BRIGITTE GABRIEL: VALUES VOTER SUMMIT 2014

This impassioned speaker at this years Values Voters Summitt was the most impassioned speaker I have heard in a long time. She'd pleas are chilling. 

VIDEO:

http://youtu.be/NSVY1SuReoo

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13603

Executive Order regarding National Defense Resources Preparedness

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness



MARTIAL LAW BY EXECUTIVE ORDER (Huffington Post article from 5/21/12 is COPIED below)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-garrison/martial-law-under-another_b_1370819.html

Jim Garrison Become a fan 

President and CEO, Ubiquity University

Martial Law by Executive Order

Posted: 03/21/2012 7:26 pm EDT Updated: 05/21/2012 5:12 am EDT

• Share18100
• Tweet969
• Email1628
• Comment337

• 

President Obama's National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular -- completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of "national security." Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.

Even as the 2012 NDAA was rooted in the Patriot Act and the various executive orders and Congressional bills that ensued to broaden executive power in the "war on terror," so the new Executive Order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950 which gave the Government powers to mobilize national resources in the event of national emergencies, except now virtually every aspect of American life falls under ultimate unchallengeable government control, to be exercised by the president and his secretaries at their discretion.

The 2012 NDAA deemed the United States a "battlefield," as Senator Lindsey Graham put it, and gave the president and his agents the right to seize and arrest any U.S. citizen, detain them indefinitely without charge or trial, and do so only on suspicion, without any judicial oversight or due process. The new Executive Order states that the president and his secretaries have the authority to commandeer all U.S. domestic resources, including food and water, as well as seize all energy and transportation infrastructure inside the borders of the United States. The Government can also forcibly draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense." There is not even any Congressional oversight allowed, only briefings.

In the NDAA, only the president had the authority to abrogate legitimate freedoms of U.S. citizens. What is extraordinary in the new Executive Order is that this supreme power is designated through the president to the secretaries that run the Government itself:

• The Secretary of Defense has power over all water resources;
• The Secretary of Commerce has power over all material services and facilities, including construction materials;
• The Secretary of Transportation has power over all forms of civilian transportation;
• The Secretary of Agriculture has power over food resources and facilities, livestock plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment;
• The Secretary of Health and Human Services has power over all health resources;
• The Secretary of Energy has power over all forms of energy.

The Executive Order even stipulates that in the event of conflict between the secretaries in using these powers, the president will determine the resolution through his national security team.

The 2012 NDAA gave the Government the right to abrogate any due process against a U.S. citizen. The new Executive Order gives the government, through the Secretary of Labor, the right to proactively mobilize U.S. citizens for "labor" as the government deems necessary and to coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to maintain data to coordinate the nation's work needs in relation to national defense.

What is extraordinary about the Executive Order is that, like the NDAA, this can all be done in peacetime without any national emergency to justify it. The language of the Order does not state that all these extraordinary measures will be done in the event of "national security" or a "national emergency." They can simply be done for "purposes of national defense," clearly a broader remit that allows the government to do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, to whomever it wants, all without any judicial restraint or due process. As Orwell famously said in 1984, "War is peace. Peace is war." This is now the reality on the ground in America.

Finally, the 2012 NDAA was hurried through the House and Senate almost like a covert op with minimal public attention or debate. It was then signed by the president at 9:00 PM on New Year's Eve while virtually nobody was paying attention to much other than the approaching new year. This new Executive Order was written and signed in complete secret and then quietly released by the White House on its website without comment. All this was done under a president who studied constitutional law at Harvard.

It is hard to know what to say in the face of such egregious disregard for the integrity of what America has stood and fought for since its founding. It is hard in part because none of us thought such encroachments would ever happen here, certainly not under the watch of a "progressive" like Obama.

At one level, the prospect for war with Iran is probably an immediate justification. But the comprehensiveness of the Executive Order, like that of the 2012 NDAA, speaks to something much deeper, more sinister. I would suggest that this Order, like the NDAA, has been in the works for some time and is simply the next step in the logic of the "global war on terror." Our political elites have come to consider democracy an impediment to effective governance and they are slowly and painstakingly creating all the democratic legalities necessary to abridge our democratic rights with impunity, all to ensure our "security." Of such measures do republics fall and by such measures tyrants emerge.

The only thing that really remains is the occasion to test the new rules of the game. Perhaps that will be war with Iran, perhaps some contrived emergency, or perhaps, as long as the public and media remain asleep, no occasion will be necessary at all. It will just slowly happen of its own accord and we, like the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water, will just sit there and be consumed by our own turpitude.

MORE:

PoliticsNational SecurityObama Executive OrderNational Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order

SEE ALSO THIS PREPAREDNESS WEBSITE:  http://www.patriot123.com

WOMEN OF THE CA GOP (VIDEO)

http://youtu.be/fpgPrGXC5I0

KORAN DESCRIBES MUSLIM EXTREMISM

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/29/controversial-owner-declares-her-store-a-muslim-free-zone-find-out-her-reasoning/

Controversial Owner Declares Her Store a ‘Muslim-Free’ Zone; Find Out Her Reasoning

The Western world is at war with radical Islam. While we are constantly reassured by politicians that try to remain diplomatic that Islam is a religion of peace, we cannot deny that there are many within the Muslim faith that practice a brand of Islam committed to violence. To deny this fact is simply to deny realities of the world.

 

Of course, not all Muslims are violent and should not be treated as such. However, one store, The Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range in Hot Springs, Arkansas, has declared itself a “Muslim-free zone.”

Citing safety concerns and an extensive history of violent actions taken by Muslims in the U.S. and abroad, range owner Jan Morgan posted on her website a ten-point explanation for her decision to ban Muslims from her establishment and clarification as to her supposed legal reasoning.

While many might view the policy as extreme, it should be noted that the establishment appears to serve as a purely private establishment. Of course, this fact will likely not deter the radicalized Department of Justice from forcing Morgan to reverse her policies or otherwise face legal consequences as Obama’s DOJ has, in recent years, tried to force the owners of many establishments to violate their consciences by facilitating homosexual weddings.

