Dead Birds And Fish Appear In Arkansas And Norway

 

Joanna Zelman 

A new year, a new set of dead birds and dead fish.

Beebe, Arkansas rang in the new year with about 100 dead blackbirds falling from the sky. According to the Associated Press, blackbirds began "flying into objects and each other," reminiscent of the year before, where thousands of birds died after crashing into objects.

Over in Europe, another dead animal mystery unfolded. AP reported that on Kvaenes beach in Norway, an estimated 20 tons of dead herring washed ashore on New Year's Eve. And then, the tens of thousands of dead fish vanished.

These seemingly unusual animal deaths spark memories of the mass casualties in early 2011. Beyond last year's dead birds that fell from the sky in Arkansas (and other regions), millions of dead fish surfaced in Maryland, over 10,000 cows and buffalo died in Vietnam, and tens of thousands of dead crabs washed ashore in the U.K.

Although multiple theories emerged on the string of deadly events, many members of authority maintained that the deaths were probably unrelated.

Despite conspiracy theories over what could have caused birds and fish to die this year, probable explanations have already been provided for both of these cases.

Fireworks are to blame for the odd behavior of birds of Beebe, Arkansas, report local authorities. According to AP, Beebe police Lt. Brian Duke said officials asked residents to stop setting off fireworks once the birds began acting strangely, and there was even evidence that a blackbird roost was targeted this year with fireworks.

As for the vanishing herring, it's suspected that the fish were forced ashore by predators or a large storm. Jens Christian Holst of Norway's Institute of Marine Research told AP that the fish probably simply washed back into the sea.

Check out the slideshow below to view some of the most bizarre mass animal deaths throughout history:

 

Dogs Over The Bridge

In the past fifty years, 50 to 600 dogs have jumped over Scotland's Overtoun Bridge and plummeted to their deaths. A few years ago, five dogs jumped in under six months. The Daily Mail wrote an article featuring reports of horrified pet owners who walked their dog over the bridge, when suddenly the dog would, without warning, leap over the bridge, falling 50 ft to the rocky bottom below. Perhaps even more disturbing, there are reports of "second timers" - of the few dogs who have survived the fall, some jumped over the same bridge again.

Many theories have circulated about why dogs react this way to the bridge. Some suggest that the dogs are deliberately committing suicide, perhaps due to depression in their owners or even a supernatural force. More recent research suggests that it may be the scent of minks, an animal known to live under the bridge.

Whatever the explanation may be, perhaps dog owners should simply stop walking their dogs over the Overtoun Bridge.  

Exploding Toads

 

LiveScience reports that in 2005, over 1,000 toads exploded in Germany. An autopsy revealed that birds had eaten their livers, causing the toads to puff up and explode. Perhaps the birds were hired by Hannibal Lecter.

Sheep Suicide March

In a pretty strong argument that sheep really do follow blindly, hundreds of sheep followed each other over a cliff in Turkey in 2005. According to the BBC, 400 sheep died, but another 1,100 falling sheep survived the pileup due to bodies cushioning their 15-meter fall. The mass “sheep suicide” devastated villagers in the eastern Van province, as families had relied heavily on their sheep for survival. USA Today suggests that it was an estimated loss of $100,000. What we want to know is, if all the sheep were following each other blindly, which stupid sheep was leading them all?

 

Thousands Of Dead Red Devils

In 2005, National Geographic reported that thousands of jumbo squid were found beached in California. The death of these “Red Devils” remains a mystery - they may live at depths of over 2,000 feet, so it’s hard to learn much about them. In life or death.

 

Birds And Fish Bizarreness

In early 2011, thousands of birds and millions of fish were found dead across the globe. Mass numbers of dead fish have appeared in Maryland, Arkansas, Brazil, and New Zealand. Meanwhile, a crazy number of dead birds have been found in Arkansas, Louisianna, Kentucky, and Sweden. Theories ranged from fireworks to the apocalypse. We're hoping it was closer to the former.

 

300 Hippos

300 Hippos were found dead in a Ugandan park in 2004. An investigation revealed that the mass death was due to an anthrax outbreak found in their water. More recently, 82 hippos died this June from another anthrax outbreak in Uganda. 

 

Thousands Of Flamingos, Penguins, And Pelicans

Time Magazine reports that in 2009, birds of many varieties died in mass numbers in Chile. Thousands of flamingos, 1,200 penguins, and about 60 pelicans all were found dead over the course of two months. There has been no proven reason for why all of these birds died, although some theories point to global warming, pollution, overfishing, or the unusually hot weather.

 

Hundreds Of Beached Whales

One eery Sunday night in 2009, nearly 200 pilot whales stranded themselves on an island between Australia's mainland and Tasmania, reports the BBC. A few months earlier, over 150 pilot whales had beached themselves on Tasmania's west coast. One theory suggests that there may have been a disturbance in echo-location due to nearby humans. 

 

10,000 Wildebeests Pileup

National Geographic reports that an estimated 10,000 Wildebeest lay piled up dead along the banks of Kenya last October. The animals all drowned while trying to migrate across the river, resulting in one percent of the ENTIRE species population being lost. We can’t help but wonder… after the first one, two, even 5,000 wildebeest drowned, why did the rest of them still decide to enter the water? 

 

50% Of Earth's Species

Forget mass deaths that happened last year, even last century. This mass animal death really redefines “mass.” 65 million years ago, NASA reports that the Chicxulub crater was formed when an asteroid or comet slammed into the earth, wiping out over 50% of the Earth’s species. Dinosaurs didn’t just die in mass, they went extinct. Makes a few thousand bird deaths seem like a drop in the bucket, doesn’t it? 

