For you naive sheep out there, in case you think your beastly government would never lie to you. Go to this link:
Tom Ridge Says He was Pressured to Raise Terror Alert

Those on the left and the right are after your liberty and the sovereignty of our country.

This is indescribable…spread it around…the corporate media won’t touch it, it is too awful. Whomever did this must be found. If you want to see the face of antichrist, this is it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22KFbHrSnQE

This was posted at the Oath Keepers website a few days ago. An incident occurred immediately on the heels of this announcement. We will post information about that incident promptly. –james beller

October 8th, 2010
It’s Official: Southern Poverty Law Center Is Now Part of DHS

dhsAs the below document makes clear, Southern Poverty Law Center is Now Officially Part of DHS. The CEO of SPLC now sits on the DHS “Working Group on Countering Violent Extremism” along with the leaders of other So-called Non Government Organizations (but can we really call them such now that they are part of the government?) And select “law enforcement” officers such as the Clark County Nevada Sheriff, Doug Gillespie. What does the working group do? Make recommendations on training and how to use all of the local resources – police, social services, media, NGO’s, you name it – to fight “extremism. So, now no need to file a FOIA request to discover that SPLC is writing the reports naming constitutionalists as possible terrorists. Now it is in your face and the mask is off.

When you read the below document, keep in mind the current ordeal of the Irish family where their newborn baby was taken based on an affidavit that notes the father’s “association with a militia group known as Oath Keepers.”. Pay attention to who sits on this panel (see pages 26-30), to who DOESN’T, how they plan on reaching DHS tentacles down into every level of society, and how they talk overtly about the need to utilize local SOCIAL WELFARE and MENTAL HEALTH agencies to counter “violent extremism.”. In other words, what is now being done to the Irish family will be done all over.

This is the overt politicization of DHS, to use it against political enemies

Stewart Rhodes

Here is the document, spread it around:
Hsac Cve Working Group Recommendations

The website for oathkeepers is here

This link may not seem to pertain to civil government, but it does. If the Independent Baptist churches of America are neutralized, we lose our unique voice.
Every… and I mean every Independent Baptist preacher needs to see this.
I give the link to you weeping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjVZGUWRJgA

I haven’t posted in a while. I am extremely busy. I am trying to pastor, I am finishing off writing three books. Pray for our country. We need constitutionalists. We need statesmen. Where are the James Madisons of our day? If you doubt the agenda of the globalists is real, read this:
-James Beller

null

In the past 36 months, the Constitution for the United States has been delivered a series of death blows. The first was delivered by the arrogant 110th congress with the passing of the “Bailout.” This “Bailout” passed with major DEMOCAN-REPUBLICRAT support. Then the “Stimulus” was passed by the equally arrogant 111th congress even though the majority of Americans railed against it. Lately the Health care (at least no republicrats signed on to that) passed even with the majority soundly against it on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds. Our leaders have showed us they care nothing for our compact. NOW THIS:

On March 4, Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman introduced a bill that is a direct assault on the rule of law. It is entitled: “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010.” This fascist bipartisan bill, if enacted, would require that anyone anywhere in the world, including American citizens, suspected of involvement in terrorism (undefined) can be imprisoned by the military on the authority of the president as commander in chief.

According to McCain and Lieberman, those held will be designated as “unprivileged enemy belligerents,” what used to be called “unlawful enemy combatants.”

A section of the bill, “Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent,” declares that these suspects “may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities (as long as there is terrorism?) against the United States or its coalition partners.”

Imprisoned indefinitely without charges, trial or any civilian judicial review? Come on America, is this what we want?

The Supreme Court, (in one of the few things it has gotten right), authorized the habeas corpus rights of what were then called “enemy combatants,” that is, American citizens at Guantanamo, ruling:

“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

Introducing his legislation, “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010″ McCain said, “we must establish a system for long-term detention of terrorists who are too dangerous to release, but who cannot be tried in civilian court.” Does anybody know the Constitution up there in Washingtonland? This violates “due process.” The very reason we have a Constitution is protect us from the emotion of extraordinary times. What this legislation and the Patriot Act and the Enemy and Sedition Act proves is that those that sought to change us through TERRORISM have won. They have made us so afraid that we have cashed in our liberty.

Of course there is no coverage by the corporate media of this latest infringement on our rights. Disney (ABC) is playing with Mickey and Mini, General Electric (NBC) is doting with Leno and Lettermen, National Amusements(CBS) has the movies over which to drool, and Murdoch (FOX) has the Glenn Beck Religious Revival upon which to focus. It is all a joke while the country is sold out by a group of congressmen who know nothing of their own responsibilities concerning the principles they swore to protect.

Nat Hentoff, member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Cato Institute wrote:
“On March 8, on the Law Professor Blogs Network (lawprofessors.typepad.com), there was a post by R. Decker that asked McCain and Lieberman this:

“Is there a clause buried somewhere in the ‘Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010′ stating: “‘Place the Bill of Rights in the shredder as it is no longer needed’ (a ‘quaint but no longer useful notion’)? Or are we at the point now in our history where even the concept of a Bill of Rights is considered ‘immaterial’ and/or ‘irrelevant’?”

We are giving the country away, bill by bill.

A Warning to the Patriot Movement—Seven Guidelines
1. We must not be married to any political party.
2. We must not advocate violence.
3. We must not dismiss the possibility of violent defense of liberty.
4. We must befriend all who will listen, and form coalitions around the Constitution.
5. We must befriend the military and law enforcement.
6. We must embark on a 20 year mission to educate the young.
7. We must gain the imagination of 15-25 year olds.