Morgan claims that the ATF has asked her in the past to exercise judgment in refusing service to people who she feels might be unstable or a threat in general. This broad leeway, Morgan claims, offers her the authority to deny service broadly to Muslims. Bearingarms.com backs-up this assertion and notes, 

“She brings up a very valid point that gun stores and ranges have both a legal and moral obligation to ensure the safety of their patrons. Because of this, they may refuse service to anyone they deem to be under the influence, mentally unstable, or otherwise a potential threat to themselves, or others. FFLs are afforded a great deal of latitude in this regard, as the federal government would rather err on the side of caution.”

Morgan offers her lengthy ten-point reasoning on her website: 

I officially declare my business, The Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range, a MUSLIM FREE ZONE . . .

1) The Koran, which I have read and studied thoroughly and (which all muslims align themselves with), contains 109 verses commanding hate, murder and terror against all human beings who refuse to submit or convert to Islam. Read those verses of violence here.

2) My life has been threatened repeatedly by muslims who are angry that I have studied their koran and have, over the past two years, been exposing the vileness of the Koran and its murderous directives.

3) * The barbaric act of beheading an innocent American in Oklahoma by a muslim

* the Boston bombings(by muslims)

* the Fort Hood mass shooting (by a muslim) that killed 13 people and injured over 30 people

* and the murder of 3000 innocent people (by muslims) on 9/11

This is more than enough loss of life on my home soil at the hands of muslims to substantiate my position that muslims can and will follow the directives in their Koran and kill here at home.

4) Because the nature of my business involves firearms and shooting firearms in an enclosed environment, my patrons are not comfortable being around muslims who align themselves with a religion that clearly commands hate, murder, and violence against all non muslims. Therefore many of my patrons are uncomfortable around Muslims with guns. (can you blame them?)

5) My range rents and sells guns to my patrons. Why would I want to rent or sell a gun and hand ammunition to someone who aligns himself with a religion that commands him to kill me?

6) * Muslims, who belong to and, or, support ISIS, are threatening to kill innocent Americans.

* Muslims, who belong to or support AL Qaeda, are threatening to kill innocent Americans.

* Muslims who belong to or support HAMAS are threatening to kill innocent Americans.

See a common thread here?

7) I not only have the right to refuse service but a RESPONSIBILITY to provide a safe environment for people to shoot and train on firearms. I can and have turned people away if I sense they are under the influence of alcohol or mind altering drugs. I have a federal firearms license…

The ATF informed us when we received the license that if we feel any reason for concern about selling someone a firearm, even sense that something is not right about an individual, or we are concerned about that persons mental state, even if they pass a background check, we do not have to sell that person a gun.

In other words, a federal agency has given us this kind of discretion for service based on the nature of the business. I can and have turned people away if I sense an issue with their mental state. So… its difficult to imagine how the DOJ could have issues with this when ATF gave us this discretion.

8) I have no way of looking at Islam other than as a theocracy, not a religion. Islam is undoubtedly the union of political, legal, and religious ideologies. In other words law, religion and state are forged together to form what Muslims refer to as “The Nation of Islam.” Once again it is given the sovereign qualities of a nation with clerics in the governing body and Sharia law all in one. This is a Theocracy, not a religion.

The US Constitution does not protect a theocracy. The 1st Amendment is very specific about protecting the rights of individuals from the government, as it concerns the practice of religions, not theocracies. It clearly differentiates between government and religion. Again protecting the individual’s religious beliefs and practices from (the state) government. In Islam religion and state are one.

We are a Nation governed by laws, or the law of the land the U.S. Constitution. We are not a Nation that is governed by religion, politicians or clerics.

How then, can anyone say that, the practice of Islam is protected by the U.S. Constitution?

The muslim brotherhood has a documented plan for the destruction of America from within, discovered by our own government during a raid of MB operatives in America. In addition, I am very cognizant of the civilization jihad under way in my country by American muslims. In a number of states Muslims, through our legal system, are trying to force us to accept Sharia Law over Constitutional law. I do not wish to do business with people who stand against the Constitution and are fighting to replace it.

9) Islam allows Muslims to kill their own children, (honor killing) if the behavior of those children embarrasses or dishonors the family name. ( did you know that dating outside of the faith is justification for murdering their daughters and this has already occurred on American soil?) Why would I want people (who believe its okay to murder their own children), be in the presence of other children? My patrons often bring their kids to the range to teach them to shoot. I am responsible for providing a safe environment for those children to learn gun safety and shooting sports.

10) In the 14 hundred year history of Islam, muslims have murdered over 270 million people. Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in the world right now are muslim. Since you can’t determine by visual assessment, which ones will kill you and which ones will not, I am going to go with the line of thought that ANY HUMAN BEING who would either knowingly or unknowingly support a “religion” that commands the murder of all people who refuse to submit or convert to that religion, is not someone I want to know or do business with. I hold adults accountable for the religion they align themselves with.

In summary, I not only have the right, but a responsibility to provide a safe environment for my customers. I do not believe my decision is religious discrimination because I do not classify islam as a religion.. It is a theocracy/terrorist organization that hides behind the mask of religion in order to achieve its mission of world domination.

People who shoot at my range come from all religious backgrounds… some are atheists… I do not care about their religious beliefs. I care about the safety of my customers who come to shoot here. The government allows businesses to ban me from entering their business with my gun because the property owner feels uncomfortable or wants to provide a “safe” environment for their patrons which is in clear violation of my 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, so… I should be ale to deny service to people on the same premise. Can my government really force me to invite someone who had threatened to kill me, into my home or business?

I will do whatever is necessary to provide a safe environment for my customers, even at the cost of the increased threats and legal problems this decision will likely provoke.

Jan Morgan- owner / The Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range 

Obviously, this is controversial. Do you support Morgan’s new policy? Why or why not? Please share on Facebook and Twitter.

