Is Osama Bin Laden really dead?

When Saddam Hussein was captured in December 1993, the announcement was made from Baghdad, not the White House. The generals on the ground in charge of the operation were the ones to announce, "We got him!" and provide photographic images and other evidence that yes, indeed, Hussein was in custody.

Fast forward to May 1, 2011 - nearly a decade has passed since that fateful September day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The announcement came from the White House with no comments from the generals on the ground. No photographic evidence to support the conclusion that Public Enemy Number One was indeed killed. Then later reports came out to say that Bin Laden was buried at sea. In other words, it's President Obama's word against the rest of the world.

Here are some basic questions.

1.Will the Obama Administration produce enough DNA testing and other proof to make it clear that Bin Laden was in fact dead? Since the DNA evidence requires an earlier verified sample of DNA material to compare to, where did that sample originate and which lab did the testing?

2. Where are the photographs of the body?

3. Why a rush to judgment in burying the body at sea before or very soon after, the killing was actually announced? Is it really Bin Laden's body?

4. How come there haven't been any statements from General Petraeus or other top ranking officials in U.S. Central Command right after the announcement was made?

5. Some early reports suggest that he was killed a week ago by a bomb, while the President says it was Navy SEALs who shot him in the head. Which is true?

It was a happy Sunday night across America as thousands flocked to the White House and Ground Zero to celebrate the news. It was a happy Sunday night when Twitter and Facebook posts around the world shared the news. But will it be a somber morning in America when people wake up to see that the questions that they slept on overnight, "Is the news true?" "Can this REALLY be happening?" and "Is the war over?" start to get asked?

The Obama Administration has a lot of answers to provide the American public. In light of the "Birther" issue, where most Americans didn't care one way or another whether the President was born in Hawaii or not, Americans WILL care whether the person most responsible for the shedding of innocent American life a decade ago, the same person who was the cause of two major wars in the Middle East, is truly dead.

Mr. President, America will not wait for three years before they see a death certificate.

Sphere: Related Content

Where are the protesters?

With Operation Odyssey Dawn operational, even with the French and British forces leading the operation, when are the anti-war protests going to heat up?

Eight years ago, there were mass protests that closed down Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Mass anti-war protests from sea-to-shining-sea occurred by organizations like Women Against Military Madness, A.N.S.W.E.R. and Code Pink - all protesting the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Eight years later as President Obama orders the launching of cruise missiles into Libya, the anti-war groups are astoundingly silent. Why?

According to news reports, thirty people protested the operation in Phoenix, Arizona. A.N.S.W.E.R had a protest in Boston but reports show that it was actually pretty small.

The Associated Press ran a story  about 80 protesters who gathered in Times Square. They chanted "No to war!" and carried banners that read, "I am not paying for war" and "Butter not guns."

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., joined the protesters, saying he was angry that Congress was not consulted before the military strikes.

He said he was undecided on whether the military action against Libya was justified but thought lawmakers and their constituents should have had time to weigh in.

"Our presidents seem to believe that all we have to do is go to the U.N. and we go to war," Rangel said as a large television screen behind him at the recruiting station showed an advertisement for the Air Force with crews loading missiles onto fighter jets. "Going to war is not a decision that presidents should make," he added.

So for all this rhetoric from the anti-war left organizations like A.N.S.W.E.R., W.A.M.M. and Code Pink over the last decade - their limited action against Odyssey Dawn tell us that all they do is blow a lot of hot air but cannot be taken seriously.

Sphere: Related Content

What does Barack Obama believe in? (Part One)

With the support of George Soros, Ted Turner and other self-proclaimed humanists, one can assume that the humanist philosophy is one that Barack Obama may believe in. Though he has not come out and proclaimed that he is a humanist, his policies are spot-on with the humanist agenda. Here is the first of three documents that outline the humanist agenda and why you should be concerned for the future of the United States of America.

Humanist Manifesto I was drafted and signed in 1933. It was revised in the 1970s with Humanist Manifesto II and later in 2003 with Humanist Manifesto III. John Dewey, considered by many as the "father of modern education" drafted the first document, which is printed in its entirely below.