 

Frog Shower

LiveScience reports that a shower of frogs may have fallen to the ground in the early 20th century. The report is based on a book by Charles Fort, who describes the phenomenon as "a shower of frogs which darkened the air and covered the ground for a long distance." While this event occurred during a rainstorm in Kansas City, Missouri, similar reports popped up in dozens of countries around the world, from Germany to Tahiti. Scientists believe it is possible that strong winds may have carried the light animals short distances, creating the appearance of a frog shower.

 

Around the Web:
Dead Blackbirds Fall From the Sky Again in Beebe, Arkansas, on ...
BlogPost - Dead birds, dead fish, dead crabs turn up all over the ...
First dead birds, then dead fish ... now crickets - US news ...
Thousands of dead birds and fish in Arkansas leave many ...
 

Richland man sees sandstone proof of global flood

By JOHN TRUMBO
The Tri-City Herald

WEST RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) -- A swirling, twisting sandstone formation in northern Arizona is evidence of Noah's flood, says a West Richland man who recently visited the unusual geologic phenomenon.

Greg Morgan, a nuclear safety engineer at Hanford, said he was amazed to see sandstone resembling waves, whirlpools and reversing currents that appear to have been frozen in place.

Morgan's photographs of The Wave and his article, "Flood Currents Frozen in Stone," are in the latest issue of Answers magazine, a quarterly publication of Answers in Genesis, a Christian creation research organization based in Petersburg, Ky. The nonprofit organization's 70,000-square-foot facility also houses the Creation Museum.

Mike Matthews, editor of Answers, said the way the layers of sandstone came to rest at Paria Canyon "fits with the viewpoint that these are flood layers."

But the strongest evidence of a global flood is in the sandstone itself, he said.

"It's that the layers themselves have been traced out worldwide, even to Europe and the Mideast," Mathews said.

The Wave at Paria provides a little more -- what Matthews called important "signature details."

Morgan, who is a mechanical engineer and worked in the aviation industry before coming to Hanford, said he was shocked when he first saw a picture of The Wave because it contradicted his original thinking about an ancient Earth and evolution.

Morgan, who became a Christian as an adult and takes the Bible literally, said the convoluted formations at Paria Canyon forced him to consider there must be another explanation.

"There are no broken rocks. All of this happened when it was still mud," Morgan said.

Morgan first visited The Wave at Paria Canyon in 2008 and again in September, each time taking many photographs he later could study.

The whirlpools suggest the stone was flowing, as if it was a slurry of sand that suddenly froze in place, he said.

"This is excellent evidence for Noah's flood. It is far better than what anyone believes for an ancient Earth," Morgan said.

The formation itself is classified as Jurassic Navajo Sandstone, and according to conventional "old Earth" geology, was formed 200 million years ago when seasonal winds laid down the layers to create the dramatic land forms.

Morgan explains it differently in his article for Answers magazine.

"Creation geologists believe huge sand waves were piled up and laid down deep under the ocean water. The fast currents then created tell-tale features, known as cross beds or `striations,' with the steep cut-offs we see today," Morgan wrote in support of a global flood event.

The article also mentions that the sand at The Wave has been identified as having come from the Appalachians, about 1,800 miles to the east.

Moses' account in Genesis of Noah's flood describes a worldwide inundation that covered even the tallest mountains.

Morgan, who initially thought The Wave was just an example of water and wind erosion cutting through many layers of sandstone, says the evidence at Paria Canyon shows "what Moses wrote was true."

"I may be the first among creation geologists to openly promote this as evidence of Noah's flood," he said.

If such a cataclysmic flood event deposited the twisted layers of sand and whirlpools that later were to turn to stone, then how did the flood currents frozen in stone become exposed in a waterless desert?

Morgan believes a second flood catastrophe -- perhaps similar to the Ice Age floods that scoured Eastern Washington thousands of years ago -- unleashed icy waters that ravaged the Southwest, as well.

That would account for the rapid erosion in Paria Canyon and in the Grand Canyon, which is about 70 miles south of The Wave, he said.

"About half the people I've talked to say, `Yeah, that's proof the Earth is young,' " Morgan said.

Andrew Snelling, who has a doctorate in geology and is a content editor for Answers magazine, said two items of evidence at Paria Canyon point to a massive flood event.

One concerns analysis of grinds in the sandstone at Paria, which match mineral sources in the Appalachians. It would take a lot of wave action to move sand that far, he said.

And the sheer size of the Paria sandstone cross beds, at more than 100 feet thick, would need a massive wave -- a tsunami-sized wall of water -- in order to be laid down as they are. Snelling said such a wave would have to be twice as high as the bed of sand it deposits, which is on the scale of a global flood.

"The volume of sand we see out there is enormous. We don't see anything like that happening today," Snelling noted.

The Wave is reached by walking about six miles from the Vermillion Cliffs near Kanab, Utah, but a permit from the Bureau of Land Management is required.

To minimize human-caused erosion, only 20 permits are issued daily. Ten are through an online lottery, and the other 10 are at the Paria Ranger Station on Highway 89 west of Page, Ariz., during the summer, and at the ranger station on the east end of Kanab between November through March.

Morgan said hiking in the six miles or so is not for people with health issues or for children, and carrying at least a gallon of water per person is advised.