COMMON CORE PANEL: VALUES VOTER SUMMIT 2014

VIDEO: http://youtu.be/r4UF35a-w-Y

Sep 27, 2014

Panel
Lindsey Burke, Will Skillman Fellow in Education, The Heritage Foundation*
William Estrada Director of Federal Relations, Home School Legal Defense Association*
Dr. Neal McCluskey, Associate Director, Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute*
Sarah Perry, Common Core Coalition Manager, FRC*

Watch the entire event online athttp://valuesvotersummit.org/

AQUIFER STORAGE: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT OWNS ALL THE WATER

http://m.onlineathens.com/local-news/2014-09-27/many-factors-cloud-aquifer-storage-issue?utm_source=Morris%20Digital%20Works&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Today%27sheadlinesfromTheAthensBanner-Herald09%2F29%2F2014#gsc.tab=0

Many factors cloud the aquifer-storage issue

ATLANTA | Of all the factors swirling around the issue of storing surface water in the Floridan Aquifer, the most important one may just be trust.

That’s because experts disagree on the potential benefits and risks or even the number of existing aquifer-storage sites in the United States, and critics don’t believe supporters’ stated motives.

What side you’re on probably boils down to simply who you trust.

The practice of aquifer storage and recovery, ASR for short, involves injecting treated surface water into an underground aquifer where it is kept until pumped back up for use. It’s a way to capture water when it’s plentiful for use when it’s not. It is used in other places around the world, from Florida, Texas and California to New Zealand, Taiwan and Kuwait. There needs to be porous underground rock, which makes most of North Georgia unsuited but South Georgia and some of Northwest Georgia possible.

The concern is that a mistake could ruin the quality of the water already in the aquifer, spoiling the entire water supply.

Coastal lawmakers like then-Rep. Anne Mueller, R-Savannah, passed legislation to stop a private company from beginning an ASR development, and for 15 years, the state had a moratorium against ASR in the 11 coastal counties.

“I fought it for 20 years up here because nobody could answer my questions,” she told a Senate committee last week in Atlanta.

While the company found other ways to make money, the issue of using the aquifer as a piggy bank didn’t disappear.

AQUIFER STORAGE TESTS IN GEORGIA

A test of the concept by Dalton Utilities begun in 2009 was unsuccessful because the drilling never accessed suitable rock formations. Another test is ongoing in Baker County below Albany with drilling that begins Monday.

Officials with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division say the new experiment is to boost stream flows during drought as a way to preserve rare plants and animals so federal wildlife officials won’t impose drastic constraints on farmers who irrigate. Environmentalists say the real reason is to replace water flow from metro Atlanta’s withdrawals in order to keep Alabama and Florida from suing over it and blocking Peach State economic growth.

In the meantime, the coastal ASR moratorium expired July 1. Sen. William Ligon, R-Brunswick, had pushed legislation to renew it, but he hit a brick wall when the chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Ross Tolleson, R-Perry, announced he would never allow a vote on it. Although he opposes a moratorium, Tolleson opted for a committee to study the issue, one he chairs.

“My opinion is sound science needs to be done to study it,” he said.

ASR NEEDED TO ADAPT TO SAVANNAH’S SALTWATER INTRUSION

The EPD’s lobbyist, Russ Pennington, agrees. He argues that saltwater is seeping into the Floridan Aquifer which will eventually leave Savannah needing a new water supply.

“We have saltwater intrusion coming,” Pennington said. “It’s not an imminent problem, but it will be.”

Mueller doesn’t believe him, even though wells in Hilton Head, S.C., already draw saltwater out of the aquifer.

“Why should we trust the EPD when they allowed unpermitted discharges into the Ogeechee (River) for eight years?” she said.

She’s referring to a textile company that exceeded the authority on its permit to pump waste into the river, eventually triggering the state’s largest fish kill when drought conditions in 2011 could not dilute the illegal chemicals.

Pennington notes that South Georgia’s flat terrain makes traditional reservoirs impractical because there are no valleys to flood, leaving the aquifer as the remaining option as an underground reservoir. Skeptics wonder why a city next to a river named for it and other rivers nearby even needs a reservoir to replace the aquifer when the salt water intrusion becomes a problem.

“It’s important you understand ASR is not without risks,” said Chris Manganiello, policy director for the Athens-based Georgia River Network.

POSSIBLE RISKS

Earthquakes, for one, according to Clay Montague, a retired professor of environmental engineering at the University of Florida whose academic research focused on beaches, estuaries and tidal wetlands. Injecting water under high pressure amounts to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, like what is used to extract oil and gas, only chemicals are involved as well in petroleum production.

Seismic activity is increasing in some new shale-oil fields, and he’s among the scientists who blame it on fracking. But other researchers say there’s no clear connection and that careful pressure adjustment minimizes the chances.

Soil instability may be remote. Most opponents express contaminating the existing water in the aquifer as their main concern. What is the likelihood of that if the water is treated before it’s injected?

June Mirecki, senior hydrogeologist in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Jacksonville office, says there can be problems with the biological byproducts of chemical disinfection, as has happened in some aquifers out west. That can be avoided by the extra expense of using ultraviolet light instead of chemicals to disinfect.

Another concern is that even disinfected surface water can cause problems when injected into some kinds of rock formations because its added oxygen reacts with pyrite crystals to release the mineral arsenic, which can be toxic in sufficient concentrations. Mirecki said careful management of the injection process in the Tampa area proved the arsenic will eventually settle to the bottom of the aquifer and remain there when water is pumped back up to the surface for use.

She noted that federal legislation signed this summer by President Barack Obama -- the same bill that opened the door to deepening the Savannah River shipping channel -- provides funding for ASR projects.

“I’d like to ask you to think about additional ASR systems,” she said.

Pennington called consideration of new projects premature in Georgia before more testing is completed.

POSSIBLE LEGAL ISSUES

If all the water-purity concerns can be resolved, there still are issues about the legal ramifications, according to Gil Rogers, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. It could create precedents that change property rights, he warns.