Humanist Manifesto I

---

The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed. The individuals whose signatures appear would, had they been writing individual statements, have stated the propositions in differing terms. The importance of the document is that more than thirty men have come to general agreement on matters of final concern and that these men are undoubtedly representative of a large number who are forging a new philosophy out of the materials of the modern world.

- Raymond B. Bragg (1933)

---

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.
NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.

(Signed)

J.A.C. Fagginger Auer—Parkman Professor of Church History and Theology, Harvard University; Professor of Church History, Tufts College.
E. Burdette Backus—Unitarian Minister.
Harry Elmer Barnes—General Editorial Department, ScrippsHoward Newspapers.
L.M. Birkhead—The Liberal Center, Kansas City, Missouri.
Raymond B. Bragg—Secretary, Western Unitarian Conference.
Edwin Arthur Burtt—Professor of Philosophy, Sage School of Philosophy, Cornell University.
Ernest Caldecott—Minister, First Unitarian Church, Los Angeles, California.
A.J. Carlson—Professor of Physiology, University of Chicago.
John Dewey—Columbia University.
Albert C. Dieffenbach—Formerly Editor of The Christian Register.
John H. Dietrich—Minister, First Unitarian Society, Minneapolis.
Bernard Fantus—Professor of Therapeutics, College of Medicine, University of Illinois.
William Floyd—Editor of The Arbitrator, New York City.
F.H. Hankins—Professor of Economics and Sociology, Smith College.
A. Eustace Haydon—Professor of History of Religions, University of Chicago.
Llewellyn Jones—Literary critic and author.
Robert Morss Lovett—Editor, The New Republic; Professor of English, University of Chicago.
Harold P Marley—Minister, The Fellowship of Liberal Religion, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
R. Lester Mondale—Minister, Unitarian Church, Evanston, Illinois.
Charles Francis Potter—Leader and Founder, the First Humanist Society of New York, Inc.
John Herman Randall, Jr.—Department of Philosophy, Columbia University.
Curtis W. Reese—Dean, Abraham Lincoln Center, Chicago.
Oliver L. Reiser—Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh.
Roy Wood Sellars—Professor of Philosophy, University of Michigan.
Clinton Lee Scott—Minister, Universalist Church, Peoria, Illinois.
Maynard Shipley—President, The Science League of America.
W. Frank Swift—Director, Boston Ethical Society.
V.T. Thayer—Educational Director, Ethical Culture Schools.
Eldred C. Vanderlaan—Leader of the Free Fellowship, Berkeley, California.
Joseph Walker—Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jacob J. Weinstein—Rabbi; Advisor to Jewish Students, Columbia University.
Frank S.C. Wicks—All Souls Unitarian Church, Indianapolis.
David Rhys Williams—Minister, Unitarian Church, Rochester, New York.
Edwin H. Wilson—Managing Editor, The New Humanist, Chicago, Illinois; Minister, Third Unitarian Church, Chicago

Sphere: Related Content

SCSU Scholars: Perhaps not so innocent

From two years ago (2008) - courtesy of SCSU Scholars

More on "Islam Awareness Week"

http://blog.scsuscholars.com/2008/04/perhaps-not-so-innocent.html Sphere: Related Content

University of Minnesota holds 'Islam Awareness Week'

"Islam Awareness Week" was held between March 29 and April 2, 2010 at the campus of the University of Minnesota.

While the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives freedom of the press, speech, assembly, religion and to petition, meaning that they had every right to be there - there were was no media attention or protests.

However, to go a step further, this is a publicly financed institution. Does this mean the University of Minnesota supports Islam? Is this state sanctioning of religion?  

If the shoe were on the other foot and a "Christian Awareness Week" were held instead, it would be castigated on the airwaves as "state sponsoring of religion." Protests would be held on and off campus pushing "Christian Awareness Week" to the sidelines. It would be in the talk of the town and the nation.

Yet with the Muslims, there is a double-standard.

