Rotten LYING LAWBREAKERS!

Looks like they STEAL LYING! These people ain't NEVER obeyed our laws to help the crooked rich lawbreakers that want to hire illegal aliens and give them what belongs to POOR citizens!! GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!! HANG'EM!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

American Gothic-Episode 2

American Gothic: Pilot

WILL YOUR VOTE BE COUNTED?

I have experienced some of the Republican's highjenks right here in OKC, OK. They had been telling ex-felons that if they had ever had a felony, they could NEVER vote again. LIES! It was nothing but a lie. Thank GOD, the truth will always come out.

King James BibleFor nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.

The second American Revolution

PLAY IT AGAIN SAM....

ONE NATION UNDER JUDGEMENT.....

I was so impressed with this woman's article I just had to give you the link here. I too would like to know the answer to the question she poses. How 'bout you? What do you think?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0728/p09s02-coop.html

Does the American flag belong in church?
Our allegiance belongs to God, not state power.
By Becky Akers
from the July 28, 2008 edition

New York - I've attended church weekly all my life, and virtually every congregation with whom I've worshipped displays an American flag. It often stands close to the communion table, probably a church's most sacred spot. Some denominations even recite the Pledge of Allegiance – multiple times. One church I visited in the Midwest began Sunday School with the Pledge but apparently lacked faith it would stick. We interrupted morning worship with another recitation.
All in all, American Christians seem as devoted to their government as Ruth was to Naomi. But should they be? Do either the flag or the Pledge have any place in the Lord's house? Is congregational commitment to the republic for which these emblems stand consistent with Biblical Christianity? Is political power?
Throughout history, Christians have usually been on the wrong side of government. The Roman Empire tortured Jesus Christ to death, then criminalized his friends. Later regimes continued that tradition. They routinely hunted down, imprisoned, tortured, and slaughtered people who clung to their Lord instead of the law. Something like 70 million Christians have died for their faith since AD 33.
The church thought to resolve this by grabbing government's reins. But the same brutality soon surfaced. Believers weren't safe unless they practiced precisely as their brothers in power dictated.
Incredibly, Christians suffered the same tortures and death at the hands of "Christian" rulers as they had from others. At various times in various nations, "Christians" have persecuted their fellows for acknowledging the pope, refusing to acknowledge the pope, baptizing adults instead of babies, baptizing babies instead of adults, etc. Tragically, Christians high on power forsake the Ten Commandments and the golden rule as quickly as anyone else.
The trouble doesn't lie with Christianity but with power. The two have always been at odds. Political power is a synonym for "physical force," for bending people to government's will regardless of their inclinations, interests, or welfare. But Christianity is love – power's antidote. Anyone who sincerely follows Jesus Christ will never try to compel others – because he didn't. Jesus sought to persuade by word and example, loving men so much that he let them judge for themselves the truth of his teachings.
No wonder the state wars against so potent an adversary. Its antagonism compelled America's Founding Fathers to decree, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Founders weren't only insulating government from Christianity, as today's secularists insist; they also hoped to protect Christianity from the poison of political power. A free society flourishes because of its families, schools, marketplace and churches. If these become mere outposts of government, if the state subsumes them so that they advance its agenda rather than curtail its power, the country sinks into totalitarianism.
How disastrous, then, that many American Christians are too busy courting government to curb it. Preachers vie to endorse political candidates, cozying up to them rather than calling them to account. Churches no longer disdain money taken from people via taxation; instead, they complain that their handouts under the Faith-Based Initiative weren't big enough.
And many support a war in Iraq that has killed tens of thousands and put civilians – including Iraq's brave but tiny Christian community – in great tribulation. Sadly, I have yet to hear any American church pray for Iraqis as they endure the persecution, poverty, and pain this war has inflicted. But congregants who are Americans first and Christians second often ask God to bless our troops on Sundays.
If they think about it at all, most believers probably see the flag and Pledge as tokens of affection for their country. In reality, both symbolize an infatuation with government. Churches hope to change circumstances through political force when Jesus called us to change hearts and minds with his message. We cheat ourselves, trusting the state's inferior and transitory power instead of the Almighty.
We also enhance rather than counter the state's supremacy. Our "patriotism" is really nationalism: unquestioning and enthusiastic support of political power. Christians eager to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's have the rest of the week to do so. But the things rendered should not include our allegiance. That belongs to God. Why taint our worship by pledging it to the state's flag instead?
On trial for his life, Jesus Christ asserted his divinity while denying that his kingdom was of this world. It's ironic that Americans who accept the first truth devoutly reject the latter.
• Becky Akers is a freelance writer and historian. She worships in Protestant churches.