Who would own the water in the aquifer, whoever injects it or the landowners above? And will restricting access to surface water to property owners adjacent to streams in order to have sufficient supplies to pump into the ground change Georgia’s concept of riparian water rights?

“I think there are too many unanswered questions,” he said.

Florida has worked out answers that Georgia can consider copying.

To our south, Florida has anywhere from 80 to 200 ASR wells, depending on whose figures you trust. Some disputed number of them are in mothballs because ASR isn’t worthwhile for various economic or environmental reasons. That state even uses ASR in the same Upper Floridan Aquifer it shares with coastal Georgia.

ASR advocates argue that if Florida can work out the legal, financial and scientific wrinkles, then so can Georgia. Opponents point to the Sunshine State’s idle wells and warn that could be the experience on our side of the state line.

As the senators studying the issue weighs both sides, it will probably come down to who they believe.

Follow Walter Jones on Twitter @MorrisNews and Facebook or contact him at walter.jones@morris.com.

The real story about the Great Depression

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/28/new-deal-end-great-depression/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

DOES AMERICA TAX THE WEALTHY OR THE RICH?

What's the difference, you say? Read the following explanation to see how the current bait and switch administration is pulling the wool over the eyes of uninformed Americans and robbing them innthenprocess. 

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2014/09/23/wealth-income-tax/

Did Obama Just Resort to Mind Control?

Published Tue, Sep 23, 2014  |  Floyd Brown, Chief Political Analyst

 

Obama is constantly talking about how he wants to tax the wealthy.

It’s become a deviously effective form of mind control.

By appearing to punish the wealthy, he gets the masses on his side, which gives him free reign to manipulate the country. And the lazy media lets him get away with his duplicity.

In reality, his policies don’t target the wealthy at all. Instead, they take aim at hardworking Americans.

The Difference Between Income and Wealth

First, let’s make the distinction between income and wealth perfectly clear: Income is earned, while wealth is amassed.

And both are taxed very differently.

France, for instance, taxes wealth. You add up how much wealth you have, and you pay a percentage of it to the government. Simple.

But in America, we have Warren Buffett who owns 26,675,175 shares of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A). With the stock trading at $212,000 a share, he boasts a $70-billion-plus value.

Since Berkshire doesn’t pay dividends, there’s no personal income associated with this massive holding. Therefore, Buffett never has to contribute a single penny of his $70 billion towards taxes.

Yet, somehow, our government leaders have convinced the country that they tax wealth.

But it’s income that they tax – income produced by our hardworking mechanics, doctors, educators, hotel managers, and taxi cab drivers…

Obama’s Logic (Or Lack Thereof) Behind Taxes

So why doesn’t Obama tax the wealthy? Because they fund political campaigns.

People like Buffett, as well as hedge fund managers and private equity gurus, don’t want a tax on wealth.

Truthfully, they chuckle under their breath that Americans are too dumb to understand the difference.

And one of the biggest problems with this clandestine alignment is that our process of taxing income hurts small business.

Over the last 30 years, small business has produced over 100% of the new jobs in America.

Businesses over five years old rarely create new jobs. They’ll create jobs in one department and often cut jobs in another division at the same time. One of big business’ favorite tricks is to buy a similar business, combine the businesses, and then make the employees work harder as they eliminate jobs.

This ends up suppressing the little man.

Indeed, as the wealthy amass millions upon millions, they sit happily. But when you put in more hours on the job, you are constantly penalized with a higher and higher tax bracket.

More Work, Less Pay

In hindsight, Obama’s sly double-talk is really aimed at controlling and enslaving the backbone of America…

Last night, former Governor Mike Huckabee told me a story that made my blood boil.

When visiting a factory, he met a machinist who was trying to put his daughter through grad school at Cornell University. Since the school costs over $50,000 a year, he decided to double up on his shifts to help her pay. He was willing to make this sacrifice in order to help his daughter get ahead and have a better life.

When his next pay check arrived, this machinist was shocked to find that he didn’t make double the money for double the work. Because the government taxes income instead of wealth, the machinist found himself working a daily shift of 16 hours a day, and realized that he was making only 30% more money after tax income.

Why? The federal government came in and took the rest of the money from his extra labor. They jammed him into a higher tax bracket.

Governor Huckabee told the machinist, “Don’t you realize if you want to help your daughter, you don’t work twice as hard? Instead, if you quit the original job you had and sat at home watching TV, your daughter would then qualify for a bunch of government aid she doesn’t get now because you work.”

There’s something wrong with a system that punishes productive people and rewards those who don’t work.

Until this changes, America is screwed (and most don’t even know it).

Your eyes on the Hill,

Floyd Brown

Floyd Brown boasts a lifetime of political involvement, ranging from political appointee in the Reagan campaigns and consultant to the Bush, Dole and Forbes presidential campaigns - to his current role as the President of the Western Center for Journalism, a nonprofit dedicated to informing and equipping Americans who love freedom. Learn More >>

10 WAYS CONSERVATIVES CAN WIN HISPANIC SUPPORT

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/09/10-ways-for-conservatives-to-win-hispanic-support-without-becoming-liberal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FbYHz+%28Illinois+Review%29

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2014

WASHINGTON - According to Michael Gonzalez at The Daily Signal, there's at least 10 ways conservatives can win Hispanic support, and it doesn't include immigration reform. Take up these issues, Gonzalez says:

1. School choice. 
2. Family formation. 
3. Get them to become savers. 
4. Show them how liberal policies have put them in a hole. 
5. Give them their proper stake in the culture
6. Sever the perceptive link between success and government intervention; end affirmative action.
7. End Bilingual Education.
8. Ask them if they want to replicate conditions that made them abandon their homeland. 
9. Return to assimilationist policies. I am often asked whether today’s immigrants share American values, and the questioners almost always assume the answer is no. 
10. Explain to them that it’s not a question of being dependent or not, but of depending on someone in your family, in your community or circle of friends, or on a government bureaucrat. 

