Slowly but Surely

Glenn Beck has been referring to the gradual, one step-at-a-time changes that are occurring in our society. Those who are not paying attention will some day wake up and ask, "How did that happen?"

This may be a hard pill to swallow, but every downward trend in this country is occurring with the "approval" of the Christian majority! "No way," you may say. "I don't approve of the immoral and liberal changes taking place."

Well, before you have yourself promoted to sainthood, why don't you consider this simple fact? It takes a majority vote to elect any President, Senator, Representative, Governor or council member. Yet, it is these very people who are enacting the laws and policies we Christians so despise. If the majority of the United States voters are Christian, then logic tells us that Christians are responsible for what's going on today.

Maybe you are voting, and maybe you are voting "the right way." Before you tell yourself that you are not the problem however, you will be well advised to read, "Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception" by Larry Tate. Even the most devout Christian will be prompted to reconsider his ways.

For more information, go to http://bitly.com/bCKGlW.

Words and Actions from Barack Obama

Christian Nation
While on an overseas trip to Turkey in April 2009, Obama said, “…we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation…”

Muslim Nation
June, 2009. In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

National Healthcare
In June 2009, President Obama suggested at a town hall event that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who don't stand to gain from the extra care. Obama said that families should not be unthinkingly approving so many additional tests or additional drugs. Instead, he said, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

Benefits of abortion
In March 2008, Obama said, “…politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves.” Then he said, “…I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.

Defense of Marriage Act
To drum up support for his Senate bid in 2004, Obama wrote a letter to the Windy City Times, a publication targeted to Chicago’s gay community. “I opposed DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed, and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor,” he vowed. “I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying”

Feb. 24, 2011 The Obama administration said it will no longer oppose court challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages for purposes of taxes, social security and other programs.
In response, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said, “I will instruct department attorneys to advise courts in other pending Defense of Marriage Act litigation of the president’s and my conclusions” that the law’s definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, Holder said in a statement. Members of Congress “who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option,” he said.

Coal-fired energy plants
In November 2008, Obama said, "…we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there." Continuing on, he said, "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

We must watch what we eat
Speaking about the U.S. role in being a good example for taking care of the planet, Obama said in May 2008, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
In December 2010, President Barack Obama signed a landmark law Wednesday repealing the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military, fulfilling one of his major campaign pledges and casting the issue as a matter of civil rights long denied. "No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love," Obama said.

Pro-Lifers are ideologues
In May 2009, Obama related a story about how a Christian, pro-life doctor was concerned about a comment on his web site saying Obama would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose." After reading the doctor’s concerns, Obama said that even though he was not changing his position, he would delete that language from his website.

What exactly is an ideologue? It is a blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture.

So, it seems that Obama is suggesting that Pro-Lifers are blindly partisan advocates of those who are yet unborn.

Obama could not have been placed in his office of President of the United States without the support of a large number liberal Christians. Why did they vote for Obama?

They may say that they voted for him because of his liberal fiscal policies such as entitlements, welfare, increased support of the poor, powerful labor unions, etc. Okay, that is a subject that we can argue about for many hours. However, liberal fiscal policies are only part of the package. What about the other half of his stance?

In one hand, he supports liberal fiscal policies, but in his other hand are liberal social policies. He supports terminating the life of unborn children. In fact, he suggests that those who call themselves Pro-Life are little more than blindly partisan advocates of silly concepts such as life. He supports the right of homosexuals to be united in marriage. In order to be politically correct, he tells the world that the United States is not a Christian nation. In order to make his National Healthcare plan work, he supports restricting life-saving medical care, and instead suggests that we take pain killers and accept the inevitable.

When people vote for a candidate, they are voting for the whole man, not just a part of the man. When Christians voted for his liberal fiscal policies, they also told the world that they support terminating the life of unborn babies; they support allowing homosexuals to marry; they shout to the world that we are not a Christian nation; and they support restricting medical care for the sick, and instead consider end-of-life options, possibly even euthanasia.

