Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Possible Healing Aspects of Honey and Cinnamon



Posted by Gordon on December 12, 2009 at 11:40pm
Posts October 30, 2009
2009-10-31
Posted At : 4:21 PM Posted By : KSCO Podcasts

The following is a KSCO commentary. Here is Kay Zwerling.

Let’s put politics and other stressful issues on the back burner, and instead talk about the possible healing aspects of honey and cinnamon. If you have paper and pencil handy, that might help. Cinnamon is a spice from a tree, and honey is a sweet yellowish or brownish liquid produced by various bees, from the nectar of flowers, and enjoyed as food. No doubt it can be found all over the world where flowers grow. Drug companies would rather not have you know about the amazing healthful affects of the combined use of honey and cinnamon curing certain common human illnesses. First, remember to never boil honey, or put it in the microwave. To do so will kill the enzymes in the honey. Also, honey can be used without any negative effects for any kind of diseases. Today’s science believes that even though honey is sweet, if taken with cinnamon as a medicine, it is not harmful to a diabetic. Also, Weekly World News, a magazine in Canada, in its issue dated January 17, 1995, had listed the following ailments that can be cured by honey and cinnamon, as researched by western scientists.

For heart disease: Make a paste of honey and cinnamon powder, apply on bread instead of jelly or jam, and eat it everyday for breakfast. It reduces cholesterol, and avoids heart attacks. Also, those who have already had an attack, if they do this processdaily, they are kept miles away from the next attack. Regular use of theabove process relieves loss of breath and strengthens the heart beat.In America and Canada, various nursing homes have treated patientssuccessfully and have found that as you age, the arteries and veins losetheir flexibility and get clogged; honey and cinnamon revitalize thearteries and veins.

Arthritis: Take daily, morning and night, one cup of hot water with two tablespoons honey, and one teaspoonful of cinnamon powder. If taken regularly, even chronic arthritis can be cured.
In arecent research conducted at the Copenhagen University, it was foundthat when the doctors treated their patients with a mixture of onetablespoon Honey and half teaspoon Cinnamon powder before breakfast, theyfound that within a week, out of the 200 people so treated, practically 73patients were totally relieved of pain, and within a month, mostly all thepatients who could not walk or move around because of arthritis startedwalking without pain.

Bladder infection: Take two tablespoons cinnamon powder and one teaspoon of honey in a glass of lukewarm water and drink it. It destroys the germs in the bladder.

Colds: Take one tablespoon of lukewarm honey with a teaspoon cinnamon powder daily for a few days. This process will cure most chronic coughs, colds, and clear the sinuses.

Upset stomach: Honey taken with cinnamon powder cures stomach ache, and also clears stomach ulcers.

This one is important, Gas: According to the studies done in India and Japan, honey with cinnamon powder relieves gas.

Indigestion: Cinnamon powder sprinkled on two tablespoons of honey, taken before food, relieves acidity and digests the heaviest of meals.

Influenza: A scientist in Spain has proven that honey contains a natural ingredient which kills the influenza germs.
CHOLESTEROL: Two tablespoons of honey and three teaspoons of Cinnamon Powder mixed in 16ounces of tea water, given to a cholesterol patient, was found to reduce thelevel of cholesterol in the blood by 10 percent within two hours.As mentioned for arthritic patients, if taken three times a day, anychronic cholesterol is cured. According to information received in thesaid Journal, pure honey taken with food daily relieves complaints ofcholesterol.
PIMPLES: Three tablespoons of honey and one teaspoon of cinnamon powder paste.Apply this paste on the pimples before sleeping and wash it next with warmwater. If done daily for two weeks, it removes pimples from the root.
SKIN INFECTIONS: Applying honey and cinnamon powder in equal parts on the affected parts cures eczema, ringworm and all types of skin infections.
CANCER: Recent research in Japan and Australia has revealed that advanced cancer ofthe stomach and bones have been cured successfully. Patientssuffering from these kinds of cancer should daily take one tablespoon ofhoney with one teaspoon of cinnamon powder for one month three times a day.
FATIGUE: Recent studies have shown that the sugar content of honey is morehelpful rather than being detrimental to the strength of the body.Senior citizens, who take honey and cinnamon powder in equal parts, aremore alert and flexible. Dr. Milton, who has done research, says that ahalf tablespoon of honey taken in a glass of water and sprinkled withcinnamon powder, taken daily after brushing and in the afternoon atabout 3:00 P.M. when the vitality of the body starts to decrease, increasesthe vitality of the body within a week.
HEARING LOSS: Daily morning and night honey and cinnamon powder, taken in equal partsrestores hearing.
Remember when we were kids? We had toast with real butter and cinnamon sprinkled on it!
You might want to share this information with a friend, kinfolks andloved ones. Everyone needs healthy help information

Weight loss: Daily, one-half hour before breakfast, on an empty stomach, and at night before sleeping, drink honey and cinnamon powder boiled in one cup of water. If taken regularly, it reduces the weight of even the most obese person.

Bad breath: People in South America, first thing in the morning gargle with one teaspoon each of honey and cinnamon powder mixed in hot water so their breath smells fresh throughout the day.

And, finally, Longevity: Tea made with honey and cinnamon powder, when taken regularly, arrests the ravages of old age. Take four teaspoons of honey, one teaspoon of cinnamon powder, and three cups of water, and boil to make it like tea. Drink a cup three or four times a day. It keeps the skin soft, and arrests old age. I think it is too late for me. Life spans also increase and even 100-year-olds start performing the chores of a 20-year-old. Wow. I think I will try it after all.

Kudos to my good friend JR in Florida. And, no, I have not Googled this information, feel free to do it yourself. I will certainly try some of these treatments, especially about extending longevity. If JR is not being facetious, consuming honey and cinnamon is a very pleasant way to deal with these common ailments.

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling. Tags: The Possible Healing Aspects…


Comment by Josie on December 15, 2009 at 10:25am

That is neato. I am all for natural remedies.

Headlines from the year 2029

Posted by Gordon on December 12, 2009 at 11:09pm

November 27, 2009

Posted At : 3:23 PM Posted By : KSCO Podcasts

The following is a KSCO commentary. Here is Kay Zwerling:

OK. This has been floating around for awhile. Sounds like life will not be much fun in the future. Headlines from the year 2029.

Ozone created by electric cars are now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly known as California. White minority are still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia’s third language. Spotted owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock. Baby conceived naturally, scientists are stumped. Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage. Last remaining fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American territory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, and Lebanon). Iraq still closed off. Physicists estimate it will take at least ten more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels. France pleads for global health after being taken over by Jamaica. Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking. George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036. Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only. 85-year, $75.8 billion study: The result is that diet and exercise is the key to weight loss. Average weight of Americans drops to 250 pounds. Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative. Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights. Average height of NBA players is now 9メ7ヤ New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters, and rolled up newspapers must be registered by January 2036. And, Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts. Capitol Hill intern indicted for refusing to have sex with a Congressman. IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75%. Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines.

And, there you are. These are the headlines in the year 2029. So, maybe it is appropriate for me to cheer you up, finally, and tell you a spontaneous joke. I will. This man and his wife were driving in a car, and he stopped for a red light, he was driving, and then they went on, and a block later a policeman pulled them, and he said “Sir, you were not wearing your seatbelt a block away.” And the driver said “I was so.” And the policeman said “No you were not. You were parked, and I saw that you did not have your seatbelt on.” And the driver said, “But yes I did. Why don’t you ask my wife?” And, so the policeman asked his wife, and he said “Madam, isn’t it true that your husband was not wearing his seatbelt a block away?” And, the wife paused for a minute, and then she said “After all these years living with him, I have learned never to cross him when he has been drinking.”

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

Oklahoma a sovereign State

Posted by Gordon on December 12, 2009 at 11:00pm
2009-12-12

Posted At : 4:32 PM Posted By : KSCO Podcasts

The following is a KSCO commentary. Here is Kay Zwerling:

Kudos to Oklahoma, whose citizens remember well that our State laws do supersede those created by our Federal government. Our current President either forgets we have a Constitution or does not care.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states the Federal government can force universal healthcare with or without a public option. We have the Federal government run and dictate rules on universal healthcare, and arbitrarily steal $500 billion from Medicare, which we the seniors of the U.S. paid into and need for ourselves. That will not work. If the current Senate health Bill passes, it could be challenged as illegal. We the People should all stand together and refuse to purchase the insurance jammed or rammed through which automatically makes our Country socialist. It is time for all U.S. States to follow Oklahoma and assert themselves.

Oklahoma recently passed a law, 37 to 9, and a few liberals were in the mix, and the law was an Amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the State Capital. The Feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said “Oh, that would be a mistake. You cannot do that.” Guess what Oklahoma did it anyway.

Several weeks ago, a law was passed declaring Oklahoma as a sovereign State, not under the Federal government directives, joining Texas, Montana, and Utah as the only other States to do so. More States are likely to follow: like, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Florida.

The Federal government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law stating that people in that State have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I am sure that was a setback for the criminals and Obama-ites. Liberals did not like it, but guess what Oklahoma did it anyway.

