Government Categorized Homegrown Terrorists

Government-Categorized Homegrown Terrorists
by Carl Parnell 
01/13/12
Free to Share


Since the terrorist attack on New York City on September 11, 2001, the federal government has worked vehemently to prevent any future terrorist attacks on American soil. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department have categorized groups of people who should be considered “potential terrorists.” Therefore, if all Americans knew the characteristics of “potential terrorists,” it would make it much easier to prevent future terrorist attacks. However, the list of those who have been categorized as “potential homegrown terrorists” by the federal government is ludicrous. Also, the least likely Americans have been labeled as the most likely to attempt to destroy America from within. But, based on the actions of the three branches of government, since the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City, it is the federal government that should be viewed as the group that is most responsible for sponsoring and supporting homegrown terrorism for the purpose of preventing Americans from showing outright dissent toward their federal government.

But, first, let’s look at the groups that the federal government has classified as dangerous, “potential terrorists.” The first and most dangerous group, according to the federal government, consists of any person who professes to be a born-again Christian. As a result, in the years to come, Christians in America will most likely face severe persecution from the government, and possibly incarcerated in prison without a trial, if they dare voice their opposition to America’s elected leaders who are determined to undermine the U.S. Constitution. Of course, most Christians would not agree that the federal government has categorized them as “potential terrorists.” But, several whistleblower messages from the White House prove that the federal government have labeled Christians as stated. However, on April 7, 2009, a Department of Homeland Security report classified Christians as “potential terrorists.” Three main provisions of this unclassified document as reported in WorldNetDaily were:

1. It warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing ( illegal immigration )

2. It warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing (abortion )

3. It warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing (federal taxes )

Therefore, Christians in America must become aware of the anti-Christian sentiment that exists in the federal government’s attack against terrorism in America. As stated earlier, just imagine having to spend most of your life in prison just because you were a law-abiding Christian who just happened to be against illegal immigration, ungodly abortion, and extremely high federal taxes. But, it could very well happen if America’s elected leaders continue to usurp the authority of a Judeo-Christian based U.S. Constitution and continue to promote an un-American, socialistic agenda.

The second most dangerous group of “potential terrorists” in America are veterans of the Afghanistan War and the Iraqi War. Of course, it is an absurdity to label the men and women who risked their lives on foreign soil to defend America’s way of life. But, obviously, most people would refuse to accept that the federal government would categorize America’s veterans as has been stated. However, in the same Homeland Security report mentioned previously, America’s veterans were classified as having the ability to become homegrown terrorists. The
report stated:

*The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks

*Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities

Therefore, United States military veterans must become aware of the anti-veteran sentiment that exists in the federal government’s attack against terrorism in America. But, why does the federal government fear the very people that it trained to protect the United States from its bonafide enemies? What is the federal government hiding that would ultimately cause veterans to take up arms against them. Could it be the nationalization of the National Guard? Could it be the passage of legislation that is on the verge of elimination the rights given to Americans by the Bill of Rights? Could it be the passage of the recent Senate Bill 1867 that would give the military permission to arrest any “potential terrorists” anywhere in the world and put them in prison without the right of habeas corpus (the right to a hearing and trial)? Could it be the running of the government by a president who has decided to bypass Congress? Ultimately, could it be that the federal government is attempting to get non-veterans to worry more about so-called disloyal veterans than some members of the federal government who are attempting to destroy the freedoms and sovereignty of the United States through legislation, regulation, and taxation. Of course, regardless of the reason for labeling veterans as “potential terrorists,” the federal government’s rationale is undeniably and unequivocally wrong.

The third most dangerous group of “potential terrorists” in America are those people who complain about the federal government’s drive for more nationally-centralized authority over the states and the masses of people. This can easily be seen in the attacks by the current administration toward the Tea Party Movement. According to Wikipedia,

The Tea Party Movement is an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as a conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

In its attacks against the Tea Party Movement, the federal government constantly depicts members of this political movement as “potential terrorists” whose main goal is to overthrow the very government that they are attempting to restore to its original glory. In fact, according to Jeffrey T. Kuhner in a Washington Times article,

Leftist expediency now requires that the most heinous, reckless and degrading comments be used. Tea Parters are not simply being slandered, they are being dehumanized. Ironically, it is liberals who are paving the way for potential political violence. Terrorists, hostage-takers, suicide bombers, neo-Nazis, the Christian Taliban- all of the epithets regularly thrown at Tea Party members by rabid progressives-eventually foster one overriding emotion: hatred.

