A bill to prohibit registered sex offenders from loitering in certain places was approved by the South Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee today.

SB 125 seeks to add public libraries to the places registered sex offenders are prohibited from loitering in.

The bill was introduced by South Dakota Senator Craig Tieszen.

Rapid City Police Chief Steve Allender said his support for the bill stems from a situation the police department was involved in during the last year. RCPD has been working with the library to make the area more safe. Allender described libraries as a very “welcoming” place and said some people take advantage of that. According to Allender, a “notorious” sex offender who was well-known in the community had been kicked out of a number of areas where young people gathered and made inappropriate comments to them. This offender began going to the upstairs children’s area of the library and eating a sack lunch. He was eventually banned by the library, but library staff felt they needed some legislation to give them more standing to deal with situations like this in the future. RCPD checked across the state and found the problem is also seen in other cities around South Dakota.

Allender said this legislation would give the library staff confidence in dealing with the problem and make it clear that the law is behind them in protecting children. Sex offenders can still utilize the library for library business, but they are not allowed to loiter or otherwise remain in the area when they are not in pursuit of the library’s official services.

The bill was also supported by testimony from the South Dakota State’s Attorneys Association, the South Dakota Attorney General’s office, the South Dakota Municipal League, the South Dakota Police Chief’s Association, and Family Heritage Alliance Action. Pierre librarian Robin Schrupp also spoke in favor of the bill, citing instances witnessed by herself and colleagues where this legislation would help protect children.

During committee discussion, Committee Member Jean Hunhoff expressed concerns that the way laws are going, registered sex offenders will be prohibited from all public places, but said for the children’s sake she would support this bill.

Tieszen responded that provisions have been made for sex offenders to get off the registry if they have proven they can “behave themselves,” and that this bill would not prohibit sex offenders from coming into the library on legitimate business, just from loitering for the purpose of making contact with minors.

The bill passed unanimously on a 7-0 vote:

From the Washington Examiner comes word of 62,000 grassroots (e.g. Tea Party) activists finds big support for the 2016 candidates for president that you’d expect, and little for the ones you’d expect.

The poll for TheTeaParty.net  found the highest praise for one of the Senate Republicans who actually tried to do something about ObamaCare last fall: Texas Senator Ted Cruz. His support is followed by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Dr. Ben Carson and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

It’s interesting that support in the “racist” Tea Party is greatest for a Hispanic American and a black American among the top four. And coming in fifth is Sarah Palin; apparently the Tea Party didn’t get the message that they’re supposed to be at war with women, either, as the support for Top 10 getter South Carolina Governor Nikki Hailey (daughter of Indian immigrants) illustrates.

Tea Party folk sure are some strange examples of “racists” and “sexists;” you’d almost think that, unlike liberals, they aren’t obsessed with identity politics, but rather seem to care more about whether the candidate has the right ideas-and stands for those ideas.

Who’s at the bottom?  The ones you’d expect: RINO sellouts like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush.

So no real surprises here. As they always have, Tea Party patriots support Americans who support American values and the values that the GOP used to stand for…and they have no use for frauds who sell out those values on the altar of the vain pursuit of pleasing liberals.

In other words, Tea Party patriots are more loyal to Republican values than the leaders of the Republican Party.

Radio talk show host David Webb recently confronted Rev. William Barber of the North Carolina NAACP for his  (NC NAACP President) levied against Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) and the Tea Party:

A ventriloquist can always find a good dummy. The extreme right wing down here finds a black guy to be senator and claims he’s the first black senator since Reconstruction, and then he goes to Washington, D.C., and articulates the agenda of the Tea Party.

Webb also couldn’t find anyone in Barber’s crowd who could cite an example of racism from Tea Party patriots.

Isn’t it interesting that if a black American toes the liberal line and pays homage to the bigotry of lowered expectations, they are a good representative of the black community.

But if they articulate the conservative values that made America the greatest nation on earth, and which fought since the founding of our nation for freedom for ALL Americans, then they’re just a “ventriloquist’s dummy” or an “Uncle Tom.”

Uh huh. Cries of “racism” are the favorite play of morally and intellectually bankrupt liberals, because they know their ideas cannot stand toe to toe with the ones that produced the most free and prosperous nation in history.

The race card always plays well among the uninformed.