Good maps and a compass or GPS are essential for the trek in and out. There is no marked trail, but six checkpoints are established to provide critical information along the way.

Morgan said he and his hiking partners ran out of water on his first trip to The Wave three years ago.

And the most recent visit turned into an unexpected adventure when one member of Morgan's group wandered off and lost visual contact with the others. A helicopter rescue was needed to locate and bring him to the trailhead.

Morgan said the "misplaced hiker" spent the night alone but was otherwise unharmed.

---

Information from: Tri-City Herald, http://www.tri-cityherald.com 

Indefinite Detention Law Hall of Shame - List of Senators Who Voted Yes on the NDAA bill (And a list of their twitter accounts)

Below is the list of the Senators who voted yes on the NDAA bill which provides for indefinite detention of "any person who has committed a belligerent act" (See section 1031 (b) 2 of s1867 (National Defense Authorization Act of 2012). The term "belligerent act" is extremely wide and could applied to any form of resistance including protesting in the streets or even speaking out against the U.S. government. Be sure to also visit the list of the twitter ids for the senators who voted for NDAA below.

 

Voted Yes

Sen. Daniel Akaka [D, HI]
Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN]
Sen. Kelly Ayotte [R, NH]
Sen. John Barrasso [R, WY]
Sen. Max Baucus [D, MT]
Sen. Mark Begich [D, AK]
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO]
Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM]
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D, CT]
Sen. Roy Blunt [R, MO]
Sen. John Boozman [R, AR]
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA]
Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]
Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH]
Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
Sen. Thomas Carper [D, DE]
Sen. Robert Casey [D, PA]
Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA]
Sen. Daniel Coats [R, IN]
Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS]
Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME]
Sen. Kent Conrad [D, ND]
Sen. Chris Coons [D, DE]
Sen. Bob Corker [R, TN]
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]
Sen. Michael Crapo [R, ID]
Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL]
Sen. Michael Enzi [R, WY]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]
Sen. Al Franken [D, MN]
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY]
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC]
Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA]
Sen. Kay Hagan [D, NC]
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]
Sen. Dean Heller [R, NV]
Sen. John Hoeven [R, ND]
Sen. Kay Hutchison [R, TX]
Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK]
Sen. Daniel Inouye [D, HI]
Sen. John Isakson [R, GA]
Sen. Mike Johanns [R, NE]
Sen. Ron Johnson [R, WI]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D, SD]
Sen. John Kerry [D, MA]
Sen. Mark Kirk [R, IL]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN]
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D, WI]
Sen. Jon Kyl [R, AZ]
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D, LA]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Sen. Carl Levin [D, MI]
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN]
Sen. Joe Manchin [D, WV]
Sen. John McCain [R, AZ]
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO]
Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, KY]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D, NJ]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD]
Sen. Jerry Moran [R, KS]
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK]
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA]
Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE]
Sen. Bill Nelson [D, FL]
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D, AR]
Sen. John Reed [D, RI]
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV]
Sen. James Risch [R, ID]
Sen. Pat Roberts [R, KS]
Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV]
Sen. Marco Rubio [R, FL]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY]
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL]
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D, NH]
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]
Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D, MI]
Sen. Jon Tester [D, MT]
Sen. John Thune [R, SD]
Sen. Patrick Toomey [R, PA]
Sen. Tom Udall [D, NM]
Sen. Mark Udall [D, CO]
Sen. David Vitter [R, LA]
Sen. Mark Warner [D, VA]
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]
Sen. Roger Wicker [R, MS]

 

Voted No

Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]
Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT]

Here is a list of twitter IDs for senators who voted for S1867 Defense Authorization act. #NDAA

@senjohnbarrasso @senronjohnson @senrockefeller @sen_joemanchin @pattymurray @us_sen_cantwell @markwarner @senatorleahy @orrinhatch @kaybaileyhutch @senalexander @senbobcorker @johnthune @senronjohnson @grahamblo @senwhitehouse @sentoomey @senbobcasey @jiminhofe @robportman @sensherrodbrown @senjohnhoeven @kayhagan @senschumer @sengillibrand @tomudall @SenatorMenendez @senatorlautenberg @jeanneshaheen @senatorayotte @senatorreid @deanheller @mike_johanns @senbennelson @clairecmc @rogerwicker @alfranken @stabenow @sencarllevin @johnkerry @scottbrownma @senatorsnowe @senatorcollins @davidvitter @senlandrieu @mcconnellpress @moranforkansas @tomharkin @senatorlugar @sendancoats @senatorkirk @senatordurbin @daniel_inouye @senatorakaka @senatorisakson @saxby08 @senbillnelson @chriscoons @senatorcarper @joelieberman @senblumenthal @markudall @mbennet @barbaraboxer @johnboozman @senjohnmccain @lisamurkowski @senatorbigich @senshelbypress @senatorsessions @johncornyn @marcorubio @chuckgrassley @senatorburr @senatorsanders @jimdemint

Senators who voted for the NDAA who do not have twitter accounts:

Kohl (D-WI) Webb (D-VA) Reed (D-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Bingaman (D-NM) Cochran (R-MS) Klobuchar (D-MN) Cardin (D-MD) Mikulski (D-MD) Roberts (R-KS) Kirk (R-IL) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Pryor (D-AR) Kyl (R-AZ) Risch (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)

Following are the senators who voted *against* the act who are on twitter:

@senrandpaul @tomcoburn @senmikelee @senjeffmerkley @ronwyden @senatorsanders

Senators who votes against who are *not* on twitter:

Harkin (D-IA)

President Obama who pledged to veto the National Defense Authorization Act has signed it. Of course his promise was only for public consumption. After all lying to your enemy is what invading corporate takeover army's do. It was the Obama administration all along that demanded the indefinite detention provisions be added while at the same time telling the America people he was fighting to protect their rights. This is treason on parade,in your face all out despotism!