I challenge the Regents of the University of Minnesota to allow a "Christian Awareness Week" on their campus in the interest of equal time.

Photos below.

Sphere: Related Content

Humanism Unmasked: AS DEFINED BY JOHN DEWEY, THE FATHER OF MODERN EDUCATION

Courtesy of: www.christianparents.com

Humanism is as old as the garden of Eden, but few know what it is. The idea of Humanism replacing Godism can be seen in the garden of Eden when Satan taught Eve that she would know longer need God, she could be as her own god and do what she pleased after she got enough knowledge of her own.

Men have written on the subject since Plato and Aristotle, but still most people only think it means 'kind' or 'humane'.

A better definition is required if we are to understand the forces moving in the world systems today.

John Dewey gave us that definition when he signed the Humanist Manifesto.

That definition expressed by the Humanist Manifesto was given to us by no less than the man who has been called the father of modern American education. He influenced teachers in Russia, Asia, and Europe as well. We should take note of the words of such an influential man.

The Humanist Manifesto reveals a large picture of intent for education which Dewey shaped. It also shows a picture of what our government is doing, since it has been shaped so much by graduates of this modern system of education.

Please note the U.S. Dept. of Education did not exist until Lyndon B. Johnson as President. Such a department was never intended by the Founding Fathers. They didn't even want their children fed by the government, much less taught what to think by the ruling powers.

John Dewey had great influence in the National Education Association and reshaping America's schools. He has had a profound influence of generations of philosophers.

No one who leads or teaches others should be ignorant of purposes laid out in the Humanist Manifesto nor of the significance of those others who signed or agreed with the document.
The list of individuals, corporations, and trust funds is impressive with its power to influence. We come to see that the National Humanist Foundation, Society for the Humanities, and other such names do have a common philosophy and intent.

Seeing how great is the list of those who have publicly and openly endorse humanism in one way or another, it becomes clear that a common system of thought drives many sources of great economic and political power.

Having a common idea and goal makes it unnecessary to conspire. Just having a common philosophy and goal will eventually lead them closer and closer to support the same ways and means of accomplishing their common goal. How could anyone understand what is happening if he is ignorant of who is doing it, or ignorant of the power behind it, or is ignorant of the goal?

A few historical events focused into perspective can show you a picture of today's politics and economic powers that are shaping our government and education of our children. To draw that picture is the goal of this writing.

The Humanist Manifesto was signed by many prominent people. Since then a second, called The Humanist Manifesto II has been written and signed by many more.

That document, Humanist Manifesto and its follow up, Humanist Manifesto II , define a collectively held goal of many political-economic powers. No education is complete without understanding the big picture of Humanism.

The list of signers and their offshoots must also be traced even to see the connections between that philosophy and many things happening now. A clear example can be seen when you study the how The New Standard for American History has been developed by major Humanist supporters.

Philosophers have written on the subject since Plato and Aristotle. Later writers include French revolutionaries such as Rousseau in throwing off the authority of kings, and then Engles and Karl Marx in establishing the right of men to rule themselves.

Growth of the concept was slow for the first few thousand years of recorded history, until French and European philosophers further developed some of the details prior to the French Revolution. Then in 1859, Darwinism gave accelerated growth through the concepts of evolution, relativism and positivism. See Encyclopedia Britanica, 1952.

Law courses adopted the ideas of 'relativism' and 'positivism' in major universities as early as 1870.

By 1940, relative law or case law also called evolutionary law had replaced the absolute standard of original intent law. Justice Rhenquist has a book called Original Intent. Several other authors have books with the same title showing how different the new law interprets our Constitution by the changed standards of relativism.

A 1996 book, Original Intent, published by Wallbuilders with a four way index contrasting the original intent of our Constitution and how it has been changed, should be in all our schools.

This contrast is clearly shown by original documents from those great men who signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and other documents of that time.

