by Marvin Ramirez

Marvin Ramirez

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: As we continue being mind-controlled via the television with pornographically programming and lies by mainstream media, we are also being bombarded with content that encourages immorality and violence, and at the same time, removing our traditional believes in God from society and our school system, to the point that being Christian, is a political sin. The following article, written by Michael Snyder, of American Dream, brings us a very detailed evaluation of this issue. This is Part 2 and last.

The Name of Jesus has become a dirty word in politically correct America

by Michael Snyder
American Dream

And one of the biggest battlegrounds for religious freedom in America at the moment is the U.S. military.

Right now, there are some very powerful forces that are trying to eradicate all expressions of the Christian faith from the U.S. military. It has gotten so bad that a 23 year Air Force veteran was recently ordered to remove his Bible from his desk, and the Air Force recently came out and announced that service members are only allowed to talk about their faith if it “does not make others uncomfortable“.

The U.S. military is a far different institution than it once was. Today, political correctness rules the U.S. military.

If you doubt this, just check out this example…

Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes is a Christian chaplain currently serving in the U.S. Air Force. He is stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska. As an ordained clergyman whose duties are to provide religious instruction and spiritual counseling, he has a page on the base’s website called “Chaplain’s Corner.”

Reyes recently wrote an essay entitled, “No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II.” This common saying is attributed to a Catholic priest in World War II, made famous when President Dwight D. Eisenhower said during a 1954 speech: “I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they learned a great truth that there are no atheists in the foxholes.”

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation was absolutely outraged when they heard about this. They demanded that the commander of the base, Col. Brian Duffy, do something about the “anti-secular diatribe” that Reyes had authored.

In the old days, a  base commander would have had a good chuckle and then would have told the MRFF where to stick their complaint, but the old days are gone.

These days, base commanders cower subserviently before politically correct organizations such as the MRFF. Just check out what happened next…

Nonetheless, only five hours after MRFF’s complaint, the essay was removed from the website. Duffy has profusely apologized to MRFF for not stopping this religious leader from sharing religious thoughts.

But this response—which again appears to be a violation of Reyes’s First Amendment rights—is insufficient for MRFF. They said, “Faith based hate, is hate all the same,” and, “Lt. Col. Reyes must be appropriately punished.” (Emphasis added).

And thanks to the MRFF, special edition Bibles for service members have been banned from being sold on military bases…

Bowing to a complaint from a religious watchdog group, the Pentagon will no longer give consent for a publisher to use the official emblems of the military services on a line of Bibles sold on base exchanges.

The group claimed victory, but an association of former military chaplains is demanding that Congress overturn the Defense Department’s decision.

The Bibles, branded for each of four services as “The Soldier’s Bible,” “The Sailor’s Bible” and so on, are published by Life- Way Christian Resources’ Holman Bible Publishers, a subsidiary of the Southern Baptist Bible Convention, said Chris Rodda, the senior research director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The MRFF is a very insidious organization.

It is headed up by a man named Mikey Weinstein. He has called Christians “human monsters” and “enemies of the United States Constitution“. Weinstein is convinced that sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ while in the military is “sedition and treason” and should be punished as such.

You would think that people like Weinstein would be dismissed as lunatics, but unfortunately under the Obama administration he has been brought in as a special adviser to the Pentagon.

What a crazy world that we live in.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama himself has remained completely silent as a totally innocent American citizen is being tortured in an Iranian prison. If that prisoner was a liberal activist, Obama would be moving heaven and earth to get him released. But because he is a Christian, we haven’t heard a peep out of Obama, and many Christian leaders want an explanation…

One of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders wants to know why President Obama has remained silent as Iran tortures an American pastor held captive in one of the Islamic republic’s most notorious prisons.

Franklin Graham, the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse, told Fox News the imprisonment and torture of Pastor Saeed Abedini is a blatant example of “religious intolerance.”

“Many in the international community are expressing outrage over this blatant example of religious intolerance,” Graham said.

“I ask that our government do the same and demand that Pastor Saeed Abedini be released and allowed to return home to his wife and family in the United States.”

