BREAKING: US And Cuba Set To Make Major Announcement That Will Have Massive International Implications

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry will announce Wednesday that the United States and Cuba have agreed to open embassies in Havana and Washington, multiple outlets reported Tuesday.

The is the latest step by the Obama administration to normalize relations with the communist island nation just 90 miles off the gulf coast of Florida. President Obama first stated his intent to reach out to Cuba in December. Another step was taken in May by the State Department when Cuba was removed from the list of state sponsors of terror.

The Associated Press pointed out what is at stake for the Obama administration politically:

For Obama, ending Washington’s half-century freeze with Cuba is seen as a major element of his foreign policy legacy. He has long touted the value of engagement and argued that the U.S. embargo on the communist island just 90 miles south of Florida was ineffective.

The last time there were diplomatic ties between the two nations was in 1961, when Fidel Castro’s communist party seized power in Cuba, noted BBC News. The news outlet also reported that there were plans to resume ferry and flight services between the two countries.

Already, criticism for the plan is mounting. “There was little doubt that the Obama administration would pursue its goal of opening an embassy in Cuba no matter the sad reality on the ground,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., told The Hill Tuesday. Ros-Lehtinen is a Cuban-American who represents parts of the Miami area.

Opening the American embassy in Cuba will do nothing to help the Cuban people and is just another trivial attempt for President Obama to go legacy shopping.

What do you think of the plan by Obama and Kerry? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Marriage Policies In America Similar To Communist China

It’s astounding to review the requirements to be legally married in America. Even more astounding is the reality that Americans, and especially Christians, comply with them. Worse still, Christians continue to demand that the government regulate a predominantly Christian practice. (Monogamous heterosexual marriage is a unique New Testament Christian concept. Nearly all non-Christian faiths advocate polygamy and pedophilia as part of acceptable social marriage norms.)

America’s oligarchic-republican-democratic government currently requires citizens to receive government permission to be legally married—similar to requiring the Chinese to receive government permission to legally have a child.

Imagine living in a country where couples are legally required to give birth to only one child. In order to even have a child, couples are required to apply for a birth permit before starting a pregnancy. After the government legally grants permission to have one child, the mother is required to be sterilized or use an IUD.

Imagine living in a country where government officials chart women’s menstrual cycles and women are required to undergo monthly pelvic exams to prevent pregnancies. And the government requires that all “unauthorized” pregnancies be aborted and one or both spouses be sterilized.

For the majority of non-wealthy people, a second pregnancy and any pregnancy without a birth permit is called “out-of-plan” and is illegal. Illegal “out-of-plan” children are sent to government facilities.

These practices are not imaginary. They are enforced in 21st Communist China. Today, nearly two-thirds of all Chinese couples (approximately 900 million people, or the equivalent of three times the size of the U.S. population) must comply with China’s One Child Policy, which is regulated and enforced by 300,000 officials.

To be legally married in America, applicants must pay for a license and receive the government’s permission to marry—if they successfully prove:

  • Their identity and that they are not closely blood-related to their intended spouse (some states required blood tests, including sickle cell tests),
  • Their age (they must be at least 18 years old or “at least the age of consent”),
  • Their mental state (they must prove they have sufficient mental capacity to understand the act of marriage), and
  • They are not married to anyone else.

Depending on the state, if applicants present a certificate proving they attended the state’s “approved marriage education class” the state fee is waived and only the county fee payment is required.

After purchasing the marriage license, applicants must select an authorized officiate to perform the ceremony and, depending on the state, can marry after adhering to a certain waiting period from the date of the license’s approval prior to its expiration date.

After the marriage is officiated, the government requires that information be submitted on the license and returned to the same county clerk’s office within a specified time period.

To clarify, Christians have been submitting to a government that requires them to:

  • Apply to the government to receive permission to be married.
  • Pay the government to consider their application.
  • Comply with and prove numerous criteria to receive government approval.
  • Only use a government-approved officiant.
  • Be married within the government’s specified time period.
  • Record their information on a government-approved license and submit it to the government within their specified timeframe.