These are bills of interest which are scheduled to be considered in the South Dakota Legislature today.  They include bills dealing with child molestation, protecting the public from sex offenders, animal welfare, tobacco regulation, and Common Core/education standards.

Additionally, HB 1136 and HJR 1004 dealing with an Article V Constitutional Convention will be heard in the full South Dakota House today.

HB 1164 is a bad bill which would allow “independents” to meddle in the selection of party candidates. Normally, you cannot sign a petition in support of a candidate unless you are a member of that party. It only makes sense that someone invested enough in a party (and ostensibly that party’s philosophy) should be allowed to influence the selection of that party’s candidates. This bill is designed to allow “independents” (who all too often can’t seem to get their arms around a consistent political philosophy, and obviously shows no loyalty to a particular political party) to help select the primary candidates of a party. We don’t need someone who is likely to vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election to help select the worst possible “Republican” candidate in the primary and thus weaken Republican chances against Clinton in the general election.

	Date	Committee/Chamber	Bill	Title
	2/11 7:45 AM	Senate Education	SB 154	establish the Jolene’s Law Task Force to study the impact of sexual abuse of children in this state and to make recommendations to the Legislature on policies to effectively address the issue.
	2/11 8:00 AM	Senate Judiciary	SB 125	prohibit registered sex offenders from loitering in certain areas.
	2/11 10:00 AM	House Local Government	HB 1164	revise who may sign a petition for political candidates of a party.
	2/11 10:00 AM	Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources	SB 46	revise certain provisions regarding animal welfare and to provide a felony penalty for cruelty to animals.
	2/11 2:00 PM	House of Representatives	HB 1136	limit the authority of delegates to a limited Article V convention to vote for unauthorized amendments contrary to legislative instructions and to provide a civil fine for the violation thereof.
	2/11 2:00 PM	House of Representatives	HJR 1004	Making formal application to Congress to call an Article V convention of the states for the sole purpose of proposing a federal balanced budget amendment.
	2/11 2:00 PM	Senate	SB 51	revise certain provisions regarding the regulation of tobacco.
	2/11 2:00 PM	House of Representatives	SB 63	protect the privacy of the records of individual students.
	2/11 2:00 PM	House of Representatives	SB 64	require a waiting period prior to the adoption of new uniform content standards and to provide for an opportunity for public comment for all new content standards.

“Some time ago I had a debate with a professor at the University of California, Irvine, on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. He had written his doctoral dissertation on the subject and was thoroughly familiar with the evidence. He could not deny the facts of Jesus’s honorable burial, his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Therefore, his only recourse was to come up with some alternative explanation of these facts. And so he argued that Jesus had an unknown identical twin brother who was separated from him at birth, came back to Jerusalem just at the time of the crucifixion, stole Jesus’s body out of the grave, and presented himself to the disciples, who mistakenly inferred that Jesus was risen from the dead!” - William Lane Craig

Spiritually, our nation is dying. In response, conservative Christians are caught between righteous judgements and somber humility.

Our humanity enables us to relate to our fellow man on a natural level, but the good-will offer enables us to share God’s mercy and grace – enabling us to relate on a spiritual level. If we are rejected, we should not grow bitter or indignant. There is no shame in representing our faith to the best of our God-given ability. (We need not be a theologian or hold a doctorate in divinity, but we should do our homework).

Share and Defend is what I propose. Share the Gospel and Defend Christian Values. Charitably share the message of salvation, and defend the veracity of the message.

If we fail to present the one part, the other is often rejected. If we fail to present the Gospel as truth, we will suffer rejection. If we fail to present the Gospel as saving, we will suffer rejection.

Share and defend with charity and faithfulness. The power is not in us, but a half-hearted messenger will be exposed as a poor witness of the faith.

The Gospel is self-revealing, although we like to make the message more palatable by sugarcoating the more offensive parts. A faithful witness must Share a complete Gospel.

But it’s the Defend part I would like to focus on. If we do not wholeheartedly believe our own message 100%, we are toast. The wisdom and wonder to be found in the Word of God speaks for itself.

We must challenge a growing majority who seek to label Christianity just one of the many mythical religions conceived by man to make sense of the world. A Christian revival is still possible!

Here’s just a few points that should be considered in an effort to preserve and advance a Judeo-Christian worldview.