We are rapidly moving toward a time when followers of Jesus will be treated as second class citizens in America. The following are some other examples of this trend…

• A War Games scenario at Fort Leavenworth that identified Christian groups and Evangelical groups as being potential threats;

• A 2009 Dept. of Homeland Security memorandum that identified future threats to national security coming from Evangelicals and pro-life groups;

• A West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center that linked pro-lifers to terrorism;

• Evangelical leader Franklin Graham was uninvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service because of his comments about Islam;

• Christian prayers were banned at the funeral services for veterans at Houston’s National Cemetery;

• Bibles were banned at Walter Reed Army Medical Center – a decision that was later rescinded;

• Christian crosses and a steeple were removed from a chapel in Afghanistan because the military said the icons disrespected other religions.

For much more on all of this, please see my previous article entitled “All Over America Evangelical Christians Are Being Labeled As Extremists And Hate Groups“.

This is not what America is supposed to be about.

How quickly we have turned our backs on the values of our founders.

In a recent article, Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin tried to remind us of how far we have drifted from what our founders intended…

It’s a good thing that George Washington is dead and military history effectively banished from our campuses. Otherwise, we might remember the general order Washington issued upon taking command of the embattled Continental Army–and in Boston, no less. The general “requires and expects of all officers and soldiers a punctual attendance at Divine services, to implore the blessing of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.” In the same way, any assistant professor of government hoping to achieve tenure will likely skim over certain sections of the first president’s Farewell Address, which reads: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.”

Will America be able to stand if we continue to try to push every shred of the Christian faith out of public life?

What do you think?

I am sure that a lot of people out there have some very strong opinions about all of this.

by Stephen Pitti
New America Media

As the Southern California harvest season came to a close in 1946, a young Mexican immigrant named Robert García paid tribute to the young women he had seen in the nearby town of Cucamonga:

Your beautiful women like flowers are just like the women of my people they show their love and deserve respect on the street and at home

His verse, published by a local Spanish-language newspaper, provided readers a rare glimpse into the emotional world of the thousands of imported laborers who had worked in local fields since the first months of World War II. Mexican “braceros” were much talked about but little understood in the United States of the 1940s. They had been celebrated for saving the crops and assuring an Allied victory prior to V-J Day, extolled for their efficiency and commitment to their jobs, and sometimes praised for showing remarkable, “natural” skills as farm laborers. But in the face of such rhetoric Robert García wrote about other matters: love, emotional attachment, and longing. In so doing he opened up a window into the dreams of migrants and immigrants that policymakers then and now have often preferred to keep shuttered.

This week marks an important moment for considering such perspectives. While young Dream activists sit in detention in Arizona for challenging policies that deny them and their family members in Mexico the ability to travel to see one another, elected officials continue to debate policy proposals for overhauling the current immigration system and increasing spending on border enforcement.

Some of these issues date to Robert García’s time. Just over sixty years ago, on August 4, 1942, the United States and Mexican governments signed the international labor agreement, known as the Bracero Program, that would bring him and more than a million others to the U.S. as agricultural workers. It was the expectation of official negotiators that contracted braceros would never be given the chance to put down roots in the United States: The program was designed only for men, and it was meant to allow sons and husbands to leave their kin for a limited number of weeks with the promise that they would return home at the conclusion of the harvest.

Braceros were idealized as laborers with strong arms (“brazos” means “arms” in Spanish), and little thought was given to their ambitions. But because participants like García showed more flexibility and more heart than policymakers had anticipated, developing new desires and friendships, and sometimes new permanent homes, in places like Cucamonga, braceros soon reshaped communities in both the United States and Mexico.

In ways that policymakers never anticipated, these migrants fell in and out of love from Arkansas to Zacatecas after 1942, maintaining relationships with family and friends on both sides of the border. Few policymakers recognized these dynamics, insisting instead on understanding workers as little more than game pieces on a North American board, one defined by nation-states and labor demands, and one that government officials could control with real confidence.