Opposition to Plan Merida

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/534/plan_merida_sinaloa_drug_forum#comment-13671

In Mexico, Opposition to Plan Merida Emerges

This week, high-level US and Mexican officials spoke out in favor of Plan Mérida, the three-year, $1.4 billion anti-drug package designed to assist the Mexican government in its ongoing battle with violent drug trafficking organizations. But at the same time officials like Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were visiting Latin America to seek support for the plan, at a forum on drug policy in Culiacán, Sinaloa, home of one of the most feared of the drug trafficking groups, the Sinaloa Cartel, there was little but criticism of the proposed aid package.

Since he took office at the beginning of last year, Mexican President Felipe Calderón has deployed some 30,000 Mexican army troops in the fight against the so-called cartels, which provide much of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana coming into the United States. US officials have praised Mexican President Felipe Calderón for his aggressive efforts against the cartels and seek to reward his government -- and especially the Mexican military -- by providing high-tech equipment, training, and other goods to the Mexican armed forces.
But despite the massive military deployments in border cities from Tijuana in the west to Reynosa and Matamoros in the east, as well as in the states of Guerrero, Michoacán, and Sinaloa -- all traditional drug-producing areas -- and the high praise from Washington, Calderon's drug war has not gone well. Roughly 2,000 people were killed in Mexico's drug war last year, and with this year's toll already approaching 1,000, 2008 looks to be even bloodier. Yet the flow of drugs north and guns and cash south continues unimpeded.
Bush administration and Mexican officials met over a period of months last year and early this year to craft a joint response that would see $500 million a year in assistance to Mexico, primarily in the form of helicopters and surveillance aircraft. Known as Plan Mérida, after the Mexican city in which it took final form, the assistance package is now before the US Congress.
Congressional failure to fund the package would be "a real slap at Mexico," Secretary of Defense Gates said in Mexico City Tuesday as he met with General Guillermo Galván, the Mexican defense minister, Government Secretary Juan Mouriño, and Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa. "It clearly would make it more difficult for us to help Mexican armed forces and their civilian agencies deal with this difficult problem," he told reporters.
The same day, Attorney General Mukasey was in San José, Costa Rica, where in a speech to justice ministers from across the hemisphere, he, too, urged Congress to approve the aid package. Drugs, gangs, and violent crime on the border are "a joint problem -- and we must face it jointly," he said. "By working together, we can strengthen the rule of law and the administration of justice, and we can combat transnational criminal threats," Mukasey said.
That is what the Mexican government wants to hear. It negotiated the aid package, and although President Calderón's ruling National Action Party (PAN) does not hold a majority in the Mexican congress, it can count on the support of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) on the aid deal. Of the three major parties in the Mexican congress, only the left-leaning Revolutionary Democratic Party (PRD) is raising concerns about the package, but the PRD is not strong enough in the congress to block it.
But while official Mexico may want passage of the package, a number of Mexican intellectuals, academics, political figures, and former military officers attacked the plan to beef up the Mexican military for US drug war aims at a forum this week at the International Forum on Illicit Drugs hosted by the Culiacán weekly newsmagazine Ríodoce.
"The US wants to fight drugs, crime, and terrorism. Bush and Calderón have been talking about a new Plan Colombia, but the anti-drug policies pursued so far have been a failure," said Ríodoce managing editor Ismael Bojórquez, as he opened the conference. "The phenomenon of drug trafficking is very complex and reaches deeply into the fabric of our society. The system benefits from the drug trade; the profits from it enter into our economy and have benefited many businesses. Few sectors have been able to resist the easy money. In a country that has not been able to improve conditions for poor Mexicans, the drug trade is an attractive alternative," he explained.
"Our government has authorized the use of federal police and even soldiers to attack the drug trade, but this strategy is mistaken and the government has wasted million of dollars that could have gone to productive ends," Bojórquez added.
"Our foreign policy has been subordinated to that of the Americans, the policemen of the world," said Mexican political figure Jorge Ángel Pescador Osuna, the former Mexican consul general in Los Angeles. "Fortunately, this Plan Mérida initiative has yet to be approved by the US Congress, and hopefully, the voice of Mexico will be heard in this debate. We think there are real solutions that are within the grasp of the government and civil society," he said.
"They want to spend $500 million the first year, half of which will go to buy military equipment and advanced technologies," said Pescador Osuna. "My first response is how nice. But then I have to ask why we should use the military in areas that are outside its competence. What we need here is to strengthen our democracy, and we will not accomplish that by using the military for civilian law enforcement."
"These kinds of anti-drug policies that focus on policing are overwhelmingly simplistic," concurred Colombian economist Francisco Thoumi, director of the Center for Drug and Crime Studies at the University of Rosario in Bogota. "They do not attack the problem at the base," he argued. "The drug trade is a capitalist industry, and it accepts the losses of interdiction and eradication as a cost of doing business. This kind of enforcement looks good on TV and makes politicians and police happy, but the industry goes on, and this doesn't solve the problem."
"The idea with this is to give power to the armed forces," said Luis Astorga, a researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City and head of a UNESCO program devoted to understanding the ramifications of the international drug trade. "Calderon is doing nothing more or less than reconfiguring the anti-drug struggle in Mexico by putting it in the hands of the military. One question is how long this will last," he noted.
General Francisco Gallardo, a leading advocate of human rights within the Mexican armed forces, was also critical. "The context for Plan Mérida is this new world order where the US struggle for hegemony with China and the European Union," he argued. "The US has militarized its foreign policy, and it wants us to militarize our drug enforcement. But the function of the army is to defend the sovereignty of the state, not to fight crime. That is the job of the police," he said.
"Involving the military under the auspices of Plan Mérida does not respond to Mexican interests," Gallardo said. "It has a bad effect on the institutional and judicial order of the nation. The soldiers who kill innocents are absolved; they have impunity," he said, citing the cases of several mass killings by soldiers in Sinaloa, including an incident in Santiago de Caballero in the mountains above Culiacán in late March, in which four unarmed young men in a Hummer were killed by soldiers on an anti-drug mission. "The drug trade is a matter for police and the justice system, not the military," Gallardo concluded.
While the Bush and Calderón administrations are seeking to steamroll opposition to the proposed aid package, it is clear that Plan Mérida is drawing heated criticism in Mexico. What is less clear is whether that opposition can successfully block the initiative on the Mexican side. Right now, the best prospects for that appear to lie in the US Congress.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/534/plan_merida_sinaloa_drug_forum#comment-13671