Many Christians are quick to say that the Bible instructs us to care for the poor and the needy. Therefore, they believe we should adopt mandatory fiscal policies that support the poor. Okay…but at the same time, these same Christians are telling the world that they are for abortion, homosexual marriage, and hiding the light of Christianity. Is this really how Christians should stand for Christ?

Who in the world are "They?"

We have a habit of referring to the way they are doing things.
We love to complain about how they are controlling our lives.

They are handing out birth control pills to eleven year old girls without parental consent.
They are teaching evolution and calling creationism nothing more than a myth.
They are teaching our kids that it is no longer important to excel.
They are promoting homosexuality as the lifestyle of choice.
They are suggesting that late-term abortion is a woman’s right.
They have convinced us that political correctness is the gentlemanly way to be.
They preach that right and wrong is much too black and white.
They tell us that the Ten Commandments should not be seen in public.
They rule that Christmas trees on college campuses are offensive.
They do not permit public prayer to end in “Jesus Name.”
They inform us that one’s gender is based on one’s feelings, not one’s biology.
They tell us that we should have the right to end our life whenever we want to.
They tell us that we should create babies to provide spare parts for living children.
They suggest that the elderly should not have as much access to health care as the young.
They believe that they should control your money—not you.
They want to do away with national sovereignty and implement a one-world government.
They want to do away with your right to privacy.
They are responsible for this country’s slide to socialism, reduction in values, and the removal of God from the public square.

Do you have enough interest to find out who they are?
Would you like to find out how we have lost control of the world we live in?
You will be stunned and shocked when you find out who they really are.

Do you have the courage to invest $16.99 in the future of your country? With the insight acquired from reading Shadow Truth, the downward trend of this nation can be reversed in short order.

Buy Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate today. Go to www.shadowtruthbook.com for ordering information. It may be the best investment you could make in your life, the lives of your children and the lives of their children.

Laura Bush in favor of gay marriage and abortion

While pushing her new book, “Spoken from the Heart” on the Larry King show, Laura Bush dropped a bomb shell regarding her inner liberal leanings. She said that her stand in favor of abortion and gay marriage has been a point of disagreement between her and George Bush since before his first term as President of the United States.

She said that when (same sex) couples are committed to each other and love each other, they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has. When asked by Larry King if she could accept gay marriage, Laura Bush said, yes. The ex-first lady also told King she believes abortion should remain legal, an opinion she has held since before President Bush's first day in office in 2001. Laura Bush said abortion should remain legal, because she thinks it's important for people…

She even admitted to not being honest when interviewed by Katie Couric. On the day of George W. Bush's first inauguration, the first lady was asked by Couric if she was for the overturn of Roe versus Wade. Believing that her true liberal stand in favor of abortion might be detrimental to her husband’s presidency, she answered, “no.”

These statements came on the heels of another recent interview where she offered her approval of Obama’s latest pick, Elena Kagan, for the Supreme Court. Speaking of nominee, Laura said, "I think it's great." Kagan’s approval would mean that three women will be serving at once. "I'm really glad that there will be three,” said Bush “I like to have women on the Supreme Court…I like women to be represented in all parts of American political and civic life." Laura expressed approval of Kagan in spite of Kagan’s widely known stand in favor of socialism, and in spite of Kagan’s ruling that military recruiters should be banned from Harvard Law School. It seems strange that Laura Bush would support a greater representation of females on the Supreme Court even though Obama’s pick is known for her liberal policies. To Laura Bush, a greater representation by females on the bench trumps a person’s stand on moral issues.

Are you disappointed in Laura Bush? Does her stand cause you to waver? Do you feel that you don’t know who to trust? You can never fully trust another person. You must be diligent and you must do your homework. But at the end of the day, there will still be certain people who will let you down. Don’t use that as an excuse for you to give up or let up. Continue standing for that which is right. Continue speaking up about the issues of the day. Continue voting for the candidate who best fits in with the future of this country. Never let apathy rob you of your obligation to do your part in choosing the leadership of this country.

Who’s Making Fun of Jesus Now?