Therefore, this progressive hatred is the driving force that unifies members of the current administration in their effort to possibly silence America’s last line of defense against the left-wing, Democratic agenda to turn America into a European-style, socialistic utopia.

The fourth most dangerous group of “potential terrorists” in America are those people who purport the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is the right to bear arms. In fact, based on several documented sources, President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Attorney-General Eric Holder do not support the Second Amendment fully, as written by the Founding Fathers. Basically, they believe that the Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to bear arms. They believe that the U.S. Constitution just gives the military and law enforcement agencies the right to bear arms. As a result, they support various types of gun control legislation, even working with the un-American United Nations to pass an international Small Arms Treaty. According to a MarketWatch article, The National Association For Gun Rights stated that if passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

2. CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

3. BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

4. Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION..."

Therefore, if America’s leaders give in to the demands of the United Nations, America’s days as a free nation will be numbered, since only an armed citizenry can defend itself against those who want America to lose its sovereignty and god-given constitutional rights. But, why would the federal government attempt to amend the Constitution in order to prevent America citizens from owning weapons in order to protect their personal property and personal lives? Why would the federal government attempt to deny millions of people the opportunity to hunt deer and other wild game for sport and for food? Could it be that the federal government is afraid that these gun owners would be able to possibly defend America from those in the federal government whose major agenda is to take the United States government hostage from within? Regardless of the rationale for attempting to deny Americans their god-given, constitutional rights, the federal government must realize that Americans have owned guns for too long to haphazardly give up their guns to a governmental entity for any possible misguided reason.

The fifth most dangerous group of “potential terrorists” in America are a group classified as “Preppers.” According to Wikipedia, preppers are individuals or groups who are actively preparing for future possible disruptions in local, regional, national, or international social or political order. They often prepare for this anticipated disruption by having emergency medical training, stockpiling food and water, preparing for self-defense and self-sufficiency, and/or building structures that will help them survive. Anticipated disruptions include the following:

1. Natural Disasters
2. Manmade Disasters
3. General Collapse of Society
4. Economic Collapse
5. A Sudden Pandemic
6. Widespread Chaos

However, according to Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky, the federal government now considers anyone who has more than a week’s supply of food on hand as a “potential terrorist.” If that is the case, all shoppers at Sam’s Club or Costco are “potential terrorists.” On the surface though, that seems rather humorous. But, in reality, it isn’t as a result of Senator Paul’s other warning. He “warns that under the new provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, which just passed Congress resoundingly, the federal government could lock you up indefinitely without due process and without being convicted of a crime.” As is obvious, it really does not matter who a person votes for any longer. Apparently, most of America’s politicians have a strong desire to keep their political positions until they die and, at the same time, deny the very people that they represent their basic freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, will American citizens be able to keep their constitutional rights? Of course, even more importantly, what can be done to reverse the current trend in America to create a full-fledged socialist nation? Ultimately, could it possibly be too late?

The sixth most dangerous group of “potential terrorists” in America are home schoolers. Of course, it is obvious that home schoolers are parents who teach their children at home because their belief system is completely opposite of the federally-sponsored and funded public school systems. According to WorldNetDaily, there are several major reasons why parents teach their children at home and keep them out of the public school systems in their states. They are:

1. Concern about the School Environment (Safety, Drugs, and Negative Peer Pressure)

2. Able to Instruct Children in Religious and Moral Issues

3. Dissatisfaction with Academic Instruction

4. Using a Nontraditional Approach to Children’s Education

As a result, the federal government has targeted home schoolers as “potential terrorist.” Basically, the federal government is upset that these home schoolers are not being taught from curriculums that promote the government’s anti-Christian, pro-homosexual, politically-correct agenda. Therefore, the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D. C. are working overtime to make home schooling against the law in America. In fact, there are bills in Congress, that if passed, would force Christian schools and home schoolers to teach the same curriculums as public schools. Also, the federal government might just be upset because home schoolers tend to do better on standardized tests than their public school counterparts. According to three studies completed in the United States and two studies in Canada, public school students have average scores in the 50th percentile, where as, home schoolers have average scores in the 65th to 80th percentile.