Relativism as a positive gain relative to man's changing standards became popularized by the educational elite. Educators said since man evolves, his society evolves, and therefore his law must also change to fit the changing man. That's how Darwin's evolution impacted law, society, government, politics, economics of teaching in text book sales, as well as science in all its branches. Not only biology would change from Creationism to Evolution, but physics and math would change from Ordered Systems to Chaos as a focus of teaching.

Oliver Wendel Holmes was the first graduate of 'relative' legal standards interpretation.
Holmes began his influence on the Supreme Court in 1920.

By 1940 the absolute standards of Blackstone's Law Commentary had been discarded nearly everywhere.

Blackstone had been the standard of law interpretation since the British courts were developed.

Blackstone based all understanding on God, and natural law that came forth from God, and man's government law as derived from nature that was created by God. He believed in God, an absolute God, and he accepted an absolute system of law that like God did not change. The absolute system of Blackstone was discarded were discarded in favor of relative or situational law by 1940.

Engles and Marx brought Humanism to nation-wide birth for the Bolshevik Revolution.
After reading and correspondence with Europe, John Dewey, the Father of Modern Education John Dewey, traveled to Europe, China, and Turkey in the early nineteen thirties.

Upon his return to America, he helped author and did sign the Humanist Manifesto which was the Americanized version of the Communist Manifesto penned by Karl Marx.

Positivism says that what is a perceived gain, a plus, is a good thing. The plus or minus is measured from the relative point of view of an individual, not any absolute standard . Positivism along with Relativism are the basis of saying "The end justifies the means."

Humanism with its relative and subjective values feeds systems like, I'm OK. You're OK. or Tolerance in a big way. No absolutes. Each person establishes his own system of values as he sees fit with no absolutes or external authorities.

This results in calling them bigots who would impose any external authority or absolute standard of reference to right and wrong. It allows for saying the end justifies whatever means it takes to get a gain. So long as that gain seems to me as being a positive gain relative to how I see things, that's what I call good.

Humanism says forget the absolutes. Judge things by what seems to be right for you. Just like Satan tempted Eve in the garden. Humanism has crept into the pulpit of many churches.

During the 1950's and 60's many preachers strived to show where they could write or teach in a humanistic way. Such thinking was justified under the more naive definition of mankind doing good to man. The core idea being that Humanism as a system denies God, and Jesus as the Son of God who said that only God is Good.

Removal of God from the value system was done not only in the Bolshevik revolution but also in the Humanist Manifesto. Having no absolute standard leaves then only each individual to define his own ideas of what 'feels good' to him.

Another way of saying the same thing is to say, "Your way is OK for you, and my way is OK for me. Let's just be tolerant of each other and agree to disagree while still saying each other is right for himself.

Humanism has existed from the beginning of time. It was defined in the garden of Eden where Satan used his most tempting bait to get Eve first doubting and then ignoring the word of God. "...you shall be as gods..." Ancient philosophers, Plato, Aristotle and others, wrote on the theme of Humanism without recognizing its full picture.

Humanism can not be seen in its biggest context from its on point of view. Humanism denies God so it denies the total context. Only in a faith towards God can Humanism be seen for what it is in the highest context.

To those who believe in God, Humanism is man's way of saying, exactly what the Humanists proclaim, man must be his own god. That means to a Christian, rebellion against God.
The first rebellion was in the garden of Eden. It was over the idea of being as a god, self-directing and without further need of Almighty God. Thus the oldest Biblical word for what we call Humanism is Rebellion against God Almighty.

Most literature on humanism does not speak of rebellion against God. However humanistic writings were used to inspire rebellions against government in many places. Most notably, the Bolshevik Revolution which clearly and openly denounced God.

Humanism has been manifest since Eve was tempted to do away with her need for Almighty God and be her own god through partaking of all knowledge. Plato and Aristotle wrote on some ideas of Humanism.

Darwinism gave strength to Humanism after 1859. Engles and Karl Marx developed the European version of Humanism. By 1920, the Communist Revolution had motivated people around the world to read the ideas of Engles and Marx.

