By Pastor Roger Anghis
April 14, 2013

Looking at America today we no longer see the nation that our Founders gave us. They gave us a nation where if you worked hard, you could succeed. They gave us a nation that any person could rise to the top and was even encouraged to. But today we penalize success via taxes and our president vilifies people who do make a lot of money. He should encourage them to make a lot!

Just recently the Obama administration decided that a person can have too much in their retirement account and they will now decide how much you need and tax the rest. Here is a comment from a senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.” I would like to know when the federal government was given the right and the authority to determine how much we need for a retirement account.

One of the biggest problems in America is the destruction of the family. Welfare encourages the break up of the family. It rewards promiscuity and penalizes marriage. Now we have a fool from MSNBC, Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry, that stated that “We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children: your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.”

“So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.” The destruction of the family is one of the 45 goals the Communists set up to destroy America. I believe that this is the most important factor to the success of America. Their number 40 goal is Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. The fight to redefine marriage to include male/male and female/female as well as male/female and who knows what else that want is breaking down the institution of marriage. The claim that a child ‘belongs to the whole community’ is another of their goals; 41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. By declaring that kids don’t belong to their parents is simply an attack on the family itself but the institution of marriage itself.

full story


By Kelleigh Nelson
April 14, 2013

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.” —Dr. Jacques Cousteau

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” —Professor Maurice King

“I’ve been a cancer doctor for over 30 years, and I think the proper role for a doctor is to take care of the patient. Assisted suicide should not be in the realm of medicine.” —Dr. Kenneth Stevens

Living Wills

The first living will was conceived in 1967 by Luis Kutner, a human-rights lawyer in Chicago, and cofounder of the pro-abortion Amnesty International, in conjunction with the Euthanasia Society of America. The living wills were distributed by the Euthanasia Society.

Luis Kutner’s musings about death anticipated the day when medicine would cross the line from prolonging life to prolonging dying. In 1967, he wrote his first ”living will,” a document that allows a person to specify under what conditions life-support systems should be discontinued. In 1930 Mr. Kutner helped found an American chapter of the Euthanasia Society, modeled after an English counterpart that included, playwright and eugenic extremist,George Bernard Shaw and Julian Huxley (the first Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and a member of the Eugenics Society).

The idea did not catch on, but in 1938 the Rev. Charles Potter founded the Society for the Right to Die. In April, 1984, a team of prominent doctors published in the New England Journal of Medicine a set of guidelines for treatment of gravely ill patients, concluding it was ethical to withhold nutrition and even medicine if it only prolonged a painful death.

Anyone who doubts that the Living Will, which is urged upon all Americans, comes from the Euthanasia Society can read the main article proposing its adoption written by attorney, Luis Kutner in 1969 entitled, “Due Process of Euthanasia: The Living Will, A Proposal,” [Indiana Law Journal v. 44, 1969, p. 549] The Living Will was written to create a due process of euthanasia. In addition, in 1970, the Euthanasia Society of America distributed 60,000 living wills. They knewwhere they were leading American society, but the misguided, trusting Americans couldn’t see it.

Kutner’s intention in creating the Living Will was to provide a way that governmental authorities could allow a form of euthanasia. The living wills were “sold” to the public as patients determining what type of care they would or would not want, but their main effect is to limit care that might allow them to live longer, an incremental step toward open euthanasia. The euthanasia-supporting organizations gave us the Advance Directives and theLiving Wills, and now we have the P.O.L.S.T. forms (Physician Orders for [Limiting] Life-Sustaining Treatment) which are spreading across the country.

Even though the public today never thinks they are agreeing to “euthanasia” when they make out a living will, the effect of filling one out can interfere with getting treatment if you change your mind and want care. For example, some physicians will “write off” patients who have a Do-Not-Resuscitate order or a Living Will and simply provide “comfort care” while refusing to treat easily-treated problems. The result is ultimately death for the patient



Gun grabbers

Gun owners all over the country – including law enforcement who take their oath of office seriously – are shocked by the level of attack against the Second Amendment since the horrendous tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary school last December.

“Gun control” is chanted a hundred times a day by members of the Democratic/Communist Party USA and their sycophants. The useful fools in print and electronic media, as well as barkers on the boob tube, make sure Americans get daily mega doses of carefully crafted propaganda. The families of children and teachers killed in Newtown have allowed themselves in their profound grief to be used as tools for tyrants and they’re very serious about it:

Newtown families: Victims turn lobbyists

“When a lobbyist for families of Newtown shooting victims called the office of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to set up a meeting, the first response was a standard D.C. offer. They could get a meeting with her staff, and Collins would stop by, they were told. The families’ answer: not good enough. According to their lobbyists, the families have a rule against staff-only meetings: They won’t do them. They insist on sitting down with the senators themselves. The families wound up getting more than 15 minutes with Collins.

“That rule is just one of the ways that the Newtown families, political novices just a few months ago, are proving to be savvy, effective advocates as they promote the gun legislation that has finally begun to move through the Senate. The families are well-educated, and many are well-off. They have been polished and sharp on TV. They’re mostly non-political, but quite accomplished in their own fields. With access to money and media, they’re using persistence, visibility — and, most all, their unique moral authority — to help prod Senate action. They also have their own lobbyists — several of them, in fact.”

I won’t use the over-used “we cannot imagine their pain”. We can’t. However, those families have no right to demand the Second Amendment be infringed, altered or amended, period.

For those who might not be familiar with the issue of the Seventeenth Amendment and the point I’m making in this column, here’s a short refresher:

When the First Continental Congress was convened via a resolution of the Congress of the Confederation, one of the first issues discussed on May 29, 1787, was the balance of power for a newly created General Government.[1]

The delegates were firm: The American people would be represented by a representative voted into office from lawfully created districts according to population. The states were to be represented in the U.S. Senate by individuals elected by each state legislature.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s