Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free
You probably didn't realize it but America is steeped in Idols! Yes and the Statue of Liberty is actually a replica of the Babylonian goddess "Ishtar" the Mother of Harlots and the goddess of Freedom/Liberty. This "artwork" was created by a Freemason who wanted to honor a Masonic doctrine that dates back to before Nimrod! See: Masons Statue of Liberty] 1 Peter 2:7 the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,)
By Jonathan Turley
January 18, 2012
Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence.
In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state.
The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company. ([And phony Ron Paul is for liberty and freedom? 9/11 was biggest event in the new century and Ron Paul should be calling 9/11 for what it was, a Inside Job, if he really cared about liberty and freedom?
No, instead he goes along with the devils version of events for that day. Ron Paul is a fraud.
Alex Jones, 9/11 truther, has had Ron Paul as a guest on his show 13 times since 2010 and everytime Ron Paul is asked by the mainstream media about 9/11 he denies the truth. He must think 9/11 truthers are stupid or something for supporting him. Some people just can't accept the Babylon the Great is fallen. Usually those are people that have no faith in God or Jesus Christ and think that the Word of God is some fairy tale.
has been over 10 years since 9/11, so you would figure somebody like Ron Paul
who associates with Alex Jones should know the truth by now,
or is he just a coward and afraid to say what he
believes?] Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the
Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
When did they know? 36 Truth leaders on how they awakened to the 9/11 lie -
Myth: Most “conspiracy theorists” thought 9/11 was an inside job from
day one, because these types of people always imagine elaborate conspiracies
even though the evidence rarely backs them up. Most are paranoid and obsessive.
Reality: Many if not most of the members of the 9/11 Truth movement took months or years to begin doubting what we have been told. Those who have become leaders of the movement tend to be intelligent and well educated, and they were open-minded enough to consider evidence that we hadn’t been told the truth by the government or the media.
I decided to pose a question to some of the most notable members of the movement to find out exactly when they twigged that 9/11 was an inside job and not a terrorist attack perpetrated by fundamentalist Muslims. Here’s the question I sent them:
“When did you come to believe that the 9/11 official story was false and that 9/11 was an inside job – and what piece or pieces of information convinced you?”
For the purpose of this article, I’m defining “truth leaders” as being people who have been active in the movement in some visible way – spreading the word either by organizing activities or by researching and writing about or making films about 9/11 to raise awareness. It does not connote an endorsement of their various positions on 9/11.
I was fortunate to receive responses from the majority of the best known truth activists I wrote to. These included David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Barbara Honegger, Mike Gravel, Rob Balsamo, Cynthia McKinney, and 30 others listed below. All responses are original and were sent to me by the respondents with the exception of Balsamo’s, which he offered from a previously posted statement.
As you will read, the respondents’ backgrounds run the gamut. There are academics, authors, pilots, engineers, chemists, architects, journalists, politicians, musicians, filmmakers, lawyers, soldiers, and citizen researchers and activists of all kinds. There is a former U.S. senator, a former congresswoman, a high-level NASA executive, a policy analyst in the Reagan White House, and a Nobel Peace Prize nominee.
It’s an impressive group to say the least. In assembling it, I deliberately did not restrict myself to people I most agree with – or who most agree with each other. I sent the question to as many members of the Truth movement as I could. I’m not interested in entertaining criticism that one person or another should have been excluded. I think it’s much more interesting to read responses from people with disparate views. The length of the answers varies greatly, and cuts were kept to a minimum.
Here are the participants in this order:
David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Cynthia McKinney, William Veale, Barbara Honegger, Mike Gravel, Craig Ranke, Rob Balsamo, Cindy Sheehan, Niels Harrit, Shelton Lankford, James Fetzer, James Hufferd, Adam Syed, George Ripley, Adam Ruff, Sheila Casey, Bruce Sinclair, Elizabeth Woodworth, Josh Blakeney, Aldo Marquis, Frances Shure, Maxwell C. Bridges, Anna Yeisley, Mark Gaffney, Giulietto Chiesa, Paul Zarembka, Ken Freeland, Jonathan Mark, Dwain Deets, Jeffrey Orling, Massimo Mazzucco, Nelisse Muga, Matthew Witt, Simon Shack, Graeme MacQueen.
And here’s what they said:
David Ray Griffin (Retired theology professor; past nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize for his 9/11 work; founder, Consensus 9/11 Panel; author of 10 books on 9/11)
In the fall of 2002, one of my students at the Claremont School of Theology told me that a visiting professor said that 9/11 was an inside job and asked if I wanted to meet him. I said yes, and after talking with him, I told him that his theory certainly seemed plausible, given all the things the U.S. government had done (I was working on a book manuscript on U.S. imperialism), but that I would need to see evidence. I studied the evidence he emailed but concluded that it was not persuasive, so I went back to my work on U.S. imperialism
But early in 2003, another colleague from another institution sent Professor John Cobb the URL for a short version (provided in Paul Burks’ WantToKnow) of Paul Thompson’s “Complete 9/11 Timeline.” It took only a few hours to realize that its reports of stories contradicting the official story that had appeared in the mainstream press – but usually only once – was of utmost importance. I then obtained books on the subject, starting with Gore Vidal’s Dreaming War, which led me to Nafeez Ahmed’s War on Freedom.