(AP Story)
Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'

HONOLULU (AP) -- President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

modified bill
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1540&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A5450

R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 - 2011

R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 - 2011

(NaturalNews) One of the most extraordinary documents in human history -- the Bill of Rights -- has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the "legal" right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.

In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year's Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.

This is the law that will cement Obama's legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America's pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany's war crimes look like child's play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming "impeachment!"

Why the Bill of Rights matters

While the U.S. Constitution already limits the power of federal government, the Bill of Rights is the document that enumerates even more limits of federal government power. In its inception, many argued that a Bill of Rights was completely unnecessary because, they explained, the federal government only has the powers specifically enumerated to it under the U.S. Constitution. There was no need to have a "First Amendment" to protect Free Speech, for example, because there was no power granted to government to diminish Free Speech.

This seems silly today, of course, given the natural tendency of all governments to concentrate power in the hands of the few while destroying the rights and freedoms of their own people. But in the 1780's, whether government could ever become a threat to future freedoms was hotly debated. By 1789, enough revolutionary leaders had agreed on the fundamental principles of a Bill of Rights to sign it into law. Its purpose was to provide additional clarifications on the limitation of government power so that there could be absolutely no question that government could NEVER, under any circumstances, violate these key principles of freedom: Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom from illegal searches, the right to remain silent, the right to due process under law, and so on.

Of course, today's runaway federal government utterly ignores the limitations placed on it by the founding fathers. It aggressively and criminally seeks to expand its power at all costs, completely ignoring the Bill of Rights and openly violating the limitations of power placed upon it by the United States Constitution. The TSA's illegal searching of air travelers, for example, is a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The government's hijacking of websites it claims are linking to "copyright infringement" hubs is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights. The government's demand that all Americans be forced to buy private health insurance is a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution -- the "commerce clause."

Now, with the passage of the NDAA, the federal government has torpedoed the entire Bill of Rights, dismissing it completely and effectively promising to violate those rights at will. As of January 1, 2012, we have all been designated enemies of the state. America is the new battleground, and your "right" to due process is null and void.

Remember, this was all done by the very President who promised to close Guantanamo Bay and end secret military prisons. Not only did Obama break that campaign promise (as he has done with nearly ALL his campaign promises), he did exactly the opposite and has now subjected all Americans to the possibility of government-sponsored kidnapping, detainment and torture, all under the very system of secret military prisons he claimed he would close!

"President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Obama's signing statement means nothing

Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, "Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded..."

Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the "the flexibility on which our safety depends" means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama's signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama's momentary intentions on how he "wishes" to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.

"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield," says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...).

What this means is that the next President could use this law to engage in the most horrific holocaust-scale mass round-up of people the world has ever seen. The NDAA legalizes the crimes of Nazi Germany in America, setting the stage for the mass murder of citizens by a rogue government.

United States of America becomes a rogue nation, operating in violation of international law

Furthermore, the NDAA law as written and signed, is a violation of international law as it does not even adhere to the fundamental agreements of how nations treat prisoners of war:

"...the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war" says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...).

In 1789, today's NDAA law would have been called "treasonous," and those who voted for it would have been shot dead as traitors. This is not a call for violence, but rather an attempt to provide historical context of just how destructive this law really is. Men and women fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People sacrificed their lives, their safety and risked everything to achieve the freedoms that made America such a great nation. For one President to so callously throw away 222 years of liberty, betraying those great Americans who painstakingly created an extraordinary document limiting the power of government, is equivalent to driving a stake through the heart of the Republic.

In signing this, Obama has proven himself to be the most criminal of all U.S. Presidents, far worse than George W. Bush and a total traitor to the nation and its People. Remember, Obama swore upon a Bible that he would "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and yet he himself has become the enemy of the Constitution by signing a law that overtly and callously nullifies the Bill of Rights.

This is nothing less than an act of war declared on the American people by the executive and legislative branches of government. It remains to be seen whether the judicial branch will go along with it (US Supreme Court).

Origins of the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights, signed in 1789 by many of the founding fathers of our nation, was based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted in 1776 and authored largely by George Mason, one of the least-recognized revolutionaries who gave rise to a nation of freedom and liberty.

Mason was a strong advocate of not just states' rights, but of individual rights, and without his influence in 1789, we might not even have a Bill of Rights today (and our nation would have slipped into total government tyranny all the sooner). In fact, he openly opposed ratification of the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a series of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...)

SECTION ONE of this Virginia declaration of rights states:

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/vir...)

Section Three of the declaration speaks to the duty of the Citizens to abolish abusive government:

"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

By any honest measure, today's U.S. government, of course, has overstepped the bounds of its original intent. As Mason wrote over 200 years ago, the People of America now have not merely a right but a duty to "reform, alter or abolish it," to bring government back into alignment with its original purpose -- to protect the rights of the People.

Obama violates his Presidential Oath, sworn before God

Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution spells out the oath of office that every President must take during their swearing in:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In signing the NDAA law into office, Obama has blatantly and unambiguously violated this sacred oath, meaning that his betrayal is not merely against the American people, but also against the Divine Creator.

Given that the Bill of Rights is an extension of Natural Law which establishes a direct heritage of sovereign power from the Creator to the People, a blatant attack upon the Bill of Rights is, by any account, an attack against the Creator and a violation of universal spiritual principles. Those who attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights are attempting to invalidate the relationship between God and Man, and in doing so, they are identifying themselves as enemies of God and agents of Evil.

Today, as 2012 begins, we are now a nation led by evil, and threatened with total destruction by those who would seek to rule as tyrants. This is America's final hour. We either defend the Republic starting right now, or we lose it forever.

Read the language analysis of WHY and HOW the NDAA applies to American citizens

Many people have been fooled by the obfuscated language of the bill, and they wrongfully believe the NDAA does not apply to American citizens. They have been hoodwinked!

In this follow-up article, I parse the language of the NDAA and explain, in plain language, how and why the NDAA does apply to American citizens:
http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_N...

Also, read this explanation by Rep. Justin Amash, who voted against the bill:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?no...

Make no mistake, folks: The U.S. government has just declared all Americans to be "enemy combatants," and that the USA is now a "battleground" over which the military has total control. We are now a nation living under military dictatorship, whether you realize it or not.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html#ixzz1iPo5RUZS

WTF? Two Prime Ministers, One speech

Pick A Winner - Ron Paul 2012

Join the YouGov US Opinion Center Panel

Join the YouGov US Opinion Center Panel

Obama Signs NDAA into Law Dec 31 2011 - HAPPY NEW YEAR

Obama Signs NDAA into Law Dec 31 2011 - HAPPY NEW YEAR

Benjamin Fulford & Sean David Morton Fukushima Japan

A.GUNDERSEN: "Tepco Make Believe Mission Accomplished _ Regulators Allow...

Fukushima Voted #1 Top Story of 2011 & update 12/31/11

Fukushima unit 4 Leaking water 5X Faster after Earthquake update 1/1/12

Ron Paul assassination attempt

THE INQUISITION: A Study in Absolute Catholic Power

THE INQUISITION:

A Study in Absolute Catholic Power

Arthur Maricle, Ph.D.

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." {Revelation 17:6}

Those who classify themselves as Christians can be divided into 2 broad groups: those who have chosen to allow the Bible to be their final authority and those who have chosen to allow men to be their final authority. For sake of simplicity, I shall refer to the first group as "Bible believing Christians." The latter group has always been best represented by Roman Catholicism, by far its largest, most powerful, and most influential component. The Roman Catholic hierarchy has always boldly stated that it is not dependent upon Scripture alone, but also accepts tradition as another pillar of truth -- and where a conflict exists, tradition receives the greater acceptance. Being its own arbiter of what is to be accepted as truth, it accepts no authority as being higher than itself. This explains why the Catholic belief system has been constantly evolving over the centuries.

This also explains why a fierce antagonism has always existed between Bible believing Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Rome's frequent spiritual innovations excites the passions of Bible believers, who react adversely to religious modifications that are at odds with the eternal, changeless Word of God. Harboring a supreme confidence in the Book, a trust which reflects their trust in the Holy Spirit who authored the Scriptures, the Bible believers boldly challenge the suppositions of the Catholic hierarchy. In the course of this spiritual warfare, Catholic people are frequently converted from trust in Rome's complex religious system to a childlike faith in the Saviour and a simple reliance on His Word. Many such converts ultimately leave the Church of Rome to join local, New Testament churches. Frequently in history, the trickle of individuals who were making this remarkable transformation turned into a flood. Such ruptures cannot go unchecked by the Catholic hierarchy. As with any bureaucracy, its primary interest is its own protection and propagation.

The nature of its response to the inroads made by spiritual challengers is dictated by its cultural surroundings. The more Catholic the culture, the more severe the response. In past centuries, when Rome's ecclesiastical power was virtually absolute throughout Europe, the intensity of the attacks by the papists upon their spiritual enemies could be equally absolute. Ignoring the injunction of II Corinthians 10:4 ("For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal..."), Catholicism built its own philosophical system to justify the use of carnal (fleshly, human, physical) means to achieve spiritual ends.

Having divorced herself from Biblical absolutes, Catholicism adopted a theology in which she sees herself as the church founded upon the Apostle Peter by Jesus Christ, and alone empowered to bring salvation to the world. Further, she believes herself assigned the daunting task of bringing Christ's kingdom to fruition on earth. With those dogmas forming her philosophical foundation, she seeks her power in the political sphere as well as the religious realm. To whatever degree she achieves political power, to that degree she feels compelled to use her secular influence as a weapon against her spiritual adversaries. Thus, down through the centuries, we see that in those countries in which Catholicism had achieved absolute power, the pope's followers have not hesitated to brutally subdue the enemies of "the Church". Although Jews, Moslems, pagans, and others have felt the wrath of Rome, her special fury has always been reserved for her bitterest and most effective challengers -- Bible believing Christians. Only as the political climate changed in recent centuries did the Catholic hierarchy see it expedient to change tactics and appear to be more tolerant. Yet, to this day we see persecution continuing in those places on the globe dominated by Catholicism. The degree of the persecution is determined by the degree of control.

To what lengths is the Catholic hierarchy prepared to go in its drive to repress opposition and achieve its goal of instituting the kingdom of Christ on earth? To find the answer, one must look to the pages of history.

When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., it immediately achieved expansive influence at all levels of the imperial government. As Bible believing Christians separated themselves from the Church of Rome, which they saw as apostate, they represented a formidable potential threat to the official new imperial religion. Persecution in varying degrees of severity was instituted over the centuries following.

By the 11th century, in their zeal to establish Christ's kingdom, the Roman popes ("pope" is an ecclesiastical office that is the very antithesis of the New Testament ideal of a local church pastor) began utilizing a new tool -- the Crusades. At first, the Crusades had as their object the conquering of Jerusalem and the "Holy Land". Along the crusaders' paths, thousands of innocent civilians (especially Jews) were raped, robbed, and slaughtered. In time, however, the crusade concept was altered to crush spiritual opposition within Europe itself. In other words, armies were raised with the intent of massacring whole communities of Bible believing Christians. One such group of Bible believing Christians were known as the Albigenses.

[Pope] Innocent III believed that Bible believing dissidents were worse than infidels (Saracens, Moslems, and Turks), for they threatened the unity of ... Europe. So Innocent III sponsored 4 "crusades" to exterminate the Albigenses. Innocent (what a name!) called upon Louis VII to do his killing for him, and he also enjoined Raymond VI to assist him.

The Cistercian order of Catholic monks were then commissioned to preach all over France, Flanders, and Germany for the purpose of raising an army sufficient to kill the Bible believers. All who volunteered to take part in these mass murders were promised that they would receive the same reward as those who had sallied forth against the Moslems (i.e., forgiveness of sins and eternal life).

The Albigenses were referred to in Pope Innocent's Sunday morning messages as "servants of the old serpent". Innocent promised the killers a heavenly kingdom if they took up their swords against unarmed populaces.

In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."

At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."A

This is but one example from the long and sordid history of Catholic atrocities committed against their bitter enemies, the Bible believing Christians. Much worse treatment of Bible believers was forthcoming during that stage of bloody Catholic history known as the Inquisition.

It is vital, though, that we here define what is meant by the term "heretic". According to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, this is a heretic: "One who holds or advocates controversial opinions, esp. one who publicly opposes the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic, Church." Or, as one author has put it, "Heresy, to a Catholic, is anti-Catholic truth found in the Bible."B Another summarized the official stance as this: "Every citizen in the empire was required to be a Roman Catholic. Failure to give wholehearted allegiance to the pope was considered treason against the state punishable by death."C

From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ... contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church.D

Pope Alexander IV established the Office of the Inquisition within Italy in 1254. The first inquisitor was Dominic, a Spaniard who was the founder of the Dominican order of monks.

The Inquisition was purely and uniquely a Catholic institution; it was founded far the express purpose of exterminating every human being in Europe who differed from Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. It spread out from France, Milan, Geneva, Aragon, and Sardinia to Poland (14th century) and then to Bohemia and Rome (1543). It was not abolished in Spain until 1820.E

The Inquisition was a terrifying fact of life to those who lived in areas where it was in force. That domain would eventually include not only much of Europe, but also the far-flung colonies of Europe's Catholic powers.

The Inquisition, led by the Dominicans and the Jesuits, was usually early on the scene following each territorial acquisition of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in the 16th and 17th centuries. The methods used, which all too often were similar to those used by Serra in California or the Nazi-backed Ustashis in Croatia, sowed the seeds of reaction and aversion that have proved to be a barrier for true missionaries ever since.

Albert Close writes of the Jesuit mission to Indonesia in 1559 that "conversion was wonderfully shortened by the cooperation of the colonial governors whose militia offered' the natives the choice of the musket ball or of baptism."

Everywhere it existed, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition spread its tentacles of fear.

When an inquisitor arrived in an area he called for reports of anyone suspected of heresy, sometimes offering rewards to spies who would report suspected heretics. Those suspected were imprisoned to await trials. The trials were held in secret and the inquisitor acted as judge, prosecutor, and jury. The accused had no lawyer. It was often simpler to confess to heresy than to defend oneself, especially since torture was often employed until the accused was ready to confess.

Because church and state had not been kept separate, the church powers could call upon the government to use its power against the convicted heretics. Anyone who fell back into heresy after repentance was turned over by the Inquisition to the regular government to be put to death. Most of those condemned to death were burned at the stake, but some were beaten to death or drowned.

The Inquisition was called the sanctum officium (Holy Office) because the church considered its work so praiseworthy.F

Even after the death of a victim, his punishment was not ended. The property of condemned heretics was confiscated, leaving his family in poverty.

It is important here to emphasize Rome's role in the brutality of the Inquisition. Roman Catholic apologists are quick to point out that it was the state that put heretics to death. This is an alibi meant to excuse the Vatican's role in the atrocities. However, Dollinger, the leading 19th century Catholic historian, stated: "The binding force of the laws against heretics lay not in the authority of secular princes, but in the sovereign dominion of life and death over all Christians claimed by the Popes as God's representatives on earth, as [Pope] Innocent III expressly states it."G

In other words, the secular arm of the state acted only as it was pressured to do so by the popes. Even kings who hesitated to commit genocide on their own populaces were spurred into action by their fear of papal excommunication or subversive Catholic activities within their kingdoms.

Dollinger continues: "It was the Popes who compelled bishops and priests to condemn the heterodox to torture, confiscation of their goods, imprisonment, and death, and to enforce the execution of this sentence on the civil authorities, under pain of excommunication,"H

Will Durant informs us that in 1521 Leo X issued the bull Honestis which "ordered the excommunication of any officials, and the suspension of religious services in any community, that refused to execute, without examination or revision, the sentences of the inquisitors." Consider Clement V's rebuke of King Edward II: "We hear that you forbid torture as contrary to the laws of your land. But no state law can override canon law, our law. Therefore I command you at once to submit those men to torture.I

The methods used by the Inquisition ranged from the barbaric to the bizarre.

When the inquisitors swept into a town an "Edict of Faith" was issued requiring everyone to reveal any heresy of which they had knowledge. Those who concealed a heretic came under the curse of the Church and the inquisitors' wrath. Informants would approach the inquisitors' lodgings under cover of night and were rewarded for information. No one arrested was ever acquitted.

Torture was considered to be essential because the church felt duty-bound to identify from the lips of the victims themselves any deviance from sound doctrine. Presumably, the more excruciating the torture, the more likely that the truth could be wrung from reluctant lips. The inquisitors were determined that it was "better for a hundred innocent people to die than for one heretic to go free".

"Heretics" were committed to the flames because the popes believed the Bible forbade Christians to shed blood. The victims of the Inquisition exceeded by hundreds of thousands the number of Christians and Jews who had suffered under pagan Roman emperors.J

This wanton slaughter of innocent people was justified by Catholic theologians such as "Saint". Thomas Aquinas, who said, "If forgers and other malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for putting to death one convicted of heresy." In 1815, Comte Le Maistre defended the Inquisition by advocating: "The Inquisition is, in its very nature, good, mild, and preservative. It is the universal, indelible character of every ecclesiastical institution; you see it in Rome, and you can see it wherever the true Church has power."K Such a viewpoint could only be expressed by one so brainwashed as to think that the cruel, torturous deaths of dissidents to Catholicism is preferable to the survival and propagation of those who would challenge the Vatican's authority.

Yet, not all Romanists have been comfortable with the totalitarian nature of their "church". Even Jean Antoine Llorente, secretary to the Spanish Inquisition from 1790-92, was to admit: "The horrid conduct of this Holy Office weakened the power and diminished the population of Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by immolating on its flaming shambles more than 300,000 victims."L Historian Will Durant stated, "Compared with the persecution of heresy in Europe from 1227 to 1492, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first 3 centuries after Christ was a mild and humane procedure. Making every allowance required by an historian and permitted to a Christian, we must rank the Inquisition, along with the wars and persecutions of our time, as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast."M

Catholic apologists attempt to downplay the significance of the Inquisition, saying that relatively few people were ever directly affected. While controversy rages around the number of victims that can be claimed by the Inquisition, conservative estimates easily place the count in the millions. This does not include the equally vast numbers of human beings slaughtered in the various wars and other conflicts instigated over the centuries by Vatican political intrigues. Nor does it take it account the Holocaust wrought upon the Jews by the Nazis, led by Roman Catholics who used their own religious history to justify their modern excesses. As one secular history explains, "As the Germans instituted a bureaucracy of organized murder, so too did Torquemada, the first Grand Inquisitor, a worthy of predecessor of Heydrich and Eichmann."N

Because her basic doctrinal premises remain in place, Rome can yet again rise up against her spiritual enemies at some future date when she again wields exclusive ecclesiastical control of a region. In fact, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition still exists within the Vatican (known today as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), awaiting the day in which it can stamp out "heresy". As recently as 1938, a popular Catholic weekly declared:

Heresy is an awful crime against God, and those who start a heresy are more guilty than they who are traitors to the civil government. If the state has a right to punish treason with death, the principle is the same that concedes to the spiritual authority the power of life and death over the archtraitor.O

The Inquisition proved how Catholicism will react when it has possession of absolute power. Is it any wonder that in the 1880s, Dr. H. Grattan Guinness preached the following:

I see the great Apostasy, I see the desolation of Christendom, I see the smoking ruins, I see the reign of monsters; I see those vice-gods, that Gregory VII, that Innocent III, that Boniface Vlll, that Alexander Vl, that Gregory XIII, that Pius IX; I see their long succession, I hear their insufferable blasphemies, I see their abominable lives; I see them worshipped by blinded generations, bestowing hollow benedictions, bartering away worthless promises of heaven; I see their liveried slaves, their shaven priests, their celibate confessors; I see the infamous confessional, the ruined women, the murdered innocents; I hear the lying absolutions, the dying groans; I hear the cries of the victims; I hear the anathemas, the curses, the thunders of the interdicts; I see the racks, the dungeons, the stakes; I see that inhuman Inquisition, those fires of Smithfield, those butcheries of St. Bartholomew, that Spanish Armada, those unspeakable dragonnades, that endless train of wars, that dreadful multitude of massacres. I see it all, and in the name of the ruin it has brought in the Church and in the world, in the name of the truth it has denied, the temple it has defiled, the God it has blasphemed, the souls it has destroyed; in the name of the millions it has deluded, the millions it has slaughtered, the millions it has damned; with holy confessors, with noble reformers, with innumerable martyrs, with the saints of ages, I denounce it as the masterpiece of Satan, as the body and soul and essence of antichrist."P

The challenge I give to Bible believing Christians is to respect the heritage we have been given by those who suffered for Biblical truth, that we may be prepared to suffer ourselves. Ours is the generation that may yet again be afflicted for the faith once delivered to the saints. If such is to be our privilege, let us face our trials with this promise of our Lord fresh upon our hearts: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." {Matthew 5:10}

The challenge I give to Roman Catholics is to take up the New Testament of the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit of God to speak to your hearts. If a Catholic remains skeptical about this brief treatise on the Inquisition, he is certainly welcome to examine for himself the record of history. If he remains unmoved by my conclusions, he is welcome to draw his own. But of far greater import is his need to examine the teachings of his church in the light of God's Word. Jesus leaves you with this warning: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." {John 12:48} You to whom the Bible was so accessible will not be able to plead ignorance in that terrible day of judgment.