However, the main rationale for attacking home schoolers and classifying them as “potential terrorists” is the federal government’s desire to force home schoolers back into public school classrooms in order for them to be indoctrinated to a humanistic, atheistic belief system that is contrary to their parents Judeo-Christian belief system. In fact, John Dewey, the Father of Progressive Education in America, made a provocative anti-Christian quote that appeared in The Humanist Magazine in 1983 that should give home school parents one more vital reason for keeping their children out of public schools. He said,

I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being...The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.

Needless to say, it is rather obvious how John Dewey felt about America’s public school system and the purpose of education in America. Sadly, as is obvious, too, there are many politicians and educators in the United States who feel the same way today. Therefore, home schoolers should keep molding and developing minds that fear God and that promote the way of life guaranteed to all American citizens by the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution.

Finally, despite the attacks against home schooling, there have been many famous and successful men and women who were home schooled. Some of the more prominent are:

*Abraham Lincoln-Sixteenth President of the United States

*Andrew Carnegie-Carnegie Steel Company

*Booker T. Washington-Teacher, Author, and first President of Tuskegee Institute

*Woodrow Wilson-Twenty-Eighth President of the United States

*C. S. Lewis-Writer, Critic, and Theologian

*Joseph Priestly-Father of Modern Chemistry

*Frank Lloyd Wright-Iconic Architect

*Albert Einstein-Theory of Relativity

*Pearl S. Buck-Pulitzer and Nobel Prize-winning Author

*Tim Tebow-Christian Professional Football Quarterback

In conclusion, the sand in America’s “freedom” sand clock has almost emptied from the top into the bottom. If America is to remain free from the tyranny of those who would destroy it from within, a miracle must take place. Therefore, Christians of all faiths must once again pray to the God of the Founding Fathers and ask Him to forgive them of their individual and collective sins. Then and only then will He turn America’s “freedom” sand clock upside down again so that the sands of “freedom” will once again move slowly and continually throughout America. As stated in II Chronicles 7:14, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” If not, America’s governmental obituary would be written very soon. This obituary would read,

Today, Uncle Sam died. He was 235 years old. His death was seemingly a shock to most people who loved him so dearly. However, there were many warning signs that he was on the verge of dying, but most of his friends ignored these warnings. As a result, nothing was done to prevent the demise of their “freedom-loving” friend. Therefore, with the death of Uncle Sam, those who cherished the life that he lived would only have a memory to look back on. Then, the sands of time of America’s constitutional republican form of government, that Uncle Sam promoted and lived on a daily basis, would forever be blown away by the “winds of governmental change,” a change from individual rights for all Americans to complete governmental control of the masses.


http://drcarlsterlingparnell.wiki.zoho.com







View Rev. Dr. Red Conrad, D.D.'s profile

A National Defense Act or how to undermine the US Constitution?

A National Defense Act or how to undermine the US Constitution?

Dr. Aref Assaf/NJ Voices 12/09/2011 6:55 AM

Is America the land of the free or the land of fear? Theslow erosion of our fundamental human and civil rights has reached its summit,and the consequences should worry us all.

The United States Senate has just passed a resolution thatas currently drafted, gives authority to the US military to indefinitely detainpersons, even American citizens arrested on American soil or overseas withoutcharge or trial. In other words, the federal government has the ability toopenly detain American citizens, here or overseas, for their entire liveswithout so much as a single charge -denying US citizens their Article IIIrights to a jury trial. All it needs to do is declare you a terrorist- no proofneeded and due process observed.

Tucked inconspicuously in the 682 pagesof the, NationalDefense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), the Bill under thetitle 'Detainee Matters' in section 1031 and 1032, Congress has essentiallygiven the Department of Defense the explicit power to take civilians intomilitary custody and to indefinitely detain people suspected of terrorismactivities with no charges or trial. People in Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria haveengaged in revolutions to replace these undemocratic and unjust practices.