In the spring of 2010 Comedy Central announced aggressive plans to mock not only Christians, but Jesus as well. The network plans to develop a cartoon series about Jesus Christ, who will be called, “JC.” The story line will have Jesus moving to New York City to escape from his father’s oversight so that he can live out a more normal life and just be a normal guy. The apathetic father (God) will be portrayed as a lazy man who wastes his time playing video games while at the same time, ignoring his son, Jesus. The cartoon show will be making fun of religion and our Christian society and will be casting them as a bit dumb.

This announcement comes on the heels of the very same organization hiding and covering up a visual depiction of the prophet Muhammad after a protest by Muslims. In order to appease the Muslim protest, the network hid the Muhammad character in a black box so that he would not be depicted. It seems that many Muslims consider any depiction of Muhammad to be blasphemous. By their actions, the network is saying that they are happy to honor the belief systems of the Muslims, but Christians and their beliefs are fair game.

The network defends its platform by saying that comedy nearly always offends someone and causes them to become uncomfortable. That is the whole basis of comedy. But they draw the line when it comes to offending Muslims or making them feel the slightest bit uncomfortable.

This network, along with much of today’s mainstream media goes out of its way to respect Islam, while at the same time attacking and defaming Christianity and the 70 to 80 percent of Americans who call themselves Christians. Out of respect for the beliefs of Muslims, Muhammad can’t show his face around Comedy Central, but Jesus Christ is readily available for ridicule.

How, and most importantly, why is this sort of thing permeating our society today? The answer is much closer than we may think. As a matter of fact, the answer is right under our collective nose. To find the answer, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ for ordering information.

U.S. Federal Court Rules That Doing Business With The Boy Scouts Is Unlawful

On May 3, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn a lower court’s ruling that the Boy Scouts can no longer lease city-owned parkland in San Diego because the group is a religious organization.

A California U.S. District judge had earlier ruled that the City of San Diego acted improperly when it leased 18 acres of camp space to the Scouts because the group is a religious organization. The judge said the lease violated federal law that prohibits the government promotion of religion.

It all got started when with the help of the ACLU, a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple filed a lawsuit regarding the one-dollar per year lease agreement between the Scouts and the City. The lesbian couple had a beef with the Scouts due to their policy against using homosexuals to lead the scouts. The agnostic couple was against the Scouts due to their recognition of God.

The ACLU found a loophole in the law, permitting them to sue the city and the scouts. This loophole was centered around San Diego’s non-discrimination policy which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and religion.

The lawsuit argued that the city’s lease agreement with the scouts amounts to a subsidy of a religious organization that is violating the city’s non-discrimination law. The Federal Court ruled in favor of the two couples because they “suffered injury-in-fact.” What sort of injury did these couples suffer? Apparently, they suffered some sort of mental trauma when they avoided using the city park due to the Boy Scouts publicly expressed disapproval of lesbians, atheists and agnostics. The judge said that the city’s one-dollar lease to the Boy Scouts violates the state’s ban on support for religions.

The federal judge ruled against the Boy Scouts even though an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling stated that the Boy Scouts is a private organization with a First Amendment right to exclude gay people from its ranks.

Isn't it amazing that four people have the power to overturn the wishes of untold thousands of other people? How is it that the few can rule the many in today's society. The policies of non-discrimination started out as a necessary and a proper direction for our country to take. However, over the years, the definition of discrimination has evolved radically. To learn just how much and why, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to www.shadowtruthbook.com for ordering information.

Cameras make Chicago the most closely watched US city

In the fall of 2009, the body of Chicago’s school board president was found in the river. With the help of Chicago’s extensive interlinked camera system, police were able to prove that the bullet wound to his head was due to a suicide—not a murder.

Chicago’s police were able to recreate the man’s drive through the city by using high-tech equipment that was capable of singling out his car on a succession of surveillance cameras. As the car travelled out of the range of one camera, the sophisticated equipment handed the image to the next camera along the route, creating a virtual non-stop video of his 20-minute drive through the city.

Chicago proudly possesses the most extensive and sophisticated video surveillance system in the United States. In less than ten years, the city was able to link thousands of cameras situated on street poles, skyscrapers, aboard buses, in train tunnels, schools and in many other public and private locations. City officials are able to watch live video, following people or vehicles as they travel throughout the city.

