The average age of a member of the military is 19 years old. They, under normal circumstances, are considered by society as half adult, half teenager. Some may even consider them not yet dry behind the ears. In some states, they are not old enough to buy a beer. HOWEVER, they are old enough to die for their country. Unlike the members of the military before them, they have something else, the right to vote. Today, people forget that until the passage of the 26^th Amendment in 1971, the young men and women in the military were serving and fighting to keep America free, yet they were unable to vote to elect those who would send them into harm’s way, just because they had not reached the ripe old age of 21.

With the passage of this amendment, the young men and women of the military finally had the right to vote, a right taken for granted by far too many Americans today. Today there are 10 states in the news, who for one excuse or another, maybe once again, be trying to deny the right to vote to our members of our military. There may bemore, but these are the ones that are current in the news.

Not to long ago, I posted about an organization, Secretary of State Project (SOSP), and like a few things it may have been ignored. Some may have glanced at it, replied and moved on. Some may have said so what?  

Well, as a reminder, a project of the Democracy Alliance [1], the Secretary of State Project (SoSP) was established in July 2006 as an independent “527” organization devoted to helping Democrats get elected to the office of Secretary of State in selected swing, or battleground, states. [2] Just what does this have to do with the military vote?

Back on August 15^th, James Schneider wrote, “It's just 79 days until the mid-term election, and as Republicans hope to change the balance of power in Washington, there is still a serious threat to the voting rights of some of our troops in harm's way.

This issue was supposed to have been settled. The MOVE (Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment) Act, which was signed into law 10 months ago, was enacted to ensure that the troops serving overseas have 45 days to get in their absentee ballots. The thinking was that it would take that long to receive the proper forms in a warzone and return them to be counted. There is a loophole, however; a state can apply for a waiver if it can prove a specific "undue hardship" in enforcing it.

Before the act was in place, analysis by the federal Election Assistance Commission, estimated overseas and absentee military voting rates for the 2006 midterm elections was a pathetic 5.5 percent. In 2008, about 17,000 servicemen and women were denied the right to vote.” [3] How many people saw this? How many people really cared?

This past week, “a state can apply for a waiver if it can prove a specific "undue hardship" in enforcing it” once again appeared in the news. On August 25^th, Fox News reported, “ 10 States Seek Waiver to Comply With Military Voting Law's Absentee Ballot Rules” From the article, “ The 10 states are Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin” [4]. Remember these states.

Later, on the 26^th, Fox reported, “EXCLUSIVE: Military Absentee Voting Pilot Program Downed By Expensive Payout” With the lead statement, “Military voters from at least six states will be unable to participate fully in a Defense Department pilot program -- substantially reducing their opportunity to vote in November -- because a private election software company is dragging its feet and demanding exorbitant fees to supply states with their own voting data, some state officials participating in the program tell FoxNews.com.

Both Democrats' are listed as "toss-ups" by RealClearPolitics.com, and military ballots could make the difference.

But Wisconsin and Colorado are among 10 states where local officials say they may not be able to comply with Move Act provisions that call for ballots to be mailed out at least 45 days before the 2010 midterm election.

Fox News has identified four states -- Wisconsin, Colorado, Maryland and Washington -- where races may hinge on those absentee ballots and on whether their delivery works as intended on behalf of the fighting men and women abroad.” [6]

Now, let’s take a look at the Secretary of States of seven of the ten states involved in this “delay”, CO (Bernie Buesher, D), DE (Jeffrey W. Bullock, D), MD (John P. McDonough, D), MA (William F. Galvin, D), NY (Lorraine Cortez-Vazquez, D), RI (A. Ralph Mollis, D),WS (Doug La Follette, D). Does anyone see a pattern?

Could it be that the SOSP, as well as George Soros, has a hand in the corruption of the November elections by denying our fine military men and women the right to vote? Take a look at where they all ready have put their “people” in place. “Since 2006, we have won races in 9 out of 11 states including Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Montana, Missouri, West Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon.” [7] I fully realize that, just maybe, the Secretary of State of the states that are seeking a delay in the military absentee voting is just a coincidence, just like the coincidence of the 300+ votes that were found that gave the election to Franken, in Minnesota. Oh, didn’t SOSP win the race in Minnesota?  Should make people wonder, shouldn’t it?

