House approves debt bill; Senate rejects it

By DAVID ESPO - AP Special Correspondent
AP – 15 mins agotweet6ShareEmailPrintRelated ContentHouse Speaker John Boehner of Ohio gives a thumbs-up as he leaves the House Chamber …



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., steps away from the microphone after speaking …

WASHINGTON (AP) — In an unforgiving display of partisanship, the House approved emergency legislation Friday night to avoid an unprecedented government default and the Senate scuttled it less than two hours later.



The final outcome — with the White House and Senate Democrats calling anew for compromise while criticizing Republicans as Tuesday's deadline drew near — was anything but certain.



"We are almost out of time" for a compromise, warned President Barack Obama as U.S. financial markets trembled at the prospect of economic chaos next week. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average was down for a sixth straight session.



The House vote was 218-210, almost entirely along party lines, on a Republican-drafted bill to provide a quick $900 billion increase in U.S. borrowing authority — essential

AARP is starting to crack, while Amac grows stronger.AARP is dangerously out of step with America.

First they supported weakening the 2nd Amendment. Then they were silent on illegal immigration, on the Ground Zero Mosque, on increasing taxes, on gas prices.



Then, against all logic, the AARP drove the passage of ObamaCare - while knowing seniors would pay billions in increased Medicare Supplement and Medicare Advantage premiums as a direct result.



AARP’s financial gain “could exceed $1 billion from the new health care law” – House Ways and Means “Behind the Veil” investigation finding.



Now they come out in support of “changes” in Social Security?!?

“…news that the most powerful lobbying force for older Americans had softened its opposition to benefit cuts could not have come at a worse time.” – the liberal Huffington Post



“The (AARPs)timing is very destructive” - Nancy Altman, co-director of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign



“I think they’re dead wrong on this issue and I think many of the other senior organizations feel the same way” - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)



The AARP’s new advertising slogan?“Get over it!”

We're not 'Getting Over It!' says the Leading Conservative to the AARP!



Amac, The Association of Mature American Citizens Is Fighting Back.

Join Us Today, enjoy the discounts and spread the word. Click Here!



Dan Weber, president of Amac says, “ it looks like AARP is a giant ship that has lost its rudder- and it is about to hit the rocky shore. The problem is they are taking their members down with them”



In stark contrast to the AARP, Amac recently issued two strong proposals to keep Social Security solvent while putting more money in the pockets of older Americans.



AMAC is courting legislators to introduce a bill to eliminate the tax on Social Security income that one in three people collecting Social Security are now paying.



“We consider it unfair to tax Social Security twice, once when you pay in and again when you start to collect,” Weber says.



Amac Fights For:

Smaller government

The 2nd Ammendment

Freedom of Religion – as America’s Founders intended

The old-fashioned values that made America the Greatest Country on earth.

Amac. Better for You. Better for America.





Which organization do you want to be a member of?

The giant Goliath that has lost its way- or the small David that knows what it needs to do?



If you are 45 or older join the fight.

Join Amac.

Join today, enjoy the discounts and spread the word. Click here!



You can save much more than your pennies-a-day membership in exclusive member benefits. Amac offers Medicare supplements, auto insurance, life insurance and discounts on the products and services seniors want and need.



Click the Join button now to learn more before you join.







There is strength in numbers!





Amac Benefit and Discount Information

"[T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes -- rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments." --Alexander Hamilton






Government & PoliticsThe Debt Ceiling and the Constitution"C'mon, man!" Joe Biden exclaimed Monday, "Let's get real!" On Wednesday, Barack Obama was so upset that he took his ball and went home, shoving his chair away from the table and saying tersely, "I'll see you tomorrow." The topic, of course, is the debt ceiling, which Obama and his pals at the Treasury Department insist must be raised by Aug. 2 to prevent default on U.S. debt. But this isn't your father's debt ceiling; it's $14.3 trillion currently, and Democrats want $2 trillion more. It's no wonder that tensions are running high. This is where ideological rubber hits the road and either builds America or tears it down.



The sticking points aren't new. Democrats want to raise taxes by as much as $2 trillion in addition to making cuts to various budget items, not least of which is defense. Republicans want cuts with no tax increases. Obama is so insistent on tax increases that, according to a GOP aide in the discussions, he declared, "This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this." He didn't yield as he demagogued Social Security, either. "I cannot guarantee that [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue," he shamelessly warned. Who's throwing grandma off the cliff now?



After that snit, he audaciously criticized Republicans' "my way or the highway" approach.



As for the cuts under discussion, they aren't genuine cuts like those average Americans are making -- buying less milk and fewer eggs, for example. Called base-line budgeting, Washington's cuts are merely reductions in projected growth, as in, "We're still going to buy more milk and eggs than we did last year, but not quite as much as we would have under better political circumstances."



To put it in perspective, spending over the next decade is projected to reach about $46 trillion, including $13 trillion in new debt. The haggling is over $2-4 trillion in cuts to that projected increase. Spreading $2 trillion over 10 years "saves" just $200 billion a year, or less than the interest payment on the debt, and even by reducing projected growth by that much, we still end up with an increase in spending. That, in a nutshell, is Washington-speak.



As for the status of compromise, it has succeeded only in Minnesota, where the Democrat governor and Republican legislature just agreed to end a government shutdown. At the federal level, Republicans have all but given up on a comprehensive reform package. As many as 60 House Republicans might vote against any increase to the debt ceiling, and Democrats control the Senate and the White House, making a deal without their support impossible. What to do?



McConnell's Plan



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) concluded this week, "[A]fter years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable. I was one of those who had hoped we could do something big for the country. But in my view the president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes or default." McConnell is absolutely correct. However, his solution is questionable.



He outlined a complicated legislative maneuver in which Congress would permit the president to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally in three increments totaling $2.5 trillion, provided that he offer equivalent spending cuts each time. Each increase would be subject to a resolution of disapproval from Congress. The president would almost certainly veto that, but he would also then "own" the debt increase, and Congress -- particularly Republicans -- could be absolved, in theory, of responsibility for raising the debt ceiling. The plan has caused a split on both sides of the aisle. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both praised the deal, and Reid is working to make it reality. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), not so much. Many House Republicans indicate it's a non-starter.



