Eagle Forum of Sacramento

April 30, 2008 by Phyllis Schlafly
It’s a good thing that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s U.S. visit was upstaged by the dramatic reception Americans gave Pope Benedict XVI. Brown might have been booed if he hadn’t delivered what aides called his “signature” speech within the cloistered walls of Harvard’s Kennedy Center. Brown’s tedious, hour-long speech impudently demanded that we issue a “Declaration of Interdependence” in order to submit to global governance. That’s another way of calling on us to repeal our Declaration of Independence. No thanks for the advice, Mr. Brown. Brave Americans rose up and rejected Britain’s royalist rule in 1776, and we’ve gotten along mighty well without transatlantic interference in our government for more than two centuries. We certainly don’t want to reinstate any foreign supervision today. The redundancy of Brown’s outrageous semantics was
oppressive. His speech used the word global 69 times, globalization 7 times, and interdependence 13 times. He referred to Kennedy 19 times, lavishing fulsome praise on John F. (“his influence abides everywhere”), Robert (he sent forth “ripples of hope”), and Ted (“one of the greatest Senators in more than two centuries”). Brown rejected the traditional concept of national sovereignty, which means an independent nation not subservient to any outside control, telling us to replace it with “responsible sovereignty,” which he defined as accepting what he calls our global “obligations.” Hold on to your pocketbook. Brown admitted that his “main argument” is that we must accept “new global rules,” “new global institutions,” and “global networks.” Brown’s global rules include massive U.S. cash handouts and opening U.S. borders to the world. Brown’s use of well-known American political phrases was tacky. He tried to morph FDR’s New Deal into a “New Global Deal,” and JFK’s New
Frontier into “the New Frontier is that there is no frontier.” Brown even slipped in an attempt at thought control: “Americans must learn to think inter-continentally.” He declaimed, “We are all internationalists now.” Using the rhetorical device of inevitability, Brown warned us that his vision of the globalist future is “irreversible transformation.” He wants to “transcend states” and “transcend borders” as he builds the “architecture of a global society.” Brown peddled the nonsense that the peoples of the world “subscribe to similar ideals.” He tried to tell us that all religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists) have “common values” and “similar ideals.” No, they certainly do not. Brown wants to increase the power of the United Nations to become the source of “an international stand-by capacity of trained civilian experts, ready to go anywhere at any time,” and even be able to exercise “military force.” Americans do not intend to cede
such authority to the corrupt UN. The silliest part of Brown’s ponderous speech was his claim that “a global society” is “advancing democracy widely across the world.” In fact, he doesn’t even practice democracy in his own country. Brown refused to allow the British people to vote on whether or not they want to accept the European Union (EU) constitution. He acquiesced in the plot of the constitution’s author, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, to put the EU constitution into effect by calling it a treaty so it did not have to be voted on by the people. Brown was chicken about the treaty subterfuge and did not permit a photographic record of his participation. He sent his Foreign Secretary to perform the official treaty signing in front of cameras. The EU constitution, now called the Treaty of Lisbon, requires all signers to surrender their sovereignty and democracy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Strasbourg. The EU constitution takes away England’s right
to pass its own laws, forces England to surrender more than 60 UK vetoes of EU decisions, and gives the EU bureaucracy and tribunals total control over England’s immigration policy. Instead of a self-governing nation whose democratic system was developed over centuries, England is now ruled by what Margaret Thatcher called “the paper pushers in Brussels.” Brown made his globalism speech emphatic by repeatedly invoking the words “New World Order.” The New World Order Brown tries to con the United States into accepting would mean taxing Americans for foreign handouts so immense they would make the Marshall Plan look puny, global warming rules to drastically reduce our standard of living, and putting American workers in a common labor pool with the world’s billions who subsist on less than $2 a day. Gordon Brown invited us to march forward to globalism “where there is no path.” He’s correct that there is no path on which we can expect globalism to lead us to a better
world; in fact every path toward global government is a surrender of our liberty and our prosperity. Gordon Brown should go back home and study up on how Americans refused to accept orders from King George III.

by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)
Posted 03/21/2008 ET

How would he pull it off? I wondered.