London—the world’s most closely watched city, has approximately 500,000 cameras. But not even London incorporates private cameras in its system as does Chicago. While critics decry the network as the biggest of all Big Brother invasions of privacy, most Chicago residents accept it as a necessary fact of life. Authorities say the system helps them respond to emergencies in a way never before possible.

Each freedom and privacy we give up begins by sounding like it’s good, necessary and beneficial. However, there comes a time when humanity has lost so much freedom and privacy that they are destined to eventually become wards of the state. Read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to www.shadowtruthbook.com for ordering information.

Hillary Clinton Stumps for Global Abortion Policies

In April, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke to a group of G8 foreign ministers in Canada regarding maternal health. She said that any global plan to enhance maternal health must include strategies to boost access to birth control and abortion. She said, “I've worked in this area for many years and if we're talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes…access to legal, safe abortion."

The Toronto Star described this statement as a "grenade in the lap of her shell-shocked Canadian hosts." Clinton's grenade did damage beyond Canada. It’s like addressing poverty by doing away with the poor; like fighting disease by getting rid of those with diseases.

Contraception allows women, if they choose, to avoid high-risk pregnancies early or late in life, to space births at safer intervals and to limit the number of pregnancies they have during their childbearing years. Most people now generally assume that contraception is essential to the creation of happy, healthy families. Most Protestants, even of the more sober varieties, do not view contraception as a moral issue.

Abortion however, is a totally different issue. The global community is being pressured from all sides to adopt and embrace abortion as a normal method for limiting the size of families. People are being told that they can do what they want, when they want and how they want—all with no consequences. If they happen to end up with an unwanted pregnancy, all they have to do is terminate the life of that unwanted child.

What Nerve! Arizona Plans to Enforce Immigration Law.

After 30 years of the U.S. Congress and four presidents failing to enforce our immigration laws, the most diligent and forceful immigration measure in the nation (SB 1070) became law in Arizona on April 23, 2010. Why would Arizona want to enforce current immigration law? Perhaps part of the decision has to do with the fact that Arizona has been repeatedly victimized by murder, rape, drug traffic, tens of thousands of stolen vehicles and so many kidnappings that it has become known as the kidnapping capital of America.

The new law aims to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. It will prosecute, fine and jail anyone that hires an illegal alien. It will also require police to question people about their immigration status if there is a reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally. The law will make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. While police demands of certain documents such as a driver’s license are common on subways, highways and in public places, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet current federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.

The United States already has illegal immigration laws, but they have been poorly enforced. How is it that we have successfully secured the South Korean border for the past 50 years, not allowing a single illegal North Korean to cross the border? We have shown that we are quite capable of securing another nation’s border, while at the same time, failing miserably to secure our own border with Mexico.

America’s current position of not enforcing its illegal immigration laws shows a lack of respect for the rights of our legal citizens and lack of respect for our borders, while at the same time pandering to illegal aliens. Where else but in America can a person break the law and be rewarded with free health care and a free education?

Although more than 70 percent of Arizona’s voters approved of the measure, there has been a great outcry against it by other people of influence. President Obama said that the law is misguided and irresponsible and it threatens to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans. Mexico’s foreign ministry said that it is worried about the rights of its citizens. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents is like Nazism. And, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said that Arizona’s governor caved in to the radical fringe.

It’s an upside world we live in, when we celebrate that which is wrong and we chastise that which is proper and right. To fully understand how and why our many of our leaders and others believe that ‘right’ is ‘wrong’ and ‘wrong’ is ‘right’, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ for further information and ordering sites.

National Day of Prayer is Unconstitutional

On April 15, 2010, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of Wisconsin ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. Bowing to the loud voice of The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of atheists and agnostics, she determined that the federal law establishing a National Day of Prayer violates the “establishment of religion” clause of the Constitution. The Crabb ruling generated outright glee among atheists, agnostics and others who decry any government acknowledgement of any religion as a danger.

Despite the fact that the National Day of Prayer law compels no one to pray, mandates no expenditure of federal tax dollars, is not made a part of public school curriculums and establishes no penalty whatsoever for those who choose to ignore the day, the federal judge said the law didn’t pass constitutional muster.