Just this month, Oklahoma has voted and passed a law that all drivers license examinations will be printed in English only, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that all of their road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English. Really, simple. By the way, the Attorney General does not like any of this. Guess what, who cares? Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

Isn‘t it really way past time for all the States to speak out and become assertive and proceed to do what our Federal Constitution says the States can do and tell Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to scratch the House and Senate universal healthcare Bills, and come up with something proper and simple created by both the Republicans and Democrats in Congress? Something that does not take up 2000 pages. Something that would take up maybe ten pages. A Bill of 2000 pages is in many ways dishonest because it is full of irrelevant provisions called earmarks, and lots of other bullpucky. Also, why didn’t Pelosi and Reid allow our Republican Representatives in Congress to have any input whatsoever in creating the healthcare Bill? Aren’t we supposed to be the United States, and not the Divided States? Let us speak out, because we are on the verge of losing our government as we know it.

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

Strong Reaction Follows Editorial Calling for Global One-child Dictatorship

Posted by Gordon on December 12, 2009 at 8:06am
Posts - Infowars - http://www.infowars.com

Posted By admin On December 11, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 11, 2009



An article featured in Canada’s Financial Post newspaper calling for China’s draconian one child policy, where woman are kidnapped off the streets, drugged, and forced to undergo compulsory abortions, to be imposed worldwide has been met with widespread hostile reaction, yet such measures are being debated at the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.

In her editorial published on Tuesday, columnist Diane Francis wrote that, “A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate.”

Just days later, the Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference argued that the Communist dictatorship’s one child policy should “serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation.”

As we have exhaustively documented, the overpopulation myth is often cited by control freak phony environmentalists as a justification for the implementation of drastic policies, yet it has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Due to falling fertility rates globally, humans will soon stop replacing themselves and population numbers will naturally fall.

Populations in developed countries are declining, only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes, there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that global population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called CO2 threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

As is the norm with these so-called “liberals” who espouse modern-day eugenics, what they are advocating are the most illiberal, inhumane and barbarous policies imaginable – a Hitlerian final solution in the name of saving Mother Earth.

We need to call out these people for what they are – would-be mass murderers who are advocating arcane and brutal programs of global eugenics that have no place in the 21st century.

Francis’ poorly written diatribe is not only absent of facts, it is shockingly devoid of any notion of compassion or humanity for what a global implementation of China’s one child policy will entail.

China’s one child policy is enforced by way of forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization.

Somewhere in the region of twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth. The explosion in the illegal sex trade in Asia is also a direct result of the shortage of women.

In many cases, women are literally kidnapped off the street by state goons from the “Birth Control Office,” driven to government hospitals, drugged, and their child is forcibly aborted.

In one case earlier this year, both a young woman and her baby were killed after such an abduction in Liaocheng City.

“According to a Doctor at the hospital where the two died, the young woman was kidnapped by the “Birth Control Office” and taken to the hospital where she was forced to undergo an abortion procedure,” reported the Epoch Times.

•“The young woman fought with staff to protect her unborn child however a half a dozen men, pushed her down on a bed and injected her with a drug to induce labor. After the young woman had a still birth, she developed a massive hemorrhage and soon thereafter died.”

This is the kind of tyrannical regime Francis is calling to be introduced worldwide.

Policies introduced in the name of cutting CO2 emissions are already killing millions of people in the third world. The implementation of policies arising out of fraudulent fearmongering and biased studies on global warming is already devastating the third world, with a doubling in food prices as a result of the introduction of biofuels causing mass starvation and death.

If Diane Francis is so keen on getting rid of stupid people that breed too much, then maybe she should step forward as the first candidate. As with all these control freaks, people like Ted Turner who calls for a 95% population reduction yet has five children and is the largest land owner in North America with some 2 million acres, they are utter hypocrites – do as I say not as I do. Francis herself has two children, according to her Wikipedia biography – one more than what she says the rest of the world should be allowed to have by decree of the dictatorial system of government she is proposing.

On the positive side, the reaction to Francis’ editorial has been vehement, furious and hostile to the kind of authoritarian hell she is pushing. Comments in response to her article were almost universally in opposition, as were callers to radio shows that she subsequently appeared on.

A selection of responses to Francis’ disgusting diatribe are reprinted below.

“Diane Francis was on a talk radio show the same morning this article was published. NOBODY agreed with her. I mean nobody at all. People can see through this Eugenics bullshit. The walls are closing in on the elite scum of the earth.”

“You make me ashamed of living in Canada. If you’re a first-born, it’s too bad your mother had you and if you’re not, she should have started with you. You are a heartless, dirty woman and shame on you. Ask the Chinese people who fled their country and came to Canada and the U.S. exactly why they’re here. Hang your head in shame.”

“That this Malthusian junk science is still proposed from time to time speaks of the fact that some in academia just refuse to learn from empirical evidence. And now it’s slipped into journalism. The management of the Financial Post should be quite embarrassed. I’ll just stick to the WSJ and not bother coming back here again. An editorial board that thinks that this is worthy of publication couldn’t possibly know how to edit a newspaper / website.”

“I am currently reading “War and Genocide” by Bergen and it strikes me that these horrible Nazi ideas keep coming back.With Nazism it was a “scientific” eugenics that led to forced abortions, sterilizations, heavy fines, etc. for some who dared procreate. For Francis, it is a “scientific” environmentalism that will lead to the exact same evils for all (except, of course, herself).”

“It’s hard to believe that this opinionated rant is called journalism. I saw no evidence of journalistic balance, fairness, and objectivity. She made NO mention of the grave problems caused by the One-Child Policy in China, including: forced sterilizations and abortions, heavy fines, disparate sex ratio, infanticide of females, increase in mental health problems (including Chinese women’s suicide rates)…”

“This reporter is a complete nut job. I can’t believe anyone in a North American country would actually believe this is a legitimate idea. And by the way, China’s policy has had major consequences. many girl babies were aborted and killed, and due to the scarcity of Chinese women, Chinese men are paying through the nose to obtain brides. Therefore, lives are unfulfilled, and the Chinese population decreases much further than they even desired.”

“And so one must wonder, what kind of journalism does this article or “column” represent? Which of her children would Diane Francis give up in order to live up to her death rhetoric? One might also ask, what kind of a self-professed do-gooder wants to have power over others in order to “help” them? Who, after all, are these elites who keep telling us that we need to be better controlled, “for our own good, you see”?”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/strong-reaction-follows-editorial-calling-f...

.
Copyright © 2009 Infowars. All rights reserved.

My Time To Rant

Posted by Gordon on December 11, 2009 at 12:53pm

After listening to the morning news and checking developments on the Internet I became so upset at our so-called representatives, sent supposedly to represent us, that I called Feinstein’s office and Farr’s office for a little chat.
I brought up our ever growing debt, the fact that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, you name it, are either broke or well on the way in that direction. I brought up how Reid, Pelosi, etc. are trying to drive a health care bill down our gagging throats, a bill that according to the latest polls shows that 85% of the American people don’t want. I brought up how we are entrenched in a war footing and the cost to sustain it until victory is won, how this administration has indebted our great-grandchildren for countless thousands of dollars and now this foolishness of a health care bill added on to it to the tune of an extra trillion dollars that we do not have. I spoke of our open borders and how this country is being invaded and nothing is being done to stop it . What did I get from Feinstein’s office, nothing except thank you for calling. I asked isn’t there someone who can interact and converse over the phone? No sir, what is your area code?

Farr’s office was much the same, only my questions were met with mocking laughter.

How much longer must we put up with this sort of thing? How much longer do we have before there is nothing left of our country to hand over to our kids? Think back to when you all were children, do you remember how different things were? Do you remember all the things you use to take for granted that are against the law now? Do you remember how you use to read from the Bible and say a prayer in school each morning before the beginning of class? Do you remember how you use to bring you guns to high school in the morning for NRA class that night? Hell, do you remember how you use to be able to sit in the back of a pickup truck going down a country road on a hot day with the wind blowing around you? The list goes on and on, each of you can add to it. Now look at your children, your grandchildren, they can’t do any of these things we once took for granted and more and more is being robbed from all of us and them each day.

I was amazed when a statistic on the news showed that over 40% of the people are still in favor of what BO, Feinstein, Reid, Pelosi, Farr, etc are doing. I listened to Sean Hannity yesterday during his man on the street interviews and everyone he spoke to had voted for BO, some didn’t know who Biden was and they all held Marxists philosophies. These are the kind of imbeciles that are cancelling out each and every conservative, Constitutional minded, America loving vote. In 2010 we all have the opportunity to vote out of office every sitting politician, to make a clean sweep, they are all infected with the disease of liberalism-marxism. If you doubt it read the comments of the so-called heavy hitters in the Republican party concerning BO’s speech when he received his Nobel Peace Prize for nothing and how they are now calling this surge the Obama Doctrine, totally overlooking everything surrounding this trip, the Republican Party, as it is today, is a vanquished party.

This country needs a miracle, nothing else will save it.
Tags: My Time To Rant


Comment by Josie on December 12, 2009 at 1:24pm
Love your rant, I feel the same way too.

Stupid people shouldn't vote. These same stupid people call Palin a dummy. Go figure

I haven't a clue what kind of spell the Dems have to get people to vote for them but it's sick and it needs to stop. Yet, these people a weak minded and lazy, that's probably it right there.