To suggest that marriage in America is a union between God and husband and wife is false. Marriage in America is a union between Uncle Sam and husband and wife. Marriage in America is determined by the government. The government grants permission and regulates whether or not, to whom, when, and how anyone can marry. In America, a license legalizes marriage, not anything else.

Why are Christians demanding that the government grant them permission to marry? If marriage is a solemn oath among two people and God, why are Christians paying the government for a license?

By complying with the government’s regulation of marriage, Christians have only participated in and advocated for the government’s redefinition of it.

Monogamous heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman—including celibacy of singles and faithfulness to one’s spouse— is solely a radical New Testament concept. As numerous historical records indicate, the culturally accepted norm even during the Apostle Paul’s day among Romans and Greeks was procreational sex between one husband and one wife. Recreational sex for married men who actively engaged in sex with young boys, prostitutes, and slaves was the norm.

Likewise, Islamic and pagan societies practiced polygamy, pedophilia, child sacrifices, child marriages, and marriages with slaves. Even Old Testament Israelite sexuality was largely polygamous. Abraham bore the entire Semitic race: Jews from Sarah and Muslims from Hagar. Jacob’s two wives (Leah and Rachel) and two servants (Bilhah and Zilpah) bore him twelve sons. David and Solomon had many wives and concubines.

It was not until the 16th century, largely because of the Protestant Reformation, that marriage became a government institution. It never had been previously—only churches and synagogues recorded and regulated birth, marriage, sex, and death.

The question is: why are American Christians, five centuries later, still so deceived and confused by advocating marriage as a regulated government institution? Do they not realize that in doing so, they are actually validating the government’s authority to regulate childbirth and family structure?

Applying for a license to receive the government’s permission to marry is no different than applying for a license to receive the government’s permission to have a child.

American policies may slightly differ from, but largely replicate, those of Communist China.

This column was first published on Townhall.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

SPLC And Their Latest Minion Will Be Held Accountable For Threatening Churches

“The end of the law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.” –John Locke

I remember being interviewed by an individual on his radio show who wanted to do his best to pull me out with a series of “gotcha” questions in an attempt to publically humiliate me.  As we were talking about the Mosaic institution, Common Law, and the Christian religion in contrast to other religions in America (Judges 5:8), this radio show host was attempting to convey to his listeners that anyone has the right to do whatever they want to do, regardless of what the law is.

This radio show host was inadvertently being used to overthrow law by establishing opinion in its place (Hosea 4:6).

He went on to ask me what my opinion was on a certain topic.  My reply was: “We are not ruled by opinion in this country, that we are ruled by law.” He was confounded. I went on to say that we used to be rooted in the same principles, and we could have differing opinions as to how they were to be applied according to the law.

Last week, in Jenison, Michigan, while speaking at an event where my ministry came under heavy attack by the state-controlled media, we have now come to learn that the radical sodomite who stirred all of this up with the use of paid protesters was responsible for misappropriation of church names to support the sodomite lifestyle. This was all done by attempting to use me as their reason for protest.

I heard this about by Bradlee Dean:

This sodomite was threatening churches either to preach their message the way that he demanded them to do or else (Romans 1:24).  We have also come to learn that it did not fare well with the local churches that were threatened (Matthew 16:18).

Take a look at our legal demand against this particular sodomite by clicking here.

Where is this sodomite getting his information in order to be so emboldened to actually attack, demonize, and polarize those who stand against his abominable lifetsyle? He even went so far as to attempt to set the Church of Jesus Christ against its own founding doctrine, the Bible (1 Corinthians 3:11).

You need look no further than the Southern Poverty Law Center.

To know who is encouraging this sodomite, one must understand the teacher; and, in this case, it is none other than SPLC founder Morris Dees. Dees did legal work for the KKK (an arm of the Democratic Party) in 1961, defending them for their crimes against black Americans.