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” Crabb wrote.

The National Day of Prayer has roots back to the Continental Congress in 1775, but was officially established by an act of Congress — which established the day in 1952 during the Truman administration.

The federal judge’s ruling was the result of a very vocal segment of our society that is bent on forcing faith out of the public square. It’s all about a movement to establish a nation that is free from religion. Although this nation is currently made up of a Christian majority, such rulings are becoming law due to the fact that our “Closet Christians” refuse to speak their minds.

For an in-depth understanding of society’s slow, but gradual move to the left, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ for ordering information.

The Power of One

You know it’s an upside-down world when the few have the ability to force their beliefs on the many. In March, 2010, The Ten Commandments were removed from the Stigler, Oklahoma courthouse lawn due to the complaints of one man. This one man, backed up by the resources of the ACLU successfully convinced the courts that the Ten Commandments had no place on public property.

The display which had been on the courthouse grounds since 2004 was removed due to the objections of this one man who argued that the monument amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. To add insult to injury, the court ruled that Haskell County must reimburse the ACLU for its attorney fees, costs and other expenses.

It’s an upside-down world we live in today. It’s a world where wrong is right, and right is wrong. It’s a world where the weak are strong and the strong are weak. It’s a world where religion is bad and secularism is good. We now live in a world where the few are able to control the many. Or, is that really the case?

The many elected the lawmakers of the land. Once they were given their new-found authority by the many, these lawmakers made the laws of the land. But, what good is a law unless it can be enforced? So, we saw the necessity to put judges in place to enforce the laws that were created by the lawmakers that the many elected. Some judges were elected by the many, while the others were selected by the lawmakers that the many elected. In either case, the judges of the land were put in place by the many.

Therefore, who is controlling who? It was the many who endorsed the laws that were created. And it was the many who approved the way in which those laws were enforced. There is only one conclusion left to be drawn in this upside-down situation we’ve found ourselves in: it was the many who paved the way for the few to have the power to control the many. It was the many who were ultimately responsible for the shackles that have been placed on them by the few.

In this upside-down world we live in, the few have been endowed with strength and freedom, while the many are bound in weakness and captivity.

To find out just how much we as a society have been enticed to embrace the tenets of the dark side, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ for more information.

Biometric I.D. card to be required of all Americans

All United States citizens may soon be required to carry a biometric I.D. card. Chuck Schumer and Lindsay Graham have devised legislation to mandate that every U.S. citizen carry a government I.D. card carrying bio-metric information on a microchip. The biometric information would probably be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand.

Under the guise of controlling problems with illegal immigration, our government is considering invading the privacy of every legitimate citizen. In the name of immigration control, the government may be stepping into a full frontal assault on our basic freedoms. In their defense for creating such an intrusive requirement of the citizens, the government is reminding us that we all have Social Security cards already. This new biometric I.D. card will just be a little better.

A microchip on the card opens the door for the inclusion of information such as medical information, political affiliations, criminal or civil judgments, and with the addition of a GPS chip, all travel activity of every person in the United States. Via baby steps, we may soon lose every freedom we’ve ever enjoyed.

This is in the news today. What else is happening under your nose? Read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ for more information, and to order the book.

Is it Irresponsible to Have Babies?

Jonathon Porritt, a British government advisor has stated that couples who have more than two children are being irresponsible by creating an unbearable burden on the world's environment. This supporter of the Sustainable Development Commission and patron of the Optimum Population Trust believes that population control will have a greater impact on the reduction of Global Warming than any other program. He has been attributed to the statement that the curbing of population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming, and that the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curbing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

More and more, governments are being pressured to institute mandatory programs for reducing population growth. The British Optimum Population Trust states that the lifetime CO2 emissions of just one UK citizen are equivalent of 620 airline flights between London and New York. The Chinese government, which has had a one-child family policy for quite some time now, states that through its program, it has prevented at least 400 million births. China proudly boasts that its population control program has resulted in the greatest CO2 abatement achievement since Kyoto came into force.