No doubt, codifying indefinite military detention into lawis one of the most egregious developments since the passage of the PATRIOT Actin 2001. A close read of the relevant sections means that all control would betaken out of the hands of civilian-controlled judicial system, and placed intothe secretive and unaccountable domains of the American military. Are theSenators who signed onto the legislation calling for a military takeover of ourjustice system? Until now, the Department of Justice, the state and local lawenforcement agencies have had the primary responsibility and the appropriatetraining to enforce anti-terrorism laws within the United States. The NDAAwould, in the case of many civilian suspects, remove these entities from theprocess of investigation, arrest, criminal prosecution, and imprisonment andcede such powers over to the military.

Section 1031 of S. 1253 would be the first time in more than60 years that our so-called representatives in Washington would allowindefinite detention of American citizens, with no charges or trial withoutCongressional authorization. If there was a case where liberty has beenforsaken for temporary security as Ben Franklin so eloquently warned, this Billis a prime example.

The US Senate has thus acted to render irrelevant theessence of our legal and judicial foundation: habeas corpus. According to Article Iof the Constitution, it is a judicial mandate that requires that a prisoner bebrought before the court to determine whether the government has the right tocontinue detaining them. The individual being held or their representative canpetition the court for such a writ. The current Senate bill has in effectendorsed the notion that the government can do whatever it likes to any citizen,it merely suspects individuals of being involved in terrorism. And since theso-called war on terrorism is an open-ended war and knows no geographicaldemarcations, the entire framework of the constitution could disappear througha sinkhole. Do not be surprised when a terrorist attack is committed or is imminent,our government would authorize soldiers to break into our homes undeterred,round up any citizens the government deems suspicious, and deny them anyrecourse. We used   to condemn countriesfor engaging in these practices against their own citizens. And now here we are doing it in these UnitedStates.

The Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizenit says is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to anindependent judge, for the lifespan of a not-so clearly defined war. Andbecause the Senate used the bill that authorizes funding for the military asits vehicle for this dramatic constitutional claim, many Senators found an easyexcuse to vote for the bill. But even if the intent of the legislationwould leave the civil liberties of an overwhelming majority of Americansuntouched, the checks and balances are inadequate. Even if we accept supportiveanalysis of the two sections in full, we have to assume two things. First, thegovernment will never make a mistake and, second, the government will never exceedits power. These are not very tenable expectations, which is why the nation's FoundingFathers were prudent not to consider them. Now, in section 1031(b) (2), I donot see the requirement for a civilian judge to issue a warrant. So it appearsthis legislation directly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitutionwith regard to those rights which are inalienable, according to the Declarationof Independence, and should be inviolate as your birthright as an Americancitizen. Also, despite the SixthAmendment's guarantee of a right to trial, the Senate bill would let thegovernment lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden ofproving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphouswar that conceivably will never end.

Is it lawful for the president to order any American to beheld indefinitely as a terrorist, without formal charges, evidence presented inopen court, a trial by jury, or a standard of "guilty beyond a reasonabledoubt"? The U.S. Senate has ruled this to be a valid power. The shame ofthe Senate is evident by the number of Senators who voted for the bill: Fortyeight Democrats and forty-four Republicans and one Independent. New Jersey'stwo Senators, Robert Menendez, and Frank Lautenberg voted for the bill and madeno public denouement of the unconstitutional sections.

It is worth noting that  Senior Department of Justice,Department of Defense, and former administration officials warn theseprovisions will be a severe blow to our national security efforts andcounterproductive to counter terrorism measures. Many Senators have soeloquently spoken against the sections in addition to strong statements fromleading civil rights organizations. Senator Al Franklin(D-MN) represent this view, he said, "I fear the detention provisions inthis bill forget the lessons we learned from the mistakes we made when weinterned thousands of innocent Japanese, Germans, and Italians, or when wedestroyed the lives of supposed communist sympathizers with nary a shred ofevidence of guilt."

Fortunately, the Houseversion of the bill (H.R. 1540) does not include the troublesome language.But we fear that when the two bills are merged, these sections will remain.