In past elections, we were well aware of voter fraud, ACORN, SEIU, and other Progressive / Liberal organizations, all funded through various Progressive organizations. Now, we have to worry about voter fraud from within the various state officials that we have elected. Like a worm eating through an apple, the officials that we are suppose to trust to ensure the fairness of our elections, maybe as rotten as the apple the worm leaves behind.

This corruption is not going away any time soon. As of this writing, the SOSP is currently endorsing: Debra Bowen, Secretary of State in California (one of the most progressive Secretaries of State in the nation), Michael Mauro, Secretary of State in Iowa, Bernie Buescher, Secretary of State in Colorado (look familiar), Jocelyn Benson, candidate in Michigan, Ben Nesselhuf, candidate in South Dakota and Maryellen O’Shaughnessy, candidate in Ohio. [8]

Recently, I was asked by a friend about something Glenn said on his show about Pres. Obama where Glenn said, “He was no different then Obama, but he disagrees with Obama on just about everything.” Now, I gave up mind reading years ago, but would say, that Glenn was referring to Obama as a parent and face it no matter what your political beliefs or agenda (as BH0 has), a parent will look after their children, at least for the most part. I will venture to say, that a majority of people feel the same way. Was Glenn conveying a subtle message? As I said, not being a mind reader, my feeling is, yes he is. The message is basically that younger children should not be used, ridiculed (which Glenn admits doing) or involved in the current and future battles. I was appalled when BH0 and his “party” as well as the GOP using children in political campaigns or political messages. Is Glenn trying to show that we as Americans should be able to carry on a debate, an argument, without bringing children into it? After all, shouldn’t children have a chance enjoy what has become a short, fun filled life before having to face the grim reality of real life? Now, I’m speaking as an outside observer, having no children of my own.

I was also reminded on the same show, that Glenn made the remark about “who are we as a people” Frankly; I see no problem with Glenn asking this. Just who are we as a people? Are we a people who are willing to face the hardships that our forefathers faced? Are we a people who are willing to stand up against vastly larger “force” for what’s truly right? Are we a people, who would be willing to stand up when the American flag passes, even though everyone else is sitting? Do I live the life of my beliefs? I feel this is a question that every man and woman should ask themselves daily. Who am I as a person? Strange question isn’t it? Does it make you think?

Since Glenn has been on Fox News he has covered a number of subjects. From what is going on in Washington and the world to the history of the founding of our great nation. He has attempted to show the relationships of things in the world and history of America, because, whether people like it or not, these relationships are interconnected. It’s like a line from the movie “Jurassic Park” when explaining the “butterfly effect” (scientifically known as Chaos Theory), “a butterfly flutters its wings in China and it rains in New York”. Are they related maybe, maybe not but who can really say?  I feel that we should be aware of things going on in the world and if possible figure out how these events may affect America. That’s the great thing of this site, we all can’t read every article or news item, so the members here come across something and post it for others to read and comment on. How many people would have done this before or if Glenn hadn’t brought this to our attention? Glenn has also explored the events from our own history. From the Founding Fathers to Pres. Wilson, from the Depression of the 20’s to Woodstock. Glenn attempts to show that these various events are all interlinked. “Those who do not remember the past, tend to repeat it.” Whose responsibility is it, to learn about the past in the attempt not to repeat it? Are we going to wait for the schools to do this? Well, unless things are changed within the educational system of America, it is going to be up to Glenn’s viewers and listeners to do it.

Some people, mainly on the left, have “complained” that Glenn Beck has had a number of authors on his and like any good host, either on radio or television, he will mention the author’s book. He might also mention a book that he has read, and recommend it. Then the book will climb the charts. Why does this happen? Is he a piped piper, with a following of sheep, instead of rats? Does he cast a spell through the air waves which causes people to rush right out to purchase the book?  Does he recommend a book because he feels that the people who watch his programs are intelligent, willing to learn and figure that this will enable for people to enhance their knowledge? I will say the latter instead of the former; he recommends books because he feels that his viewers / listeners want to learn. However, I do feel that there is some, very few in fact, which will buy the books just because Glenn recommends them, but may not read them. However, I fully believe that most who do buy the books, put them in line to be read or some people, like yours truly, will read more then one at once.