The Optimum Population Trust produced a briefing which stated that the world finally woke up to the climate change problem in 2007. Continuing on, the briefing stated that one of the fundamental causes of climate change is human population growth. This influential organization purports that the most effective and also the most cost-effective global climate change strategy is achieved through limiting the size of the world's population.

Abortion is the new contraceptive. By steadily re-defining abortion as a woman’s right to eliminate that which is not much more than so much biological tissue from her body, our society is preparing itself to devalue human life even further. Britain has become the abortion capital of Europe, ranking fifth in the world behind Russia, the U.S. India and Japan. Teenage pregnancy rates in Britain have skyrocketed over the past decade with half of all pregnancies among girls under 18 now ending in abortion.

Who would have ever thought that governments would consider mandatory child-birth policies as the number one method of saving money and reducing the world’s carbon footprint? Who would have thought that one day, abortion would be a required solution to a couple’s indiscretions? Could it be that someday soon, the world’s most popular slogan could be, “Save the world tomorrow—kill a human today?”

The information in this posting was snatched right out of today’s news. What else is going on in the realm of population control? Read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. You will be shocked and dismayed. Do you have the courage to recognize what is going on right under your nose? Do you have an interest in changing the direction that our world is heading? Get this book today—don’t delay. Go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/ and order your book while there is still time to get the word out.

Government is Watching

Privacy is rapidly disappearing. Step by step, citizens are permitting their governments to observe and regulate that which should be private activities. In 2010, it has been reported that privacy in the Netherlands has been drastically reduced.

Citizens have become accustomed to receiving speeding fines which are generated by ever-present cameras and radar machines located along many thoroughfares. This policy was accepted by the citizens because it seemed to be both civilized and efficient.

It didn’t take long however for the ever-present cameras to take on a new responsibility. The country’s police forces began using automatic recognition systems to spot car number plates which match people with criminal records. This gradual increase in privacy invasion was accepted because it was promoted as a way to find and catch the unlawful segments of the population. Initially, the police destroyed evidence of all license plates that were not tied to known criminals.

Recently however, police forces have been retaining all license numbers of automobiles traveling on certain roads. As a result, a large number of ordinary, law-abiding citizens are being placed on police records even though they have done nothing wrong. What is the justification for such an increase in privacy invasion? The police want to create a data base on citizens who utilize certain roads too often. This new policy is permitting government to restrict activities and infringe on the privacy and rights of all citizens, criminals or not. With this information, the government will have the means and the power to restrict driving time, as well as to tax citizens on the distances they drive.

But that's in the Netherlands, you might say. That's not happening here in America. Well, next time you get in you car, take a look around. There are traffic-monitoring cameras at nearly every intersection and every toll booth. The infrastructure is in place. All it takes for a similar policy to come to your door step, is for some government official to sign his name on a privacy-changing new policy. It could happen here overnight.

Little by little, we give up our rights and our privacy. With every concession, we the citizens, become weaker and weaker, and our governing authorities become stronger and stronger. Read “Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception” by Larry J Tate to find out just how much you and I have compromised that which we hold dear. Not only will you have your eyes opened up to situations that are going on right under your nose, but you will find out how easily you can reverse those grievous wrongs. To order your copy, find Shadow Truth description in the right-hand column in this blog.

Is your government in the business of attacking Family Values?

The 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill passed by Congress and signed by the President may have some disturbing effects on the future of family values. With little fanfare, provisions within this law have the potential to devalue life, weaken our society and undermine our families.

Among the provisions of the law are the following:

Abstinence-based education programs were defunded and replaced with condom-based sex education programs.

A needle exchange program was funded which will allow drug addicts to exchange their used needles for new needles. Out-of-control political correctness is now causing our law makers to down-play the illegality of drug usage, and instead enabling the harmful activity by suggesting that they are in the business of preventing the spread of infections.

So-called Family Planning funding has been increased from $10 million to over $300 million, with the largest recipient being Planned Parenthood.

Through the back door, this new law is supporting China’s mandatory one-child policy.

Public funding for abortions in Washington D.C. was enabled.

A legalized medical marijuana provision was inserted into the law.

Step-by-step, our government is attacking our basic family values. For an in-depth view of the attack on family values, Read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.tatebook.com/ and also go to http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm2739.cfm

Is Spanking Harmful?