The Wall Street Journal asks, "The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won't vote for one, then what's the alternative to Mr. McConnell's maneuver?"



"Ugly and unpleasant as it is," writes Daniel Foster of National Review, "not all retreats are capitulations. McConnell clearly thinks of this as a tactical retreat in the service of his overarching strategic objective: to make President Obama a one-term president."



On the other hand, there are constitutional concerns with McConnell's plan. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) puts budget responsibility directly in the hands of Congress, not the president. Technically, the deal would leave Congress with the authority to dictate the amount of the increases and to "disapprove" if they choose, but there's a real sense that one of the three co-equal branches of government is abdicating its constitutional duty for political gain.



Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation writes, "Depending on exactly how the legislative language is drafted, it well might violate the Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses for the making of law, the separation of powers regarding Congress's control over the budget and spending, [and] the legislative Recommendations Clause, and it might also be struck down as an attempt to grant the President the equivalent of a line-item veto. It is also unclear whether the unconstitutional portion would be struck down by the courts and severed from the rest of the statute (which would eliminate Congress's ability to veto the cuts) or if the entire scheme would be struck down. But, at a minimum, the proposal is highly dubious as a matter of constitutional law."



Call us crazy, but we think the Constitution trumps political concerns. Regardless of the worthy strategic objective of limiting Obama to one term in office, or of limiting blame in the polls, the ends don't justify the means. The debt was run up by politicians who have ignored their sacred oaths to support and defend the Constitution. Congress and the president must take their oaths seriously, and solidify the full faith and credit of the United States by cutting excessive and unconstitutional spending. The goal should be to lower the debt ceiling, not bicker about how high to raise it. Following the Constitution -- not skirting it -- is the proper path to arrive there.



(Comment here.)



Essential Liberty

"Republicans have been neatly set up to take the fall if a deal is not reached by Aug. 2. Obama is already waving the red flag, warning ominously that Social Security, disabled veterans' benefits, 'critical' medical research, food inspection -- without which agriculture shuts down -- are in jeopardy. The Republicans are being totally outmaneuvered. The House speaker appears disoriented. It's time to act. Time to call Obama's bluff. A long-term deal or nothing? The Republican House should immediately pass a short-term debt-ceiling hike of $500 billion containing $500 billion in budget cuts. That would give us about five months to work on something larger. ... Will the Democratic Senate or the Democratic president refuse this offer and allow the country to default -- with all the cataclysmic consequences that the Democrats have been warning about for months -- because Obama insists on a deal that is 10 months and seven days longer? That's indefensible and transparently self-serving. Dare the president to make that case. Dare him to veto -- or the Democratic Senate to block -- a short-term debt-limit increase." --columnist Charles Krauthammer



This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award

"I do not want and I will not accept a deal in which I am asked to do nothing. In fact, I'm able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don't need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they've got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans." --Barack Obama



"If you read between the lines, which doesn't take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don't 'need' belongs to the government." --author John Steele Gordon



New & Notable Legislation

With talk of the debt ceiling dominating the headlines, both houses of Congress could vote on a balanced budget amendment in the next two weeks. Of course, a constitutional amendment requires the approval of two-thirds of both houses and three-fourths of the states. In the Senate, that means Republicans would need the votes of 20 Democrats, though at least that many have voiced support in the past. Not all balanced budget amendments are equal, but the one under consideration is better than some -- a "Cut, Cap and Balance" structure that would cut spending, cap it at a certain percentage of GDP to prevent tax hikes and "require" balance.



The Better Use of Our Light Bulbs Act, or BULB, failed to pass the House this week. The BULB Act was meant to repeal a nanny-state law that outlaws 100-watt incandescent bulbs as of Jan. 1, 2012. In addition to the well-known problems with alternative CFL bulbs, the federal government has no business telling the American people what kind of light bulbs they can have in their own homes. Republicans acknowledged that by bringing the BULB Act to a vote this week, however it was inexplicably introduced under different parliamentary rules, so it could pass only by a two-thirds vote. The final vote was 233-193. Remind us, again, of who controls the House. Republicans vow to try again, but they will need a much more cooperative Senate (and House GOP leadership) than is currently in place.



On the Campaign Trail

As the 2012 presidential race heats up, Republican contenders are now taking shots at each other as well as the Democrat incumbent. Minnesotans Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann ditched the famous "Minnesota nice" when discussing issues of experience for America's top executive job. Bachmann's recent rise in the polls in her birth state of Iowa have no doubt been alarming to Pawlenty, who really needs a win in Iowa to secure the nomination. So former governor Pawlenty politely pointed out that Bachmann has virtually no record as an office-holder and stuck to his "results, not rhetoric" script by noting that Rep. Bachmann needs more than just speech skills. "We're looking for people who can lead a large enterprise in a public setting and drive it to conclusion," Pawlenty said. "I've done that, and she hasn't."



Bachmann nibbled but didn't immediately take the bait, instead defending her House record on standing up to cap-n-tax and ObamaCare. She did note, however, that Pawlenty once supported a health insurance mandate. She later went further, stating that executive experience doesn't matter if it comes with "more of the same big government as usual."



It looks as if the two Mormons in the Republican contest will be going after each other as well. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman attacked frontrunner Mitt Romney's record (or lack thereof) of producing jobs in Massachusetts during Romney's term as governor. Huntsman pointed to his own record as being first in the nation in creating jobs, while Massachusetts ranked 47th. Romney's campaign responded that he created nearly 50,000 jobs as governor, one of the best economic turnarounds in the country at that time. So there you have it -- GOP candidates poking each other for soft spots.



Finally, Barack Obama reported raising more than $86 million for his re-election effort in the second quarter, a new record. The total, however, is a combination of his campaign itself and that of the Democrat National Committee; $47 million was for his campaign specifically. He has a long way to go to reach his $1 billion fundraising target.

150 Human Animal Hybrids Grown In UK Labs




http://www.dailymail.co.uk





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



Scientists have created more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos in British laboratories.



The hybrids have been produced secretively over the past three years by researchers looking into possible cures for a wide range of diseases.