Is Glenn Beck a pied piper or is an educator? I feel have presented some of the various subjects that he has discussed on his show and some of the information he has presented. Now, I ask, what makes a good educator or teacher, if you prefer? Is it the college degree? Glenn Beck has admitted that he is self educated. Or is it a passion to present information that people can use? I want everyone to think back to their time in school, whether it was grades K through 12 or college. Who were the teachers / professors that you remember. Why do you remember them? I’ll bet it was because they had the ability to present information and facts in an entertaining manner, so that you would want more and you looked forward to returning to class wanting more. It was also the ability to make you curious, to ask questions, and even be willing to research for more information on your time. This what Glenn Beck does he presents the information then leaves it for his viewers. As an example, he recently did a series on Crime, Inc. where presented the information, showed the connections then left it open for people to do some of the work themselves. He wants his viewers to think for themselves.

Glenn Beck does daily on his T.V. and radio shows. He uses entertainment to educate; he attempts to make people think for themselves, “to question with boldness”. As a one, who has attended public schools, military schools and college the teachers, instructors and professors that I remember are the ones that have made me think, work, gather the facts, and draw my own conclusions. Does Glenn Beck do this? YES. Have I learned from his shows? Definitely Yes. Has he made me think? YES! Would I say that Glenn Beck is an entertaining educator…..Most Definitely and God bless him for all he does to try educate the American people.

For those that are looking for a pied piper, Glenn Beck is not that. Is he a leader? Not in the usual sense of the word. He wants the American people to find their own leaders, not based on what they see on television or hear on the radio. He wants the American people to come together as a nation, not as individual groups, as the colonists came together in 1775. He does this by educating his viewers and listeners on the great history of America and its Founding Fathers. He does this by showing the corruption that has taken place within the American government through the years. I feel that he is not interested in being a leader; I feel he is comfortable in his role as an educator and wants to continue in that position. It is going to be, as Glenn has said, for the American people to find their own George Washington, John Adams or Ben Franklin. It is going to be up to the American people to use the knowledge and information that Glenn Beck supplies to look around and find their own leaders, not based on whether they are popular personalities, BUT on their knowledge and love of our country.

[1] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/05/Terrorist-Loophole-Senate-Bill-Disarms-Law-Enforcement 

(Lasted Visited 5-17-2010)

[2] http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/08/inv.hijacker.video/index.html 

(Lasted Visited 5-17-2010)

[3] http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/005283.html 

(Lasted Visited 5-17-2010)

[4] Original Arizona Bill http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

(Lasted Visited 5-17-2010)

[5] Modified Arizona Bill

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_asamendedbyhb2162.doc.htm

(Lasted Visited 5-17-2010)

Semper Fi

Jerseygal, Topshot & of course, the Old Marine

If anyone finds this useful or informative please feel free to copy and circulate it. I know that the chance of Sean Hannity seeing or reading this will be slim to none, but maybe if it gets out it might come across his desk....OM

Recently, I got in to debate about Glenn Beck’s remark, “There’s no difference between the two parties.”  During the debate, the comment was made, “Well Rush and Hannity don’t believe that therefore Beck is crazy.” Well, I continue the debate and pointed out what I considered the similarities. The debate ended on a friendly note, and I began to think of a comment Hannity made about the Tea Party, other conservative groups and the GOP being in a circular firing squad. Yes, there is a circular firing squad, but it is not all the various conservative groups and the GOP, but the jealousy of some of the established talk show hosts and the lone voice of “education” on the American system and the corrupt radicals currently in the ruling regime’.

I have notice that there are times when Sean has mentioned the radicals that have surround BH0 a few days behind Glenn. Prime example was Van Jones. Sean mentioned him a week after Glenn did the complete background on him. Sean made it sound that it was some kind of new information, but for those who watch and listen to Glenn, it was just a rehash of Glenn’s information and no mention of Glenn.Jealousy at best, unethical at worst.

The final straw for me came when The Drudge Report http://www.drudgereport.com/  posted a story,  Hannity….Obama a socialist  http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63316 . Well DUH! Again Glenn, was way ahead of the curve on this one, yet not a mention of Glenn Beck in the interview. Hey Sean Hannity; ethics, politeness and common sense tells people to give credit where credit is due. Why let your jealousy or envy interfere with getting the message out?

