Soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas Told That Christians are Terroristic Threats

Are Christian soldiers going to be prosecuted if they tithe to their church? Donate to Republican politicians who are aligned with the Tea Party?

According to the latest pre-deployment briefings soldiers are getting the answer is a shocking “YES”.


Soldiers attending a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood say they were told that evangelical Christians and members of the Tea Party were a threat to the nation and that any soldier donating to those groups would be subjected to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

A soldier who attended the Oct. 17th briefing told me the counter-intelligence agent in charge of the meeting spent nearly a half hour discussing how evangelical Christians and groups like the American Family Association were “tearing the country apart.”

Michael Berry, an attorney with the Liberty Institute, is advising the soldier and has launched an investigation into the incident.

“The American public should be outraged that the U.S. Army is teaching our troops that evangelical Christians and Tea Party members are enemies of America, and that they can be punished for supporting or participating in those groups,” said Berry, a former Marine Corps JAG officer. Image

“These statements about evangelicals being domestic enemies are a serious charge.”

The soldier told me he fears reprisals and asked not to be identified. He said there was a blanket statement that donating to any groups that were considered a threat to the military and government was punishable under military regulations.

“My first concern was if I was going to be in trouble going to church,” the evangelical Christian soldier told me. “Can I tithe? Can I donate to Christian charities? What if I donate to a politician who is a part of the Tea Party movement?”

Another soldier who attended the briefing alerted the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. That individual’s recollections of the briefing matched the soldier who reached out to me.

“I was very shocked and couldn’t believe what I was hearing,” the soldier said. “I felt like my religious liberties, that I risk my life and sacrifice time away from family to fight for, were being taken away.”

And while a large portion of the briefing dealt with the threat evangelicals and the Tea Party pose to the nation, barely a word was said about Islamic extremism, the soldier said.

Of course, Fort Hood is still recovering from the act of “workplace violence” (as per the Obama Administration) committed by Nadal Hassan. It seems that the world is being tossed on its head.

“Our community is still healing from the act of terrorism brought on by Nidal Hasan – who really is a terrorist,” the soldier said. “This is a slap in the face. “The military is supposed to defend freedom and to classify the vast majority of the military that claim to be Christian as terrorists is sick.”

The Pentagon has hired Mikey Weinstein, an outspoken atheist to rebuild many of its training programs. In the past, Weinstein has stated that all Christians should be killed.

This training smells like Weinstein’s work.

If you are troubled by this news, reach out to your elected officials and let them know that you are outraged.

Please share this article using the buttons below!

These Texas-shaped ornaments are made from paper mache’ and have bluebonnet seeds embedded in them. At the end of the Christmas Season, simply plant in the ground and beautiful Texas Bluebonnets will SPRING to life in the Spring!
These are amazing stocking stuffers and office gifts too!



Stranded in Belton, Texas

posted by staff


(Belton, Texas) One evening a man saw an elderly old woman stranded on the side of the road, but even in the dim light of the late afternoon, he could see she needed help. So he pulled up in front of her fancy car and got out.

His old Pontiac was still sputtering when he approached her.

Even with the smile on his face, she was worried. No one had stopped to help for the last hour or so. Was he going to hurt her? He didn’t look safe; he looked poor and hungry.

He could see that she was frightened, standing out there in the cold. He knew how she felt. It was that chill which only fear can put in you.

He said, ‘I’m here to help you, ma’am. Why don’t you wait in the car where it’s warm? By the way, my name is Bryan Anderson.’

Well, all she had was a flat tire, but for an old lady, that was bad enough. Bryan crawled under the car looking for a place to put the jack, skinning his knuckles a time or two. Soon he was able to change the tire. But he had to get dirty and his hands hurt.

As he was tightening up the lug nuts, she rolled down the window and began to talk to him. She told him that she was from St. Louis and was only just passing through. She couldn’t thank him enough for coming to her aid.

Bryan just smiled as he closed her trunk. The lady asked how much she owed him. Any amount would have been all right with her. She already imagined all the awful things that could have happened had he not stopped. Bryan never thought twice about being paid. This was not a job to him. This was helping someone in need, and God knows there were plenty, who had given him a hand in the past. He had lived his whole life that way, and it never occurred to him to act any other way.

Bacon Ketchup exists, it’s AMAZING, and it’s available at Click here to learn more.

He told her that if she really wanted to pay him back, the next time she saw someone who needed help, she could give that person the assistance they needed, and Bryan added, ‘And think of me.’

He waited until she started her car and drove off. It had been a cold and depressing day, but he felt good as he headed for home, disappearing into the twilight.

A few miles down the road the lady saw a small cafe. She went in to grab a bite to eat, and take the chill off before she madeImage the last leg of her trip home. It was a dingy looking restaurant. Outside were two old gas pumps. The whole scene was unfamiliar to her. The waitress came over and brought a clean towel to wipe her wet hair. She had a sweet smile, one that even being on her feet for the whole day couldn’t erase. The lady noticed that the waitress was nearly eight months pregnant, but she never let the strain and aches change her attitude.

The old lady wondered how someone who had so little could be so giving to a stranger. Then she remembered Bryan.

After the lady finished her meal, she paid with a hundred dollar bill. The waitress quickly went to get change for her hundred dollar bill, but the old lady had slipped right out the door. She was gone by the time the waitress came back. The waitress wondered where the lady could be.

Then she noticed something written on the napkin. There were tears in her eyes when she read what the lady wrote: ‘You don’t owe me anything. I have been there too. Somebody once helped me out, the way I’m helping you. If you really want to pay me back, here is what you do: Do not let this chain of love end with you.’

Under the napkin were four more $100 bills.