1. The inadequacy of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as a replacement for Biblical Creation:

A. The case for naturalism, which is at the heart of the Darwinian model of progression, fails to withstand the law of probability. Random chance is wholly incapable of producing the miraculous results proposed by Darwinists (the second law of thermodynamics further compounds the probability and overall legitimacy of evolutionary theory.) Dr. Jonathan Sarfati concludes the mathematical impossibility “that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.”

B. Darwinian evolution is not upheld by the standards applied by the scientific method (not observable or testable). Consequently, every living species conceived fulfills its genetic imprint from birth (unique developmental patterns at conception).

C. Proponents of evolution understand that the scientific method only leaves room for very minor/gradual changes over a long period of time. However, some of these same proponents contradict themselves as they promote ‘punctuated equilibria’ (rapid evolution) to explain inconsistencies in the fossil record. Regardless, the lack of transitional fossils during the Cambrian Era continues to validate Darwin’s original insecurities (as he called it “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”).

D. The complimentary reproductive organs of man and woman are indicative of special created/designed purpose.

2. The historical reliability of the Bible account:

A. The discovery of the ancient manuscripts (Dead Sea Scrolls) detailing the unaltered accounts of the Old Testament.

B. Numerous archeological finds that support the validity of events recorded in the Bible, and just as important, the fact that none of these finds have contradicted the explanations and descriptions referenced in Biblical accounts (people, places, events, etc.). The notable and highly respected Jewish archeologist, Nelson Glueck, declared that “no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”

C. Surviving outside (or secondary) sources that corroborate certain actualities of Biblical Christianity (as noted in the written works of the following authors: Josephus AD 93, Pliny the Younger AD 112, Tacitus AD 116, Suetonius AD 120, Lucian AD 170, The Talmud 70-200 AD). To merely write off these individuals and events as part of mythical folklore is an exercise in willful, biased subjectivity.

D. The fact that the New Testament accounts from the different primary sources (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, James) verify each other on all the central points of the Christian faith (these writings were pooled together as part of the canon of scriptures – collectively making up the New Testament).

The blood of the early Christian martyrs who died for their faith is a testimony to the efficacy of the God-Man, His Message and the Movement

There is consensus among all notable historians that the Jesus of the Bible did, in fact, exist and was the central figure upon whom the Christian faith was founded. In particular, it is clearly evident by the nature of the epistles (authored by Paul who was wholly sincere in his pastoral letters to the various churches that rose up among the Gentiles) that if this great disciple was writing fiction – he didn’t know it.

Even Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar and hardened critic of Christianity, has gone on record in support of an ‘actual’ Jesus of Nazareth, despite the contrary claims put forth by a majority of new atheists.

The growth and influence of Christianity is really spectacular. How is it a handful of Jews – a vagabond living on honey and locusts, a lowly carpenter, a few rough fishermen, and a tent maker who also happened to be a zealous Pharisee – advanced the most influential religious movement of all time? A non-violent, anti-establishment, spiritual phenomenon born out of the peace, hope and love to be found in a humble savior wholly willing to deliver sinners from themselves - this is Christianity!

Jesus is the hope for a broken civilization!

Tweets: @AmericaLost2014

Coming Soon : America Lost~ Finding Our Way Out of the Darkness by AJ Castellitto

America Lost is a social/political commentary with lots of historical reference points but more than anything it’s a Christian apologetic. I am going to be bold and say that God has led me to convey something both tragic and amazing. I hope you will give it a try - you don’t have to agree with everything and you may not - but at the least there are some vital national/historical truths being conveyed. This is a book also for your teenager or college-aged son/daughter/young adult. I also get fairly personal, as there is an autobiographical aspect to this too…. Essentially there is something for everyone.

Do I think it’s good ? I can say without hesitation - yes it is! And it’s important!

Listen to the Christian Patriot Politicast of this column

Inscription on the U.S. Dept of Justice Building

On Monday, I stumbled across a column published last month at Investors.com claiming that Attorney General Eric Holder intends to ban consideration of “religion” in terror investigations.  By “religion,” we understand he means Islam.  Let’s take a look at part of the story:

According to NBC News, the Justice Department will soon prohibit religious profiling in terror cases. The move, if true, would completely blind federal law enforcement to the threat from Islamic extremism.

Already, the department has forced the FBI to bleach references to “Islam” and “jihad” from its counterterrorism training materials. It’s also made it harder for agents to infiltrate radical mosques.

But Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly now wants to make it illegal for agents to even consider religion in their investigations.

Democrats on the Hill are cheering the changes, along with the ACLU and radical Muslim Brotherhood front groups, who have all lobbied the administration for them. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has seen several of its officials jailed on terror-related charges, calls it “a step in the right direction.”

There was no author listed for the column, and no link to any NBC news story or other original source was provided.  So, I began to scour the Internet looking for corroboration of the report.  Other than numerous websites that re-posted the same column verbatim, I just found one Bloomberg story that was short on specifics, other than to say:

The Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder has been reviewing the guidelines for federal investigations for several years, according to the official, and is planning to expand the definition to prohibit profiling based on religion, national origin, sexual orientation and gender.

… While the scope of the changes that will be proposed by Holder wasn’t immediately available and the timing of any announcement unclear, the possible changes were discussed in a meeting yesterday between Holder and New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio at City Hall, the official said.

Whatever the details of this story may be, this is something we would easily expect from this lawless “Justice” Department working in concert with Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) and his deep love for all things Islam (and “sexual orientation”-related, of course).  We have watched in horror as Obama and his administration have repeatedly bowed to Muslim Brotherhood interests.  We have seen reports of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the administration, the State Department, Homeland Security and other departments.  This Islamic infiltration did not start under Obama’s reign, but it has certainly reached warp speed since he was installed in our presidency.  We also learned last week of yet another extra-congressional Obama dictate, allowing people with terror ties to seek asylum in the United States.  Brilliant move, Sparky!

Bob Unruh, writing at WorldNetDaily, reported last month on the existence of Muslim Brotherhood operatives inside the Obama administration.  In his column, he cites Claire Lopez, an expert on Islamic supremacism, from her excellent Gatestone Institute report, “History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government.”  In the conclusion of her paper, Ms. Lopez writes:

As we can see, as early as the George W. Bush administration period, the Muslim Brotherhood already had achieved an information dominance that, in coming years, would only intensify. Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policymaking, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin’s) were actively excluded. That information dominance has contributed to startling consequences, most evident in the U.S. policy towards the al-Qa’eda and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated revolutions that many call the “Arab Spring,” but which in fact are more accurately termed an “Islamic Awakening.” Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements — from al-Qa’eda militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qa’eda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American any more. The infiltration of individuals such as Magid, Hussain, and Abedin, to name just a few, with such close Muslim Brotherhood identifications, to positions of influence at the highest levels of U.S. policymaking must be considered, at a minimum, a contributing factor.

In June 2012, five courageous U.S. Congressional representatives (Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney, and Lynn Westmoreland) sent letters to the Inspectors General of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State as well as the Office of the Director of National Security, requesting an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood influence within those agencies. That their patriotic initiative in defense of the security of U.S. policymaking should have been met only with an overwhelming barrage of criticism is tragic testament to the extent of success the Muslim Brotherhood has achieved in suppressing even the duty to counterintelligence awareness that is the first defense of a free people.[94] Given the long history of Muslim Brotherhood activity in this country, its declared objective to “destroy the Western civilization from within,” and the extensive evidence of successful influence operations at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is urgent that we recognize this clear and present danger that threatens not only our Republic but the values of Western civilization.

To anyone willing to see, it is clear that the Islamists are self-sworn enemies of the United States.  Therefore, Obama’s behavior in allowing these people into high levels of our government and supporting their terror groups around the world is adhering to, and giving aid and comfort to our enemies, which is treason.  Obama and his administration are enemies of America.

The Investors.com report on Eric Holder moving to strip consideration if Islam from terror investigations, if true, is yet another in the myriad examples of what you get when enemies within take over your government.  This administration is a vile cancer in the body of our nation, and if it’s not somehow stopped, it may be fatal to the United States of America.

The South Dakota House of Representatives once again voted in favor of lawlessness today.

Last year, the South Dakota House passed HB 1214 to provide taxpayer-funded health care to pregnant illegal aliens in a 39-28 vote; the bill was later stopped in the Senate after a conference committee, and the last I knew there were plans to make some provision last year to cover it in general appropriations.

This year, after killing yet another bill intended to deal with the illegal immigration problem in our state, the rotten apple was back this year in the form of HB 1158 to once again extend taxpayer-funded health care to pregnant illegal aliens.