Barrie Zwicker (Journalist, filmmaker and author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11)
I knew before noon on 9/11, because I realized that for the USAF to fail to turn a wheel until it was too late, during a drama in the sky of almost two hours was, simply, impossible.
So there had to be a USAF stand-down, which means an inside job.
Cynthia McKinney (Former congresswoman and presidential nominee for the Green Party in 2008)
Immediately after the tragedies, I called for an investigation of what happened in an Op-Ed piece that appeared in several newspapers. I noted that airplane crashes, train wrecks, and other accidents always routinely result in exhaustive investigations – why not with the tragedies of 11 September 2001?
Instead, both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were actively obstructing any investigation with lame-brained excuses that didn’t make any sense. Eventually, a tightly controlled victims’ compensation fund was established that restricted legal inquiry by victims and survivors into the tragedies.
As my last legislative act before being expelled from Congress by the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., I introduced legislation to nullify the rule forcing victims to choose between accepting financial help from the fund and knowing the truth.
We were never told the truth by the Bush Administration. Secretary of State Colin Powell promised a white paper to the people of the U.S. detailing what happened and who the culprits were; the white paper was never forthcoming.
Tony Blair issued a report with an advisory that the contents could not be
construed as evidence in a court of law. So, to this day, we all know what we
saw, but we don’t know officially what happened. In the absence of truth from
the government, the people must, themselves, find truth.
William Veale (Lawyer for April Gallop, legal spokesman for the Consensus 9/11 Panel)
I was shown A New Pearl Harbor (by David Ray Griffin) in 2004. As a trial lawyer, it is always the amalgamation of evidence that convinces. It is rarely one piece of evidence, especially not in the face of a strong case for the opposite proposition. The fact that Griffin presented a compelling case over the entire range of possible evidence put me well on the way to being convinced. When I read Omissions and Distortions, and it was clear that the government would not, and could not respond to so many specific assertions, there was virtually no doubt remaining. It is my experience that people with explanations of damning evidence are hard to shut up. That is why evidence of silence in the face of an accusation of wrongdoing is admissible in court.
Now that we have the finding of nano-thermite, there is no room for questioning the inside job theory at all. Nano-thermite is the equivalent of DNA in a criminal case.
Barbara Honegger (Journalist, former policy analyst in the Reagan administration, and author of The Pentagon Attack Papers)
On the morning of 9/11, I was watching a split screen on television with Bush sitting in the Florida classroom after Card whispered in his ear (which we were later told was that a second tower had been hit in NYC and the nation was under attack) on one side, and innocent victims jumping to their deaths from those very towers on the other, and knew something was terribly, terribly wrong. My first thought was that Bush had foreknowledge and was intentionally being seen by the whole world as not being in charge and therefore not ‘responsible’ for what he knew was about to happen.
Mike Gravel (Former U.S. senator who helped leak the “Pentagon Papers”; founder, Citizens 9/11 Commission)
It took me three days to overcome the impact of the consequences of 9/11. My whole public life was a battle against the military Congressional industrial complex. 9/11 was the MCIC’s lock on the world. A book by Seven Story Press A Political Odyssey: The Rise of American Militarism and One Man’s Fight to Stop It details my experiences.
It was only in 2010 that I developed an appreciation of the fine scientific work done by the 9/11 Truth Movement, David Ray Griffin and others, to disprove the government story line. What followed was my suggestion to go to the people via direct democracy at the state or federal level to bring about a new citizens’ investigation commission.] Proverbs 25:2 but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.)
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)
The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)
Immunity from judicial review
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)
Continual monitoring of citizens
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.
Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”
Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”
And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.
The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.
The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had
promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill,
disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.
And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like
a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12And
he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,
THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH ALONE - Legislation are a good way to
control the masses. Of course one must impose them bit by bit (the frog in the
seething pot syndrome) sometimes in stealth would help keep the opposition
Rome must gain control of the whole World. By saying Rome I mean the Roman Catholic System lead by the Priestly kings we know today as Popes. For the deadly wound will be healed and every effort to hasten the ascension of the Romish religion is being put in place ( Revelation 13:12). For Daniel 11:40-45 will come to past.
Now the Roman church does not come to sit on the throne of the earth without the help of the super power of the world.
The book of Revelation talks about a second political power ,a second beast different from the first rising up from the "earth" as oppose to the 1st beast rising up from among many people symbolically called "out from the sea"..
Bible says : Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. For this on numerous occasions we have identified solidly as America with its two horns Republicanism and protestantism. (The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy or mob rule!)