Most importantly, President Obama has threatened to veto the bill if it containsthe problematic language. PresidentObama, citing serious legal and policy concerns, has threatened to veto thebill if the two provisions are not removed. In a recent memo to the Senate, theadministration asserted that, "applying this military custody requirementto individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress havesuggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questionsand would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that ourmilitary does not patrol our streets." It is time for the citizens tospeak up for their rights before they are gone..

Ending The Christian "Pacifist" Argument On Firearms

By Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel

It is not uncommon, when concealed carry laws are debated before legislative bodies, for representatives of liberal organizations such as the National Council of Churches to show up and announce the "moral" opposition to concealed carry on behalf of "the religious community." But reflexive hostility to the lawful use of force for legitimate defense is hardly the only moral position that may be held by a sincerely religious person.

The Book of Exodus specifically absolves a homeowner who kills a burglar.  The Sixth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" refers to murder only, and does not prohibit the taking of life under any circumstances; notably, the law of Sinai specifically requires capital punishment for a large number of offenses.  A little bit earlier in the Bible, Abram, the father of the Hebrew nation, learns that his nephew Lot has been taken captive. Abram (later to be renamed "Abraham" by God) immediately called out his trained servants, set out on a rescue mission, found his nephew's captors, attacked and routed, rescuing Lot. (Genesis 14). The resort to violence to rescue an innocent captive is presented as the morally appropriate choice.

Most gun prohibitionists who look to the Bible for support do not cite specific interdictions of weapons (there are none) but instead point to the general passages about peace and love, such as "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5: 38-39); "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5: 43); and "Do not repay anyone evil for evil." (Romans 12: 17).

None of these exhortations take place in the context of an imminent threat to life. A slap on the cheek is a blow to pride, but not a threat to life. Reverend Anthony Winfield, author of a study of Biblical attitudes towards weapons, suggests that these verses command the faithful not to seek revenge for evil acts, and not to bear grudges against persons who have done them wrong. He points to the passage "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with everyone" (Romans 12: 18), as showing an awareness that in extreme situations, it might not be possible to live in peace.

Further evidence that the New Testament does not command universal pacifism is found in the missions of John the Baptist and Peter, both of whom preached to soldiers who converted. Neither John nor Peter demanded that the soldiers lay down their arms, or find another job. (Luke 3: 14; Acts 10: 22-48).

John did tell the soldiers "Don't extort money, and don't accuse people falsely," just as he told tax collectors "Don't collect any more than you are required to." The plain implication is that being a soldier (or a tax collector) is not itself wrong, so long as the inherent power is not used for selfish purposes.

Of course most gun prohibitionists do not see anything wrong with soldiers carrying weapons and killing people if necessary. But if--as the New Testament strongly implies--it is possible to be a good soldier and a good Christian, then it is impossible to claim that the Gospel always forbids the use of violence, no matter what the purpose. The stories of the soldiers support Winfield's thesis that the general Speace and love" passage are not blanket prohibitions on the use of force in all circumstances.

Is an approving attitude towards the bearing of arms confined to professional soldiers? Not at all. At the last supper, Jesus' final instructions to the apostles begin: "When I sent you without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?"

"Nothing," the apostles answer.

Jesus continues: "But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." He ends by observing "what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

The apostles then announce, "Lord, behold, here are two swords," and Jesus cuts them off: "That is enough." (Luke 22: 36-38).

Even if the passage is read with absolute literalness, Jesus was not setting up a rule that every apostle must carry a sword (or a purse or a bag). For the eleven, two swords were "enough."

More importantly, Jesus may not have been issuing an actual command that anybody carry swords, or purses, or bags. The broader, metaphorical point being made by Jesus was that the apostles would, after Jesus was gone, have to take care of their own worldly needs to some degree. The purse (generally used for money), the bag (generally used for clothing and food), and the sword (generally used for protection against the robbers who preyed on travelers, including missionaries, in the open country between towns) are all examples of tools used to take care of such needs. When the apostles took Jesus literally, and started showing him their swords, Jesus, frustrated that they missed the metaphor, ended the discussion. The metaphorical interpretation is supported by scholarly analysis, and seems to best account for the entire conversation.