HB 1158 passed a House committee recently and today passed the South Dakota House in a 46-22 vote of the “Republican” supermajority body.

There were some vote switches from the committee vote this year, and from the floor vote last year. Perhaps most notably was U.S. Senate Candidate Stace Nelson who voted for the measure last year because it was sold as “pro-life,” despite the fact that most of the liberals who peddled this are usually hard-pressed to care about a life in the womb unless the womb is in the United States illegally. Fool me once, as they say…

The “Republican” leadership and many other “Republicans” ignored the fact that pregnant illegal aliens should not be in our country in the first place, and would not be if our state and our federal government were doing their job. In fact, in addition to the lawlessness at the federal level, the “Republican” supermajority South Dakota legislature has for several years been voting to kill every bill proposed to deal with the illegal immigration problem in our state.

This year, proponents added to the hard-sell “pro-life” smokescreen the “fiscally conservative” smokescreen. Yes, it usually is “fiscally conservative” to spend even more money on an unconstitutional government health care program…in liberal fantasyland. Not only should illegal aliens not be in our country in the first place, Medicaid is an illegal and unconstitutional government health care program for which there is no constitutional authority. If Republicans truly wanted to be fiscally conservative as well as respectful of the U.S. Constitution, they would be seeking to minimize if not eliminate this program instead of expanding it for people who are in our country illegally in the first place.

Some Republicans tried to amend the bill to at least restore some measure of lawfulness to it. For example, Rep. Lance Russell offered an amendment requiring hospitals to report suspected illegal aliens to enforcement authorities, but this was defeated.  According to Political Smokeout, Rep. Jenna Haggar, the only person to vote against it in committee, offered an amendment declaring the personhood of unborn children (since the liberals pushing this illegal immigration bill suddenly find children in the womb so important), but it was defeated because actually putting their smokescreen into law would have cost the support of the pro-illegal alien pro-abortion liberals.

If these “Republicans” are that concerned about pregnant illegal aliens, they should follow Congressman David Crockett’s admonition:

We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

That’s good advice for legislators as well as congressman. Private charity, not forced government “charity,” is the American way.

Below is the vote in the House today. Note that “Republican” leadership is in bold. Be sure to thank these “Republicans” for their faithfulness to the rule of law and to the GOP platform with a vote for their opponents in the primary this year.

America is, indeed, a house divided.  So, let’s survey how we got here and what to expect next.  Shall we?

A few years ago I wrote: There was a time in America, not so long ago, when we had white people, black people, brown people, yellow people, etc.  We had men and women. We had healthy people and we had sick people and we had handicapped people.

We had smart people and we had dumb people.  We had retarded people and we had normal people.

We had queers and homosexuals and but we had no gay and lesbian people.

We had the truth and we had the lie.

We had people who loved America and people who hated America.  There was no “in-between.”

We had Republicans and Democrats and no Independents.  We had conservatives and liberals.  We did not have moderates.

Well, what happened?  Answer:  World War Two!

What’s World War Two got to do with it, you may ask?  Glad you asked.  It has everything to do with the mess in which we Americans find ourselves today.

Our US troops who fought in Europe, and were stationed there after the war, brought something back from Europe that was, up ‘til that time, alien to America. In those days it was called “Moral Relativism.”  Simply defined it says there are no absolutes. There is no absolutely black and there is no absolutely white.  There is no absolute truth and there is no absolute lie.

Now, this was like a bombshell going off in America.  Those of religious faith saw it instantly for what it was. The GREAT LIE!

The pointy-head elites, especially in the  university academia, saw instantly a way to cover all the things they wanted to do and say with the cloak of moral relativism. And they took it up and reveled in it.  They began to teach it to our kids.  Then those kids became elementary and high school teachers themselves… and they, too, taught it to our kids and their kids.

It is not accidental that those on the left side of the political spectrum in America came so quickly to adopt Moral Relativism.  You see… they WERE the university elite.  Someone has said recently, it is now a part of the DNA of the political left and the Democrat Party.

Nowadays, Moral Relativism is known as Political Correctness.  No matter what it is called it is still the most effective way to live a lie and sell that life style to others.

When I was a lad, America was referred to as a great Melting Pot.  People from all over the world would come to America and melt right into the unique American society and culture. Sometimes it took one, or even two, generations to make the cycle complete but they worked at it.  And it made America strong.