Are the Republicans A Vanquished Party?

Posted by Gordon on December 10, 2009 at 11:49pm

BO has flown more in his first year then any president before him---America is going to hell in a hand basket---Our borders are wide open, we are being invaded and doing nothing about it and we have a paper hanging community organizer for a president. While America is burning he has flown once again, this time for a peace prize he didn’t earn.

There is so much to bring out about BO leaving for the trip to Norway, then to have the impudence, the gall to accept the Nobel Peace Prize and the fact that his acceptance further cheapens the prize, well it leaves me speechless.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Conservative praise for Nobel speech
By: Eamon Javers
December 10, 2009 12:56 PM EST


President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech Thursday is drawing praise from some unlikely quarters – conservative Republicans – who likened Obama’s defense of “just wars” to the worldview of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush.

It’s already being called the “Obama Doctrine” – a notion that foreign policy is a struggle of good and evil, that American exceptionalism has blunted the force of tyranny in the world, and that U.S. military can be a force for good and even harnessed to humanitarian ends.

“There will be times,” Obama said, “when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

The remarks drew immediate praise from a host of conservatives, including former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

“I liked what he said," Palin told USA Today. "Of course, war is the last thing I believe any American wants to engage in, but it's necessary. We have to stop these terrorists."

Gingrich told The Takeaway, a national morning drive show from WNYC and Public Radio International, “He clearly understood that he had been given the prize prematurely, but he used it as an occasion to remind people, first of all, as he said: that there is evil in the world."

“I think having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn't be able to have a peace prize, without having [the ability to use] force,” Gingrich said. “I thought in some ways it's a very historic speech.”

The context was striking. The president is enormously popular in Norway – a crowd of several thousand waited at his hotel chanting “Obama. Obama. Obama.” And “yes we can. Yes we can. yes we can.” Still, he spoke to the Nobel committee in a room packed with European dignitaries – including the Norwegian royal family — on a continent where skepticism of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is strong. And despite the sentiments in the room, Obama defended the American war effort there and told the Europeans that their reflexive pacifism may be self defeating.

“Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms,” Obama said. “The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.”

And Obama’s comments came just nine days after the president stood before cadets at West Point and told them that American values are “the moral source of America's authority,” as he ordered an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan. His decision to push for a surge also garnered Obama comparisons to Bush, who had done much the same thing in Iraq three years earlier. The Oslo speech, too, reminded some of Obama’s predecessor – with a twist.

“The irony is that George W. Bush could have delivered the very same speech. It was a truly an American president's message to the world,” said Bradley A. Blakeman, a Republican strategist and CEO of Kent Strategies LLC who worked in the Bush White House.

Added Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations: “If Bush had said these things the world would be filled with violent denunciations,” said “When Obama says them, people purr. That is fine by me.”


Obama’s remarks were a historical counterpoint to the speech made by Martin Luther King Jr., on another tenth of December, 45 years ago. On that day, King told the Nobel committee in Oslo that their award to him was “a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time - the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.” King rejected violence for all time: “Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts.”

But Obama broke with King on the issue of non-violence, drawing an implicit distinction between King as the leader of a movement, and himself as the leader of a nation. “As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence,” the president said. “I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.”

As a candidate, Obama was somewhat more wary of framing America’s political battles in terms of good and evil – though he said then as he did today that evil exists.

At a civil forum with John McCain at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., in the summer of 2008, Obama said, “Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil because, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.”

As he accepted the Nobel in Oslo, the doubts about confronting evil weren’t evident. “For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world,” Obama said. “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”

“Wow. what a shift of emphasis,” said Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a former policy advisor to McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. Kagan said. “I don't know what to say about an ‘Obama doctrine,’ because based on this speech, I think we are witnessing a substantial shift, back in the direction of a more muscular moralism, ala, Truman, Reagan.”

Liberals, too, offered quick praise for the speech.

“This was no tie-dye peace prize,” said Christine Pelosi, an attorney, author and Democratic activist, writing in POLITICO’s Arena. “The President laid out the ‘right makes might’ Obama Doctrine: securing a just peace takes both the nonviolent teachings and military traditions of quiet heroes who fight for human rights as civilians and service members.”

Democratic strategist Lanny Davis said, “Simply: all Americans should be proud.” But Davis also took a shot at Bush, the man on the minds of so many conservatives Thursday morning. “We and our president are once again viewed positively by most peoples of the world,” he said. “A sea change from recent years.”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

Comment by Josie on December 11, 2009 at 11:37am
What a sham this Prez Pantywaist is! The people who voted for him ought to have their sanity and intelligence tested.

I WONDER if this ceremony didn't allow camera OR TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) if Obama would accept this award(he doesn't deserve).

"Antigonish" - "The Little Man Who Wasn't There"

"Antigonish" is a poem by American educator and poet Hughes Mearns. It is often called "The Little Man Who Wasn't There"
Posted by Gordon on December 10, 2009 at 10:30pm

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away...

When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn’t see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door... (slam!)

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away

A PAPERLESS SOCIETY





















Posted by Gordon on December 10, 2009 at 7:30am

Regarding a paperless society, no longer having the green back dollar, it reminds me of the passage in

Revelation 13:16-18 that everyone will have to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one

can buy or sell unless he has the mark…

Back in the late 70’s the SEIU put out a flier showing things to come, a picture of a fish was on the front

page and under its scales was a number placed there that no one could see but could be picked up under a

scanner. This was about the time bar codes were getting more prevalent. There was talk then of an

upcoming paperless Society…

Slowly the wheel turns while the marxist that people have voted into office plot their schemes waiting for

the right time, a time when morals is almost nonexistent, commonsense is in intensive care on life

support, the economy has been run into the toilet, Christ is being outlawed, our country is on

crutches and the three branches of government have been totally corrupted, working hand in hand with one

another, like the Trojan horse of old, letting their corruption creep out into the public waiting to strike at

the opportune time when opposition is almost nonexistent. Their evil, corrupt acts cover the land, like a

tsunami, destroying the economy, the Constitution, the hopes and dreams of the people, placing them into

virtual captivity with only memories of what once was,

a time lost.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Comment by Josie on December 11, 2009 at 11:38am
You know, some people think that Obama's regime is the beginning of the end in the Bible. I am PRAYING it's not true.

Copenhagen's political science



Posted by Gordon on December 10, 2009 at 6:30am

By Sarah Palin Wednesday, December 9, 2009


With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to increase their emissions -- President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

The writer was the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009.

Damn the cost full speed ahead - HB3200






Posted by Gordon on December 9, 2009 at 6:00pm

This 2000 page monstrosity is enough to make the founding fathers turn over in their graves

Damn the cost full speed ahead


By Aaron Cantor Monday, December 7, 2009

It is estimated that HB3200 will require a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees to administer this boondoggle of a program, a grossly unacceptable expansion of a government already gone awry and is too intrusive in our lives as it is.

If we are going to take on that many new government employees, lets’ put them to work as Border Patrol Agents, or Immigration Control Enforcement agents, or a surefire way to close the border, have them lay a mine field the entire length of the border.

We could also use some of these people to run the E-Verify program (with no exceptions or loopholes) that should make the business lobby scream bloody murder.

It appears that the Elite parasites in Washington are completely out of touch with what “We the People” want, they are determined to ram this through even if it costs them the House and the Senate and it most assuredly will.

Some of the items that are in this 2000 page monstrosity are enough to make the founding fathers turn over in their graves.

page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic transfers from those accounts.
Page65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as ACORN) and you were naïve enough to think ACORN has been cut off (silly dreamer).
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (Do you believe this gobbledygook?).
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors’ fees.
Page 272/ section 1145: Cancer hospitals will ration care according to a patient’s age.
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. (good luck)
Page 425/ line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning seminar every five years.
Page 429/ line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
Have you read enough of this garbage?

Now hang onto your ankles folks: it is specifically stated in this miserable piece of (expletive) legislation, that it will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our /Social Security plan, you can bet your butt they would quickly find a way to fix our bankrupt system.

The Climate Change Propaganda Machine

Posted by Gordon on December 9, 2009 at 5:55pm

It is clear the science behind climate change is biased and disputed, leaving the propaganda machine as the only fact that remains.
The Climate Change Propaganda Machine


By Paul Murdock, Psy.D Wednesday, December 9, 2009

In the last several weeks we have learned several new facts about climate change research. First, climate scientists’ motives are biased. Second, scientists actively discussed how to achieve political ends through their research. Third, and more disturbingly, the public has learned of discarded data, attempts to keep opposing views silent, and total political adherence to an ideology.

Yet, without thinking twice, the main stream media and President Obama have shrugged off the controversy and continued boldly with their partisan agenda. It is clear the science behind climate change is biased and disputed, leaving the propaganda machine as the only fact that remains.

Research by the conservative Media Research Group has stated that since the Climategate scandal broke out, ABC, CBS, and NBC have not mentioned the story in any of their news casts including their morning shows. Even when the outlets discussed Obama’s upcoming trip to Copenhagen, the controversy was never mentioned. There has been no mention of recently published research questioning climate change or that thousands of scholars disagree. Recently, the Wall Street Journal has raised questions of silencing dissenting opinions at the EPA, and there are now questions about NASA’s data. Even with a wide variety of dispute, the networks continue to use the language of propaganda including “undisputed, unequivocal, settled, and consensus.”

Despite the media’s refusal to discuss dissenting opinions, the media continues to universally promote climate change policies. Just as the climate conference begins, the EPA announced that greenhouse gases are toxic, the UN stated this decade may turn out to be the hottest on record, and 56 newspapers around the world ran a common front page editorial supporting drastic climate change action. Here is an excerpt from the editorial:

Social justice demands that the industrialized world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions…. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The authors also continue on to invoke the words of Lincoln to inspire us to change and then finish by calling those who do not, “stupid.” Again, it is clear only calculated propaganda remains!

Most people believe propaganda is just “lies” or “tall stories” that influence the weak and feeble minded. However, modern propaganda is a sophisticated and calculating machine that invades every aspect of our lives. The formidable author Jacques Ellul in his expansive work on the subject describes this process as designed to create proselytes and militants rather than wise or reasonable men. In support of Ellul, a judge in Britain recently ruled that Tim Nicholson’s climate views “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations.” Now environment organizations and fanatics such as Greenpeace can literally join the religiously deluded.

Despite the role of the media, our most pernicious enemy is found in the classroom. The first goal of modern propaganda is to develop conditioned reflexes through education and social dialogue. Jacques Ellul describes the role of education as “pre-propaganda.” Thus, it is no accident that climate change, social justice, and sex education are taught to young students, while there is no religious acceptance or comprehensive discussion of the principles of liberty and freedom.

Let’s review a few recent headlines. Yesterday in Columbia, Missouri notebooks were being given to students with Obama’s slogan and campaign picture on the front. Children have been videotaped literally signing President Obama’s praises and the University of Minnesota is discussing how to best reindoctrinate “biased” individuals. Today, there is news about Obama’s education czar’s educating children with “black books” which included discussions of grotesque sexual acts.

Around the world, educational systems, beginning in elementary school, are organized to promote social change. In some instances, children can now attend public schools such as The Little Village Lawndale High School in Chicago and focus exclusively on social justice classes. To highlight the calculated attempt to indoctrinate our youth, in March 2009 the United States Congress passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE). Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” the legislation states “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

In addition to education, modern propaganda must build on societies need for safety, security, and community. It must exploit human weaknesses in a comprehensive, total, and unyielding manner through all available channels. This is accomplished by inundating individuals with constant propaganda such as the news, youtube, magazines, and teachers.ons. As previously mentioned, the large media outlets refuse to provide dissenting opinion. The UN now has its own youtube channel called “Raise your voice and change climate change.” The cover of the Economist on newsstands today reads “Stopping Climate Change,” and every news article I read uses the word “consensus.”

The end effect of this organized media blitz is to focus the public on one event, climate change, to the exclusion of all the rest. The ability to set the public agenda and determine social perceptions is a powerful tool in social psychology. For it is clear that when individuals are faced with large social opposition or view themselves as out of the norm, individuals typically move towards the mean. The mean in this case is fascism and socialism.
----------------------------------------------------------

Comment by Josie on December 11, 2009 at 11:28am
This is sooooo true, the Leftist propaganda machine is alive and well.

Going green, or what I call "Greenism" is Left's religion.

Science czar's guru backed eugenics

Posted by Gordon on December 9, 2009 at 10:00am
Wednesday, December 09, 2009

WND Exclusive
Science czar's guru backed eugenics
Sought to limit 'unfit' from 'breeding' to save civilization


Posted: December 09, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi


This is the second of a three-part series of articles exploring Obama administration science czar John P. Holdren's self-acknowledged intellectual debt to geochemist and early ecological alarmist Harrison Brown. In the first part, WND reported Brown recommended pumping carbon dioxide into the global atmosphere to promote the food production needed to prevent starvation resulting from over-population. In the third part, WND will examine Brown's call for global government.

In the 1950s, geochemist Harrison Brown – a member of the Manhattan Project who supervised the production of plutonium – advocated the use of government-mandated eugenics to prevent overpopulation from ecological disaster that could cause civilization to "revert to a way of life not unlike that which existed in Europe in the seventeenth century or that which exists in China today."

"Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock?" Brown asked on page 104 of his 1954 book "The Challenge of Man's Future."

Answering his question, Brown wrote: "Unfortunately, at the present time, there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature."

He continued: "Thus, we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness or blindness, or absence of limbs."

Lamenting that "man's knowledge of human genetics is too meager at the present time to permit him to be a really successful pruner," Brown suggested that within another 10 or 15 generations, "understanding of human genetics will be sufficient to permit man to do a respectable job of slowing down the deterioration of the species."

Brown mentored Obama science czar

In 1986, Obama science czar John Holdren co-edited a scientific reader, "Earth and the Human Future: Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown."

In one of his introductory essays for the book, Holdren acknowledged he read Brown's "The Challenge of Man's Future" when he was in high school and that the book had a profound effect on his intellectual development.

Holdren acknowledged Brown's book transformed his thinking about the world and "about the sort of career I wanted to pursue."

Holdren further commented in a glowing fashion that Brown's book was a work "that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts about the interactions of the demographic, biological geophysical, technological, economic and sociopolitical dimensions of contemporary problems."

Holdren specifically lauded Brown's "insights from anthropology, history, economics, geochemistry, biology, and the study of technology" when he endorsed Brown as a mentor.

Nowhere in the 1986 book written to celebrate Brown does Holdren separate himself from Brown's enthusiastic endorsement of eugenics.

"Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face," Holdren stressed in his 1986 introduction, commenting he includes himself among those "who have been restating his [Brown's] points (usually less eloquently) in the three decades since he first made them."

As recently as 2007, Holdren gave a speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in which his last footnote included Brown as one of the "several late mentors" to whom he was thankful for "insight and inspiration."

In the first slide of this presentation, Holdren acknowledged, "My pre-occupation with the great problems at the intersection of science and technology with the human condition – and with the interconnectedness of these problems with each other – began when I read 'The Challenge of Man's Future' in high school. I later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech."

Brown openly advocated eugenics

On page 105 of "The Challenge of Man's Future," Brown advocated the implementation of eugenics in a two-step process.

"First, man can discourage unfit persons from breeding. Second, he can encourage breeding by those persons who are judged fit on the basis of physical and mental testing and examinations of the records of their ancestors."

Brown then commented "a small step" has been made "in the cases of childless couples where the male is sterile and artificial insemination is utilized to impregnate the female."

This prompted Brown to suggest, "It is quite likely that artificial insemination will be used with increasing frequency during the coming decades, and increasing care will be taken to insure the genetic soundness of the sperm."

He further speculated, "if civilization survives, it is likely that in the long run we will be able to slow down and perhaps even to halt the deterioration of the species."

Brown was less optimistic humans could breed for desired characteristics, writing: "We can carry out selection processes satisfactorily with sheep, cows, horses, and dogs, for in all cases we are able to examine the animals objectively and decide upon desirable characteristics."

Brown expressed doubt human beings could consider themselves equally objectively.

"We can not hope to carry out a planned evolution of our species for the simple reason that we haven't the slightest idea of what we want, and no mechanism is available that will permit us to determine what we want," he wrote.

"A 'super-race' of men or a panel of gods could examine us objectively and plan a wise pattern," he continued on page 106. "But in the absence of either, we will probably remain as we are for hundreds of thousands of years."

Still, on page 103, Brown remained concerned "it does appear that the feeble-minded, the morons, the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our society are outbreeding the superior ones at the present time. Indeed, it has been estimated that the average Intelligence Quotient of Western population as a whole is probably decreasing with each succeeding generation."

Brown recommended abortion and sterilization to control overpopulation.

Earlier, on pages 86-86, Brown had recommended controlling overpopulation by a combination of the following methods:

1. Restriction of sexual intercourse;


2. Abortion;


3. Sterilization; and


4. Fertility control, "either through the practice of coitus interruptus or through the use of chemicals or devices designed to prevent contraception.


While he lamented the Catholic Church's disapproval of contraception measures, Brown was encouraged in 1954 that the future development of a "perfect contraception" would "offer man the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of public health and at the same time to create a stable population."

Assuming contraception would not control the problem, Brown contemplated that government-mandated rules for a eugenics program utilizing artificial insemination and forced abortion could be imposed.

"Priorities for artificial insemination could be given to healthy women of high intelligence whose ancestors possessed no dangerous genetic defects," Brown wrote on page 263. "Conversely, priorities for abortions could be given to less intelligent persons of biologically unsound stock."

Despite expressing concerns that humans possessed the foresight and intelligence to apply eugenics to shape a 'super-race,' Brown appeared in the conclusion to his 1954 book to be enthusiastic about the project.

"A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates," he continued on page 263.

"Precise control of population can never be made completely compatible with the concept of a free society; on the other hand, neither can the automobile, the machine gun, or the atomic bomb," he wrote on the next page.

"Just as we have rules designed to keep us from killing one another with our automobiles, so there must be rules that keep us from killing one another with our fluctuating breeding habits and with our lack of attention to the soundness of our individual genetic stock."

WND reported Holdren, in a 1970s college textbook he co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich, argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."