The revelation comes just a day after a committee of scientists warned of a nightmare ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario in which work on human-animal creations goes too far.



Last night a campaigner against the excesses of medical research said he was disgusted that scientists were ‘dabbling in the grotesque’.



Figures seen by the Daily Mail show that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created since the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act.



This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.



Scientists say the techniques can be used to develop embryonic stem cells which can be used to treat a range of incurable illnesses.



Three labs in the UK – at King’s College London, Newcastle University and Warwick University – were granted licences to carry out the research after the Act came into force.



All have now stopped creating hybrid embryos due to a lack of funding, but scientists believe that there will be more such work in the future.



The figure was revealed to crossbench peer Lord Alton following a Parliamentary question.



Last night he said: ‘I argued in Parliament against the creation of human- animal hybrids as a matter of principle. None of the scientists who appeared before us could give us any justification in terms of treatment.



‘Ethically it can never be justifiable – it discredits us as a country. It is dabbling in the grotesque.



‘At every stage the justification from scientists has been: if only you allow us to do this, we will find cures for every illness known to mankind. This is emotional blackmail.



‘Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones.



‘On moral and ethical grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too.’



Josephine Quintavalle, of pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: ‘I am aghast that this is going on and we didn’t know anything about it.



‘Why have they kept this a secret? If they are proud of what they are doing, why do we need to ask Parliamentary questions for this to come to light?



‘The problem with many scientists is that they want to do things because they want to experiment. That is not a good enough rationale.’



Earlier this week, a group of leading scientists warned about ‘Planet of the Apes’ experiments. They called for new rules to prevent lab animals being given human attributes, for example by injecting human stem cells into the brains of primates.



But the lead author of their report, Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, from the Medical Research Council’s National Institute for Medical Research, said the scientists were not concerned about human-animal hybrid embryos because by law these have to be destroyed within 14 days.



He said: ‘The reason for doing these experiments is to understand more about early human development and come up with ways of curing serious diseases, and as a scientist I feel there is a moral imperative to pursue this research.



‘As long as we have sufficient controls – as we do in this country – we should be proud of the research.’



However, he called for stricter controls on another type of embryo research, in which animal embryos are implanted with a small amount of human genetic material.



Human-animal hybrids are also created in other countries, many of which have little or no regulation.

New alarms over Police scanners that create Big Brother Database and map driver's whereabouts




http://www.bostonherald.com





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



Civil libertarians are raising the alarm over the state’s plans to create a Big Brother database that could map drivers’ whereabouts with police cruiser-mounted scanners that capture thousands of license plates per hour — storing that information indefinitely where local cops, staties, feds and prosecutors could access it as they choose.



“What kind of a society are we creating here?” asked civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate, who along with the ACLU fears police abuse. “There comes a point where the surveillance is so pervasive and total that it’s a misnomer to call a society free any longer.”



The computerized scanners, known as Automatic License Plate Recognition devices, instantly check for police alerts, warrants, traffic violations and parking tickets, which cops say could be an invaluable tool in thwarting crime. The Executive Office of Public Safety has approved 27 grants totaling $500,000 to buy scanners for state police and 26 local departments. The purchases are on hold while state lawyers develop a policy for the use of a common state database all the scanners would feed.



Some ALPR scanners already are deployed on Massachusetts roads. State police have two. Several cities use them for parking enforcement. Chelsea has four scanner-mounted cruisers.



“It’s great for canvassing an area, say after a homicide if you are looking for a particular plate,” said Chelsea police Capt. Keith Houghton. “You can plug it in, and drive up and down side streets. It sounds an alarm if you get a hit.”



He said Chelsea’s information is overwritten after 30 days and is not shared with the state.



EOPS spokesman Terrell Harris said the state wants the scanner information fed into the Public Safety Data Center, where local, state and federal authorities could access it.



“We’re currently working to develop a policy that balances the effective use of this powerful law enforcement tool with the privacy concerns we’re keenly aware of,” Harris said.



The ACLU’s Kade Crockford said the technology, which just allows a faster version of what police do now in running plates, is less of a concern than the state’s plans to store information on average, law-abiding citizens.



“People who aren’t wanted for a crime, all of their information is stored in a database that is shared with another government agency,” Crawford said. “The potential for abuse is very big. We don’t think people who haven’t committed a crime should be tracked by law enforcement.”



The two state police cruisers equipped with scanners patrol the metro Boston area, state police spokesman David Procopio said. He defended police use of the new technology.



“What about the rights of someone who is already a victim to have their assailant brought to justice?” Procopio asked. “There’s a freedom to being able to live your life not worried about being the victim of crime that’s also a freedom worth protecting.”



Silverglate countered, “If you have cameras everywhere, of course you’re going to reduce the crime rate, but you’re not going to have a society worth preserving. To the American people, freedom means something. There is a line to draw in the sand, beyond which you don’t want the government poking its nose. This crosses the line.”

Pro-'gay' worship disrupters lose in court




http://www.onenewsnow.com/





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



Contempt charges and fines now await a pro-homosexual, anarchist group should its members decide again to invade and interrupt a church worship service.



A federal court issued an order last week that the homosexual-rights group Bash Back! will be held in contempt of court and fined $10,000 for any future incidents targeting churches. According to the Alliance Defense Fund, the group openly advocates the use of riots and crime to promote acceptance of homosexuality.



ADF filed suit against the group after members invaded Mount Hope Church in East Lansing, Michigan, a few years ago. ADF attorney Dale Schowengerdt explains:



"The use of violence, threats, and other criminal behavior to advance a political agenda should never be acceptable in America," he states. "ADF filed suit on behalf of Mount Hope to stop Bash Back! from invading churches, disrupting worship, and terrifying adults and children who attend religious services.



"The court's orders accomplished that and send a message to any other groups contemplating such tactics that they will not succeed."



In late 2008, members of the group staged a distraction outside Mount Hope while others entered during a service -- and at a coordinated time began shouting religious slurs, unfurling a sign, and tossing fliers around the sanctuary while two women began kissing near the podium. Members then pulled fire alarms as they ran out of the building.



In recruiting individuals to join the coordinated attack, Bash Back! sought individuals who would be willing to maintain a "more militant-looking presence" outside the church while others infiltrated what the group described on its website as a "well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right-wing establishment."

The Most Risky Profession - A Church Pastor

http://www.christianitytoday.com/





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



It's refreshing news to hear of pastors taking a leave of absence not over sexual or financial misconduct, but over pride. Such was the case with John Piper last year, and this week with C. J. Mahaney. Mahaney has been president of the church planting network Sovereign Grace Ministries, which according to its website now includes "about 95 churches," mostly on the East Coast. He is the founder of the megachurch Covenant Life Church, which he handed over to Joshua Harris after pastoring there for 27 years. He is also one of the leaders of the Together for the Gospel Conferences, and one of the most popular speakers in the neo-Reformed circuit.



The story behind his leave of absence is still unraveling. But he has publicly acknowledged that he has succumbed to "various expressions of pride, unentreatability, deceit, sinful judgment, and hypocrisy."



It's an interesting list of sins—ones that pastors all over America commit week in and week out. This is not to excuse Mahaney or to take such sins lightly. It is to suggest that the state of the modern American pastorate has been shaped so that these sins—especially pride and hypocrisy—are impossible to escape. For this reason, our pastors need not our condemnation, but our prayers. They are in a profession that is about as morally risky as they come.



Bigger and Better



The modern American church is very much a product of its culture—we're an optimistic, world-reforming, busy, and ambitious lot, we Americans. In business, that means creating a better widget, and lots of them, and thus growing larger and larger corporations. In religion, that means helping more souls, and along the way, building bigger and better churches. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled in the 1830s how American Christians seemed so blasé about doctrine compared to their enthusiasm for good works. Religious busyness will be with us always, it seems.



Translate that into church life, and we find that American churches exalt and isolate their leaders almost by design. Our ambitious churches lust after size—American churches don't feel good about themselves unless they are growing. We justify church growth with spiritual language—concern for the lost and so forth. But much of the time, it's American institutional self-esteem that is on the line. This is an audacious and unprovable statement, I grant, but given human nature (the way motives become terribly mixed in that desperately wicked human heart) and personal experience, I will stick to it.



With this addiction to growth comes a host of behavioral tics, such as a fascination with numbers. The larger the church, the more those who attend become stats, "attenders" to be counted and measured against previous weeks. Pastoral leaders are judged mostly on their ability to enlarge their ministries. It's not long before we have to rely on "systems" to track and follow newcomers. It is the rare church now that can depend on members naturally noticing newcomers, or on their reaching out to them with simple hospitality. That has become the job of a committee, which is overseen by a staff member. With increasing size comes an increasing temptation to confuse evangelism with marketing, the remarkably efficient and effective if impersonal science of getting people in the doors.



With the longing for size comes a commitment to efficiency. No longer is it a good use of the head pastor's time to visit the sick or give spiritual counsel to individuals. Better for him to make use of his "gift mix," which usually has little to do with the word pastor—or shepherd, the biblical word for this position. Instead, he has been hired for his ability to manage the workings of large and complex institutions. The bigger the church, the less he works with common members and mostly with staff and the church board. To successfully manage a large church, one must be on top of all the details of that institution. This doesn't necessarily mean directly micromanaging things, but it certainly means to do so indirectly. The large church pastor may not personally tell the nursery volunteers to repaint the 2–3 year-old room, but when he notices a spot of peeling paint as he passes by, the pastor will tell someone who will tell someone, and it will get done in short order.



This is not because the senior pastor is a control freak—or if he is, the church wants him to be. Churches on their way up the growth curve like to know that someone is in charge, that someone is attending to the details, that someone is getting things done. That's why they've hired this dynamic, forward looking, administratively savvy leader. They enjoy being a part of a humming, efficient organization. It reminds them of the other humming, efficient organizations our culture admires, from Google to Apple to Disneyland. It makes them proud to be a part of such a church. That the pastor has to take a heavy hand now and then—sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly—is a small price to pay.



(I use the masculine pronoun to talk about pastors precisely because the vast majority are males, and men are particularly vulnerable to these realities. I also speak autobiographically here, having been a pastor for ten years.)



What makes the pastor's job even more spiritually vulnerable is the expectation that he also be the cathartic head of the church—someone with whom members can identify and live through vicariously. Someone who articulates their fears and hopes, someone to whom they can relate—at a distance. This is key, because the pastor has time to relate to very, very few members. Thus it is all the more important that he be able to communicate in public settings the personable, humble, vulnerable, and likable human being he is.



Thus, preaching in the modern church has devolved into the pastor telling stories from his own life. The sermon is still grounded in some biblical text, and there is an attempt to articulate what that text means today. But more and more, pastors begin their sermons and illustrate their points repeatedly from their own lives. Next time you listen to your pastor, count the number of illustrations that come from his life, and you'll see what I mean. The idea is to show how this biblical truth meets daily life, and that the pastor has a daily life. All well and good. But when personal illustrations become as ubiquitous as they have, and when they are crafted with pathos and humor as they so often are, they naturally become the emotional cornerstone of the sermon. The pastor's life, and not the biblical teaching, is what becomes memorable week after week.



Again, this is not because the pastor is egotistical. It's because, again, we demand this of our preachers. Preachers who don't reveal their personal lives are considered, well, impersonal and aloof. Share a couple of cute stories about your family, or a time in college when you acted less than Christian, and people will come up to you weeks and months later to thank you for your "wonderful, vulnerable sermons." Preachers are not dummies, and they want approval like everyone else. You soon learn that if you want those affirmative comments—and if you want people to listen to you!—you need to include a few personal and, if possible, humorous stories in your sermon.



The inadvertent effect of all this is that most pastors have become heads of personality cults. Churches become identified more with the pastor—this is Such-and-Such's church—than with anything larger. When that pastor leaves, or is forced to leave, it's devastating. It feels a like a divorce, or a death in the family, so symbiotic is today's relationship between pastor and people.