Then, the left came up with something called “Multiculturalism.”  Basically, that is to say – any,  and all,  cultures are as good as ours.  (When we had a unique American Culture. And for those of you too young to remember… we DID have our own culture!) The breakdown of American society, and culture, began at that moment.   The political left began to foist their plan to no longer have a single American culture but a vast array of cultures from all the peoples who had come here to ostensibly become Americans.

It was kind of cute at first, the gay colors of the Hispanic peoples and their holidays… and the October fest of the Germans, and the Irish holidays, and the various other cultural celebrations of the host of other peoples in America.  Then it became sinister. That unique American culture began to be absorbed into the multitude of other cultures.  Now, for all intents and purposes, the American culture is gone. And with it went the identity of the American people.

And then came the icing on the cake:  Diversity.

Ever since there has been marriage, a man and a woman deciding to live together and create a family,  man has needed to get away from the little woman for short periods of time..

You have to understand, men are barbarians.  We can’t help it, that’s the way Nature made us and we will never be house broken.  Even in the pre-Columbian days of the Native Americans, on this continent, the tribes had their “Man’s House.”  Even then, the men needed to get away.  It’s not that the man loved or respected the woman any the less; he just needed to let the beast out for a while.  He could not, and cannot, do that in a domesticated setting.

For a very long time, the work place served as the man’s retreat.  Then the feminist movement came along and women decided they could have it all… including the heart attacks, ulcers, nervous breakdowns, alcoholism and everything that goes with the workplace, and they chose that over their families. The invasion on the man’s retreat was on and it was overwhelming.

The office known as “Personnel” was suddenly changed to “Human Resources” and diversity in the workplace was near complete.

But… not quite so in American society.  The Military was next. Man’s last retreat from curtains and all forms of domesticity was invaded and defeated. Again In the name of diversity. Now we have homosexuals serving openly in our military and women serving in combat positions in war zones.  Both have had, and will continue to have, a deleterious effect upon the readiness and effectiveness of the US military, which is already in a devastating state of decline.

Now, diversity and multiculturalism feed off each other and they both feed off Political Correctness. How is that, you may ask?

Well, if we clear the fog of political correctness away for a brief moment, we can see that multiculturalism is bad for the country.  It has robbed us of our identity.  Diversity has robbed us of our homes and families… and robbed us of our places in society.  Male and female have morphed into one sex now. And again, we have lost our identity.   Even the forced injection of different races into each other’s cultures, in the name of diversity, has robbed all races of their distinct identity. So we invented hyphenated names to try to identify who we are.  But… it doesn’t work.

When a people lose their identity they are doomed.  Americans no longer have an identity, therefore, we are doomed.  We have consigned ourselves to the ash heap of history as nothing more than a footnote.

Why can’t we see this?  Because Political Correctness has laid the cloak of the Big Lie over everything and we dare not question any of it because that would be… you guessed it… Politically Incorrect.

And so… we are lost. We don’t know who we are anymore, we don’t know where we are anymore, and we don’t even know how we got here.  We don’t know where we are going because we don’t know where we have been. We have become a sorry, pathetic lot, a blight upon the land that once was home to a proud American people who shared a single American culture melded together from the many cultures of the LEGAL immigrants who chose to come to these shores to become Americans themselves and not just to establish a “forward position” for the country of their origin.

So how can we change it?  We can’t.  You can’t unring a bell. You cannot re-instate virginity.  Like the loss of virginity, the loss of identify is permanent.  It can never be recovered. We’re stuck!

The US has succumbed to that fatal disease which strikes all great nations and brings them their knees.  Guilt.

I mean, heck, we can’t even fight a successful war anymore for fear that we will hurt the enemy. And we feel guilty for, well, something or other. The left will certainly fill in the blank for us.

Mark what I say here:  Within the next three decades, there will be another civil war on this continent. There MUST be.  There MUST be a dominant culture established once again. Only the Lord knows what that culture will be but, for certain, whatever it turns out to be — it will certainly be better than the “Franken-culture” from which America is suffocating today.   With apologies to Mary Shelley, America is truly the Modern Prometheus.

It was approximately eighty years between the Revolutionary War and the first American civil war.  It took around thirty years for the populace to become inflamed enough to take up arms against each other. Modern America is already well into the inflammation period.  Talk of such a conflagration is already in the air.  Once that threshold is crossed over, there can be little doubt actual confrontation and conflagration will follow.

All of this will occur because we did not have the common sense to control our borders.  Without borders, there is no such thing as a “nation.”  We will learn that lesson. but it will be too late as it is already too late.

Like those 102 frightened, but determined, souls who left their country in search of a new beginning, the Pilgrims, we are going to have to  begin anew.  Like it or not, it will be thrust upon us.  We cannot count on the government for, as any fool can plainly see, the current government is on it’s last legs even now and will soon succumb.

We long since passed through that proverbial crossroads.  We made our decision, we chose our route,  and now we must pay the toll.  Unfortunately the monetary exchange, the coinage, if you please,  may well be the blood of our children and grandchildren.

The great shortcoming of democracy is that it almost always succumbs to suicide.  It raids its own treasury, it makes decisions about momentous issues blithely. and with little, if any, forethought.  Like a blind giant it stumbles over its own mistakes  until it trips and falls. America has tripped and IS falling.

I do not write these words joyously.  They are painful and bitter as bile. Nevertheless, I believe them to be a true assessment of our immediate past — and — our immediate future.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” A truism spoken by Christ Himself and echoed many times down through the centuries.  It is no less true today when applied to a divided America.

America’s house WILL fall : ” … and great will be the fall thereof.”

From a shining city on a hill to a cesspool in a swamp we de-constructed our own dreamland and created, instead — a nightmare landscape.

A nation’s culture reflects the heart, soul, mind, and faith of that nation’s people.  America’s culture has been lost within a maze, a cacophony of cultures, a multitude of cultures, a multicultural miasma, a vapid, noxious, odiferous, maelstrom of all things intensely bad and undesirable.

America is the modern day — Sodom and Gomorrah.   We shall, too, share the fate of that wicked congregation of reprobates.  There is no escape.  We have closed and locked all exits. We have sealed our end.

Yes, I know this is a dark commentary on America’s end.  It was intended thus.   Many who read this will, no doubt, think -  finally, someone is expressing my thoughts, my concerns for my country, my unease about America’s future.  And I sincerely hope that I have.  For we must face our dilemma head on, to cut through the fog of lies and finally see that we are called upon to make a choice between equally unfavorable options. To do nothing is no longer acceptable.

Soon we will be called upon to endeavor a rescue of America. It will be a futile effort. One can only rescue those who wish to be rescued. There will be two fall back positions:  One: — to do nothing,  accept defeat and wash our hands of the whole affair, or two: — fight to establish a NEW America, not rescue the old, for it will be gone.

As far-fetched as all this may seem, I am convinced of its veracity.  As a student of history, the record of humanity’s past serves as a road map to the future. When one looks objectively at that road map, America’s route into the future is plain to see.

The question, then is — will we be up to the challenge.  Frankly, I am not optimistic.

Many groups like Americans for Limited Government (ALG) have been urging  members of Congress to refuse to pass the debt ceiling unless there is an  explicit prohibition against the Internal Revenue Service from issuing a  new regulation severely restricting political activity of 501(c)(4)  organizations.

In short, the debt ceiling is the only leverage Congress will have — there  are no more continuing resolutions until the end of Fiscal Year 2015 — to  address this issue.

It’s the debt ceiling, or it’s accepting the speech police and IRS  implementation of restrictions that will last likely through the duration of the  2016 election cycle. Congress can use its power of the purse, or other than its  periodic oversight hearings, it will cease to be a truly effective voice on this  issue.

Yet, House leaders so far refuse to act.

Affected groups would be forced to fight for their very survival in court.  For, the new IRS regulation is not just an existential threat to tea party and  other conservative groups, but every single 501(c)(4), of which there are tens  of thousands, and free speech itself.

You see, not content with merely targeting tea party and other 501(c)(4)  organizations that engage in various types of political activity on an ad-hoc  basis, the Obama administration via the Treasury Department has come up with a  far more uniform approach to stifling (c)(4) political speech.

Under existing rules, an organization may carry on electioneering activities  so long as it does not constitute a majority of its activities. But, no  longer.

Now, limitations will be imposed not simply on advocacy for or against a  candidate for public office, as has been the case for over 50 years, but on any  communication that even mentions a public official who happens to be a  candidate. Specifically, the regulations will define “certain communications  that are close in time to an election and that refer to a clearly identified  candidate as electioneering communications.”