-------------------------------------------------------------

Comment by Josie on December 11, 2009 at 11:26am
This shows that Obama's cabinet is full of crazed commies.

Comment by Josie on December 11, 2009 at 11:25am

You know the Leftists/socialists/commies/crazies will agree with everything on these restrictions except the sex part! ROFL!

Account of the First Harvest Feast and Thanksgiving

Posted by Gordon on December 8, 2009 at 8:52am
Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Some historians note that the first thanksgiving was recorded on December 4, 1619, when 38 English settlers arrived at Berkeley Hundred on the north bank of the James River about 20 miles upstream from Jamestown, the first permanent Colony of Virginia settlement established on May 14, 1607.

The charter for the settlers at Berkeley Hundred required "We ordaine that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually keept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God."

To that end, Captain John Woodleaf led that service.

However, the first harvest feast and thanksgiving was at Plymouth Colony in 1621, and it is that iconic event that is now considered, the First Thanksgiving.

President Ronald Reagan often cited the Pilgrims who celebrated the First Thanksgiving as our forebears who charted the path of American freedom. He made frequent reference to John Winthrop's "shining city upon a hill."

As Reagan explained, "The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free."

Who were these "freedom men," and how did they eventually blaze the path of true liberty?

They were Calvinist Protestants who rejected the institutional Church of England, believing that worshipping God must originate freely in the individual soul, without coercion. Suffering persecution and imprisonment in England for their beliefs, a group of these separatists fled to Holland in 1608. There, they found spiritual liberty in the midst of a disjointed economy that failed to provide adequate compensation for their labors, and a dissolute, degraded, corrupt culture that tempted their children to stray from faith.

Determined to protect their families from such spiritual and cultural dangers, the Pilgrims left Plymouth, England, on 6 September 1620, sailing for a new world that offered the promise of both civil and religious liberty. After an arduous journey, they dropped anchor off the coast of what is now Massachusetts.

On 11 December 1620, prior to disembarking at Plymouth Rock, they signed the Mayflower Compact, America's original document of civil government. It was the first to introduce self-government, and the foundation on which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were built. Governor William Bradford described the Compact as "a combination ... that when they came a shore they would use their owne libertie; for none had power to command them."

Upon landing, the Pilgrims conducted a prayer service and quickly turned to building shelters. Under harrowing conditions, the colonists persisted through prayer and hard work, but the Winter of 1621 was devastating and only 53 of the original party survived.

However, with the help of the indigenous "Indians" in the region, by Autumn of 1621 the Pilgrims had enough produce to hold a three day feast and time of thanksgiving.

Plymouth Colony's governor, William Bradford, recorded in his history of the Colony: "They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides, they had about a peck a meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to the proportion."

Endeavoring to improve the production at Plymouth Plantation, in 1622 Bradford implemented a collectivist policy, which almost destroyed the rest of the Plymouth settlement.

Bradford wrote that to increase production, he allotted each family a plot of land, and mandated that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" must be forfeited to a common storehouse in order that "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock."

In theory, this would be good for the Colony because each family would receive equal share of produce without regard to their contribution.

Unfortunately, then as now, collectivism only works in theory.

Bradford wrote that his plan undermined the incentive to produce, noting that it "was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."

After the abysmal results in 1622, Bradford wrote that the Colony leaders contemplated, "how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop."

They decided to trade their collectivist plan for a free market approach, and in 1623, Bradford wrote, "This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any other means the Governor or any other could use. ... Instead of famine now God gave them plenty and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many. ... Any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day."

Property ownership and families freely laboring on their own behalf replaced the "common store," but only after their ill-advised experiment with communism nearly wiped out the entire settlement.

The Colony celebrated a much greater Day of Thanksgiving in 1623.

After the Pilgrims were given liberty and incentive to be industrious, the Colony thrived, and by 1624, production was so abundant that the Colony exported corn back to England.

And for generations since, to the extent men have been set at perfect liberty to establish free enterprise, to produce goods and services without having profits seized for redistribution, our nation has thrived.

During the American Revolutionary War the Continental Congress designated days of thanksgiving each year. The First National Proclamation of Thanksgiving was made in 1777:

"FOR AS MUCH as it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for Benefits received, and to implore such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of: And it having pleased him in his abundant Mercy, not only to continue to us the innumerable Bounties of his common Providence; but also to smile upon us in the Prosecution of a just and necessary War, for the Defense and Establishment of our unalienable Rights and Liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased, in so great a Measure, to prosper the Means used for the Support of our Troops, and to crown our Arms with most signal success: It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive Powers of these UNITED STATES to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for SOLEMN THANKSGIVING and PRAISE: That at one Time and with one Voice, the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that, together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favor; and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD through the Merits of JESUS CHRIST, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance; That it may please him graciously to afford his Blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public Council of the whole: To inspire our Commanders, both by Land and Sea, and all under them, with that Wisdom and Fortitude which may render them fit Instruments, under the Providence of Almighty GOD, to secure for these United States, the greatest of all human Blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE: That it may please him, to prosper the Trade and Manufactures of the People, and the Labor of the Husbandman, that our Land may yield its Increase: To take Schools and Seminaries of Education, so necessary for cultivating the Principles of true Liberty, Virtue and Piety, under his nurturing Hand; and to prosper the Means of Religion, for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom, which consisteth in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost.

"And it is further recommended, That servile Labor, and such Recreation, as, though at other Times innocent, may be unbecoming the Purpose of this Appointment, be omitted on so solemn an Occasion."

The first Thanksgiving Day designated by the United States of America was proclaimed by George Washington on October 3, 1789:

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

"Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

"Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789."

Thanksgiving celebrations were irregularly proclaimed in the years that followed until the War Between the States. After 1863, presidents issued annual proclamations of Thanksgiving.

In 1941, with World War II on the horizon, the Senate and House approved the fourth Thursday of November as a National Day of Thanksgiving, perpetuating the observance annually.

Closing his farewell address in 1989, Ronald Reagan asked, "And how stands the city on this winter night?" Contemplating our blessings of liberty this Thanksgiving, more than two decades after President Reagan left office, how stands the city on our watch?

My fellow Patriots, never in the history of our country has there been such an acute, coordinated and vicious assault upon our rights and upon the forms of government established to protect those rights. From individuals, to state governments, to federal institutions initiated at the dawn of our Constitution, nothing, absolutely nothing, is sacred to the current liberal hegemony occupying our nation's capitol.

But take heart, for as George Washington wrote in the darkest days of our American Revolution, "We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times."

Of such exertions, Washington wrote, "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

So it is that on Thursday of this week, Thanksgiving Day, we are called to pause and take respite in order to acknowledge the divine intervention of our Creator throughout the history of this great nation; in order to recommit ourselves to obeisance of His will; in order to express our gratitude and give Him all thanks and praise for the bounty which He has bestowed the United States of America -- land of the free, home of the brave, that shining city on the hill; and in order to all the more humbly implore that He protect us and grant us much favor in our coming struggle to re-establish Rule of Law over rule of men.
------------------------------------------------------

Comment by Gordon on December 8, 2009 at 11:57pm
It's a real shame that none of this is being taught in the schools. I try to send things to my granddaughters to aid them in their education whenever I can

Comment by Josie on December 8, 2009 at 11:42pm
AMEN! Excellent points on Thanksgiving and the background of this great holiday.

Remember The Sabbath Day

Posted by Gordon on December 7, 2009 at 5:00pm
This is an article you should all, take the few minutes it takes, to read.


Congressional Health Care Sunday?

On Sunday, December 6, 2009, President Obama traveled to Capitol Hill to speak to the Senate Democrat Caucus to rally their support for the federal government health care seizure and takeover plan. Following that lobbying meeting with the President, Senate leader Harry Reid took the Senate into an extremely rare Sunday session where they continued debating the many problems with the health care bill, including required abortion coverage and the public option issue.

Sunday sessions have been extremely rare because of the U. S. Constitution's Article I "Sundays Excepted" Clause, which excludes Sunday from the federal lawmaking process. The Framers of the Constitution held great respect for the Christian Sabbath and therefore removed it from the federal lawmaking calendar.

In fact, only a few years ago when a Sunday session was proposed, Sen. Robert Byrd boldly declared:

"I think we are setting a bad example. I don't think we are showing proper respect to Christians in our country – and all over the world, for that matter – by publicly failing to observe that Commandment that we keep the Sabbath Day holy and remember it."

Despite such concerns, earlier in the year Senator Harry Reid called the Senate into a rare Sunday session for a vote on a lands bill – a session which, in the words of one prominent national newspaper, communicated the clear message "church be damned."

Significantly, until the twentieth century, Sunday remained off-limits as a legislative day. Then after a few Sunday sessions popped up in the early twentieth century, Congress returned to the constitutional directive. In fact, there were no congressional Sunday sessions even during the nation's most serious crises, including World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Only in recent years has Congress decided to violate the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution's "Sunday's Excepted" Clause.

Even the liberal 1961 U. S. Supreme Court recognized and acknowledged the religious significance of this important constitutional clause:

First is the inclusion in the U. S. Constitution of the recognition of the Sabbath in Art. I, Sec. 7, ¶ 2, stipulating that the President has 10 days to sign a law, "Sundays excepted." . . . Can any impartial mind deny that it contains a recognition of the Lord's Day as a day exempted by law from all worldly pursuits? . . . Sunday was recognized as a day of rest..