Sean Hannity, you keep mentioning the circular firing squad between the various conservatives groups and the GOP. Let this humble Old Marine give you a little advice. There are some of us out here that are completely fed up with politics as normal. Yes, we are forced to choose between the Democrats and the GOP, we do not want a third party, BUT just because you think that certain members of the GOPshould be elected, who gave you, Mr. Hannity, the right to say that if people don’t agree with everything the GOP does, we are a circular firing squad. Just because you have the big microphone, and we don’t, does that mean that we can’t back the candidates of OUR choice? Do you think that if our choice doesn’t win, we are going to take our toys and go home; well, you underestimate us, the People. We realize that just because our choice doesn’t win, we will most likely rally behind the other guy, IF he is a true conservative. After all, look at the great job the GOP backing did in the congressional election in New York? By the way, next time you have Mr. Steele on your show. Why not ask the hard questions?

In the past few weeks, Glenn Beck has on both his radio and television show has been discussing “Progressivism” and its effects on America since the 1880’s. We can just guess the amount of traffic on the net after his initial show. Some may have learned something new, others it maybe a review, but how many will really think, just how much “Progressivism” has really infiltrated American society and where are the roots of this so called “movement”. How is “Progressivism” affecting one of the founding principles of America, the belief in God or shall we say the public display of Religion? Yes, we said Religion. We fully realize that there will be some people, who will question this, they will feel that “Progressivism” is only about the economy and bigger government, but unfortunately the removal of Religion from public view is just another weapon for those who wish to transform America.

Let’s begin with the start of the American Progressive movement in 1880’s. Glenn and others have brought up that a lot of those involved in the early beginnings had attended universities in Germany. Afterwards they returned to America, began teaching in colleges and universities, Harvard to name just one. These early Progressives felt that America needed to be changed to be more like Europe. Some figured that America would be better off if America was to abolish private property ownership, confiscate property rights (Do these first two sound familiar, just look at certain Supreme Court rulings and the Interior Department putting land off limits.). They thought that America needed a progressive income tax and the abolition of rights of inheritance (can any one say “death tax”). Even though Thomas Jefferson warned against it, the Progressives thought America needed a central bank (Can we all say Federal Reserve?). The Progressives also believed that the government should also have ownership of the communication and transportation systems (Have a look at the wonderful Amtrak and Postal systems). Progressives even thought that the government should own factories and control agriculture (Look at G.M. and Chrysler and the FDA getting involved in farming), government control of education (Does anything really need to be said about this?) and a number of other ideas. America was expanding and growing and many still believed in the founding documents of our country as well as having a strong faith in God. Needless to say, the American people were not in favor of these ideas, but the Progressives waited patiently, they knew their time would come.

In 1901, their time did come when President McKinley was assassinated, and Theodora Roosevelt, who just happened to be a graduate of Harvard, became president. After becoming president, Roosevelt attempted to move the Republican Party in the direction of Progressivism. This included, trust busting and increased regulation of businesses (Haven’t we seen this before, “government should own factories”). Roosevelt coined the phrase "Square Deal" to describe his domestic agenda, emphasizing that the average citizen would get a fair shake under his policies. Roosevelt was an outdoorsman and naturalist, he promoted the conservation movement and established the first national parks in America (“abolish private property ownership, confiscate property rights.”). In 1908, Roosevelt declined to run for re election, and upon leaving office, he left America to go on a safari to Africa and a trip to Europe. When he returned, a disagreement between he and Taft, prompted Roosevelt to challenge Taft in 1912, not as a Republican, but as the first truly Progressive Party, The Bull Moose Party candidate. This third party succeeded it splitting the ballot and Woodrow Wilson won the presidency. When Wilson became president, Progressivism really took hold for the next 8 years with the establishment of the Federal Reserve (a central bank) and of course the sixteenth Amendment (A progressive income tax). I realize that some are wondering, just how does Progressivism in America effect war on the public displays of God that is happening now.