It applies blackout periods 60 days prior to the general election and 30 days  prior to primary elections at the federal, state, and local level.

When even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ALG agree on an  issue, you know there’s something wrong.

Here  was the ACLU’s comment to the Department of Treasury on the regulation:  “It’s crucial to note that the ACLU’s website includes literally hundreds of  thousands of individual webpages, and the proposed blackout rules would cover  vast amounts of content that has absolutely nothing to do even with issue  advocacy, let alone partisan politicking. For instance, it could cover copies of  publicly filed lawsuits with government defendants, requests under the Freedom  of Information Act, any communication addressed to a candidate currently holding  elective or appointed office or even 50-state legal surveys mentioning covered  officials.”

The ACLU comment continued, “To put a finer and final point on it, we note  that these comments, when posted to the ACLU’s website and otherwise  distributed, would likely qualify as [candidate-related political activity]  under the proposed rule during the 60/30-day blackout period, including the  rolling blackout period before the 2014 election. The ACLU would have to either  remove this document from its website or otherwise determine a way to account  for the expense in creating it as [candidate-related political activity]  expenditures.”

Why, that’s exactly what we were saying just as soon as the regulation was  proposed. On  December 2, I wrote, “To give readers an idea of the broad implication of  this regulation, Americans for Limited Government is a 501(c)(4) organization  whose websites have content dating  back to 2008. Understandably under prior rules allowing it we have written  extensively about public officials, including members of Congress, who also  happen to be candidates that run for office every two years.

“Thousands of articles, in fact — nearly all of them mention public officials  (who are usually running for reelection) or reference legislation or policies  they support. These are not electioneering communications. They do not advocate  for or against the election of candidates — a constitutionally protected  activity, but let’s leave that aside for a moment — they supported or criticized  policies being proposed in the public arena.

“But because the articles mention officials who happen to be candidates, and  because primary elections occur at various intervals throughout election years,  and because it is impossible to decipher by what standard the agency will  determine to what degree actions are “candidate-related political activity,”  complying with the new regulation might make it impossible for Americans for  Limited Government to continue in its current form.

“It is possible we would have to either shut down our website or go article  by article to remove ones that mentioned public officials who happen to be  running for reelection.”

In short, this regulation is going to require every single 501(c)(4) to  basically shut down any discussion of elected officials during the campaign  blackout windows, even if that speech took place years ago. If Congress is  unwilling to fight now using its power of the purse, there won’t be any outside  groups on the conservative side or any side able to do anything come election  time. It will just be PACs and party committees.

The Supreme Court just lifted these types of restrictions in the 2010  Citizens United decision and now here we are about to go back into the dark  ages, with the nuance that these regulations will be far more restrictive than  McCain-Feingold ever was.

It is up to Congress to stop this persecution, which the Supreme Court has  already struck down as a blatant First Amendment violation. Members of both  houses of Congress should refuse to increase the debt ceiling until an explicit  prohibition is placed on the IRS from issuing such speech restrictions. Members  cannot afford to wait for the courts to act, a process that can take years and  may not occur until after the 2016 elections.

If members refuse to act, then perhaps it is time to question why we have a  Congress at all that will not use its power of the purse to insist Obamacare be  defunded. That will not defund the Environmental Protection Agency that is  arbitrarily implementing carbon emissions restrictions without any vote in  Congress. And that will not stop the IRS from implementing DISCLOSE Act-style  restrictions without any change of law.

Come to think of it, even when the government was supposedly shut down last  October, more  than 86 percent, or $3.15 trillion of “automatic” spending continued without  any additional congressional authorization. Is this representative  government?

Congress has the power of the purse and can make effective use of it should  they choose to do so. The only way all of this stops is if Congress refuses to  increase the debt ceiling. For proof that this can be an effective tool at  achieving concessions from the Obama administration, there wouldn’t have been  sequestration without the debt ceiling debate in 2011.

But if the fear is that by fighting Obama on the debt ceiling, House  Republicans believe they will lose, if that is the argument, and in the process  the American people continue to lose battle after battle, it appears surrender  has become a self-fulfilling proposition.

Why should we even have a Congress or the constitutional separation of powers  at all if all real legislative powers have already, willingly been ceded to the  executive branch? Serious question.

TAKE ACTION: Click here to stop the IRS assault of the Tea  Party