No wonder pastors complain about how lonely and isolated they feel. The success and health of a very demanding institution have been put squarely on their shoulders. They love the adrenaline rush of success—who doesn't? But they also live in dread that they may fail. Wise pastors recognize that unique temptations will assault them, and some set up accountability structures to guard their moral and spiritual lives. They try to have people around them who can speak truth to their power. But in reality, since this is an accountability structure that they have set up and whose membership they determine, in the end it can only have limited effectiveness.



And so we have a system in which pride and hypocrisy are inevitable. The situation for the pastor is impossible. He retains his biblical vision, but the system he finds himself in makes him waver between humility and arrogance, hope and cynicism, patience and anger, love and hate. The pastor has to increasingly downplay these tensions or any serious shortcomings, moral or administrative, to play the part that is expected of him. He must learn to doubt his moral instincts, so he starts believing that efficiently running a large, bureaucratic institution is "ministry" or "service" rather than what it often is: mostly managing and controlling people. He and his congregation justify his heavy-handed leadership and his lack of time for individuals—the very antithesis of his title, pastor or shepherd. His sermons are increasingly peppered with himself as much as the gospel, and even his self-deprecating humor turns against him. Now people praise him for his humility, which only goes to his head, as it does for any human being.



The morally serious pastor will be aware of much of this—even if he can't admit it to anyone—and he will strive to keep himself in check. But he will find that his left hand always—always—knows what his right hand is doing. He has become incapable of carrying out his ministry in simple freedom and trust in God's grace. He began running the race of ministry with holy ambition, but he now finds himself on a treadmill of "various expressions of pride."



Every profession has its secret sins and habitual vices—believe me, we have plenty in journalism. We all need prayer in our callings. And no more so than pastors, whose spiritual leadership makes them most vulnerable to the sins that Jesus most severely condemned: hypocrisy and pride.



Is there hope? Of course. Pastors aren't the only people who find themselves trapped in a social milieu where it is impossible not to succumb to sin. It is for habitual and trapped sinners—like pastors, like us—that Jesus died. The hope is not that we can find a perfect church environment in which we can eradicate pastoral pride. The hope is that Jesus loves and uses repentant sinners despite our pride.



This does not mean Jesus doesn't want us to change the way we do church. I sometimes wonder if he's allowing us to reap the fruit of our churchly ambitions—with many pastors burning out or becoming cynical, or resigning in one form of "disgrace" or another—so we will discover anew why the word pastor or shepherd is the name he gives to the church's leaders. That very name suggests that perhaps the church should not be about growth and efficiency, but care and concern, not so much an organization but a community, not something that mimics our high-tech culture but something that incarnates a high-touch fellowship. By God's grace, there is a remnant of such churches alive and well today, with leaders who really are pastors.



In the meantime, do not condemn your pastor when he succumbs to pride and hypocrisy. He's stuck in a religious system from which few escape unscathed. Pray for him. And remind him that grace covers a multitude of sins, and that neither life nor death, nor angels nor principalities, nor the contemporary North American church can separate him from the love of God in Christ Jesus, the Great Shepherd of the church.

Woe To Those Who Call Evil Good And Good Evil - 100 Christian Ministers Sign Proclamation That Homosexuality Is Not A Sin




http://www.onenewsnow.com/





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



Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness - Isaiah 5:20



A group of Omaha pastors has issued a proclamation that states homosexuality is not a sin.



More than 100 ordained Christian ministers have signed the proclamation, including leaders from Lutheran, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, United Methodist, and Presbyterian churches.



David Bydalek is executive director of Family First, the family policy council for the state of Nebraska. He deems this effort troubling for many Nebraskans and contends the ministers involved are from liberal denominations that do not respect the orthodox biblical teaching on homosexuality.



"When they come out with this sort of statement, I think they really do not reflect the mainstream feeling in the state of Nebraska," Bydalek suggests. "When we passed our marriage amendment years ago, we had about 70 percent of those in Nebraska who opposed 'gay marriage.'"



But when Christians take a stand to support traditional biblical teaching on the issue, the Family First executive director laments that they are often perceived as "bigots" or "homophobes." He suggests, however, that the loving response to those trapped in homosexuality teaches that the lifestyle is indeed sinful, but that freedom can be found through Christ.



"It's going to be more difficult, the more these activists gain inroads into our culture and the more common it becomes," Bydalek warns. "So we have a very difficult task ahead of us as those who stand for truth."

U.S. Power Grid: Ripe for Cyber-Attacks




http://www.thestreet.com





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



Power cut to businesses and hospitals. The inability to heat homes in winter or cool them in summer. Debilitating blackouts. Signs of Armageddon? Maybe. But they're also the potential results of a incapacitating cyber-attack on the nation's power grids, an act that experts say could happen at any time.



"The U.S. government and the American people should be more concerned about this," Rep. Jim Langevin (D., R.I), co-chair of the congressional cyber-security caucus, told TheStreet. "I don't feel that the electric grid is nearly as secure as it needs to be."



Despite new attempts to deliver cyber-security standards for power plants, legislators and security experts are warning of gaping holes that exist for hackers to exploit, further fueling concerns that critical U.S. infrastructures are at risk.



Langevin explained that a successful assault on the electric grid would dwarf recent attacks on corporations like Sony, Lockheed Martin and Sega, which resulted in compromised customer data, among other things.



Langevin says the the nightmare scenario resulting from parts of the grid knocked out could be devastating and wide-reaching. "It would affect the economy, and potentially, even cause loss of life," he said. "Imagine, god forbid, that part of the country was without power in the middle of winter."



"There's absolutely nothing theoretical about the power grid being vulnerable," added Joe Weiss, managing director of consultancy Applied Control Solutions. "This is not hypothetical -- it's very real."



Rather than one single power system, a spiderweb of multiple networks comprises the U.S. electrical grid, which encompasses somewhere around 500 different companies. That's about 5,700 power plants generating at least 1 megawatt, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, with some plants using more than one generator.



Experts are concerned that the computer systems used to control plants across this sprawling network are prime targets for a sophisticated cyber-attack. A few years ago, the Department of Homeland Security replicated this type of attack, remotely accessing and destroying a generator. Specific details of the so-called Aurora test are hard to come by, but it allegedly involved a substation computer system, which was used to repeatedly connect and disconnect a generator to the grid. The test eventually wrecked the generator.