Now this beast with two horns assist the first Beast the Papacy Roman Catholic system regain its power! How ? Read what the bible says.
Reve 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
A country or a super power can only cause another nation to do what it says by its military strength.
can also cause the citizenry of its own land to respond to demands based on its
legislative arm and the passing of Laws.
The New world Government will come into being as the Bible says but its weapon of control would be laws.
History would repeat. Bible history shows us in Esther the things to come.
1 After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.
2 And all the king's servants, that were in the king's gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence.
3 Then the king's servants, which were in the king's gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king's commandment?
4 Now it came to pass, when they spoke daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's matters would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew.
5 And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath.
6 And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had showed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai.
8 And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king's laws: therefore it is not for the king's profit to suffer them.
9 If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king's treasuries.
10 And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews' enemy.
11 And the king said unto Haman, The silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.
The wearing of signet rings (from Latin "signum" meaning sign) goes back to ancient Egypt; the distinctive personal signature was not developed in antiquity and most documents needed a seal.
Because it is used to attest the authority of its bearer, the ring has also been seen as a symbol of his power, which is one explanation for its inclusion in the regalia of certain monarchies.
A Seal impressed by Signet ring:
A seal can be a wax seal bearing an impressed figure, or an embossed figure in paper, with the purpose of authenticating a document, but the term can also mean any device for making such impressions or embossments, essentially being a mould that has the mirror image of the figure in counter-relief, such as mounted on rings known as signet rings.
In other words the seal and the signet ring was the king's SIGNATURE on official documents especially LAWS OR LEGISLATION.
13 And the letters were sent by posts into all the king's provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.14 The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, that they should be ready against that day. ( Note kings commandment =decree=Law)
15 The posts went out, being hastened by the king's commandment, and the decree was given in Shushan the palace. And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city Shushan was perplexed.
The laws that are being implemented rushed at this time are design not so much to protect us but to control us.
Very soon America will create a model of which the world will addopt, already endorsed by the Papacy.
She America is following the dictates of Rome, once the image to the Beast the Papacy is made fully, The world will be forced to adopt this model hook line and sinker ; hence it is at this time when all laws will fall under the guidance and authority of the Pope. America would have effectively put the Roman church on the throne of the earth once again.
It is at this time the Deadly wound would have been healed and Daniel 11:40-45 would be fulfilled with verse 44 where she the Catholic System will again implement its persecution of "heretics" being officially head of the world church and the world governent.] 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.)
from politicians is nothing new for Americans. ([Saints
Report: Ron Paul gave conflicting answer on bin Laden raid in SC debate -
The Blaze reported Tuesday that Texas Congressman and GOP Presidential
candidate Ron Paul's "truthfulness is being questioned" after telling "Fox News’
Brett Baier that he never said that he would not have given the order to go into
Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden"
But, The Blaze reports, he did say it - several times - all in the same radio interview conducted in May 2011.
"Ron Paul said three times in a two minute discussion of the topic, that as President of the United States, he would not have ordered bin Laden killed in the manner that President Obama did," Mike Opelka wrote.
On May 11, 2011, Opelka wrote:
On Tuesday, Texas Congressman and GOP Presidential hopeful Ron Paul was on the radio with Simon Conway of Newsradio 1040 – WHO
The interview covered a broad spectrum of topics, but the most interesting moment came about when Conway pressed the Congressman on how he might have handled the Osama bin Laden situation. Mr. Paul is quite clear on what he would have done.
"No, I think things would be done somewhat differently," Paul told Conway.
He suggested that he would have used the same strategy used to get Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who Paul said was arrested by Pakistan and handed over to U.S. authorities.
"I just want to be clear," Conway said. "A President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of bin Laden which could only have taken place by entering another sovereign nation."
"I dont think it was necessary, no," Paul answered.
"It was absolutely not necessary," he continued.
Conway asked again to ensure he "was not putting words" in Paul's mouth. The Texas Congressman again said he would not have approved the mission as it was conducted.
"Not the way it took place, no. I mean he was unarmed, you know… and all these other arguments," Paul said.
But when confronted by Baier on Monday, Paul seemed to have a different answer.
"You said the operation that took out the terrorist responsible for killing 3,000 people on American soil quote 'showed no respect for the rule of law - international law. So, to be clear, you believe international law should've constrained us from tracking down and killing the man responsible for the most brazen attack on U.S. since Pearl Harbor."
"Obviously no," Paul said. "I did not say that." He went on to say that after the 9/11 attack he voted for the authority to go after bin Laden.][Comment: Surely Ron Paul knows that Osama Bin Laden has been dead for years having been a guest of Alex Jones and Info Wars/Prison Planet?] 2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.)
The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free. (Hebrews 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly:)
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Courtesy Washington Post
To Translate this Page clickon flag and enter& http://lionofjuda.freehostia.com/news_page7844.htm in website/URL address!