Towards the end of Wilson’s term in office, in 1917, the Russian Revolution took place, this revolution destroyed the Tsarist autocracy and led to the creation of the Soviet Union. In the first revolution of February 1917, the Tsar was deposed and replaced by a Provisional government. The Provisional Government was later removed and replaced after the second revolution of October, 1917, when the Bolshevik (Communist) government, came to power. The October Revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin and was based upon Lenin's writing on the ideas of Karl Marx, a political ideology often known as Marxism-Leninism. It marked the beginning of the spread of communism in the twentieth century. The idea of communism did not go un-noticed here in America, Roger Baldwin, who candidly stated that "Communism [was] the goal" toward which his efforts were directed established the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1920.

While Lenin was establishing the first communist “paradise” in Russia, a little known Italian socialist, Antonio Gramsci, was becoming a founding member and eventually a leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramsci’s belief in Marxism, as well as his membership and leadership in the Communist Party as well as his actions, brought him into direct conflict with Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime. This conflict would cumulate in 1926, when he was arrested and eventually imprisoned for 5 years. While in prison, he wrote a number of papers and notebooks. In these papers, he came into conflict with Lenin and his Marxism – Leninism. Lenin believed that capitalism could only be overthrown through violence, armed revolution. Gramsci, believed that armed Revolution was not the way to destroy capitalism, but to truly achieve the communist goal he believed that the bourgeois societies were ruled, by educating the citizenry that their accommodation of the moral, political, and cultural values defined by the governing system was in their best interests. Therefore he designed “reversal strategy” that would silently challenge the existing culture and value-systems that dominated bourgeois governance. This formula would be used by the progressive-socialist-Marxist to begin an ideological struggle to transform the entire spectrum of activities within a civil society, evolution. This strategy included transforming the basic values of a country, in our case, America.

In order to achieve a socialist revolution in capitalist countries, Gramsci’s idea was to focus on, as Malachi Martin wrote, “corruption of their Christian cultural basis.” Martin continued, “Neither political penetration nor military superiority will bring the capitalist West to its knees. The Christian cultures of these countries are the ties that bind the people in all aspects of society.” Through there are differences in the debate between the many churches, it does come down to the fact, that America is a Judeo-Christian nation and it is this culture and history that binds us together as a nation. Martin continues,” Gramsci counsels his followers to join the capitalists in all aspects of life, from “their profession of ethical and religious goals” to their family needs and all social issues affecting their lives. But Gramsci had a catch, Malachi Martin explains: Gramsci admonished his followers to “let the entire effort be solely by man for man’s sake... Make sure man never repeats the famous cry of German philosopher Martin Heidegger: I know that only God can save us”.

Some may wonder if Gramsci and Lenin were “falling away” from Marx’s original Manifesto when it came to religion. Marx’s view on religion was that he did not seek to criticize the logic of religion as a set of beliefs. Rather, he proposed that religion reflects society; therefore any criticism of religion must ipso facto be a criticism of society itself. "Thus the criticism of heaven turns into the criticism of earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics." Religion for Marx is a human product. "Man makes religion, religion doesn't make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again." In short, what Marx proposes is that religion does not reflect man's true consciousness. Religion, as Marx sees it, is a false consciousness; religion is the product of men, the product of those in power—those who control the productive process. Religion comes to divert people's attention” or to put it simply, “Religion is the opium of the masses.” (Karl Marx)

With the coming to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany, Mussolini already in power, the Great Depression of the 30’s, and eventually World War 2, the menace of Communism was pretty well ignored. However, as WW 2 ended, and even though FDR and Churchill had accepted Stalin as an ally during the war, the communist threat came to the forefront in everyday life, and although the American Communist Party had been around since 1919, many more Americans became enthralled with communism and began to embrace its theory and principles.

Continued in Part 2

References at end of part 2

During the period between the ends of the second world war till the late 1950’s, the communists within America were pretty well silent, but they still existed. They worked quietly in the background, much like the progressives did in the period between 1920 and roughly 1940’s. They changed names, infiltrated the political parties but, more importantly continued to work to destroy America. They, like the progressives, wanted to bring about the changes that Karl Marx put forth in the Communist Manifesto. These changes called the ten planks of the manifesto included the Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes, a heavy progressive or graduated income tax, an Abolition of all rights of inheritance, the confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels, the centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly, the centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State, an extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan, the equal liability of all to labor and establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture, combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country, and free education for all children in public schools with the abolition of children's factory labor in its present form and a combination of education with industrial production. We will ask the readers to think about these planks and ask themselves, have we seen this in America? Although, some believed that the only way to change the system was through revolution. Others knew that the American people would not accept a revolution, so they turned to Gramsci’s ideas of peaceful change, his ten steps, and target the founding cornerstone of America and the family, Religion. In order to do this, those who wanted to destroy religion in America turned to our own court system.