There are some interesting comments on this article also. Have a great week.

Press One For English

WHO DOES AMERICA REALLY BELONG TO?

A video of the early settlers in America.

Once, America seemed endless....wide open prairies, deep forests, mountains that climbed into the clouds. But now, everyday, the land is shrinking. It is a sad reality that nothing on this earth is unlimited. Now our cities are becoming overcrowded. Increasingly the working and development of our lands are forcing wild creatures into our cities to search for survival. My ancestors worked their fingers to the bone to make a home and a way of life for their families. Their blood, sweat, and tears have soaked into the very soil of America. And we may have been poor, but we had DIGNITY. I have the red dirt of Oklahoma running through my veins...
Homestead National Monument of America
Beatrice, Nebraska
http://www.nps.gov/home

AMERICANS REMEMBERING THEIR ROOTS-PT1 OF 2

AMERICANS REMEMBERING THEIR ROOTS PT2 OF 2

THERE WERE NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HERE AT THAT TIME:

WHAT WILL OUR SOLDIERS THINK WHEN THEY COME HOME TO FIND WE HAVE LOST OUR COUNTRY WHILE THEY WERE GONE AND SEE THIS?

THIS IS WHAT A COUNTRY LOOKS LIKE THAT'S UNDER ATTACK.

AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THE MOVE-KUDOS!!!

The American People WILL Prevail!

STUDENT TASERED FOR ASKING SEN KERRY ABOUT VOTER SUPPRESSION

THESE ARE THE REAL 'CHRISTIANS', IF YOU ASK ME...