In 1846, the South Carolina Supreme Court had similarly noted:

The President is allowed ten days [to sign a bill], with the exception of Sunday. The Legislature does not sit, public offices are closed, and the government recognizes the day in all things. . . . The Lord's day – the day of the Resurrection – is to us who are called Christians the day of rest after finishing a new creation. It is the day of the first visible triumph over death, hell and the grave! It was the birthday of the believer in Christ, to whom and through whom it opened up the way which, by repentance and faith, leads unto everlasting life and eternal happiness!

In 1853, the U. S. Senate likewise affirmed:

Sunday – the Christian Sabbath – is recognized and respected by all the departments of the government. In the law, Sunday is a "dies non" [a day on which no legal business can be transacted]; it cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes; the executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits. . . . Here is a recognition by law and by universal usage not only of a Sabbath, but of the Christian Sabbath in exclusion of the Jewish or Mohammedan Sabbath. The recognition of the Christian Sabbath is complete and perfect.

Even though the courts and Congress acknowledged that Sunday was the Christian Sabbath, it is true that not every Christian observed a Sunday Sabbath (various Christian "sabbatarian" groups observe a Saturday Sabbath). Nevertheless, no other religion in the world observed a Sunday Sabbath except Christianity. As the Supreme Court of California noted in 1858, the Sabbath observed by various religions included "the Friday of the Mohammedan, the Saturday of the Israelite, or the Sunday of the Christian."

The actions of the current congressional leadership certainly call into question whether they have ever read the Constitution. If they have, they have certainly shown little respect for its clauses – clauses they swore to uphold when they took their oath of office last January 6th.

There have already been numerous instances demonstrating Congress's insistence on passing the federal health care seizure and takeover bill in blatant disregard for specific clauses of the Constitution (including the Tenth Amendment). This disregard for yet another part of the Constitution further heightens concern over the current reckless congressional agenda.

Contact your elected U. S. Representatives and Senators and find out where they stand on the issue of the Sundays Excepted Clause. If they support or make excuses for this recent congressional Sunday session, then they have affirmed their disregard for the Constitution and for their own congressional oath. If such is the case, make sure and replace them in the next election, November 2, 2010!


God Bless!



David Barton

The American Revolution - National Survey

Posted by Gordon on December 6, 2009 at 11:41pm


The American Revolution Center commissioned the first national survey to assess adult knowledge of the American Revolution. The results show that an alarming 83 percent of Americans failed a basic test on knowledge of the American Revolution and the principles that have united all Americans. Results also revealed that 90 percent of Americans think that knowledge of the American Revolution and its principles is very important, and that 89 percent of Americans expected to pass a test on basic knowledge of the American Revolution, but scored an average of 44 percent. The survey questions addressed issues related to the Revolutionary documents, people, and events, and also asked attitudinal questions about the respondents’ perception of the importance of understanding the Revolutionary history and the institutions that were established to preserve our freedoms and liberties. The survey results highlight the importance of, interest in, and lack of understanding of our Founding.


http://www.americanrevolutioncenter.org/node/89

What is the difference between Marxism, Communism, and Socialism?

Posted by Gordon on December 5, 2009 at 12:19pm
Intimidation then Normalization

By Marion Valentine Saturday, December 5, 2009

What is the difference between Marxism, Communism, and Socialism? These days, not much. In the beginning the main difference was disagreement on how to achieve their common goal of complete control of a Nation’s people, resources and wealth.

The ideologies melded over the years and even though the movement for world domination suffered many setbacks, Communism did not die with the fall of the Berlin wall and the rending of the iron curtain.The word Communism became so unpopular the name changed to Socialism, then Liberalism, then to Progressive. They have even been somewhat open about what they are doing, the Communist goals for the United States were entered into the Congressional record in June, 1963. They stopped using bombs and tanks to conquer and pillage, their formula now is, I. I. D. I. N. Infiltrate, Indoctrinate, Demoralize, Intimidate then follows Normalization. Infiltration started in the U.S. in earnest in the late 1940’s. Indoctrination began in earnest in the 1960’s. A KGB agent, Yuri Bezmenov who defected in 1970 and taped an interview (video and partial transcript embedded here:)

America In Peril
Yuri Bezmenov said in 1984 that the Indoctrination and Demoralization of America was complete. The promotion of ugly art and music and calling it beautiful, the promotion of promiscuity, perversion and nudity are now considered “freedom of speech”. and “freedom of expression.” Bezmenov said the American people after 25 years of indoctrination and demoralization were no longer able to assimilate true information, that showered with facts, photos, and even seeing with their own eyes they still would not believe.

America is now in the Intimidation stage, as witnessed by the attacks on critics of the Administration. The threats to Insurance companies and banks that would not accept Government control. All that is needed now is a Crisis severe enough to give the Government an excuse to isolate incarcerate and neutralize dissenters. A pandemic such as a more deadly (mutated version) of the H1N1 virus could be used as an excuse.

If the current health care plan is passed, and the Cap and Trade Bill is passed, the attacks on dissenters will continue until the people are enslaved. Then there will be a period of Normalization. Every aspect of American lives will be controlled by the Government.

Do Your Job

Posted by Gordon on December 4, 2009 at 11:32pm

President Barack Obama
Rep. F. Allen Boyd
Sen. Bill Nelson
Sen. George LeMieux

November 20, 2009


Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation"

" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean-spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you but I don't think you like America nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean?

1. Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British ?

2. Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War ?

3. I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers,husbands,and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around because we stand for freedom.

4. I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man. Shape up and start acting like an American.If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue .You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts who was putting up a fight ? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

McAlpin , FL

Christmas in Early America

Posted by Gordon on December 4, 2009 at 7:11am
Sermon - Christmas - 1844
Robert Hallam - 12/25/1844

Christmas in Early America



In America's early years, the celebration of Christmas was a subject of heated debate among Christians, and the lines between the opposing views were drawn largely according to church affiliation. Those from the High Church (e.g., Anglicans, Catholics, Episcopalians, etc., which practiced a more formal tradition of worship), tended to support Christmas celebrations, while those from the Low Church (e.g., Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, etc., which practiced a more informal mode of worship), tended to oppose that celebration.

The views of the two sides had largely been shaped by their own history in Europe. For example, the High Church, which had been the church of Europe for centuries before the first colonists came to America, celebrated Christmas. However, those from the Low Church had been persecuted by the High Church, particularly by the Catholic and Anglican Church, so the Low Church saw no reason that they should copy the festival of those that had so harshly persecuted them.

Interestingly, when European colonists came to America, those affiliated with the High Churches tended to settle in southern colonies such as Virginia, Maryland, and Carolina, while colonists from the Low Churches more frequently settled in northern colonies such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the Virginia colony- affiliated with the Anglican Church- began celebrating Christmas from its very beginnings under Governor John Smith, but the Pilgrims and Puritans of Massachusetts- affiliated with the Congregational Church- refused to celebrate that day. In fact, their opposition to Christmas was so strong that for almost two centuries in Massachusetts, Christmas celebrations were not only discouraged but even forbidden by law.

The first state to make Christmas a state holiday was Louisiana (a southern state with a Catholic tradition) in 1837- a time when the resistance to Christmas in the north was just beginning to weaken. By the 1840s and 1850s, many more states began recognizing the holiday, and by 1870, Christmas celebrations had become so accepted that Christmas was even recognized by the federal government as a holiday.

The Christmas Sermon below was delivered in 1844- a time when the celebration was still a subject of hot debate among Christians across the nation. Preached by Robert Hallam, rector of St. James Episcopal Church in Connecticut (an area of the country still very resistant to recognitions of Christmas), the sermon is an apologetic in favor of Christmas celebrations. It addresses the arguments against celebrating Christmas and presents arguments in favor of such celebrations.


CHRISTIAN HOLY-DAYS:


A


SERMON


Preached In


St. James' Church, New- London;


Christmas- Day, 1844,


By Robert A. Hallam, Rector.


"I went with the multitude, and brought them forth into the house of God; in the voice of praise and thanksgiving, among such as keep holy-day."- Psalm xlii: 4. 5. (Psalter.)


"To them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saint, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:- Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ."- 1 Cor. 1: 1-3.


"He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it."-Romans, xiv:6


The Apostle speaks here of the Jewish holy-days. By the abrogation of the Law these had fallen from their ancient dignity of things obligatory, into the humbler class of things indifferent. Their observance was no longer binding upon the conscience of any man. Expediency was the highest sanction it could claim. Liberty of opinion produced its usual result of diversity of judgment and intolerance.

Jewish Christians were dealt with indulgently, and allowed without hindrance or molestation to persevere in paying a sacred regard to those annual seasons, which the history of their nation, the example of their forefathers, and the habits of their own former lives had invested with so many venerable and endearing associations.- This was simple permission however. Not even Christian Jews were required to observe Mosaic holy days. And Christian Gentiles were decidedly dissuaded from it. Their adoption of the practice might seem to indicate obligation, represent it as a permanent law and institution of Christianity, and denote a dangerous learning to formality and superstition. Even in the case of the Jews the license was jealously watched and carefully guarded. Every disposition to elevate liberty into obligation, to magnify their privilege into a duty, to enforce conformity among themselves, still more to exact if of the Gentiles, was immediately noticed and repressed.

"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years," writes St. Paul to the Galatian Christians in a tone of solemn remonstrance and alarm, "I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." Of this freedom variety of opinion and usage was the natural fruit. Most Jews regarded the day; perhaps a few Gentiles. Some Jews disregarded the day; and the great body of the Gentiles. The difference was perfectly allowable and innocent, and ought to have created no disturbance of confidence or interruption of harmony. But the spirit of man is naturally prone to be uncharitable and dictatorial. He is not content with liberty, he aims at dominion. His own judgment is the infallible standard of truth, his own practice the unquestionable rule of rectitude. He would fain be a pope and a despot, who decisions are not to be questioned, whose will is not to be contravened, whose conclusion is a Procrustean test, not only to measure but to coerce.

The Christians of Apostolic times were not satisfied to differ amicable in things intrinsically indifferent. Conscience must needs be enlisted on the side of their respective views; and then the more conscientious they were, the most intolerance they grew. Alienation and distrust, party spirit and proselytism, mutual denunciations, bickerings and criminations were the melancholy consequence.

The Gentile was not a Christian because he did not keep the Passover; the Jew was not a Christian because he did. The Apostle saw and lamented the causeless and injurious strife. This fourteenth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, as well as several chapters in his first epistle to the Corinthians, is devoted to an examination of the dispute about this and kindred topics, with a view to settle the questions that had given rise to it upon their real merits, and allay the unholy heat it had generated. "Let no man," he writes, "judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days,"- that is, of the old seventh day Sabbath, which, under the new economy had given place to the Lord's day of the first,--"which," says he, "are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." [1] And again, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." The diversity is lawful and harmless. Observance or nonobservance is perfectly optional. The celebration of the day, with an enlightened, pious and devout endeavor to make it subservient to the promotion of the honor of God and the welfare of the soul, is a truly Christian service, such as Christians may fitly and profitably render; and such is acceptable to the Lord and redounds to his honor. And the refusal to celebrate the day, if it be grounded upon an honest conviction of its inutility and a holy fear of its perversion to sensual or superstitious purposes, it equally innocent and commendable, a Christian service also, and offering pleasing to God and conducive to his glory. Let not him that regardeth the day, despise him that regardeth it not; and let not him that doth not regard the day, judge him that regardeth it: for God hath received him.

At an early period of the Christian era-how early we cannot precisely determine, certainly very early, in days bordering very closely upon the times of the Apostles, if not retreating into them-a system of fast and festival commemorative of the leading events of the life of Jesus Christ, grew up, which in its relationship to Christianity, and to the duty of Christ's disciples, is, in many important respects, parallel to the Christian retention and adoption of the Mosaic holy-days. Like it, it can claim no divine authority; for it is enjoined by no precept of the New Testament, and can shew no clear proof of having originated in any suggestion of Christ, or in the example of his Apostles. It can urge nothing beyond probability- a probability of the exact degree of which men, with their existing prepossessions, can hardly judge candidly and impartially- that it had primarily a more honorable beginning than individual fancy; though it soon acquired an ecclesiastical approval and sanction. It was a natural fruit, as it seems to us at least who regard the day, of religious impulses and reverential sentiments, of feelings deeply seated in the constitution of man and ever craving opportunity of outward expression, of the very same sensibilities which have led men of all countries and ages to regard with a peculiar sacredness and veneration places and days signalized by important events, to mark them by permanent monuments and periodical observances. It is the religious memory embodied and made visible; just as the patriotic memory is, in the noble shaft that graves the heights of Charlestown, or in the festivities that mark the anniversary of the day that gave birth to our national independence. It is the symbol of an inward sentiment strong in the texture of humanity, indelible and universal, which vehemently demands utterance and manifestation, and will not be denied it in some form without a violence that injures the fabric. That this system began, at least almost as soon as the Christian Church was established, is manifest from the fact of its universal and consentaneous observance in all parts of that Church, however widely separated and however differing in many respects, from the earliest times of which ecclesiastical historians give us any account, and of its uninterrupted continuance in all its branches till within three centuries past. Even now, it is retained by a vast majority of those who bear the Christian name, as well as Reformed as Romanist, Greek, or Oriental, whether Episcopal or non-Episcopal in their constitution, liturgical or extemporary in their worship. The exception is confined, as the preacher believes, to those bodies of Christians in Great Britain and this country, whose forms of government are nonprelatic, and of worship, unwritten. Certainly then, this system may claim to rank among those antiquities of the Gospel, whereof the memory of man and the testimony of history runneth not to the contrary; and can make good to itself that celebrated canon, the "quod semper, ubique, ab omnibus," the always, everywhere, by all, of Vincent of Lerins. [2] I said above, this system is a natural growth of the human mind. I believe it would have formed part of the costume of an historical religion, of a religion founded on historic facts, under any circumstances. But it was peculiarly natural under the actual circumstances. Jew and Gentile united in the Church of Christ, had each been educated under an annual series of holy-days; that of the former, accommodated by God to what I have described above as a want of our nature; that of the latter, devised by man to satisfy and appease it. How natural how happy, that the new religion in whose common bosom their ancient feud and distinction were to cease, in its rich store of solemn and interesting histories, should afford materials out of which to frame a new and common series, to occupy the place of the obsolete observances of the once, and of the impure trivial ceremonies of the other.

Among the inconsiderate aspersions thrown by those who do not regard the day upon their Christian brethren who do, is the charge that the practice is pagan, and was adopted in accommodation to the customs of the heathen, as a means of conciliation, and with a view of rendering the transition to Christianity more gentle and palatable. [3] I am not aware that the charge is anything better than a surmise, or can claim in its support one particle of historical evidence. But I am not careful to deny it. I am perfectly willing that it should be true. Let it be, that our Christian holy-days are an imitation of heathen festivals. I see in the fact nothing but a proof of the singular wisdom and candor of the primitive Christians, who could see and acknowledge what was good in a corrupt religion, gracefully adopt it, and use it as a means to facilitate the success of the truth. The alleged coincidence of the principal holy-days of the Church with corresponding festivals of heathenism, whether real or imaginary, designed or accidental, will be no disparagement of them with men of sense and impartiality. It leaved the real question at issue entirely unaffected-are they innocent? Are they salutary?

Equally ungenerous and irrelevant is it to call the holy-day system Romish, a remnant of Popery. True, the Church of Rome holds the Christian holy-days sacred. So does the Sabbath, the Bible and the Sacraments. True wisdom consists in "taking forth the precious from the vile." [4] Candor will be careful to discriminate, and not to condemn and reject the good and harmless things of an evil system. They who follow in the steps of the English Reformers, suppose, that in a clearer perception of this principle that was enjoyed by most of their fellow laborers in the work of the Reformation, consisted the especial advantage and honor of those venerated men. But the holy-day system is in truth much older than Popery. It is the common possession of Papist and Protestant, inherited from a day older than either. It flourished at a period when the Bishop of Rome, so far from assuming that unlawful title to himself, was reproving his brother of Constantinople, for daring to arrogate the dignity of universal bishop; and before that monstrous fabric of falsehood and corruption, which sprung from and in turn supported the Papal supremacy, had so much as received its foundation. It is not to be disposed of by an appeal to popular odium. It must rest upon its intrinsic expediency and worth. It was neither originated by Rome, nor can it be disparaged by her adoption.

We rest then the claims of this festival, and of the system into which it enters, and of the system into which it enters, simply upon the plea of a presumed utility.

In support of this plea, we allege, first, the nature of man, so constituted, that he instinctively seeks to reveal in outwards expressions of an appropriate and significant description the inward feelings that occupy and engage him, and finds in such manifestation not only a relief, but the aliment and support, of the emotion that prompts them. This propensity discloses itself in the universal fondness for monuments and commemorative rites, which has always and does everywhere characterize mankind. And all experience proves the efficacy of such memory of the facts they represent, preserving a fresh and lively sense of them in men's minds, giving stability to the principles embodied in the, permanency to the enthusiasm which they tend to inspire, and perpetuity to their practical influence.

We adduce, also, its early adoption by the Church of Christ, as evidence that this very want impulse were actually felt, obeyed, and Christianized by an incorporation into the service of God, before the Bride of the Redeemer had declined from the fervor of her "first love," [5] or departed from her primal purity and fidelity.