He also was one of the speakers at the 50th anniversary of Selma-to-Montgomery.

This is all coming from an organization that uses a façade of legitimacy (a law firm that advocates un-law). Of course, they do this with misuse of language and the subtle changing of definitions of widely understood and accepted terms.

As you know, the socialist-communist agenda has always had a problem with how to defend and promote an indefensible agenda, dedicating themselves to covertly undermining and ultimately destroying American society by implementing socialism/communism.

The Southern Poverty Law Center: The Real Hate Group/No Credibility

One man used SPLC’s hit list in order to murder numerous innocent people.

Floyd Corkins, a homosexual activist, walked into the lobby of the Family Research Council in August 2012 with a semi-automatic pistol and a backpack filled with 100 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. Corkins shot the Family Research Council’s security guard, Leo Johnson, who then successfully subdued him before he was taken into custody.

During an FBI interrogation, Corkins stated that he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces.”

Prosecutors said that Corkins planned to leave FRC after the attack and go to another conservative group to continue the reign of terror. A handwritten list of three other groups was found with Corkins’ belongings. An investigation of Corkins’ computer found that he identified his targets on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website.

Even after the shooting at the FRC, the SPLC went so far as to put an article on the front page of their website in an attempt to heighten the FRC’s label as a hate group.

Remember what Mark Potok, the director of intelligence for the SPLC, stated?

“Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on…I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.”

Hopefully, the American people can now understand where this sodomite gets his information. Apparently, he thinks that he has freedom to violate the law. He does not, and we will see to it that he, as well as the SPLC, understands that we are ruled by law and not lawlessness.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

FBI Files Dig Up Shocking Dirt From Top Obama Adviser’s Past That Could Explain A Lot

FBI files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal key Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett’s father, maternal grandfather, and father-in-law were hardcore communists.

Jarrett is a senior adviser to President Barack Obama; she has served in the White House during Obama’s entire tenure in office and has been a friend of the family since the early 1990’s.

In a statement released Monday, Judicial Watch reported:

Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.

The Obama adviser’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also a communist according to FBI documents obtained by Judicial Watch. The agency considered him a potential Communist saboteur, who was to be arrested in the event of a war with the Soviet Union.

According to Judicial Watch, Jarrett herself is a “liberal extremist” who, like the president, had strong ties to Frank Marshall Davis — a member of the Communist Party with an extensive FBI file.

Obama wrote about his mentor “Frank” (Marshall Davis) in his best-selling memoir Dreams From My Father (2005). He mentioned him 22 times in the book by his first name, with various other references as well. The president wrote about a conversation he had with Davis in the late 70’s as the young man prepared to leave Hawaii to go to college on the Mainland.

Davis warned him that college professors would “train you to forget what it is that you already know. They’ll train you so good, you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh-t…”

Dr. Paul Kengor, professor and author of the book The Communist – Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor (2012), notes that Obama took out all overt references to Davis in his audio version of Dreams From My Father (which he narrated) as he prepared to run for president. Kengor writes that the future candidate for the highest office in the land “no doubt feared being tied too closely to a man who joined the Communist Party under Stalin and had been so radical that the federal government placed him on the Security Index [watchlist.]”

The Washington Post reported: “As Obama became a community organizer in college and later grappled with the challenges of race and poverty in Chicago, he visualized Davis and asked, ‘What would Frank do? What would Frank think?’ Kengor wrote.”

It would appear the association with Davis, likely affirmed by Valerie Jarrett (given her family lineage), did shape the president’s view of the role of government. The federal government has undergone its largest expansion since the heydays of the Great Society in the 1960s (and arguably the greatest increase in taxes in over a generation) with Obama at the helm.

Obama stated during his famous interchange with Joe the Plumber during the 2008 campaign regarding tax policy: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

His words sound akin to “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” said by Karl Marx, a noted communist.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Global Warming: Not About The ‘E’ Word (Environment)

Listen to propaganda from the EPA and MDE, and you would think “Climate Change” programs are about saving the environment–but you would be wrong.