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about “the U.S. of K.K.K. America,” and howled, “God damn America!”

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright’s statements were “controversial,” and “divisive,” and “racially charged,” reflecting a “distorted view of America.”

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.

The “white community,” said Barack, must start “acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds … .”

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The “white community” must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.

What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.”

Was “white racism” really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said — that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

Eagle Forum of Sacramento
Georgiana Preskar-Director

People say “If we don’t fix America soon, we will lose our freedoms.” We already have lost our freedoms!

Tonight we went to see Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Many people do not know about it; why should they, for the media is not going to advertise it. The churches certainly will not talk about it. Many movie theaters would not show it. Some people just do not want to see it.

Fortunately The Century in Elk Grove did show it. It is a powerful movie about Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Clearly academic freedoms to present Intelligent Design, and/or Creationism, as possibilities, are gone, but this applies to all areas of truth in America today. Freedom to speak out is unacceptable and you will pay a price if you cross the line!

Five years ago I began my adventure into the discovery of why America had changed. I honestly believed that if people heard the truth of nationwide deception in schools and workplaces, through my writings and speaking engagements, they would be concerned and take action. Certainly presenting the Day of Silence, and outrageous programs like SEED, with documented evidence, would outrage parents and citizens. I was convinced that they would take their children out of schools on that day; and that churches would ask members to speak out against programs that not only abuse adults, but also our most vulnerable citizens, children and teens.

Yet no one spoke out. In fact Christians were silent. We sent over 100 letters to pastors, ministers, and priests in regards to Day of Silence and the SEED program; only one pastor responded. Even people in some conservative organizations did nothing to support our effort to stop the Day of Silence or diversity programs such as SEED. It was a rude awakening to apathy reality.

The last week I have tried to write updates about legislation, issues surrounding the next election, and other topics. I was not able to write. The reality of our loss of freedoms made me sick to my stomach.

No one can speak out anymore without receiving hate mail and even life threatening notes. A Catholic orphanage had to close its doors after 100 years because the homosexuals have become so powerful that they demanded children be given to them in adoption. God bless the orphanage for closing their doors in Massachusetts, rather than handing over children to homosexual couples.

Brigitte Bardot, in France, was arrested and could be fined $23,000 for saying that the Muslims intruded in her country, destroyed it, and that they need to leave. An Oklahoma Assemblywoman, Sally Kern, received thousands of hate mails because she said the homosexuals cause a greater threat to America than the terrorists. She has to have security guards because of many life-threatening emails. Capitol Resource Institute’s website was shut down by hackers because of the work they are doing to fight legislation that is homosexual oriented.

Now this courageous man, Ben Stein, has called the scientific community on their politically correct agenda when dealing with Darwinism and Intelligent Design. It is an outstanding movie; creative, truthful, and profound. Do not miss it and tell others about it.

God bless this man for his work and effort. After writing two books, I understand the frustration connected with trying to deliver the truth to closed minds that are addicted to diversity thinking.

However, our job is not to know the outcome of our efforts, or to avoid frustration, but to be the best we can be in delivering His word. Ben Stein accomplished this and that is the truth!

March 31, 2008
Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director

http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

Get Civilized! Get a Gun and Training…

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the
Washington DC Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example
of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper
perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close
attention to the last paragraph of the letter…

If you want be a true, civilized individual, then get your
gun and training at: http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

The Gun is Civilization by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:
reason and force. If you want me to do something for you,
you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or
force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every
human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively
interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid
method of social interaction, and the only thing that
removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You
have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have
a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound
woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year
old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang
banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a
carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes
the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers
between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the
source of bad force equations. These are the people who
think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed
from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed
either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no
validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are
armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic
rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s
the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even
an armed one, can only make a successful living in a
society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes
confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in
injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.
Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury
on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people
take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at
worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier
works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the
stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands
of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight
lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force
equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for
a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun
at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.
I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it
enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of
those who would interact with me through reason, only the
actions of those who would do so by force. It removes
force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is
a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)