Blind to love, they saw the Bracero Program as a handy system of ladders and chutes, guaranteeing that contracted men would move from one identifiable square to another, at the appropriate time, and that they would then transition back down the board at the end of the game, sliding home to Mexico once their work contracts ended.

García and his peers were never passive pawns playing this type of game, nor were they guided only by economic calculations or government directives. Like so many others in American history, they often followed their hearts, and some braceros anticipated establishing new families in the United States from the start. A popular Spanish-language song recorded in Los Angeles in 1948 entitled “El Bracero y La Pachuca,” for example, celebrated the dashing, romantic young migrant worker aiming to settle down despite the Bracero Program’s restrictions on their permanent residency in the U.S. In flowery verse, he recited love poems to a young Mexican American woman, his “linda princesa encantada (beautiful enchanted princess),” to no avail.

The history of braceros and other migrants in the United States reminds us that love and romance have clashed with government policies in many civil rights struggles, and that love’s challenge to the legal order has often made our democracy more expansive and responsive. Even when denied permanent residency, valued only as temporary workers and not as citizens in the making, as in the case of imported laborers at midcentury, immigrants formed and reaffirmed loving relationships that were both intensely local – based in workplaces, neighborhoods, and schools – and insistently transnational – with children, siblings, extended family living abroad, across increasingly militarized borders.

Forged over decades, these bonds have certainly changed the United States for the better, creating millions of families of mixed immigration status today, and assuring that churches and most local institutions from coast to coast now include both immigrants and the U.S.-born. These realities have challenged our policymakers, of course.

But with so much at stake, the U.S. must legally recognize the ties of love that continue to bind our residents to one another. Immigrants’ courageous efforts to remain connected with their kin, to support and stay faithful to them, should remind us of the core values that we claim to uphold as a nation. Stephen Pitti is a professor of History and American Studies at Yale University and director of the Ethnicity, Race, and Migration Program. He is author of the books, “The Devil in Silicon Valley: Race, Mexicans, and Northern California” (2003) and “American Latinos and the Making of the United States.” (2012)

Wikileaks founder also praises Matt Drudge for ‘breaking media censorship’

by Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com

During a live question and answer conference call held at Deakin University in Melbourne earlier today, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange praised Matt Drudge for breaking establishment media censorship in the United States, while heralding Rand Paul and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party as the “only hope” for the future of America.

Asked what he thought of the political commentator, Assange labeled Matt Drudge a “news media innovator,” noting that he came to prominence by “publishing information that the establishment press in the United States would not.”

“It is a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform and of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship,” said Assange, adding that he agreed with some of Drudge’s political positions and disagreed with others.

Assange went on to note that Drudge is now primarily a collector of “interesting rumors” and that social media has mirrored his model of news gathering.

The Wikileaks founder then addressed a follow-up question about former Congressman Ron Paul and current Senator Rand Paul, remarking, “I’m a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the US Congress on a number of issues,” noting that they have been “the strongest supporters of the fight against the US attack on Wikileaks and on me.”

Assange also hailed the Pauls for their opposition to drone strikes and extrajudicial assassinations, noting how they came from the libertarian intellectual tradition of “non-violence,” in relation not just to offensive war but also tax collection and abortion.

Asked what he thought of the groundswell of support from young people for Ron and Rand Paul, Assange noted that virtually every Democrat in Congress had been “co-opted by the Obama administration” or co-opted by DC social networks,” while the establishment wing of the Republican Party was “completely in bed with the war industry”.

Assange said that both major parties had joined forces to adopt an approach that “compromises the future of US democracy,” noting that such a method had nothing to do with conservatism.

“The Republican Party in so far as how it has coupled together with the war industry is not a conservative party at all and the Libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice in the US Congress,” said Assange, adding, “It will be the driver that shifts the United States around – it’s not going to come from the Democrats, it’s not going to come from Ralph Nader, it’s not going to come from the co-opted parts of the Republican Party.”

“The only hope as far as electoral politics is concerned in the United States presently is the Libertarian section of the Republican Party,” Assange concluded.

The five questions put to Assange were chosen as a result of an online voting system. The questions about Matt Drudge and Ron & Rand Paul came third in the poll.