Sent from my iPhone

ILLEGAL ALIENS, DACA: panel discussion covers educational challenges

Ahttp://m.onlineathens.com/uga/2014-09-24/athens-panel-discussion-covers-educational-challenges-undocumented-immigrants?utm_source=Morris%20Digital%20Works&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Today%27sheadlinesfromTheAthensBanner-Herald09%2F25%2F2014#gsc.tab=0

Athens panel discussion covers educational challenges for undocumented immigrants

When Daniela Martinez graduated from high school last spring, she had a list of extracurricular activities, had been the president of multiple clubs, had perfect grades and was all set to apply to her dream college, the University of Georgia.

But a University System of Georgia Board of Regents policy cut her dream short. 

According to Policy 4.1.6., any person in the United States illegally is prohibited from applying to and attending Georgia’s top public universities, which include the University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, Georgia State University, the Medical College of Georgia and Georgia College and State University.

“Just because I’m undocumented, colleges have closed the doors on me,” Martinez said as she struggled to hold back tears Wednesday during a panel discussion at Clarke Central High School to bring awareness to the plight of undocumented students in the United States. “I had everything (UGA) wanted yet I was not allowed to apply there. I worked so hard to get the grades but the schools don’t see it because I’m undocumented.”

Today, Martinez is a member of Freedom University, a nonprofit organization that provides rigorous college-level courses for undocumented students who don’t have the opportunity to attend public universities, and is a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipient. DACA is a new U.S. Department of Homeland Security policy that allows certain young immigrants who do not have lawful immigration status, and who came to the United States as children, to remain in the United States temporarily without fear of deportation.

As a result, Martinez has been able to get a Social Security card and driver’s license and is allowed to work in the United States. She’s also partnered with various activist groups and travels the nation speaking out against Policy 4.1.6., immigration discrimination and to put a face on an issue that many Americans feel does not affect them.

“It hurts to see the people you tutored so they could get good grades and people you have been friends with since elementary school apply to your dream college but you are not allowed to apply,” she said. “You might even have higher grades than they do, but because you are undocumented you are not allowed to continue your education.”

“It’s always hard to talk about this,” Martinez continued as she wiped away tears. “People don’t know what it is to be undocumented and to be denied an education. It was not my choice to come to this country, I was brought to this country. Not to say that it’s my parents’ fault, but I think (the U.S.) should start treating immigrants better. I personally have never done anything bad, my record is clean, yet I am being affected by this.”

The panel also included Ian Altman, an English teacher at Clarke Central; Sam Hicks, school counselor at Clarke Central; JoBeth Allen, a retiree of the College of Education at UGA; Betina Kaplan, cofounder of Freedom University and a Spanish professor at UGA, and Carver Goodhue, a member of the Undocumented Student Alliance at UGA and a volunteer with multiple organizations in Athens’ Latino community.

During the discussion, panelists share stories of discrimination they’ve witnessed in public and of undocumented students struggling to gain a higher education in Georgia, and they also shared conversations they’ve had with politicians and leaders.

The group also informed those present of the DREAM Act, a bill that, if implemented, would provide conditional permanent residency to certain immigrants of good moral character who graduate from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United States as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill’s enactment.

The panel concluded with suggestions of how students can be allies and advocates in the fight against Policy 4.1.6. and discrimination against undocumented people in the United States. Suggestions included writing letters to state politicians, leaders and media outlets, joining or volunteering for organizations that help undocumented people, publicly speaking out against discrimination and continuing to research the topic.

“You can also make a difference by being there for your peers,” Altman said. “These are your classmates and friends. They might not have told you they’re undocumented, but some of them probably are, and when they decide to tell you listen to them, empathize and be there for them, especially emotionally.”

The efforts made by residents in Georgia not only could help undocumented people in Georgia but nationwide, Martinez said.

“I have traveled to a lot of other states and it’s even worse,” Martinez said. “It’s time for young people to stand up and start making more choices. People like you who have citizenship can vote but you are not registering to vote. Your vote could be the voice for people who do not have a vote or a voice. It’s time for you to wake up. You have to control this world and help the people living in it.”

“I’m tired of seeing all of this discrimination, not only against Hispanic people, there are many other races that also are undocumented and we forget about them,” she continued. “If change happens, not only will we benefit, but so many others will benefit as well.” 

Follow faith, health and Blueprint reporter April Burkhart at www.facebook.com/AprilBurkhartABH.

ILLEGAL ALIENS, DACA: panel discussion covers educational challenges

Ahttp://m.onlineathens.com/uga/2014-09-24/athens-panel-discussion-covers-educational-challenges-undocumented-immigrants?utm_source=Morris%20Digital%20Works&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Today%27sheadlinesfromTheAthensBanner-Herald09%2F25%2F2014#gsc.tab=0

Athens panel discussion covers educational challenges for undocumented immigrants

When Daniela Martinez graduated from high school last spring, she had a list of extracurricular activities, had been the president of multiple clubs, had perfect grades and was all set to apply to her dream college, the University of Georgia.

But a University System of Georgia Board of Regents policy cut her dream short. 

According to Policy 4.1.6., any person in the United States illegally is prohibited from applying to and attending Georgia’s top public universities, which include the University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, Georgia State University, the Medical College of Georgia and Georgia College and State University.

“Just because I’m undocumented, colleges have closed the doors on me,” Martinez said as she struggled to hold back tears Wednesday during a panel discussion at Clarke Central High School to bring awareness to the plight of undocumented students in the United States. “I had everything (UGA) wanted yet I was not allowed to apply there. I worked so hard to get the grades but the schools don’t see it because I’m undocumented.”

Today, Martinez is a member of Freedom University, a nonprofit organization that provides rigorous college-level courses for undocumented students who don’t have the opportunity to attend public universities, and is a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipient. DACA is a new U.S. Department of Homeland Security policy that allows certain young immigrants who do not have lawful immigration status, and who came to the United States as children, to remain in the United States temporarily without fear of deportation.

As a result, Martinez has been able to get a Social Security card and driver’s license and is allowed to work in the United States. She’s also partnered with various activist groups and travels the nation speaking out against Policy 4.1.6., immigration discrimination and to put a face on an issue that many Americans feel does not affect them.