The first of the three pivotal cases was Engel v. Vitale, 1962 or the “Regent's School Prayer” case. In this case, the New York education system adopted a school prayer to be said before the start of each day's classes. The purpose of this prayer was to promote good moral character, provided spiritual training, and helped combat juvenile delinquency. The regents wrote a school prayer that was non-sectarian or denominational. In fact, it was so bland that it became known as the "to whom it may concern prayer." This case ended up before the Supreme Court and Justice Hugo Black wrote the following for the majority, "It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers… the Regent's prayer are inconsistent both with the purposes of the Establishment Clause and the Establishment Clause itself." However, this ruling did not stop school prayer completely, it only stopped those schools that had this type of “regent” style prayer. Even with this decision, voluntary prayer was still allowed in schools.

The second case in 1963, and perhaps the most famous, was Murray v. Curlett, or what is known as the "School Prayer" case. This lawsuit was filed against the school board of Baltimore by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a militant left wing atheist, with close ties to the American Communist Party. When this case was heard in the local court, the court judge, J. Gilbert Pendergast, dismissed the petition stating, "It is abundantly clear that petitioners' real objective is to drive every concept of religion out of the public school system." The case was appealed and ended up before the Maryland Court of Appeals. The court ruled, "Neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to stifle all rapport between religion and government." As with so many cases, this case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Leonard Kerpelman addressed the court saying prayer in the public schools had been tolerated for so long that it had become traditional and that anything that is unconstitutional does not become constitutional through tradition. He went on to say the Constitution had erected a "wall of separation" between church and state, at which point Justice Potter Steward interrupted, asking where this wording appears. Kerpelman was stumped and an embarrassing silence followed. When he regained his composure, he stated that the text was not explicit on the point but that it had been interpreted to mean so. As everyone knows, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of abolishing school prayer and Bible reading in the public schools. Justice Tom Clark wrote, "Religious freedom, it has long been recognized that government must be neutral and, while protecting all, must prefer none and disparage none." The federal government considers atheism to be a religion, and this Supreme Court ruling favored atheism, at the expense of the Christian majority.

The third case also occurred in 1963 and ended up before the SCOTUS at the same time as the Murray v. Curlett case and the court ruled on them together. The Abington Township School District v. Schempp or "School Prayer & Bible Reading”, case was brought about because the Pennsylvania school system complied with a state law, which required the reading of ten verses of scripture every day. These readings were without comment and any student could request to be excused. Briefly, the court's ruling stated that School Prayer and Bible reading were violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In ironic fashion, the court established a secular religion for our school systems, thus violating the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment. With these rulings and hindsight being twenty twenty, the gates were opened and the so called, “separation of church and state” excuse could be used to sue every government entity that even suggested the display of Religion. What organization, founded by a communist, is now out there leading the charge, the ACLU.

Many people are either unaware, unconcerned or just blind to what is happening in their country. Since the late 60’s, here in America, the assault on religion has continued. If one were to go back and look at the various cases, we will see that the ACLU has almost been in the lead and why not, to destroy the American way of life, will bring about the destruction of the American family. How many Americans have wondered why this assault on religion? Some people will say it is because the liberals/ progressives. They are partly correct, but if the people really look closely at the Socialist/ communists and what they believe.

The socialist/ communist believe in the ten major planks of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto and wanted revolution to have them put in place, while others believed that they could be put into place by the theory of Gramsci, removing the basic values of America, by evolution. The latter won out and through we have a lot of the “10 planks” in place, thanks to the assault on Religion on all fronts by the ACLU and others the destruction of the family is under way.