Not all sins are crimes, but some sins are indeed crimes. If the sin puts in peril the life, liberty and property of others, it is indeed a crime. Sodomy is one such sin. Below is the best explanation of sodomy as both sin and crime against society.

Bryan Fischer-Focal Point
Why Homosexual Behavior Should Be Against the Law
Date: 2/3/2010 11:46:39 AM

I received a phone call this morning from a reporter for NBC Action News in Kansas City by the name of Josh Luch. He contacted me in response to my blog entry of last Friday, in which I suggested that it is proper for our culture to impose legal sanctions on homosexual behavior for health reasons alone.

The leftwing blogosphere has virtually lost its mind in response to my Friday post. Many of them falsely accused me of saying that I wanted all homosexuals to be locked up, and the response of many of these voices of tolerance was to declare that they wanted me locked up instead and locked away from civil society so my voice would be silenced.

Josh asked for some more information from me, regarding my position, including links to relevant FDA and CDC websites, and below if the email I wrote to Josh this morning.

—

Josh,

Thanks for contacting me for clarification, and demonstrating journalistic integrity by reading my blog entry for yourself rather than forming your judgment based on what the left wing blogs have claimed I said.

I nowhere in my blog said we should lock homosexuals up in prison. What I said is that our public policy toward homosexual conduct should be the same as our public policy toward intravenous drug abuse.

My position is that homosexual behavior represents a severe threat to public health, and is even more dangerous to human health than intravenous drug abuse. Because of the health risks involved, curtailing homosexual behavior should be as much a public policy concern as curtailing intravenous drug abuse.

FDA: “Men who have sex with other men … are currently deferred as blood donors”

The Food and Drug Administration is hardly a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and is not the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family. Yet the FDA will not allow a male to donate blood if he has had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977.

Why? For the simple reason that the FDA cannot afford to adopt political correct postures with regard to homosexual behavior because it is entrusted with protecting the purity of the nation’s blood supply. They understand that to allow homosexuals to donate blood is to put the nation’s health at risk.

The FDA states quite explicitly that “male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

In fact, the FDA goes on to state a staggering fact: men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an “HIV prevalence” that is “60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”

And further cementing my argument, the FDA will not allow “intravenous drug abusers” to donate blood either, for exactly the same reason: “Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population.”

The FDA flatly declares that this policy is not discriminatory, since it “is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation.”

I argue that my position, since it is identical with the FDA’s, is no more “discriminatory” than theirs.

CDC: At least 60% of HIV/AIDS victims are men who have sex with men

The Centers for Disease Control is likewise not a part of the vast right wing conspiracy, nor is it the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family.

On its website, you will find a page devoted to “Basic Statistics,” and one set of statistics has to do with the total number of persons who have received an AIDS diagnosis from the beginning of the epidemic through 2007, the last year for which information is available.

The CDC’s own statistics indicate (see table below) that, among males, over 60% of the victims of AIDS over the entire course of the epidemic acquired the disease through “male-to-male sexual contact.”

The next highest risk category was “injection drug use,” through which just under 22% acquired AIDS.

The third category consists of those who engaged both in male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use, meaning the CDC could not assign transmission definitely to either category, and this category represents just under 9% of all AIDS cases.

A miniscule 8% acquired the disease through “high risk heterosexual contact.”

The bottom line here is that “male-to-male sexual contact” is far and away the riskiest kind of behavior for contracting AIDS, and IV drug abuse is a distant second. When you add these two categories together, a staggering 91% – 91%! – of all AIDS sufferers acquired the disease either through homosexual behavior or shooting up with drugs.

The neutral observer must conclude that homosexual behavior is extremely risky, dangerous and unhealthy, and represents an even greater risk to public health than intravenous drug abuse. This is highlighted by the fact that male homosexuals comprise perhaps 2-4% of the American population.

It is obvious, then, from the information gained from the FDA and the CDC that homosexual behavior represents and enormous threat to public health. Quite simply, if intravenous drug use is against the law, homosexual behavior should be too. It’s a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health.

Now once we have agreed that we have a serious health problem on our hands here, the best public policy will contain the same kind of sanctions toward homosexual behavior that we have established toward intravenous drug abuse. Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct. And that’s the place for the discussion to begin.

What is FDA’s policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

Why doesn’t FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA’s policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.

Are there other donors who have increased risks of HIV or other infections who, as a result, are also excluded from donating blood?

Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population.

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm

CDC website on HIV statistics by mode of transmission:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

Bryan Fischer

Director of Issues Analysis and host of “Focal Point”

American Family Association

BRYAN’S ORIGINAL BLOG POST CAN BE FOUND HERE.

I saw the article below this week. Your house is going to be inspected by agents of the federal government under “Cap and Trade.” It does not appear the Congress is listening to any Constitutional ideas. The Bailout, the Stimulus, Hate Crimes, Cap and Trade and the up coming Copenhagen Treaty are all violating our compact. Take note of those Reps and Senators who vote against liberty and throw them out. j.beller

(Go to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2454 and look at sections 204 and 304)
the article
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home
Frank M. Carrio, CMI
ESOP Committee Member

Thursday, Nov 19th, 2009
We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington!
This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA….
A License Required for your house
Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.
The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.
No one is excluded.
However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:
A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.
The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.
In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.
Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.
If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initial y so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings.
However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.
Sect. 202:
Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.
You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.
You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants.
Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”
Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.
Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.
And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.
But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.
Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.
Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.