“It hurts to see the people you tutored so they could get good grades and people you have been friends with since elementary school apply to your dream college but you are not allowed to apply,” she said. “You might even have higher grades than they do, but because you are undocumented you are not allowed to continue your education.”

“It’s always hard to talk about this,” Martinez continued as she wiped away tears. “People don’t know what it is to be undocumented and to be denied an education. It was not my choice to come to this country, I was brought to this country. Not to say that it’s my parents’ fault, but I think (the U.S.) should start treating immigrants better. I personally have never done anything bad, my record is clean, yet I am being affected by this.”

The panel also included Ian Altman, an English teacher at Clarke Central; Sam Hicks, school counselor at Clarke Central; JoBeth Allen, a retiree of the College of Education at UGA; Betina Kaplan, cofounder of Freedom University and a Spanish professor at UGA, and Carver Goodhue, a member of the Undocumented Student Alliance at UGA and a volunteer with multiple organizations in Athens’ Latino community.

During the discussion, panelists share stories of discrimination they’ve witnessed in public and of undocumented students struggling to gain a higher education in Georgia, and they also shared conversations they’ve had with politicians and leaders.

The group also informed those present of the DREAM Act, a bill that, if implemented, would provide conditional permanent residency to certain immigrants of good moral character who graduate from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United States as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill’s enactment.

The panel concluded with suggestions of how students can be allies and advocates in the fight against Policy 4.1.6. and discrimination against undocumented people in the United States. Suggestions included writing letters to state politicians, leaders and media outlets, joining or volunteering for organizations that help undocumented people, publicly speaking out against discrimination and continuing to research the topic.

“You can also make a difference by being there for your peers,” Altman said. “These are your classmates and friends. They might not have told you they’re undocumented, but some of them probably are, and when they decide to tell you listen to them, empathize and be there for them, especially emotionally.”

The efforts made by residents in Georgia not only could help undocumented people in Georgia but nationwide, Martinez said.

“I have traveled to a lot of other states and it’s even worse,” Martinez said. “It’s time for young people to stand up and start making more choices. People like you who have citizenship can vote but you are not registering to vote. Your vote could be the voice for people who do not have a vote or a voice. It’s time for you to wake up. You have to control this world and help the people living in it.”

“I’m tired of seeing all of this discrimination, not only against Hispanic people, there are many other races that also are undocumented and we forget about them,” she continued. “If change happens, not only will we benefit, but so many others will benefit as well.” 

Follow faith, health and Blueprint reporter April Burkhart at www.facebook.com/AprilBurkhartABH.

Pentagon gives schools military surplus

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/pentagon-sends-weapons-other-materials-to-georgia-/nhSb4/#14f08949.3458083.735500

Pentagon gives schools military surplus

Scenes this summer of police in armored vehicles and riot gear launching tear gas on protesters in Ferguson, Mo., have brought increased scrutiny of a federal program that transfers surplus military supplies to local law enforcement agencies.

Georgia colleges and school systems are among those who have taken advantage of the program. Some have acquired refrigerators, firefighting gear and even an electric floor polisher.

Others obtained assault-style rifles better known for their use in combat, spurring calls for limits on the program.

University and school officials, many of them citing past campus shootings at places such as Virginia Tech and Newtown, Conn., have said they need the weapons to protect their students.

The 1033 program, named for a part of the National Defense Authorization Act, has been around since the 1990s and extends to local agencies, including school systems and public state colleges and universities.

In Georgia, a handful of school law enforcement agencies — in three public school districts and at six colleges or universities — have participated in the program, according to data obtained from the Georgia Department of Public Safety. (Emory University’s Police Department received two pair of night-vision goggles but is returning them because the private school is no longer eligible to participate in the program, school officials said.)

Police departments for the Dooly County school system and Fort Valley State University received a mix of supplies, cleaning equipment and wet weather gear. In addition to dozens of ponchos, duffle bags and sleeping bags, Fulton County Schools received two Humvees, which district officials say have been helpful during inclement weather.

Other school systems, including the Bibb County School District, have gotten a collection of combat rifles, such as M-16s and M-14s. Officials from Bibb, which received five M-14 rifles, did not respond to calls for comment.

Last week, leaders from about a dozen national civic and education organizations, including Gwinnett SToPP (Gwinnett Parent Coalition to Dismantle the School to Prison Pipeline) and the NAACP, signed on to a letter asking the Defense Logistics Agency to stop arming school police with military weapons through the program. Also last week, Democratic U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson of DeKalb County filed the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act, which would limit the program by preventing local agencies from receiving certain weapons such as tanks, flash-bang grenades, rocket launchers and all guns greater than .50 caliber.

“It’s so unfortunate that our society has come to this, that we feel that more militarizing will actually solve a problem. It has yet to do that,” said Marlyn Tillman, a co-founder of Gwinnett SToPP, which opposes stationing police in schools. “We’re turning to a solution that really is the problem.”

But public safety officials in Georgia and across the country say the weapons are needed to protect school campuses and students in case of emergencies, such as the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007, when a student killed 32 people.

Officials called the mass shooting a turning point for school safety.

“That caused our Police Department — as well as just about every other police agency around the country — to re-evaluate its training, protocols and preparedness,” said John Lester, a spokesman for Columbus State University. CSU police received three M-16s, records show. The weapons were part of Columbus State’s “active shooter” preparedness efforts, Lester said. “Fortunately,” he said, “we have never had to use them.”

The benefit of the program is that it allows campus departments to have weapons that have already been widely used by law enforcement agencies, Kennesaw State Police Chief Roger Stearns said. For years, the bad guys had been better armed than police, he said.

KSU received four M-16s and two M-14s through the program. The six rifles are assigned to officers who have completed 30-plus hours in rifle training.

“We have more than 25,000 students, then add faculty and staff … a university is a small city,” Stearns said. “We have a responsibility to provide the same level of protection as that provided by any other city.”