Even when reduced to metaphor, however, the passage still contradicts the rigid pacifist viewpoint. In the metaphor, the sword, like the purse or the bag, is treated as an ordinary item for any person to carry. If weapons and defensive violence were illegitimate under all circumstances, Jesus would not have instructed the apostles to carry swords, even in metaphor, any more than Jesus would have created metaphors suggesting that people carry demonic statues for protection, or that they metaphorically rape, rob, and murder.

A few hours after the final instructions to the apostles, when soldiers arrived to arrest Jesus, and Peter sliced off the ear of one of their leaders, Jesus healed the ear. He then said "No more of this" (Luke 22: 49-51) or "Put your sword away" (John 18: 10) or "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26: 52). (The quotation is sometimes rendered as "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.") [129]

Jesus then rebuked the soldiers for effecting the arrests with clubs and swords, for Jesus was "not leading a rebellion." The most immediate meaning of these passages is that Jesus was preventing interference with God's plan for the arrest and trial. Additionally, Jesus was instructing the apostles not to begin an armed revolt against the local dictatorship or the Roman imperialists. Jesus had already refused the Zealots' urging to lead a war of national liberation.

Do the passages also suggest a general prohibition against drawing swords (or other weapons) for defense? The versions of the story recounted in Luke and John do not, but the version in Matthew could be so read.

If Matthew is analyzed along the lines of "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword," the passage is an admonition that a person who centers his life on violence (such as a gang member) will likely perish. On the other hand, a translation of "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" could be read as a general rule against armed violence in any situation.

The best way to understand the Bible, most theologians would concur, is not to look at passages in isolation, but instead to carefully study passages in the context of the rest of the Bible. If the single line in Matthew were to be read to indicate that to draw the sword is always wrong, then it would be difficult to account for the other passages which suggest that drawing a sword as a soldier (or carrying a sword as an apostle) is not illegitimate. Looking at the passage of Matthew in the context of the rest of the Bible would, therefore, look to the passage as a warning against violence as a way of life, rather than as a flat-out ban on defensive violence in all situations.

A 1994 document produced by the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace states:

In a world marked by evil and sin, the right of legitimate defense by armed means exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community.

The Catholic Church recognizes people as saints because (among other reasons), the lives of saints are considered to worthy of study and emulation. February 27 is the feast day of Saint Gabriel Possenti. According to The One Year Book of Saints, as a young man in 19th-century Italy, Francesco Possenti was known as the best dresser in town, as a "superb horseman," and as "an excellent marksman." The young man was also a consummate partygoer, who was engaged to two women at the same time. Twice during school he had fallen desperately ill, promised to give his life to God if he recovered, and then forgotten his promise. One day at church, Possenti saw a banner of Mary. He felt that her eyes looked directly at him, and he heard the words "Keep your promise."

Possenti immediately joined an order of monks, taking the name Brother Gabriel. The main incident for which Saint Gabriel Possenti is remembered was this:

One a summer day a little over a hundred years ago, a slim figure in a black cassock [Possenti] stood facing a gang of mercenaries in a small town in Piedmont, Italy. He had just disarmed one of the soldiers who was attacking a young girl, had faced the rest of the band fearlessly, then drove them all out of the village at the point of a gun....

[W]hen Garibaldi's mercenaries swept down through Italy ravaging villages, Brother Gabriel showed the kind of man he was by confronting them, astonishing them with his marksmanship, and saving the small village where his monastery was located.

Saint Gabriel Possenti's "astonishing marksmanship" was displayed after he had just disarmed the soldier. The mercenaries' leader told Possenti that it would take more than just one monk with a handgun to make the mercenaries leave town. The saint pointed out to the mercenaries a lizard which was running across the road. Possenti shot the lizard right through the head, at which point the mercenaries decided that discretion was the better part of valor; they obeyed Possenti's orders to extinguish the fires they had started and to return the property they had stolen. They then fled the village, never to be heard from again.