China did not ignore the rising trend of Humanism as expressed in the border nation of Russia. After reading and correspondence on these ideas, John Dewey traveled to China and Turkey. There he taught on state education to help develop students to better serve the state system.
Upon his return to America, John Dewey, the Father of Modern American Education wrote The Humanist Manifesto in 1933.

No education is complete today without understanding The Humanist Manifesto I and II and tracing the influence of those signers and supporters of the intentions expressed therein.

It is clear to see that the humanist designers of contemporary education do not want our children to have a complete education, else they would see what is happening.

To see where we came from and how we got where we are is to be able to see where we are headed. The direction and momentum must be realized to project a future path.

Read the article on Value of History comparing the graph of a golf ball's path to understanding the graph of where our nation is going.

Naivety and ignorance are a pitfall to everyone who assumes that humanism only means to be 'humane' or 'kind' to your neighbor. Teachers, pastors, and senators all need to recognize the strategy and goals of Humanists.

The system of money, philosophies of men, text books and politics that has entangled itself in America is now teaching our children from eight a.m. to 3 p.m. five days a week.

Look closely and you can see a loosening up of definitions, much like Satan redefined what God said to Eve. Teaching by loose analogies in the name of creative reasoning or higher order thinking is used to accustom children to believe anything can equal anything, which is exactly what Chaos says. But God says, I AM that I Am and I change not. Who will listen to the word of God and who will continue pleasing men, for the sake of paychecks going along and being friends with the system.

Pastors, you have the responsibility to warn your people. If you warn them and they do nothing, you are free; but if you do not warn them, then where does scripture say you are?

Humanism is nothing but a redefined label for the rebellion against God that happened in the garden, by adding to and taking from the truth of his word so to justify mankind in doing its own thing, whatever that may be.

The hearts of our children are the goal of those who have taught against absolutes and encouraged 'relative positivism' as a way of thinking based on loose association and calling it higher order thinking.

Be on guard. Be not deceived when you see those fine sounding phrases of "Changes in education for excellence" or "higher order thinking" or "critical thinking"; because most of those actions covered by those words are used to destroy faith in God.

Viewpoint from the New History" Consider this viewpoint from the New Standard of American History. Man emerged from the slime of a soupy organic ocean as he evolved from a protozoa form to higher and higher forms. So man is growing up. There was not a fall as the Bible teaches, but an upward evolution and therefore no need for a Savior. And as the humanists write, if man is going to be saved, he must do it himself.

Example of new history lesson: After many tribes of people grew, different ways of solving problems grew. Idols and many gods were one way man evolved to cope with his problems.
Then in the middle of civilization after man had been existent for thousands or millions of years, some small tribe called the Jews developed a system to cope with their problems, but their system was different, it was called monotheistic. And out of that failed system came what is called Christianity. But other systems were competing with Christianity and grew even bigger such as Buddhism and Islam and Brahman.

Today, dear students, we have the advantage of 'higher critical thinking' and as you compare and analyze the way those religions competed for converts, you can see how they slowly died out because their hope in God wasn't really solving problems. They still had wars and hunger and even killed one another in the name of their religions.

New history teaches children this way. So today, we clearly know that only man with clear thinking logic can save himself from his own problems. And as the new state religion of humanism, logic and reasoning by man, grows we will see the wonderful man made institutions of international scope solve the problems of our world. Man made cooperation for peace through the United Nations, the World Bank, and other such agencies are our way for peace in the new world economic order.

Dear parent or pastor, if you expect to send your child to school where this is taught and not have it impact his heart, please think again. The humanists expect to win the hearts of many children with their campaign. Scripture says they will succeed in doing much of their plan. They will ultimately fail. But meanwhile let those who hear take heed.

Even William Bennett, past Secretary of Education has called the educational system a 'blob'. If you stop it in one place, it just pours out in someplace else. If you ask for responsibility in one place, it just shifts the blame or question to someplace else. It includes the humanist favoring news reporters where they exist, the humanists in the N.E.A., and within each school system who do not teach God, and the U.S. Dept. of Education with its funds allocated to the "relativist, positive, no absolute standard " teaching methods that have done away with the absolute standards of teaching that helped us put men on the moon.