Air Force removes God from chain of command

http://m.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Air-Force-removes-God-from-chain-of-command-5772881.php

Air Force removes God from chain of command

Score one for the secular humanists. The U.S. Air Force announced last week that it is dropping the “So help me, God” coda to its oath of enlistment. The phrase will also no longer be mandatory in oaths administered when officers are commissioned. The catalyst for the change: a suit filed on behalf of an atheist airman who crossed out the words when he filed to re-enlist.

But how, pray tell, did this shoutout to the Almighty find its way into civilian and military oaths of office in the first place?

There's some indication that the custom began more than 1,000 years ago. Evidence suggests that the Norsemen required those who appeared in court to swear before a priest, grasping a ring dipped in the blood of an ox killed for the occasion, and utter these words: “I take oath by the ring, law-oath, so help me Frey, and Niörd, and almighty Thor.”

In this case, fealty was sworn to three gods (two of whom are commemorated in days of the week), which makes it a rather awkward precedent for monotheistic Christian ritual, never mind modern judicial process. Moreover, this original invocation was not an invitation for the gods to pass judgment on the person stupid enough to lie, but rather to help the person giving testimony.

But this didn't stop Christians, and eventually, courts of law, from repurposing this ritual, minus the ox blood, and with the Bible taking the place of the ring. The phrase surfaced in Latin, German and French forms, and eventually in English, initially as “so help me God at his holy dome.”

The meaning was now rather different: the oath invited the wrath of the Almighty at judgment day on anyone who dared bear false witness. This meaning, which was in place by the 1300s or 1400s, was in keeping with the religious tenor of the times.

The declaration soon became commonplace in England, figuring in court oaths and military oaths. Of course, God works in mysterious ways. When the colonists launched a violent revolution to overthrow British rule, the Continental Congress began to require military officers and civilian leaders to declare that “I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience” to the king, along with further declarations in the same vein, and sealing the deal with a “So help me God.” Enlisted men, by contrast, read a far simpler oath, promising to follow orders and otherwise behave.

The appeal to God seems to have fallen into some disuse in the early 19th century. One newspaper, the Independent Chronicle and Boston Patriot, went so far as to mock the use of the phrase, saying that “this expression has become quite the rage in England,” used by horse jockeys, boxers and other unsavory characters.

But it made a comeback during the Civil War. Under an act of July 2, 1862, officers in the Union Army now swore an elaborate oath to the U.S. that ended with “so help me God.” Not coincidentally, Congress passed legislation in 1864 that put “In God We Trust” on some of the nation's coins — offering further proof that there are no atheists in foxholes.

But it didn't become standard for presidential oaths until the untimely death of James Garfield, a remarkably gifted leader whose presidency was cut short by an assassin's bullet. His vice-president, Chester Arthur, was widely thought to be unfit for the office — a view that Arthur may himself have shared; indeed, Arthur described the prospect of becoming president as a “calamity.”

So perhaps when Arthur said “so help me God,” he wasn't thinking of divine wrath, but rather the original Viking meaning of the phrase: help me!

The custom caught on with subsequent presidents. And the armed forces continued the tradition for officers. It was added to the general enlistment oath in 1960, as the struggle with the godless Soviets heated up to dangerous levels, with the change becoming effective just before the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And there it had remained. The founders, many of whom described themselves as “deists” with limited enthusiasm for organized religion, might have approved of the change announced by the Air Force. But whether the change is appropriate will probably be hotly debated in the midterm elections and beyond, perhaps becoming — God help us — yet another polarizing issue to divide the nation.

Stephen Mihm, an associate professor of history at the University of Georgia, is a contributor to the Bloomberg View. Read Full Article 

Biblical Theology and the Sexuality Crisis

http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/biblical-theology-and-the-sexuality-crisis/#.VCGH22y583M.facebook

Biblical Theology and the Sexuality Crisis

Western society is currently experiencing what can only be described as a moral revolution. Our society’s moral code and collective ethical evaluation on a particular issue has undergone not small adjustments but a complete reversal. That which was once condemned is now celebrated, and the refusal to celebrate is now condemned.

What makes the current moral and sexual revolution so different from previous moral revolutions is that it is taking place at an utterly unprecedented velocity. Previous generations experienced moral revolutions over decades, even centuries. This current revolution is happening at warp speed.

As the church responds to this revolution, we must remember that current debates on sexuality present to the church a crisis that is irreducibly and inescapably theological. This crisis is tantamount to the type of theological crisis that Gnosticism presented to the early church or that Pelagianism presented to the church in the time of Augustine. In other words, the crisis of sexuality challenges the church’s understanding of the gospel, sin, salvation, and sanctification. Advocates of the new sexuality demand a complete rewriting of Scripture’s metanarrative, a complete reordering of theology, and a fundamental change to how we think about the church’s ministry.

Why the Concordance Method Fails

Proof-texting is the first reflex of conservative Protestants seeking a strategy of theological retrieval and restatement. This hermeneutical reflex comes naturally to evangelical Christians because we believe the Bible to be the inerrant and infallible word of God. We understand that, as B.B. Warfield said, “When Scripture speaks, God speaks.” I should make clear that this reflex is not entirely wrong, but it’s not entirely right either. It’s not entirely wrong because certain Scriptures (that is, “proof texts”) speak to specific issues in a direct and identifiable way.

There are, however, obvious limitations to this type of theological method—what I like to call the “concordance reflex.” What happens when you are wrestling with a theological issue for which no corresponding word appears in the concordance? Many of the most important theological issues cannot be reduced to merely finding relevant words and their corresponding verses in a concordance. Try looking up “transgender” in your concordance. How about “lesbian”? Or “in vitro fertilization”? They’re certainly not in the back of my Bible.

It’s not that Scripture is insufficient. The problem is not a failure of Scripture but a failure of our approach to Scripture. The concordance approach to theology produces a flat Bible without context, covenant, or master-narrative—three hermeneutical foundations that are essential to understand Scripture rightly.