There have been and are constant lawsuits against cities and corporations (the latest against Trijicon over Bible verses), which are extremely expensive and most being sued would rather bow to these demands then take it to court. There is a definite and concerted effort by the anti-religion groups such as the A.C.L.U. and the M.R.F.F. and the likes of George Soros; along with the Muslims and pro Muslim groups to either minimize or remove Christianity from the forefront of American Society. Their victories so far include the banning of public school prayer, public religious displays on Federal, State or local community property. They are attempting to remove a simple cross in the Mojave Desert, forcing it to be covered till the case is heard in court. There is the constant assault to remove the Ten Commandments from our Court Houses, yet the Ten Commandments is the foundation of our laws. Now, the next target is Religious broadcasts on the public air waves. Their assault is constant and well planned and funded and they are determined to remove religion from all aspects of public American life. Once Religion is taken out of public view, the family begins weakening and once weaken or destroyed it is easier for the evolution of communism to change America and its way of life. Glenn may call it Progressivism, others may call it Liberalism, we call it Socialism/ Communism and it is happening with the destruction of Religion in American life.

References: All last visited 2 March, 2010

http://ascream.blogtownhall.com/

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/progressivism/index.cfm

http://www.progressiveliving.org/religion_frameset.htm

http://progressiveliving.org/history_of_progressivism.htm

http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html

Semper Fi,

What we bring now are some of the connections to this controversy that the media has failed to report on. As with most controversies there is more here than meets the eye. A foundation called the MilitaryReligious Freedom Foundation (MRFF)is the driving force behind this entire “tempest in a teacup”.

MRFF was started in 2006 by Michael L. “Mikey“ Weinstein, a man with a most interesting background. He graduated from the Air Force academy in 1977, and ended up serving 10 years as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) Officer. During these 10 years as a JAG officer, he served 3 years as a legal counsel in the Regan White House. While at the White House, he served as the Committee Management Officer during the Iran-Contra investigation. He returned to civilian left and went on to serve as the First General Council for Ross Perot. The experience gained from these various positions has given Mr. Weinstein familiarity and expertise with the military legal system.

Since its founding in 2006, MRFF has filed a number of lawsuits against the military, all of which had to do with alleged religious persecution or religious wrongdoings. Ironically, MRFF was nominated for a 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, but lost out to Obama. Some of the more “notable” legal actions that MRFF filed against the U.S. Military and particularly the Air Forcewere a case involving the squadron emblem of the 523^rd Fighter Squadron (U.S.A.F). Another case involved the placement of Biblical Quotations over the door leading into the Air and Space Basic Course classroom, again the involving the Air Force.

A second example is a suit involved aBiblical Quotations over a door into the Air and Space Basic Course classroom. The quotation is Isaiah 40:31 “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings of eagles; and they shall walk and not faint “ Again, MRFF viewed this quotation offensive based on “religious indoctrination” and of course the “separation of church and state.”

There were also suits involving the illegal use of official military e-mail accounts to send e-mails, simply because it contained the in the Thanksgiving greeting, “….Remember that it is not about celebrating the Pilgrims, or the football game, and all that but more about being a day to thank the Lord our God for all we have. All that is good comes from God and we need to worship, honor, and praise Him for all we have now and all He has saved us from and for all that is to come. All Glory Be To God!!” It also contained eight Old Testament quotes on the subject of gratitude to God. There was a suit on the Attempts by missionary organizations to train active-duty military personnel to evangelize their subordinates and peers. Another suit was about Military leadership openly discussing their commitment to bring religion into the military: At issue was a video produced by Christian Embassy, an organization whose mission is “to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement.” The video, which appeared on Christian Embassy's website, carries a disclaimer that says "the views expressed by any government officials in this video are their personal views and are not intended to represent the U.S. government nor any department in which they serve."

Not being satisfied with attacking long standing traditions of the Air Force and other government organizations. MRFF turned their eyes on Trijicon and their outstanding scopes based on a “letter” MRFF received from unnamed U.S. Army soldier. (Editor’s note: Due to the length of the “letter’ we have summarize it.)

In his letter, after the usual biographical information, he states that he is a combat infantry soldier with combat experience. He says that he has “witnessed terrible religious persecution in the my (number withheld) years in the Army. Most of it comes from “angry” conservative Christians in my unit chains of command and occasionally from my fellow infantry soldiers.” The first question that one should be asked is as a member of the armed forces, why didn’t he bring this to his superiors attention in an attempt to end this “terrible religious persecution”? (Editor’s note: As Marines, we joke about the Army, but we do know that any enlisted man has not only the right, but the duty to report this “persecution” to “higher” authorities including the Chaplain of his faith.)