If humanistic ideas were not dominating the news how is it that such things as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and President Clinton's speech on it to a high school in 1995 could have been so kept from the parents and pastors of our churches?

When we are given clear right to restore Christian context to our school classes, the powers in effect keep the news from reaching those who would actually restore the Christian context.

If anyone says the news did reach the school districts, then let it also be said that not enough explanation reached the people to encourage the implementation of restoration of Christian context. The restoration must be done, and therefore people must be given enough encouragement from friendly media to accomplish the job!

Christian class books used to have little children reading stories with moral values and life helping information in them. Then the system switched to brainless Dick and Jane and from that to the current mass of nonsense and chaos books that fill our elementary schools. For example of a current title in elementary reading, I give you, "The Upside Down School".

Rather than building values, such books are acclimating our children to nonsense so they can equate anything with anything, another example of Chaos instead of Ordered Systems, or Relative Values verses the Absolutes of Christianity on which this nation was built. Restore values for our children!!!

Sources: The World's Oldest False Religion, Humanist Manifestos I and II, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, Vol. 7, p 297 Sphere: Related Content

Obama Breaks Promise, Embraces Healthcare Tax

Courtesy of Newsmax.com

WASHINGTON � The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda.

White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration wouldn't rule out taxing some employees' benefits to fund a health care agenda that has yet to take final form. The move would be a compromise with fellow Democrats, who are pushing the proposal as a way to pay for the massive undertaking without ballooning the federal deficit.

"There are a number of formulations and we'll wait and see. The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going," Axelrod said. "We've gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey."

But if President Barack Obama compromises on that point, it would reverse a campaign tax promise.

"I pledge that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase," Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year. "Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."

At the time, his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was proposing a tax on health benefits similar to the plan Obama is now considering. Just a year ago, Obama spent millions on campaign commercials attacking the idea.

One ad accused McCain of favoring "taxing health benefits for the first time ever ... taxing health care instead of fixing it. We can't afford John McCain."

A second Obama ad called McCain's approach "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." Driving the point home, it contended the "McCain tax could cost your family thousands. Can you afford it?"

Under the current proposals, a tax on health benefits would affect only those with pricey health plans. The idea would be to tax as income the portion of health benefits worth more than a specified limit. Officials are considering several options, including one that would set the limit at $17,240 for family coverage and $6,800 for individuals.

Plans worth more than that would be taxed; those worth less would see no increase.

Obama has faced similar criticism before. When he increased taxes on tobacco to pay for a children's health bill, his critics said he was raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.

Obama left open the possibility of a tax during interviews last week, insisting he wasn't taking any option off the table despite his personal opposition. But two of his high-profile advisers budget chief Peter Orszag and economic adviser Jason Furman both have indicated they support some taxes on health benefits to pay for the overhaul.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that Obama should step in an oppose the tax if he's truly against it. Otherwise, he faces a loss to his own Democratic Party and his own campaign credibility.

"I think it's going to take presidential leadership to get people of his party to see that we shouldn't be subsidizing high-end health insurance policies that drive up inflation in health insurance," said Grassley, the top Republican on the powerful finance committee.

Grassley and, to be sure, other Republicans remember Obama's scathing criticism of their GOP presidential nominee.

"Since the president denigrated John McCain's effort to move in this direction during the campaign, it's going to take, in order to win over Republicans, presidential leadership in that direction," Grassley said.

To help sell his plan, Obama scheduled a town hall-style meeting this week in Annandale, Va., a Washington suburb. He plans to take questions Wednesday from the audience and from online sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.

Axelrod insisted that the White House has made progress on a health care plan and is working with Congress. Even so, the emerging legislation is hardly the bipartisan collaboration Obama's top advisers had sought.

"One of the problems we've had in this town is that people draw lines in the sand and they stop talking to each other," Axelrod said. "And you don't get anything done. That's not the way the president approaches us."

Axelrod appeared on ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet the Press." Grassley appeared on "This Week." Sphere: Related Content