More and more modern parents are abandoning physical punishment of their children, and embracing the more politically-correct timeout, along with other non-physical methods of discipline.

A corporal punishment study was done by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Her findings, announced early in 2010, stated that claims for not spanking children simply fail to hold up.

She found that children who were physically disciplined actually performed better than those who weren’t disciplined. This included school grades, optimism, outlook on life, willingness to perform volunteer work, and the ambition to attend college. In addition to that, they weren’t any more likely to get involved in fights or become depressed. She also found that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems.

A study done by the University of Akron found that children raised where there is a legal ban on parental corporal punishment more likely to be involved in crime. This study focused on Sweden which implemented a complete ban on physical discipline about 30 years ago. The study found that teen violence tended to increase among children who grew up under the spanking ban.

Other countries, such as Germany, Italy and New Zealand have also adopted bans on spanking. In New Zealand, the use of force to correct children actually entails criminal penalties. In that country, a parent isn’t even permitted to take a child’s hand and force him to go where the child refuses to go.

There are plenty of feel-good organizations that are promoting anti-spanking policies. In the United States, the National Association of Social Workers states that all physical punishment has harmful effects and should be stopped. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that spanking is less effective than the timeout. In 2007, the California government actually attempted to pass legislation to impose a ban on spanking children. Thankfully, that legislation did not become law.

To learn more about non-physical child discipline and other politically-correct tendencies of our modern society, read Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception by Larry J. Tate. Go to http://www.tatebook.com/ or http://www.shadowtruthbook.com/.

Obama's Political Correctness at Work

In a move that is being hailed by gays, lesbians and transgendered persons, President Obama made his first appointment of a transgender person to a federal post. Amanda Simpson, formerly known as Mitch, was appointed to be the new Senior Technical Advisor to the Department of Commerce in the first week of January, 2010.

Until this point, Obama walked a fine line when dealing with members of the gay and transgender community. He was widely supported by gay voters in 2008, but soon came under harsh criticism from many of those same proponents for not acting fast or hard enough to expand their rights.

Equality among mankind dictates that discrimination must be done away with. Consequently, we as a nation were right to end discrimination against blacks and women. We were right to guarantee the same rights to housing, jobs and opportunities to every person regardless of their race or gender.

Now, the term "discrimination" is morphing into a new definition. Now, the choice a person makes regarding the gender they want to be is somehow entering the field of "discrimination." Appointing a black person to a high position is a right, thanks to our anti-discrimination laws. However, this latest appointment falls under the "New Political Correctness" frame of mind.

LGBT rights groups are overjoyed at the "progress" being made by this appointment. Amanda claims that he/she is highly qualified for this position, and that qualification should be the only factor to consider for such an appointment. However, he/she is concerned that his/her appointment will be labeled as a token that was hired because of his/her sexual identity rather than on his/her merits. He/she has expressed worries that his/her appointment was merely to fill a quota or to appease the LGBT groups.

One of the first statements of this new appointee is that he/she is excited about the opportunity to see hundreds of other transgenders being promoted as a result of his/her latest appointment.

In looking at many of the President's choices, it is clear that the new political correctness dictated this most recent appointment. The President's choices reflect his promotion of transgenerism. This new definition of discrimination is deconstructing one of the most fundamental concepts known to mankind. This appontment, and other similar appointments are effectively asking the rest of society to radically reorder the ways in which our culture views "gender."

To see where this sort of re-definition of discrimination is taking us, read "Shadow Truth: The Ultimate Deception" by Larry J. Tate. For further information, go to http://www.tatebook.com/ or go to http://shadowtruthbook.com/.

Pro-Life People Are Nothing But Right Wing Ideologues

In President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame University in May 2009, He told his audience that a pro-life doctor had written to him regarding his concern over the fact that Obama’s staff had posted a statement on the Obama website mentioning that he would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” Obama told the university graduates that after reading the doctor’s concerns, he instructed his staff to change the words on the website, but he was not going to change his underlying position. He told the graduates that we should honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, but at the same time we should show respect for the equality of women.