Needed:  A Biblical Theology of the Body

Biblical theology is absolutely indispensable for the church to craft an appropriate response to the current sexual crisis. The church must learn to read Scripture according to its context, embedded in its master-narrative, and progressively revealed along covenantal lines. We must learn to interpret each theological issue through Scripture’s metanarrative of creation, fall, redemption, and new creation. Specifically, evangelicals need a theology of the body that is anchored in the Bible’s own unfolding drama of redemption.

Movement One — Creation

Genesis 1:26–28 indicates that God made man—unlike the rest of creation—in his own image. This passage also demonstrates that God’s purpose for humanity was an embodied existence. Genesis 2:7 highlights this point as well. God makes man out of the dust and then breathes into him the breath of life. This indicates that we were a body before we were a person. The body, as it turns out, is not incidental to our personhood. Adam and Eve are given the commission to multiply and subdue the earth. Their bodies allow them, by God’s creation and his sovereign plan, to fulfill that task of image-bearing.

The Genesis narrative also suggests that the body comes with needs. Adam would be hungry, so God gave him the fruit of the garden. These needs are an expression embedded within the created order that Adam is finite, dependent, and derived.

Further, Adam would have a need for companionship, so God gave him a wife, Eve. Both Adam and Eve were to fulfill the mandate to multiply and fill the earth with God’s image-bearers by a proper use of the bodily reproductive ability with which they were created. Coupled with this is the bodily pleasure each would experience as the two became one flesh—that is, one body.

The Genesis narrative also demonstrates that gender is part of the goodness of God’s creation. Gender is not merely a sociological construct forced upon human beings who otherwise could negotiate any number of permutations.

But Genesis teaches us that gender is created by God for our good and his glory. Gender is intended for human flourishing and is assigned by the Creator’s determination—just as he determined when, where, and that we should exist.

In sum, God created his image as an embodied person. As embodied, we are given the gift and stewardship of sexuality from God himself. We are constructed in a way that testifies to God’s purposes in this.

Genesis also frames this entire discussion in a covenantal perspective. Human reproduction is not merely in order to propagate the race. Instead, reproduction highlights the fact that Adam and Eve were to multiply in order to fill the earth with the glory of God as reflected by his image bearers.

Movement Two — The Fall

The fall, the second movement in redemptive history, corrupts God’s good gift of the body. The entrance of sin brings mortality to the body. In terms of sexuality, the Fall subverts God’s good plans for sexual complementarity. Eve’s desire is to rule over her husband (Gen. 3:16). Adam’s leadership will be harsh (3:17-19). Eve will experience pain in childbearing (3:16).

The narratives that follow demonstrate the development of aberrant sexual practices, from polygamy to rape, which Scripture addresses with remarkable candor. These Genesis accounts are followed by the giving of the Law which is intended to curb aberrant sexual behavior. It regulates sexuality and expressions of gender and makes clear pronouncements on sexual morals, cross-dressing, marriage, divorce, and host of other bodily and sexual matters.

The Old Testament also connects sexual sin to idolatry. Orgiastic worship, temple prostitution, and other horrible distortions of God’s good gift of the body are all seen as part and parcel of idolatrous worship. The same connection is made by Paul in Romans 1. Having “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Rom 1:22), and having “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:25), men and women exchange their natural relations with one another (Rom 1:26-27).

Movement Three — Redemption

With regard to redemption, we must note that one of the most important aspects of our redemption is that it came by way of a Savior with a body. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14; cf. Phil. 2:5-11). Human redemption is accomplished by the Son of God incarnate—who remains incarnate eternally.

Paul indicates that this salvation includes not merely our souls but also our bodies. Romans 6:12 speaks of sin that reigns in our “mortal bodies”—which implies the hope of future bodily redemption. Romans 8:23 indicates part of our eschatological hope is the “redemption of our bodies.” Even now, in our life of sanctification we are commanded to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God in worship (Rom. 12:2). Further, Paul describes the redeemed body as a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19) and clearly we must understand sanctification as having effects upon the body.

Sexual ethics in the New Testament, as in the Old Testament, regulate our expressions of gender and sexuality.Porneia, sexual immorality of any kind, is categorically condemned by Jesus and the apostles. Likewise, Paul clearly indicates to the church at Corinth that sexual sin—sins committed in the body (1 Cor. 6:18)—are what bring the church and the gospel into disrepute because they proclaim to a watching world that the gospel has been to no effect (1 Cor. 5-6).

Movement Four — New Creation

Finally, we reach the fourth and final act of the drama of redemption—new creation. In 1 Corinthians 15:42-57, Paul directs us not only to the resurrection of our own bodies in the new creation but to the fact that Christ’s bodily resurrection is the promise and power for that future hope. Our resurrection will be the experience of eternal glory in the body. This body will be a transformed, consummated continuation of our present embodied existence in the same way that Jesus’ body is the same body he had on earth, yet utterly glorified.

The new creation will not simply be a reset of the garden. It will be better than Eden. As Calvin noted, in the new creation we will know God not only as Creator but as Redeemer—and that redemption includes our bodies. We will reign with Christ in bodily form, as he also is the embodied and reigning cosmic Lord.

In terms of our sexuality, while gender will remain in the new creation, sexual activity will not. It is not that sex is nullified in the resurrection; rather, it is fulfilled. The eschatological marriage supper of the Lamb, to which marriage and sexuality point, will finally arrive. No longer will there be any need to fill the earth with image-bearers as was the case in Genesis 1. Instead, the earth will be filled with knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the sea.

Biblical Theology Is Indispensable 

The sexuality crisis has demonstrated the failure of theological method on the part of many pastors. The “concordance reflex” simply cannot accomplish the type of rigorous theological thinking needed in pulpits today. Pastors and churches must learn the indispensability of biblical theology and must practice reading Scripture according to its own internal logic—the logic of a story that moves from creation to new creation. The hermeneutical task before us is great, but it is also indispensable for faithful evangelical engagement with the culture.

---

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com blog.

Sent from my iPhone