Jewish law comes to the same conclusion as the Vatican Pontifical Council: "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first," commands the Talmud.  Bystanders are likewise required to kill persons who attempting rape.  While there is a duty to self-defense, the duty to defend others is seen as prior.

The view that forcible resistance to evil attack is itself evil has serious implications: Patrick Henry and the other founding fathers were wrong to urge armed resistance to the British Redcoats; the Jews who led the Warsaw Ghetto revolt against Hitler were immoral; Jeffrey Dahmer's victims would have been wrong to use a weapon to protect themselves; Saint Gabriel Possenti was a paragon of evil; Abraham should not have rescued his kidnapped nephew; and police officers who fire their guns to protect innocent people are sinful.

Consider the situation of a mother in a rough Los Angeles neighborhood, moments after an escaped psychopathic murderer has broken into her house. The woman has good reason to fear that the intruder is about to slaughter her three children. If she does not shoot him with her .38 special, the children will be dead before the police will arrive. Is the woman's moral obligation to murmur "violence engenders violence," and keep her handgun in the drawer while her children die? Or is the mother's moral duty to save her children, and shoot the intruder?

The view that life is a gift from God, and that permitting the wanton destruction of one's own life (or the life of a person under one's care) amounts to hubris is hardly new. As a 1747 sermon in Philadelphia put it:

He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself. 
 

Whatever their disagreements on other matters, the natural rights philosophers who provided the intellectual foundation of the American Revolution saw self-defense as "the primary law of nature," from which many other legal principles could be deduced.

As the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: "We shall have lost something vital and beyond price on the day when the state denies us the right to resort to force..."

Leading criminal law scholars have emphasized a different, less philosophical, point: that victims protect the entire community when they kill a dangerous criminal rather than leaving him free to prey on others. To theorists such as Bishop, Stephens and Pollock "Sudden and strong resistance to unrighteous attack is not merely a thing to be tolerated ...as a necessary evil [but is] a just and perfect" right. A good citizen attacked has "a moral duty" to use all force necessary to apprehend or otherwise incapacitate criminals rather than to submit or retreat.

Underlying the assertion that use of force to defend innocent life is immoral is the presumption that persons who use such force are "selfish." To the extent that social science can shed any light on this presumption, the presumption turns out to be exactly backwards. A study of "Good Samaritans" who came to aid of victims of violent crime found that 81% "own guns and some carry them in their cars. They are familiar with violence, feel competent to handle it, and don't believe they will be hurt if they get involved."  Are these people inferior moral beings who "engender violence"?

In any case, the claim that as a moral or practical matter a crime victim should rely on the government for protection can be raised only if the government has an obligation to protect the victim. And quite clearly under American law, the government has no such obligation.



View Rev. Dr. Red Conrad, D.D.'s profile

Are We Truly Free?

Are We Truly Free?
By Reverend Dr. Red Conrad, D.D.

Many people claim that we are free. That we have certain rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. But the vast majority has no idea what rights are protected or where they are protected in the Constitution. Due to this fact many people are completely oblivious to the fact that we are no longer the "Land of the Free" but morphing into the "Land of the Slaves". Below are few amendments, and examples of infringement.

The first amendment is as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There are many homes and businesses that are not allowed to put a cross on their property. There are many establishments that do not permit its employees to wear a cross that is visible to others. Schools, universities, and now homes are not allowed to hold public prayers. Prayer has been banned in our military. We cannot assemble without first obtaining a permit. In certain areas, if a permit is granted, you may only assemble in whats called a "free speech zone". Many true journalists are forced to work for "underground" media companies, risking problems with the law, due to the fact mainstream press is only permitted to spew statist propaganda authorized by the government.

The second amendment is as follows:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Many militias, lest they are run by the government, are diffused and disarmed. The government does this by telling Americans it is for their safety. Usually calling such militias as, or having ties to, racist, terrorist, or simply un-American and dangerous to the community. Many Americans are being disarmed under the lie that the more who own weapons, the more crimes will be committed. What they dont tell you: if all Americans owned weapons, crime will decrease due to the fact that the criminal will not know who will fire on him/her and who will not. In some cases, they go as far as refusing medical care if you own a firearm or refuse to say one way or the other.