I’ll start by defining a term I created: “climateer”–someone with a vested interest in believing in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Two especially interesting attributes of climateers are the facts that (a) they have no conclusive facts, but rely on anecdotal assertions like ”97% of scientists believe in climate change”; and (b) climateers are genuinely disappointed when evidence indicates their fears are exaggerated.

The fact is, exaggerated Climate Change has little to do with the E-word, i.e. the Environment…but has everything to do with the C-words: Communism vs. free-market Capitalism.

Perhaps you’re thinking… “sounds a little over the top, commissioner…”

Consider this.

The question of whether or not there is climate change is not the question. Climate has been changing since the beginning of time. The more relevant questions are these: Is change exceeding regular cyclical norms? And to what extent is it anthropogenic, i.e. man-made?

Let’s return to the question of whether climate change doctrine is motivated by the E-word or the C-word.  Nothing I say will convince climateers they’ve been duped, so I’ll let the leftist “experts” tell us in their own words.

Fasten your seatbelts.

Ottmar Edenhofer, Vice-chair of the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, says: “One must say clearly that we… redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Hmmm.

Harvey Ruvin, former Vice-chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives, said: “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.” Interesting vernacular.

Naomi Klein of The Nation magazine says: “So when [Commissioner Rothschild] reacts to… climate change as if capitalism itself were coming under threat, it’s not because [he’s] paranoid… It’s because [he’s] paying attention. … most leftists have yet to realize that climate science has handed them the most powerful argument against capitalism.”

Third Annual Conference of the World Association for Political Economy in Lang Fang, China, May 2008:  “…global ecological sustainability will be possible only with fundamental social transformations and a new global economic system organised on the principles of social ownership of land and other major means of production … only socialism and the global solidarity of all working peoples can free both humanity and the earth from the fatal threat of global capitalism.”

Are you catching these not-so-subtle undercurrents of Marxism?

A top-10 favorite comes from David Foreman, founder of Earth First and director of the Sierra Club: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects … We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Truth is stranger than fiction.

In the book “Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis by Environmentalist Chris Williams,” Williams says: “It is utterly impossible for Capitalism to view the world as a single interlocking system. “ He asserts the only political system that can holistically address the challenges of the 21st century is “Marxism.”

The frontal attack on free-market capitalism is self-evident.

They regularly change phraseology, so rebutting them is like playing a game of whack-a-mole at the Ocean City Boardwalk–as soon as you knock down one of their hysterical arguments, an increasingly ambiguous replacement argument pops-up.  Pow!

A lack of conclusive evidence forced climateers to change their vernacular four times in three decades. First, it was “Global Cooling.” Then, “Global Warming.” Next, “Climate Change.” And now, drum roll please, they have adopted their most ambiguous term. They call it “Climate Disruption.”

Cute… and sufficiently ambiguous to allow every self-appointed pantheistic climateer to wave his/her hands hysterically and yell “climate disruption.”  Every time there is a storm, hurricane, tornado, typhoon… you name it…  hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, more snow, less snow… see, it’s exactly what we warned would happen. Their diagnosis is always the same, and it reminds me of the snake-oil salesmen of the 1850’s who went from town to town selling the same “ointment” for anything and everything that ails you.

Climateers also shifted vernacular related to “Sea Level Rise.” In an effort to band-aid unsustainable hysteria, it’s now called “Storm Surge.” Convenient.

There you have it. Hilarious, pathetic, and a threat to America and individual liberty.

Climate Change is all about attempts to put a stake through the heart of America’s free-market economy, and replace it with a government-controlled Marxist economy… all in the name of social justice… to save the world from the threat of free market capitalism.

Remember, this was in their own words, not mine.

It’s time to stop scaring our children and refocus them on the morality of free markets and individual liberty.

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth