Romeike Family Amnesty Resolution, Michigan House of Representatives....

The following resolution in support of the Romeike family was introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives today by Rep. Tom Hooker, along with 16 co-sponsors; it was sent to the Committee on Gov't Operations, or as Rep Hooker termed it, the place where bills go to die:

Rep. Hooker offered the following resolution:

House Resolution No. 159.

A resolution to call upon the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice to cease and desist forthwith the prosecution of the Romeike family and to make permanent the grant of asylum in which they were initially vested.

Whereas, In our nation's past, we have celebrated immigrants who came to this country in order to escape the persecution that was brought against them. Furthermore, the United States Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, has stated that "...creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the eleven million unauthorized immigrants in this country...is a matter of civil and human rights"; and

Whereas, The Romeike family, which consists of Uwe, Hannelore, and their six children, have deeply held religious beliefs and convictions regarding how their children should be educated. Over the course of time the Romeikes came to believe that the state school system in Germany, which does not permit homeschooling as an alternative to the public school system, was educating their children in ways that were at odds with their beliefs. Upon making their decision to pull their children out of the state education system, they were heavily fined, their children were taken to school under police escort, and they faced litigation from the state; and

Whereas, The Romeike family immigrated to the United States in 2008 and in 2010 were granted initial asylum by immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman. In 2012, the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals overruled this decision and denied asylum. In 2013, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the family's appeal; and

Whereas, Our society has held for the better part of the last two hundred and twenty-four years that, as expressed by Albert Gallatin, "[T]he whole Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority have the right to deprive them of"; and

Whereas, The ruling against the permanent grant of asylum to the Romeike family will have the effect of establishing a legal precedent of divesting certain parents of the fundamental right to direct the education of their children by choosing homeschooling, thus limiting their ability to practice their freedom of religion. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, explicitly states:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;" and

Whereas, The youngest daughter of Uwe and Hannelore Romeike is entitled to all of the rights and protections afforded to all citizens of our country under the United States Constitution. She was born within the United States and is a United States citizen. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states:  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws;" now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we call upon the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice to cease and desist forthwith the prosecution of the Romeike family and to make permanent the grant of asylum in which they were initially vested; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Attorney General of the United States and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

"We need your honor..."

Fine, then let's see that honor demonstrated by the Commander in Chief first.

“We need your honor, that inner compass that guides you, not when the path is easy and obvious, but it’s hard and uncertain, that tells you the difference between that which is right and that which is wrong,” Obama said. “Perhaps it will be the moment when you think nobody’s watching. But never forget that honor, like character, is what you do when nobody’s looking.”

Practice what you preach, Mr. President.  You have no moral authority to make such a demand.

Let me paraphrase your other relevant remark from this address:

“Those who commit dereliction of duty after receiving numerous please for help, who order troops to stand down when our ambassador and his staff are being murdered, who direct the IRS to target conservatives and others with whose ideology you personally disagree, who tell Christians that they must fund abortion and give vocal approval to homosexuality in violation of their First Amendment Rights, who direct the Department of State to provide funding and weapons to islamic terrorist organizations and hostile governments, and who direct immigration and other law enforcement agencies not to enforce our laws regarding illegal aliens, just to give a few examples, are not only committing a crime, they threaten the trust and discipline that makes our country strong.” 

True leadership doesn't make demands of others that it doesn't first make of itself.

Pres. Obama to West Point Grads: "We need your honor..."

Becoming an "American"

Letter from former Pres. Teddy Roosevelt to the president of the American Defense Society, written on January 3, 1919. It was read aloud at a concert sponsored by the ADS on January 6, 1919; Roosevelt died three days later. It speaks to divisions among the American people, and what he believed to be the obligations of those who would become American citizens.

"I cannot be with you and so all I can do is to wish you God speed. There must be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism merely because the war is over.

There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which more directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people. Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple.

In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn’t an American at all. 

We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

A copy of the original letter can be seen at this link: Pres. Teddy Roosevelt letter

Privileges and Favors, or Inalienable Rights?

"Just because you have a right does not mean that the state or local government cannot constrain that right…"  B.H. Obama

"I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom..." Michael Bloomberg 

At every turn, we are witnessing an all-out attack on the freedoms guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. It's amazing that the words "unalienable" or "shall not be infringed" could ever be interpreted as, "at the government's whim."

If one looks at our rights only as amendments to the Constitution, it is easy to dismiss their importance. When you put them back into their original context of the Bill of Rights, however, one is confronted with the critical nature of those amendments. The States that created the federal government with the ratification of the Constitution DEMANDED the addition of the first 10 amendments, and ratified them with a 3/4 supermajority. Those amendments to the Constitution made this country what it was. Our government's penchant to disregard them has made us what we are today.

The Danbury Baptists nailed the basic issue when they wrote their historic (and abused) letter to then-president Thomas Jefferson:

"[A]nd such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ."

Our rights are not privileges or favors granted to us by a beneficent government; they are INALIENABLE RIGHTS, recognized by our Founders as having been granted to us by God by virtue of having been created in His image. Therefore, the attacks and slanders we endure at the hand of our government for the exercise and defense of those rights are "inconsistent with the rights of freemen." But as was the case already in Jefferson's time, those of us who believe and defend that position are instead looked upon as the enemy by those who seek absolute power.

H.R. 1005: Defund Obamacare Act...

I support H.R. 1005, Defund Obamacare Act. Obamacare will actually force more people who are currently insured into the ranks of the uninsured, it will result in a net loss of over 70,000 doctors, and it is already resulting in the underemployment of our nation's workers as employers cut hours to slide under the Obamacare threshold. Not to mention INCREASING the size of the IRS (NEVER a good thing!).

If you haven't contacted your representative to encourage them to fully support this legislation, take a moment to do so now.

This is a starting point.  We need to take it to the next step and repeal this travesty in its entirety.  Tell Pelosi, "We HAVE read it, we HAVE found out what's in it, AND WE DON'T WANT IT!"

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1005/text

April 23, 2013: the First Anniversary of the End of the War on Terror....

April 23, 2013. 

Today is the first anniversary of the end of the war on terror.

I'll bet you didn't know that.

One year ago today, the administration did something that went largely under the radar until after the Boston Marathon bombing: it declared the war on terror to be over. 

In an interview with the National Journal, a senior State Department official stated, "The war on terror is over... Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a LEGITIMATE ISLAMISM" (all caps added). 

In other words, the administration folded. It has admitted defeat. But while the US is no longer engaged in a war on terrorism, recent events make it clear that we are still a target for terrorists.  The man who castigated Bush for declaring "mission accomplished" while still carrying out combat missions in Iraq has declared an end to the war on terror even as we deal with terrorist sleeper cells in this country.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/04/23/Obama-war-on-terror

US Army: No Purple Hearts for Victims of Ft. Hood Massacre...

OK -- so the administration made the decision to assassinate an American and his family living abroad because he was PLANNING an attack on US interests (he richly deserved prosecution for his actions, but the DOJ readily admits that they had no specific intelligence relating to specific acts of terrorism or specific targets), declaring him a traitor and a terrorist without a trial, but they are afraid to label this man, who actually carried out an attack on fellow service personnel, on US soil, a traitor and terrorist - thereby denying the affected service personnel and their families the decorations, benefits and assistance that they should rightfully be receiving? 

According to Article 3 section 3 of the Constitution, this man is a traitor: 

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." 

He carried out an act of war against the US in support of muslim extremist enemies of this country. He is a traitor and a terrorist under the terms of this article of the Constitution. He is still Constitutionally due his day in open court, but make no mistake about it - he is a traitor and a terrorist; for the military to say otherwise is an affront to all members of our armed forces, particularly those who were personally affected by his actions.

If you find this offensive, pass this on - and contact your legislators to demand that this travesty be corrected immediately.

U-S-Army-Protects-Shooter-Says-No-Purple-Hearts-For-Ft-Hood-Victims

It's Friday, but Sunday's coming!!!

This classic message, originally preached by Dr. S.M. Lockridge:

It’s Friday
Jesus is praying
Peter’s a sleeping
Judas is betraying
But Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
Pilate’s struggling
The council is conspiring
The crowd is vilifying
They don’t even know
That Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
The disciples are running
Like sheep without a shepherd
Mary’s crying
Peter is denying
But they don’t know
That Sunday’s a comin’

It’s Friday
The Romans beat my Jesus
They robe him in scarlet
They crown him with thorns
But they don’t know
That Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
See Jesus walking to Calvary
His blood dripping
His body stumbling
And his spirit’s burdened
But you see, it’s only Friday
Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
The world’s winning
People are sinning
And evil’s grinning

It’s Friday
The soldiers nail my Savior’s hands
To the cross
They nail my Savior’s feet
To the cross
And then they raise him up
Next to criminals

It’s Friday
But let me tell you something
Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
The disciples are questioning
What has happened to their King
And the Pharisees are celebrating
That their scheming
Has been achieved
But they don’t know
It’s only Friday
Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
He’s hanging on the cross
Feeling forsaken by his Father
Left alone and dying
Can nobody save him?
Ooooh
It’s Friday
But Sunday’s comin’

It’s Friday
The earth trembles
The sky grows dark
My King yields his spirit

It’s Friday
Hope is lost
Death has won
Sin has conquered
and Satan’s just a laughin’

It’s Friday
Jesus is buried
A soldier stands guard
And a rock is rolled into place

But it’s Friday
It is only Friday
SUNDAY IS A COMIN’!

Dr. S.M. Lockridge

Good Bye, Starbucks...

I have officially joined the nationwide boycott of Starbucks.   To be completely honest, I wasn't aware that such a boycott existed until 12 hours ago.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is on the record that his company firmly backs the "right" of gay "couples" to marry and enjoy all of the benefits accorded to heterosexual couples.

As a Born Again, fundamentalist Christian, I stand firmly behind the Biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman until parted by death (yes, I oppose adultery and remarriage after divorce on Biblical grounds as well, but those are discussions for another time).  The Bible clearly teaches this precept:

But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.  So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
    because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.  Genesis 2:19 - 24, ESV 

This precept was confirmed by the teachings of both Jesus and Paul in the New Testament:

 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,  and said,‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6, ESV

"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”  Mark 10:6-9, ESV

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”  Ephesians 5:31, ESV

 Schultz, however, has taken a political position on this issue that stands in opposition to this Biblical precept.  When a stockholder observed during a recent stockholders' meeting that their returns had diminished 10% in the wake of a nationwide boycott of Starbucks relating to their support for gay marriage, the CEO told him, 

"...it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. Of all kinds... You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.” howard schultz to pro-Biblical marriage starbucks shareholder

Schultz's declaration was applauded by the other stockholders.

Until such time as Schultz repents of his blatantly unBiblical position, I have officially joined the ranks of those will no longer do business with Starbucks.

The Romeike Deportation Battle - Responding to a Grossly Uninformed Critic...

The following was posted to the wall of the Facebook Group, Stop the DOJ's Persecution of the Romeike Family, last night: "They came here to escape proscecution for NOTt sending their children to school which is the Law.. not for religious proscecution" (copied here EXACTLY as it was posted to the wall).

This is our response:  And the reason for which they objected to the law and the teaching of the schools that led to their decision to homeschool was based on their religious convictions. Acts 5:27-28, "And when they had brought them [the apostles], they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men." The lawmakers of their day forbad the apostles to teach about Jesus; you can see their response. 

There comes a point where we must obey the Bible over man's laws. 

This country was founded, in no small part, by individuals who came here to worship according to their convictions regarding what the Bible taught. The law of their day outlawed all but the state religion. Using Holder's argument, the pilgrims didn't have a claim of religious persecution, because the law applied equally to everyone - it didn't single out any particular religious sect. Furthermore, Holder argues that the Romeike's decision to flee the country must be consistent with the general beliefs of their religion; since their religion requires neither homeschooling nor fleeing the country, they have no right to do either of those things, either. They have no individual right to freedom of religion. So according to Holder's arguments, the pilgrims had no right to flee the country because their religion didn't require such action of them. 

We, however, believe in the pre-eminence of the individual conscience and hold, along with Gallatin, that the Bill of Rights protects the INDIVIDUAL'S freedoms of religion, conscience, association, and self-determination as unalienable rights. Holder's arguments are disturbing because he is, in fact, arguing the WE don't have an individual right to these things, either. This case establishes the precedent for the demolition of individual liberties and the supremacy of the individual conscience.