We add the testimony of our own experience and observation. We say with the Psalmist, "As we have heard so have we seen in the city of our God." [6] We have, as we trust, ourselves been made holier and happier by its operation. We have witnessed, as we think, its influence upon others, in helping to make them holier and happier. Its whole tendency seems to us benign and profitable. It arrays the Church "in a raiment of needle work," "a clothing of wrought gold," [7] a fit apparel for her presentation to the Kind, a costume that makes her venerable and lovely in the yes of her children. Whatever tends to render religion beautiful and attractive, to call the attention of men to her, to awaken their interest in her, is deserving of the regard of her friends. An attire of comeliness is not to be despised, if it do but serve to obtain for her that notice, which may lead to the perception and appreciation of her more solid and substantial charms. [8] Rome has bedizened her in the finery of a courtesan; the fear of Rome may sometimes have reduced her too nearly to a state of nudity. [9]

As a means awaking interest, and calling forth a spirit of inquiry in the young, the holy-day system is highly useful. This happy effect Scripture expressly ascribes to the Mosaic festivals:-it is not less true of the Christian:-"and it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, what mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, it is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses." [10] The simple questions of a child about the evergreen wreaths that now adorn our temples, may afford a particularly happy and favorable opportunity for communicating to it a knowledge of the facts and truths of Christianity. Instruction so communicated, in answer to voluntary inquiry, comes with far greater effect, than that which comes unsought to passive, perhaps reluctant, minds. Answer your children's questions then. Perhaps the result of some such question and answer may lead you to bless God for Christmas, and for this Christmas.

The holy-day system moreover provides a series of profitable and interesting themes for public instruction. It brings into an annual review the principal incidents in the life of Christ, the leading features of the great work by which he wrought out our redemption. It presents them in their order and connexion, and displays the successive contribution of each to the perfect whole. Such a system is replete with instruction, instinct with doctrine and with duty. It involves all that a Christian ought to believe and to do to his souls health. It is a great safeguard against partial teaching. It secures an annual survey of the whole field of the gospel. It checks the tendency of ministers to have pet topics and doctrines. Even if the pulpit be silent, the desk must make its annual proclamation of the whole counsel of God. A people among whom this system is developed with any tolerable degree of ability and fidelity, may parish; but it cannot be that they shall be "destroyed for lack of knowledge." [11] I speak warmly, for I feel warmly. I know that no generous mind will be displeased at the spontaneous movements of an honest but not uncharitable enthusiasm.

I trust then, sufficient reason has been shown, why, in the celebration of this festival, and of that round of holy-day which in their orderly succession make up that zodiac of heavenly signs [12] through which she delights to take her yearly circuit, our church is not justly liable to any charge of superstition, of adding to the word of God, of Popery, or of dogmatism. She ranks it no higher than a municipal regulation, recommended to her by the ancient and general practice of the Church Catholic, and by her own experience of pleasure and profit in its use. She rests her observance of it, upon no divine law or intrinsic obligation, but simply upon expediency and ecclesiastical precept. It is but a private way she has of endeavoring to "edify herself in love," [13] and "build up her children in their most holy faith." [14] She dictates to none; she reproaches none. Thus have I sought to "give an answer to every man that asketh a reason" of this peculiarity of our practice, "with meekness and fear;" [15] and to make it appear not incredible at least to any, that "he that regardeth the day" may "regard it unto the Lord;" and unseemly in "him that regardeth it not" to judge severely "him that regardeth it."

But let us not forget that the text has a reverse side. It is also written, "He that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." Godliness then, will consist with a disregard of the day. Let us then be careful never to charge those who neglect to observe the day, with a breach of the divine law, or the omission of an essential means of spiritual edification and improvement. They do at the utmost but forego a source of religious improvement and strength which we retain and price, the want of which is compensated to them, it may be, by other arrangements of their own, Certain it is, that without them, they do attain a measure of Christian excellence, activity and usefulness, which should provoke us only to praise and emulation. Let us not conclude, that, because they have not our way, they have no way of keeping in mind the incarnation and other facts in the history of redemption, of meditating upon them, and making them "profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness." [16] Let not "him that regardeth the day" grow arrogant, and despise "him that regardeth it not." Not even if we are assailed with ignorant misrepresentation and rude invective, let us be driven out of our calmness and charity. Nay, my dear brethren, let us never forget that we are disciple of One, "who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; who, when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to Him who judgeth righteously." [17] "Render not evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing." [18]

We are assembled this day to celebrate the nativity of the Son of God. The theme is one full of wonder, of instruction, and of comfort.

It commends Christ to us as a perfect Savior. As a Redeemer. We need one who can suffer in our stead; one who can make a satisfaction to divine justice; one who can be a "mediator between God and man," [19] "a days-man betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both," [20] This qualification the Son of God acquired by his assumption of flesh. This enabled him to die, to die a penal death, and by his death, render our pardon practicable, righteous, safe and credible. Hence "it is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation," that Christ is "able to save." Are you weary and bowed down with burden of sin? Go to Him: he can, he will "give you rest."

As an example. By his human life, he became the model of humanity; a display of what our nature should be, a demonstration of what our nature may be. How inspiriting is this exhibition! Who has not felt the force and value of a pure and lovely example? Christ has gone before us in our walks, in our labors, in our trials, in our sufferings. Wheresoever we are, we may carry with us in the mirror of our minds, an image of "the man Christ Jesus;" and fashion and attire our life after the pattern of its perfect simplicity, propriety and beauty.

As a Head and Champion. His assumption of man's nature at once proved its dignity and augmented it. It teaches us to think highly of ourselves, not morally or spiritually, but as to the constitution and destiny of man, and of ourselves as man. "God hath made us a little lower than the angels, to crown us with glory and honor." [21] Therefore "the Lord from heaven" stooped to be one of us, and to save us. He became "the second Adam," the new Head of humanity; and took it into a close and eternal union with himself, and made it sharer of his own dignity. [22] As he died because we die, so he rose that we might rise, and was glorified that we might share his glory. "As our forerunner, he hath for us entered" [23] heaven; and "he ever liveth to make intercession for us". [24] What a demonstration of the value of our souls! What en encouragement to seek their salvation!

As a Friend and Helper. His human nature has gone up with him on high. His human memories and sympathies survive, and abide forever. He sees us, and with interest, in all our earthly troubles, in all our conflicts with unbelief, in all our struggles after holiness. He come to us, to enliven, refresh, strengthen, and reclaim us. "We have not an High Priest, that cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities;" [25] or that will look idly upon them. Wherefore "lift up the hands that hang down, and the feeble knees." [26] "Come boldly to a throne of grace to find mercy and grace to help in time of need." [27]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Col II 16:17

[2] The author is aware that some may be disposed to rest the claims of the Church's holy-day system on higher grounds that those of utility and ecclesiastical appointment; and that by such his citation of Vincent's rule may be quoted against him. The consent of the Church is of use to elucidate and confirm doctrines and duties of which the New Testament gives intimation; but it cannot clothe with obligation anything that lacks this foundation. The Church can make an observance obligatory on its members, by that "power to decree rites and ceremonies," (Art. XX) which is inherent in her as a society, and especially as a society divine; but nothing short of Scripture can make any observance binding on the Church. "Whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby," says Art. VI., "is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." Still the antiquity and universality of the usage are a strong testimony in its favor; and the common judgment and feeling of Christendom, is certainly a proof of its expediency, and of the wisdom of our Church in retaining it, not easily set aside. And this, with the other considerations tending to the same conclusion exhibited in the discourse, forms the ground of deference here taken.

[3] When the author was a student in Yale College, a professor in that institution delivered a lecture in support of this theory; in which he attempted to show that the birth of Jesus Christ did not occur on the 25th of December, and that that day had been selected for its commemoration in conformity to the Roman Saturnalia. He happened to choose Christmas day for its delivery; but the students mindful of the holiday, if not of the holy-day, left him to an empty lecture room, and compelled him to defer it to another week. Hooker disposes of this supposition effectually in a few words. But the discourse maintains that its truth or falsehood if perfectly immaterial. The blow, like multitudes of others aimed at the Episcopal Church, falls harmless, because bestowed upon a shadow. A Churchman's answer is comprised in two words. Who cares?

[4] Jer. xv: 19

[5] Rev ii:4

[6] Ps. xlviii: 8

[7] Ps. xlv: 13,14

[8] "Well to celebrate these religious and sacred days, is to spend the flower of our time happily. They are the splendor and outward dignity of our religion, forcible witnesses of ancient truth, provocations to the exercise of all piety, shadows or our endless felicity in heaven, on earth everlasting records and memorials, wherein they which cannot be drawn to hearken to what we teach, may only by looking upon what we do, in a measure read whatsoever we believe." - Hooker, Eccl. Pol. B. V. lxxi. 11.

[9] "She on the hills, which wantonly allureth all, in hope to be by her preferred, hath kissed so long her painted shines, for her reward. She, in the valley, is so shy of dressing, that her hair doth lie about her ears. While she avoids her neighbors pride, she wholly goes on th' other side and nothing wears. But dearest mother, (what those miss,) the mean, they praise and glory is; and long may be." - George Herbert

[10] Ex. xii:26,27. See also Ex. xiii: 14,15; Josh. iv:6,7:21-24; Ps. lxxxviii:5-8.

[11] Hos. iv:6

[12] "The way before us lies distinct with signs- through which, in fixed career, as through a zodiac, moves the ritual year of England's Church."- Wordsworth

[13] Eph. iv:16

[14] Jude, 20

[15] 1 Pet. Iii:15

[16] 2 Tim iii:16

[17] 1 Pet. ii:23

[18] 1 Pet. iii:9

[19] 1 Tim. ii:5

[20] Job ix: 33

[21] Ps. viii:5

[22] 1 Cor. xv: 45-49

[23] Heb. vi:20

[24] Heb. vii:25

[25] Heb. iv: 15

[26] Heb. xii: 12

[27] Heb. iv:16