He continues in his “letter” writing that he is quite familiar with the Trijicon ACOG gun sights and had used them on his first 2 deployments where he “saw and experienced no incidents regarding the New Testament bible quotes that are written on the metal casing of the gunsights.” Now, the question arises, as stated by the company, “The Company’s practice of putting Bible references on the sites began nearly 30 years ago by Trijicon's founder, Glyn Bindon, who was killed in a plane crash in 2003. His son Stephen, Trijicon's president, has continued the practice,”  ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583566,00.html ) and if this soldier has used the scope for 2 deployments, why hadn’t he seen this before?

He also says in the “letter”, “Many soldiers know of them and are very confused as to why they are there and what it is supposed to mean. Everyone is worried that if they were captured in combat that the enemy would use the bible quotes against them in captivity or some other form of propaganda.” Excuse us for being skeptical, but any soldier who has a question, is fully free to ask someone, whether it’s their immediate NCO (Non Commissioned Officer) or someone higher up on the chain of command. As the old saying goes, “The only stupid question is the one not asked.” As far as propaganda, since when does the enemy need a reason, our own press already do that for them?

This unnamed soldier continued in his letter with a number of “charges” and even mentions the possibility of retaliation if he or others brought this to the attention of higher authorities. Again, we find this hard to believe within a military unit. Even his statements about, “… senior NCO was apparently also the head person of a conservative, crazy Christian group called the “Christian Military Fellowship” and made a big deal about the importance of joining to everyone”, seems to be way out of place including the senior NCO’s anti-Semitic quotes, seems to contrived, “p*ssy ‘Jewzzi’ (combination of the word ‘Jew’ and Israeli made weapon ‘Uzi’). NO senior NCO worth his salt would make such comments in the presence of “…. many Afghans, both civilian and military, on base within earshot of what was being yelled at us and I can only wonder in shock what they must have thought.” If this was true, then why this lone soldier, the only one contacting the MRFF? Why didn’t someone who overheard these comments report the incident to an officer? Or to the press for that matter?

According to Mr. Weinstein, after receiving this alleged letter, he contacted the Associated Press (AP). Of course, the “lame stream” AP ran the story and needless to say it became a minor “firestorm”. It is worth noting, that this “firestorm” can be somewhat suspect on why the “lame stream” Media was so quick to cover this story when Trijicon was still using Scriptural References, but as soon as Trijicon acquiesced and said they would no longer use the references, the “lame stream” media dropped the story. Although, this particular story has quietly gone into the background, MMRF seems to be on their own crusade and against religious freedom in our military. Eventually, if not already, most people will forget about this and other assaults on Christianity in our military and particularly MRFF’s role in this assault. They may be hoping that their role will never come to light. They are hoping that they can remain in the shadows and continue their assaults. After some researching, we feel we can put MRFF in with the other “Shadow Menaces” that are threatening the American way of life and religious freedom (For more information on the “Shadow Menaces” please see Old Marine’s blogs here on 912 and http://ascream.blogtownhall.com/. One just needs to look at MRFF’s Board of Directors which is headed by Kristen Leslie (an assistant professor of Pastoral Care and Counseling at Yale Divinity School), and David Antoon (a former U.S. Air Force commander who vocally opposes the “extreme Evangelical coercive overtones influencing the Academy.” Other notable members of the MRFF Advisory Board are former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson; Smita Singh, Director of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation’s Global Development Program, this foundation awards grant money to many different organizations, including International Planned Parenthood (also associated with George Soros), Human Rights Watch (directly funded by George Soros) and the Tides Center (another of George Soros funded organizations). For those of you who watch Glenn Beck you will remember that Glenn has featured the Tides Center on more than one occasion and it’s association with the Obama White House. Then there is Richard T. Schlosberg III, the immediate past President and CEO of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the former Ambassador JosephWilson. Are you starting to see a pattern forming here? Sounds like the same game plan the A.C.L.U. uses when they intimidate small towns and businesses about any number of issues dealing with Christian displays or rules. MRFF has a concerted and purposeful agenda to stifle anything to do with Christianity in our military.