The fourth amendment is as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In numerous states law enforcement completely ignores this right. A marine in Arizona was killed in a un-warranted, full S.W.A.T., break-in of his home. Businesses have been raided by the police and military, without warrants and had items removed. Homes in entire neighborhoods have been raided by the National Guard and legally owned weapons removed from the homes. The TSA has been searching, and at times strip searching, everyone of all ages. Some as young as 2yrs to as old as 93yrs in a wheelchair.

As surprising as it is, all mentions above occured here in America. The above are only a few examples. Choose any topic and google it. The results will shock you. If you question the government, they will tell you the authority to do so is in the 'Patriot Act'. People who took an oath to uphold the Constitution are instead deciding to uphold the un-constitutional 'Patriot Act' and run the U.S. Constitution through the shredder.

The government has been infringing on our freedoms in a very clever way. Stop educating about America, the Constitution and replace it with indoctrination. Promote a sense of insecurity via terrorism, racism, wars. Escalate this feeling of insecurity slowly over a few decades as the press is taken over, now insuring all mainstream media is promoting propaganda. Tell the people in order to be safe, you must allow random searches and increased police presence. Tell the people crime can be stopped, but you must handover all privately owned weapons. If the people do not know their rights, they will not miss their rights. Its pure genius. And American people as a whole is that stupid.

Now that most of it is underway, they are speeding things up. Christianity and Judaism in America will continue to see a rise in persecution. Why? Because they are the religions of light. True Judeo-Christianity, in its most spiritually natural form, can shed light into the darkness encompassing America and the world. You begin shedding light into dark, you will now be able to see what you could not see before. The elite knows this, therefore wishes to run Christianity and Judaism out so they can bring in the dark with little, if any, resistance.

Many religious establishments are being attacked. A couple in California who holds a Bible study once a week in their home are being ordered to stop. Rev. Terry Jones of Dove World Outreach Center is losing his property in Gainesville, Florida. Many of my online accounts are either blocked entirely or give me limited access. Churches all around the country are being told what they can and cannot say or face imprisonment for breaking the laws set forth in the 501(c)3 incorporation laws. A pastor i know personally who also operates an online ministry has had his website shutdown. Schools will not allow any type of Christian dress or literature on the premises.

Yet Islam can freely function as they please, when they please, how they please. The Constitution is meant to protect ALL American citizens, not just the muslims, whom did not exist in America at her liberation from England.

If you feel we are free, you are a fool. Freedom is just that, freedom. Limititations on freedom is no longer freedom. I ask you not to take my word for it, but do your own research. If you wish to call yourself free, you must first be free. To not fight against tyranny is to side with the oppressors.

Study the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independance. If you have an Android or iPhone, download the apps for each to your own. Purchase a paper copy from any bookstore. Now your rights and help re-establish freedom in America.

We have the Constitutional right to displace a government no longer for the people and replace it with one that is. It is the duty of every American citizen to defend America from enemies both foreign and domestic. The current enemy is domestic. This domestic enemy is our current government. We must uphold our duty to replace the existing government with a new government of the people in order to ensure freedom for our children and our childrens children. If we continue to sit and do nothing, we will be exterminated, our children will not live free but as slaves.

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot"

"Twenty years from now you will be disappointed by the things that you did not do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."

"the true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it"
-Quotes are by Mark Twain

Join the Christian Awakening.
Join the Spiritual Truth
Email us at messiahministrys@aol.com for additional information.

Obama Feels He Has Control Over Religion

Obama is attempting to take control of Christian organizations. When he realizes he cannot do so under the U.S. Constitution, he will do away with the constitution and make Christianity illegal. He has already determined and publicized via DHS that terrorists are Christians. Which means the founding fathers were terrorists. You and I are terrorists. American patriots, working middle class, white males are terrorists. Christianity illegality is around the corner lest we stand up now.

Obama Issues Decree That He Will Now Decide Religiosity Of Churches, And Will Take Policy Control Of Those “Not Religious” In “The Right Way”, Then Immediately Orders Leftist Thug Control Of First Victim Church at Pat Dollard

Dictator Obama

Executive Order Gives President Barack Obama Dictator Power. | Washington Politics News