Obama let the world know that he would not back down from his position of fighting against right-wing ideologues who have taken a stand against abortion. An ideologue is a person who blindly and impractically advocates some particular ideology. The President was saying that those who have taken a pro-life position are impractical, and blindly advocating that women cannot have the right to have abortions at will.

In so many words, the President of the United States implied that the pro-life position is the radical position, while his own radical position is the moderate one.

The agents of Shadow Truth are busy changing the definition of values and morality. Shadow Truth is craftily convincing the world that those things that once were considered to be right are now wrong, and those things once were considered to be wrong are now right.

Rights of the Child Treaty is at our Door Step

Senator Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify the United Nations measure known as “The Rights of the Child Treaty. This treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995, but it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Nearly every country in the world (193 nations) is party to the treaty -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not.

To the casual observer, approving a child’s rights treaty is a no-brainer. After all, the world’s children deserve basic human rights. However, there are many problems with this innocent-sounding treaty. Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, the treaty would be rendered "the supreme law of the land," superseding America’s preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States. An outside body of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland would have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined, amounting to an erosion of American sovereignty.

The U.N. very craftily says that it has no way to enforce the treaty or punish those nations that fail to follow its precepts. However, it can be very difficult for a nation to extract itself from a treaty once it has been implemented. We should understand that where a child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government.

This treaty has the potential to mount a gross assault on parental rights, and it could rob the U.S. of sovereignty. If implemented, it will intrude on the family and it will strip parents of the power to raise their children without government interference. Parental rights groups see in the U.N. convention a threat that the government will meddle with even the simplest freedoms to raise their children as they see fit. Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes. The treaty could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion.

According to the Parental Rights website, the treaty dictates that: Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children; children would have the ability to choose their own religion; the government would have the ability to override every decision made by every parent; a child would have the right to seek a governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed; teaching children about Christianity in schools would not be permitted; parents will not be able to opt their children out of sex education at school; children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent. The government would decide what is in the best interest of a child in every case. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children’s lives. If the parents thinks the child should go to church three times a week, but he child wants to go to church only once a week, the government would be able to decide what is in the best interest of the child.

It takes a two-thirds Senate majority to implement the treaty, not too difficult with a current democrat majority in the Senate. It is time for us to wake up and vote for conservative leaders who will protect us from such treaties and laws.

Sexual Experimentation Being Taught to Children

SIECUS has many publications being used to indoctrinate our children. Publications entitled, Right from the Start: Guidelines for Sexuality Issues, Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, and Filling the Gaps: Hard to Teach Topics in Sexuality Education are just three of their vehicles of indoctrination for teaching our children about sexual freedoms.

Humanistic teaching promotes sexual experimentation, premarital sex, extramarital sex, and homosexuality. This high profile promotion of sexual experimentation is not limited just to the adult population. Instead, very young children are beginning to be indoctrinated into the realm of free sex. Various organizations are attempting to lead us to believe that perversion is to be recognized as a normal behavior.

The SIECUS handbook, Right from the Start: Guidelines for Sexuality Issues is formatted for teaching children from birth through five years old. Teachers are instructed that children should know that masturbation is a natural part of being human. It states that adults should not deal with children harshly when they are found in the act of masturbating. Rather, the adults should be supportive. Adults are instructed that if a child is masturbating in public, the adult should acknowledge to the child that the activity does feel good, but it should be done in private. Then, the SIECUS handbook instructs the adult to help the child identify private spaces which are more suitable for masturbation.

One of the key messages being taught to preschoolers is that boys and girls should know that it feels good to touch their bodies, including their genitals. Adults teaching preschoolers are instructed that if the child is touching their genitals in private, the adult is to ignore the behavior. As for sexual curiosity, adults are instructed that occasionally children will be found touching each other’s genitals. In such cases, the adults are told that this behavior is not to be confused with adult sexual behavior. When children are found undressed with another playmate of the same age, the children should not be shamed for being curious. But don’t be overly alarmed at this permissiveness being taught to our youngsters; the teachers are instructed to recognize and interfere with obviously inappropriate behaviors such as oral-genital contact and actual intercourse. That sort of behavior is reserved for slightly older students.