRS go after either of these groups for "crossing the line" of supporting a political cause, as they do frequently in challenging any kind of support from a church pulpit for a conservative cause? No, and it seems that liberal pulpit speakers are often left to their own freedom of speech from their pulpits or public forums.

What I would prefer:

I would like to see an annual review of each elected official's oath of office, where he or she stands, raises the right hand, and swears on the BIBLE, to uphold all the tenants of our Constitution, "so help me, God"!

You say they are reviewed, essentially, at their election day every two or six years? That is not soon enough! And, the entity that does the review cannot be from among those elected officials. Let each State form its own review board, made up of balanced viewpoints, guided by constitutional tenants, upon which the public official is rated. A score of 70 or more, of a total of 100, would be a passing score. Less than 70 would mean failure of his oath of office, and failure as an elected official. He or she must resign, immediately!

After all, are we not agreed that we are to be ruled by our Constitution and Bill of Rights? We all raise the flag, salute, stand and sing our national anthem. Yet, Liberals want to be sure their judges are those who figure out ways to fiolate the true meaning of the Constitution in their rulings. The most recent addition to the U. S. Supreme Court will soon show her true roots in the decisions she makes, contrary to the claims she made prior to her selection by the Senate, and contrary to the arguments made for her by favorable Senators. She, like President Obama, with his 100% liberal rating in the Senate, will soon revert to who she really is. Watch it happen!

So, what do you say? Shall we push for an annual review of their oaths of office? Each state should put the issue on their next election ballot, for it is the State that sends its representatives to Congress and the Senate. We will never take control of our own government of "we, the people, for the people and by the people" unless those officials are held to their oath of office, exactly! And, since judges are also sworn in, on the same oath, they should likewise be reviewed and rated, fully exposed for what they have done in relation to their oath performance.

Gene Lawley

About the Spiral Downward

When liberals see that they are losing ground, they throw in the race card. Now that the health care issue seems to be facing a strong challenge--because folks have begun to see the connection of its principles with the thread of the same principles in all of the actions of this administration in its history so far--that looks a lot like much more federal control and thinking citizens do not like that.

Former President Jimmy carter throws in the race card. It is so contrary to the issues that have sounded out from the Tea Parties and the Town Hall Meetings, that it makes Mr. Carter appear foolish. Not that he is otherwise not foolish, of course. His tenure as president was the worst I have seen in my lifetime. He had no uplifiting and motivating messages for America then, and he has none now. He has sold his soul to the shadow power block that desperately wants American to go down the tube into socialism and melt into their vision of a New World Order.

He was made the first chairman of the Trilateral Commission, which is linked to the Council on Foreign Relations, whose membership numbers in the hundreds of political, business, big media, academic and other leading groups from around the world. Both of these are secondary to the much-denied-everywhere Bilderbergers, whose long-term goal has always been total control of the whole world in a One World Government.

So, Jimmie Carter was a Georgia peanut farmer and govenor, hand-picked to be that president in the hopes he would lead America into the loss of its sovereignty and set up the New World Order. Not so, apparently.

Now, we see Barack Obama, rising out of nowhere, of doubtful credentials, as well as doubtful leadership experience and abilities, of whom Henry Kissinger has stated that he has been picked to lead us into a New World Order. Thus, we are again back into the same mode, but now with greater intensity and commitment by those who have such goals for America and the world. Their window of opportunity at this time must remain open, having been provided by a thoughtless voting population and a ring-in-the-nose news media blinded by a giddy worship of a condidate they wanted to know nothing about.

Many see this trend as a parallel to the Biblical prophecies that proclaim the times of the end of this age, highlighed by the increasing anti-Israel attitudes, the increased apostasy (turning away)of Christian church members from the basic tenants of their faith, economic breakdown worldwide, and increased warring confrontations in the world.

Those who have opposed America's constitutionally-provided fredoms have a devilish motivation to envision and work toward the downfall of its sovereignty and its replacement with a socialistic system, which will lead to a dictatorship--though they may not include that part in their vision. They just plan to be "more equal" than the equality that they claim will be the status of every person. It is an amazement to me that those folks do not learn anything from the examples of history in the experiences, before and now, of socialism in other countries!

Why would anyone with any mental capability desire the bondage of an all-controlling government over the freedom of personal choice? I stnad by my label, above, of "devilish" motivations.

Note this statement in 1944 by Norman Thomas, who was a six-time candidate of the Socialist Party for the Presidency of the United States: "The American people will never knowlingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened." He went on to say, "I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."

Can an indifferent, slumbering populace, which hardly notices anything that does not disturb their daily lives of fun and games, wake up to the challenge? It does look like there is beginning to be an awakening, as the Tea Parties and Town Hall confrontations have unsettled the liberal opposition, to their surprise.

It does restore my confidence that the Truth will still win, in the finality.

Gene Lawley, MBA, CPA(Rtrd)