Footnotes:

^A Peter S. Ruckman, Ph.D.; The History of the New Testament Church (Bible Believers Bookstore; Pensacola, Florida; 1989)
^B Ibid.
^C Dave Hunt; A Woman Rides the Beast (Harvest House Publishers; Eugene, Oregon; 1994)
^D J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger; The Pope and the Council (London, 1869); as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
^E Peter S. Ruckman, Ph.D.; op cit.
^F Laura l-licks, editor; The Modern Age: The History of the World in Christian Perspective, Vol. 11 (A Beka Books Publications; Pensacola, Florida; 1981)
^G J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger; op cit.
^H Ibid.
^I Dave Hunt; op cit.; quotations from Will Durant; The Story of Civilization, Vol. V (Simon and Schuster, 1950); and ibid., Vol. 4
^J Dave Hunt; op cit.
^K Comte Le Maistre, letters on the Spanish Inquisition, as cited in R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power (New York, 1876); as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
^L Jean Antoine Llorentine, History of the Inquistion; as cited in R.W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power (New York, 1876); as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
^M Will Durant; The Story of Civilization, Vol. IV (Simon and Schuster, 1950); as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
^N Ward Rutherford; Genocide: The Jews in Europe 1939-45 (Ballantyne Books, Inc.; New York, New York; 1973)
^O The Tablet, November 5, 1938; as cited in Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast
^P H. Grattan Guinness, D.D., Romanism and the Reformation; Focus Christian Ministries; Lewes, Sussex; as cited in Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome?

Black Birds Falling From The Sky Again Arkansas!

Santorum’s pastor says Protestants not “proper” Christians

by Joel McDurmon

With statements nearly as out of the mainstream of American Evangelicalism as Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who infamously shouted “God d*mn America,” Rick Santorum’s head-pastor should have nearly as much explaining to do.

Santorum, a devout Roman Catholic, submits to the spiritual oversight of Pope Benedict XVI, the alleged “Vicar of Christ” Himself. And the Vatican leader has been less than kind to Evangelicals:

In 2007, he famously said that Protestants cannot be considered “proper” Christians, because they do not submit to his grace—the Pope: He claimed that

the branches of Christianity formed after the split with Rome at the Reformation could not be called churches “in the proper sense” because they broke with a succession of popes who dated back to St Peter.

He continued on to argue that the Roman Catholic Church is the only “true church of Christ.”

In an even more out of touch pontification, Santorum’s spiritual Father stated that creationists’ opposition to evolution is an “absurdity,” and argues, “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution.”

The Pope added that evolution “appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

He also repeated the UN’s global warming propaganda, claiming the earth is talking to us, therefore “obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness … than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive.”

Since when do Christian leaders “obey” the Earth’s word instead of God’s?

Perhaps even more troubling is the Roman Catholic Church’s preference for social-welfare policies identical to Democrats and other liberals, under the guise of leftist-style Social Justice. According to CatholicVote.org, Rick Santorum has been active in many such socialistic legislative actions, often in open cooperation with the liberals:

almost every time a serious piece of antipoverty legislation surfaces in Congress, Rick Santorum is there playing a leadership role.

In the mid-1990s, he was a floor manager for welfare reform, the most successful piece of domestic legislation of the past 10 years. He then helped found the Renewal Alliance to help charitable groups with funding and parents with flextime legislation.

More recently, he has pushed through a stream of legislation to help the underprivileged, often with Democratic partners.

In addition, he’s issued a torrent of proposals, many of which have become law: efforts to fight tuberculosis; to provide assistance to orphans and vulnerable children in developing countries; to provide housing for people with AIDS; to increase funding for Social Services Block Grants and organizations like Healthy Start and the Children’s Aid Society; to finance community health centers; to combat genocide in Sudan.

I could fill this column, if not this entire page, with a list of ideas, proposals and laws Santorum has poured out over the past dozen years. It’s hard to think of another politician who has been so active and so productive on these issues.

“So go Rick, go,” says CatholicVote.org, ”This American Papist is pulling for you.”

Evangelicals drawn to Santorum after leaving Bachmann’s dwindling campaign should know what they’re getting into. It’s not evangelicalism; it’s liberalism and Social Justice no better than Obama, really.

And if you think Paul has a foreign policy problem, just imagine how complicated it gets when a man’s highest Spiritual allegiance is to the Vatican and not to the American people.

It’s one thing to say “God d**n America. It’s even worse, however, to damn it anyway while praising it in the name of God.

The Pagan Origins of the "New Year" Celebration

Cutter Charges in the North Tower by David Chandler - Arabic

Obama Signs Martial Law Bill: NDAA Now Law

NDAA SOPA I've seen this movie before BUT IS REAL LIFE.avi

The Beast of Revelation

Who is the anti-Christ - the beast of Revelation?

Roman Catholicism: http://www.biblicist.org/bible/catholic.shtml

The Antichrist and the Protestant Reformation: http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/articles/?d=44

Martin Luther identified Papacy as the Antichrist: http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/reformation/reformers/luther.shtml

Corrupt Popes: http://promom.hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Bad-Popes
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/7-quite-unholy-pope-scandals-1092/

The Borgias: http://www.mmdtkw.org/VBorgias.html
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/renaissance1/section4.rhtml