Another infecting type of attack to worry about is a worm, or self-replicating malware. Weiss points to Stuxnet, a Microsoft Windows worm that last year targeted industrial software and equipment, most notably within Iran's nuclear program.



"Stuxnet was a very sophisticated, targeted attack," said Weiss, adding that his concern is now for what he calls the "son of Stuxnet." A massively complex set of code, Stuxnet has been touted as the first malware to attack industrial hardware, exploiting vulnerabilities in Windows. According to security specialist Symantec, the attack then modified code on control system technology from Siemens, leading to the destruction of centrifuges -- equipment that spins objects around a fixed axis -- used in Iran's nuclear program.



Experts are also warning that the new breed of smart, highly-automated energy grids (clean energy-espousing "smart grids") could open the door to attackers, citing the growing use of remote access technologies such as Bluetooth within power plants. "It makes the grid more vulnerable, there's more points of attack," said Weiss.



Attempts to Protect Us



The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), an industry standards body that aims to keep the country's power systems up and running, proposes standards for approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which it is then largely responsible for enforcing.



In an attempt to plug the power grid attack gap, NERC proposed a set of Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards to federal regulators earlier this year. The suggested solution covers areas like physical security, systems management, incident reporting and recovery plans. Who exactly will be covered by these standards, however, is controversial.



NERC's proposal to FERC calls for only power plants with a generating capacity above 1,500 megawatts to be covered by the cyber-security standards. NERC itself admits that this would cover just 29% of America's power generator capacity.



(By way of comparison, 1 megawatt is enough energy to power 1,000 average homes, according to Con Edison, which expects a peak demand 13,275 megawatts in its service area this summer.)



"This means that 70% of the power plants will not even be looking at cyber security," said Weiss. "NERC has effectively put out a roadmap for hackers to attack the grid."



Rep. Langevin also thinks that the grid needs better protection. "I don't think that that 1,500-megawatt standard is sufficient," he said. However, "it's a small step in the right direction."



"As a citizen, I would be happier if a clear majority of the power my society relies on was secured from at least opportunistic cyber-attacks," added Andrew Ginter, industrial security director at Waterfall Security Solutions in a recent blog post. "The new ... rule will not bring this about."



The Commission, however, has questioned NERC on the 1,500-megawatt threshold, asking for more details in a filing earlier this year. In its response, NERC acknowledged that the proposal "does not capture all assets in North America," but maintained that this is still a "significant step" toward better security.



In a blog post last week, Weiss also argued that the number of facilities covered could be less than the 29% cited by NERC. Alluding to a recent survey of NERC's membership, Weiss said that, out of just under 11,000 power generating units, around 600 would be classified as "critical assets" that require cyber-security protection.



FERC declined to provide comment for this story, explaining that it is unable to discuss pending proposals. NERC has not yet responded to TheStreet's request for comment.



Ginter nonetheless acknowledges that the new standards are "much better than nothing" noting that, without regulation, many utilities would do little to secure their power station control systems. The NERC CIP standards, he adds, are designed to catch the stragglers -- companies that don't have any procedures in place.



Some firms are taking grid security into their own hands. San Francisco-based Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a subsidiary of PG&E Corp., recently hired a former Sears Holdings security executive to serve as the company's CIO. And The Southern Company, an Atlanta-based utility with more than 42,000 megawatts of generating capacity, has even hired hackers to identify vulnerabilities.



Uncovering the Disruptors



Opinions are divided on who could attack the power grid.



Many experts think that the extensive research and technology resources needed would make an enemy nation the likeliest perpetrator. North Korea, for example, was suspected of being behind the major denial of-service attack on the U.S. government in 2009. Additionally, the Wall Street Journal, citing intelligence officials, has reported foreign "cyber-spies" from China, Russia and other countries infiltrating the U.S. energy grid.



Weiss, however, thinks that smaller, less well-resourced groups, could also perpetrate an attack. "We can now go to the Internet and get these exploits without having to be a national lab or a nation state," he said. "You don't have to be an Iran or an Al Qaeda or anything else to do this."



Perhaps highlighting the extent of the threat to critical U.S infrastructure, the Pentagon recently said that it would consider a military response to a major cyber-attack against the U.S.



"The Pentagon wanted to make it clear that we reserve the right to respond with conventional munitions or any other conventional means," said Harry Raduege, a retired Lieutenant General in the U.S. Air Force, who is now chairman of the Deloitte Center for Cyber Innovation.



Raduege, however, thinks that it is not just the U.S. power grid that's at risk. "There could be attacks on any of our critical infrastructure like telecoms, financial systems and, transportation and government services," he told TheStreet. "We have heard about weapons of mass destruction, but cyber terrorism could create a weapon of mass disruption."



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

New Terror Report Warns of Insider Threat to Utilities

http://abcnews.go.com/





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



Sabotage by an insider at a major utility facility, including a chemical or oil refinery, could provide al Qaeda with its best opportunity for the kind of massive Sept. 11 anniversary attack Osama bin Laden was planning, according to U.S. officials.



A new intelligence report from the Department of Homeland Security issued Tuesday, titled Insider Threat to Utilities, warns "violent extremists have, in fact, obtained insider positions," and that "outsiders have attempted to solicit utility-sector employees" for damaging physical and cyber attacks.



"Based on the reliable reporting of previous incidents, we have high confidence in our judgment that insiders and their actions pose a significant threat to the infrastructure and information systems of U.S. facilities," the bulletin reads in part. "Past events and reporting also provide high confidence in our judgment that insider information on sites, infrastructure, networks, and personnel is valuable to our adversaries and may increase the impact of any attack on the utilities infrastructure."



In the materials recovered after the Navy SEAL operation that killed Osama bin Laden in May, officials found evidence bin Laden sought to repeat the carnage of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on or around its ten year anniversary.



After gaining access to such sites, causing mayhem could be relatively easy, according to former White House counter-terrorism advisor and ABC News consultant Richard Clarke.



"There are a lot of very sensitive facilities where someone can get a job on the inside, get access to a control room, flip a switch, which causes an electric power grid to short circuit, causes a pipeline to explode," Clarke said.



The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement there was no specific threat.



"DHS routinely shares information with its state and local partners on a wide-range of potential threats, and as part of this responsibility, DHS issued an intelligence note to its federal, state, local, tribal and private sector partners on July 19 regarding potential threats to private sector utilities. While DHS has no specific, credible intelligence of an imminent threat posed to the private sector utilities, several recent incidents highlight the on-going threat to infrastructure in the utility sectors from insiders and outsiders seeking facility-specific information that might be exploited in an attack," DHS press secretary Matt Chandler said. "We will continue to work closely with our state and local partners, including our partners in the utility sector, to take steps to best protect from potential threats – including protecting our nation's infrastructure. This includes sharing information as well as best practices."



'I am Taking This Plant Hostage



U.S. officials were stunned last year in Yemen with the arrest of an alleged American recruit to al Qaeda, Sharif Mobley, of New Jersey, who had been employed as five different U.S. nuclear power plants in and around Pennsylvania after successfully passing federal background checks.



"If someone is determined, and has the right access, they could do damage that would affect thousands of lives," Sweet said.



Al Qaeda has already put out the word in its online magazine, Inspire, for "brothers of ours who have specialized expertise and those who work in sensitive locations that would offer them unique opportunities to wreak havoc on the enemies of Allah."



As evidence of American infrastructure vulnerabilities, the report specifically cites the attempted insider sabotage this April at a water treatment plant in Arizona.



Officials said then a disgruntled night shift worker took over the control room and tried to create a giant methane gas explosion.



"I am taking the plant hostage," the worker said in a recorded 911 call.



There was no tie to al Qaeda and his plot failed, but the incident was a reminder of how easily one insider could create potentially deadly mayhem.



"Facilities in the United States don't have to be attacked by terrorists with airplanes or bombs outside the facility," Clarke said.

China Building Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons For Use Against U.S. Carriers




http://www.washingtontimes.com/





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



China's military is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons that Beijing plans to use against U.S. aircraft carriers in any future conflict over Taiwan, according to an intelligence report made public on Thursday.



Portions of a National Ground Intelligence Center study on the lethal effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high-powered microwave (HPM) weapons revealed that the arms are part of China’s so-called “assassin’s mace” arsenal - weapons that allow a technologically inferior China to defeat U.S. military forces.



EMP weapons mimic the gamma-ray pulse caused by a nuclear blast that knocks out all electronics, including computers and automobiles, over wide areas. The phenomenon was discovered in 1962 after an aboveground nuclear test in the Pacific disabled electronics in Hawaii.



The declassified intelligence report, obtained by the private National Security Archive, provides details on China’s EMP weapons and plans for their use. Annual Pentagon reports on China's military in the past made only passing references to the arms.



“For use against Taiwan, China could detonate at a much lower altitude (30 to 40 kilometers) … to confine the EMP effects to Taiwan and its immediate vicinity and minimize damage to electronics on the mainland,” the report said.



The report, produced in 2005 and once labeled “secret,” stated that Chinese military writings have discussed building low-yield EMP warheads, but “it is not known whether the Chinese have actually done so.”



The report said that in addition to EMP weapons, “any low-yield strategic nuclear warhead (or tactical nuclear warheads) could be used with similar effects.”



“The DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile has been mentioned as a platform for the EMP attack against Taiwan,” the report said.



According to the report, China’s electronic weapons are part of what are called “trump card” or “assassin’s mace” weapons that “are based on new technology that has been developed in high secrecy.”



“Trump card would be applicable if the Chinese have developed new low-yield, possibly enhanced, EMP warheads, while assassin’s mace would apply if older warheads are employed,” the report said.



According to the report, China conducted EMP tests on mice, rats, rabbits, dogs and monkeys that produced eye, brain, bone marrow and other organ injuries. It stated that “it is clear the real purpose of the Chinese medical experiments is to learn the potential human effects of exposure to powerful EMP and [high-powered microwave] radiation.”



The tests did not appear designed for “anti-personnel [radio frequency] weapons” because of the limited amounts of radiation used.



However, the report said another explanation is that the Chinese tests may have been research “intended primarily for torturing prisoners,” or the tests may have been conducted to determine safety or shielding standards for military personnel or weapons.



The medical research also appeared useful for China's military in making sure that EMP weapons used against Taiwan and “any vulnerable U.S. aircraft carrier would not push the U.S. across the nuclear-response threshold,” the report said.



“China’s [high-altitude] EMP capability could be used in two different ways: as a surprise measure after China’s initial strike against Taiwan and other U.S. [aircraft carrier strike group] assets have moved into a vulnerable position, and as a bluff intended to dissuade the United States from defending Taiwan with a CVBG,” the Pentagon acronym for carrier strike groups.



The bluff scenario would include China’s announcement of a resumption of atmospheric nuclear testing and warn of tests during a specified period and then attacking Taiwan’s infrastructure with conventional forces.



China then would wait and see whether the U.S. carriers were deployed to defend Taiwan.



The report concluded that China could consider using EMP weapons against Taiwan’s electronic infrastructure or against U.S. carriers if a conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Strait.



“The minimization of military casualties on CVBG assets is calculated to lessen the likelihood of a U.S. nuclear response to a Taiwan strike employing nuclear EMP,” the report said. “The minimization of casualties on Taiwan is calculated to lessen the animosity among Taiwan’s population over forced reunification.”



Taiwan broke with mainland China after nationalist forces fled to the island when communists seized power in 1949.



The United States is bound by a 1979 law to prevent the forcible reunification of the island with the mainland, and China has said it is prepared to use force to claim the island.



Peter Pry, a former congressional aide who helped direct a commission on EMP several years ago, said the commission found that China plans for nuclear EMP strikes against the United States, as well as Taiwan and carrier forces, are part of its military doctrine and exercises.



“There is also evidence that China is developing, or has already developed, super-EMP nuclear weapons that generate extraordinarily powerful EMP fields, based partly on design information stolen from the United States,” Mr. Pry, president of the group EMPact America, said in an email.



Mark Stokes, a former Pentagon specialist on China's military, said the report’s details on high-powered microwave are new.



The same state-run institute, the China Academy of Engineering Physics, that makes China’s nuclear warheads is also a center of microwave weapons research, he said.



Microwave weapons would be used to shut down enemy radar, communications, computers and other electronics in an opening salvo. The weapons also could jam electronics of attacking aircraft and anti-radiation missiles, and as an anti-satellite weapon, degrade sensitive satellite electronic systems, he said.



Richard Fisher, a China military analyst, said EMP warheads are likely to be an option for China’s new DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile for the purpose of attacking large U.S. Navy ships without inflicting immediate massive casualties.



“Less is known about the longer-term effects on personnel of this kind of radiation attack,” said Mr. Fisher, who is with the International Assessment and Strategy Center. “The more powerful nuclear-propelled neutron bomb was designed specifically for killing personnel without a massive blast.”

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

FROM THE PATRIOT POST

Alexander's Essay – July 14, 2011


Guns Gone Wild -- ATF's Good Intentions Gone BadObama's Solution: New Gun Control Measures

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." --James Madison

Obama's ATF Political FollyIn January of this year, Federal Judge John Roll, a Republican nominated by President George H.W. Bush, was among six citizens murdered by a psychopath in Tucson. Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was among 14 wounded in that attack.

Predictably, Barack Hussein Obama and his Leftist cadres in the Democrat Party were quick to convert the Tucson tragedy into political fodder to formulate a new round of "common sense" gun control legislation. Indeed, Obama claimed the Tucson assault should "at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people." He went on, "I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way [to confiscate guns]."

But Obama's nefarious plan to undermine the Second Amendment was well underway many, many months prior to the Tucson murders -- and well below the radar. In fact, anti-gun activist Sarah Brady said that Obama told her, "I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. ... We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

Why would Obama want to be so clandestine with his anti-2A agenda?

In recent decades, Democrats have suffered serious electoral and judicial setbacks when trying to enact gun control measures. Given the lack of broad support for such measures, Obama is silently advancing the Socialist agenda to disarm Americans and, ultimately, neutralize our ability to defend Essential Liberty.

In March of this year, I detailed insider accounts regarding Project Gunrunner, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation begun in 2005, which originally had the objective of tracking weapons transfers between the U.S. and Mexico in order to expose Mexican drug cartels.
However, in early 2009, the Obama administration determined that the original purpose of Gunrunner could be altered in order to provide a new mandate for implementing their gun control rationale: Stopping the flow of "assault weapons" into Mexico. To facilitate that agenda, Attorney General Eric Holder authorized operation "Fast and Furious," that set into motion an ATF plan to encourage and enable "straw purchase" firearm sales to arms traffickers, and allow the guns to make their way into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartel assassins.

Holder determined that he could manufacture a case that guns purchased in the U.S. were responsible for all the violence in Mexico. Then Obama could use that "evidence" to make the argument that, in order to stem the violence, more stringent gun control measures were necessary, starting incrementally with restricting gun sales in Border States. As Demo Rep. Carolyn McCarthy put it, "[Obama] is with me on [gun control], and it's just going to be when that opportunity comes forward that we're going to be able to go forward."

Border Patrol Agent Brian TerryThe "opportunity" was moving forward unabated until one of the ATF's Fast and Furious guns was used last December to murder U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, and other guns were used in the February ambush of Immigration and Customs Agents Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila by Los Zetas Cartel soldiers in Mexico. Agent Zapata was killed in that assault.

I should note here that in all accounts from my sources within ATF, clearly the agents involved at the tactical level of Gunrunner and F&F were under the impression that these operations were legitimate efforts to identify transit lines between the U.S. and members of Los Zetas and other Mexican drug cartels.

However, at the strategic (high-level management) levels of the ATF in Arizona and Texas, it was well understood that Holder had a scheme to use this operation to jumpstart Obama's gun control scheme. (In a March 2010 ATF memo, agents reported that the managers in charge of Fast and Furious were "jovial, if not giddy" over news that ATF guns were associated with murders in Mexico.)

There is new evidence that Holder even used "stimulus debt" to launch "Operation Castaway" in Florida -- putting guns into the hands of the world's most brutal transnational gang, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) -- to generate additional "supporting evidence" for Obama's gun control mandate.

Recall if you will, Democrat outrage when Oliver North, working for the Reagan administration, ran a clandestine operation selling arms to Middle East bad guys so they could kill other bad guys over there, and then used some of the sales proceeds to fund the good guys in Central America fighting against Marxists south of our border. No such Democrat angst is evident this time.

Obama and Holder are moving forward with their subterfuge with no concern about rebuke. Moreover, they are doing so as if agents Terry and Zapata were still walking the line.

Last Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced, "The president directed the attorney general to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve Americans' safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights. That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues. And we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future."

Well underway, indeed. Lost amid the din of all the extra-constitutional federal tax-n-spend debates this week, Obama spared Democrat congressional action on gun control by unilaterally circumventing the Second Amendment via an Executive Order. You guessed it -- he decreed new restrictions on gun sales in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Holder's Deputy Attorney General, James Cole, claimed that Obama's EO would help the ATF disrupt illegal weapons trafficking networks between the U.S. and Mexico.

Meanwhile, there's a growing list of serious crimes committed in the U.S. with ATF guns that were thought to be in Mexico.

Parents of Agent Jaime ZapataAs Obama ramps up additional gun control measures, I would remind him that the first shots of the American Revolution were fired in response to the government's attempt to disarm American colonists, specifically to capture and destroy arms and supplies stored by the Massachusetts militia in the town of Concord.

As reflected in James Madison's words regarding the "ultimate authority" for defending liberty, our Founders fully understood that to secure Liberty, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

As Madison's Supreme Court appointee, Justice Joseph Story, wrote in his 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution," "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

The Second Amendment was and remains "The Palladium of Liberties."

Those who are foolishly willing to compromise Essential Liberty to pursue Obama's illusion of safety, in the timeless judgment of Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!



Mark Alexander

Publisher, The Patriot Post