Well, there were tables to clear, sugar bowls to fill, and people to serve, but the waitress made it through another day. That night when she got home from work and climbed into bed, she was thinking about the money and what the lady had written. How could the lady have known how much she and her husband needed it? With the baby due next month, it was going to be hard.

She knew how worried her husband was, and as he lay sleeping next to her, she gave him a soft kiss and whispered soft and low, ‘Everything’s going to be all right. I love you, Bryan Anderson.’





These Texas-shaped ornaments are made from paper mache’ and have bluebonnet seeds embedded in them. At the end of the Christmas Season, simply plant in the ground and beautiful Texas Bluebonnets will SPRING to life in the Spring!
These are amazing stocking stuffers and office gifts too!





By Robert G. Natelson

Rob Natelson, the Independence Institute’s Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence, is one of America’s best-known constitutional scholars. In opinions issued during the most recent U.S. Supreme Court term, he was cited 12 times in two separate cases. Rob was a law professor for 25 years, serving at three different universities. Among other subjects, he taught Constitutional Law, Constitutional History, Advanced Constitutional Law, and First Amendment. He is also the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Montana Policy Institute. Rob is especially known for his studies of the Constitution’s original meaning. His research has carried him to libraries throughout the United States and in Britain, including four months at Oxford. The results have included several break-though discoveries.

(Jon’s note: During my teen years I spent 4 years in Montana. I first met Rob back in 1996 in Missoula, Montana at a local Pachyderm Club meeting. He was a candidate for Governor of the Big Sky State. At the time I was 16 years old and quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things, yet Rob always took time to impart his wisdom to me and entertain my conversation at his office at the University of Montana Law School. In part, thanks to him I have the strict constructionist views which I hold today.  Please enjoy reading this excerpt from his latest book.)


A Tavern in 1791. . . .

It is Thursday, December 22, 1791. You live in Philadelphia, currently serving as the temporary capital of the newly-created United States of America. It has been only fifteen years since Independence was declared, and less than three years since the federal government began functioning under the United States Constitution. 1392101_564968160240743_633678218_n

For a long time, it had been touch-and-go as to whether the Constitution would be ratified at all. Two states initially refused to agree, and of the remainder five had approved the document only after the Constitution’s supporters and moderate opponents had cut a political deal calling for a Bill of Rights. As soon as the new Congress met, two of the most important states, Virginia and New York, petitioned for a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Only after Congress had approved the Bill of Rights did Virginia and New York abandon their petitions and only then did the last two hold-outs, North Carolina and Rhode Island, join the union. The fourteenth state, Vermont, came in at the beginning of 1791.

Earlier on this day, you learned that the Bill of Rights finally had been ratified on December 15. So now, you reflect, the union is reasonably secure, evening is approaching, and your work day is done—and you are on a Philadelphia street corner with nothing particular to do. The weather is chilly and blustery, but there is a cure for that: A warm punch in a cozy tavern.

You enter the tavern and look around for a seat. The place is nearly full. But there is bench space at a long wooden table at one side of the room. Sitting around the table are men you recognize— eminently respectable men—some of Philadelphia’s leading judges and lawyers. They are deep in debate about an abstruse point of real property law. Not being a lawyer yourself, you do not think of that sort of discussion as the key to a good time. But there are no other seats.


You slip into the empty chair and order your punch while the talk swirls around your head. Eventually, you decide to turn the conversation elsewhere. You give a little cough.

The lawyers had barely noticed you, but now they turn their heads and break off the debate. “I regret that I feel unqualified to comment on your subject,” you say. “But, gentlemen, you know I am not a lawyer. May I suggest another topic?”

They seem interested. The prior discussion had been wearing thin anyway.

“You no doubt have observed,” you continue, “that ten new constitutional amendments were proclaimed last week.”

“Yes,” responds one of your listeners. (You know him to be a distinguished judge.) “They should work some change upon the system.”

“That is exactly what I wished to pursue,” you add. “What is that system? And what change does the Bill of Rights effect upon it?”

The lawyers look at each other. One of them—he is particularly known as an expert in wills and fiduciary trusts—smiles. “Well, my friend, that is an expansive inquiry whose response might consume some time. Are you otherwise engaged for the next few hours? ” The others laugh.

But you press your question. It is only seven o’clock, your spouse has gone to Carlyle to visit relatives, and you are not “otherwise engaged.” Neither are you particularly eager to leave the warm tavern.

“I am at complete leisure,” you respond. “Please, say on.”

The lawyers glance at each other. “Well, why not?” asks one. “As it happens, we are not engaged either. The courts are closed tomorrow, and our wives are enjoying the comfort of each other’s society. I dare say they have no present need of us!” More laughter.

“I think I can speak for my learned colleagues here,” the trust attorney interjects, “when I tell you that there is no topic on which we would rather discourse than our new Constitution. We have exchanged views on this subject before, and we differ on the small points. But I flatter myself that we are in accord on the great ones.”

You are a bit amused at how easy it is to induce lawyers to talk.  You draw deep from the warm punch, and sit back, and listen . . .

* * * *

What would those lawyers tell you that evening? What would have been their understanding of the scope of the new federal government and its powers? What would they relate of the role of the states or of the people?

What, in other words, was the actual legal force of our Constitution as lawyers and intelligent lay persons understood it in 1791?

This book answers those questions. The answers were important in 1791, but they are especially important today, when our federal government seems to have wandered so far from its roots. Those answers are deemed relevant to constitutional interpretation by almost everyone, and many people believe them dispositive. That is, many Americans—lawyers and non-lawyers alike—believe the Constitution’s original understanding should govern us today.

To be sure, some people, including the former law instructor who now serves as President of the United States, believe that it is impossible to reconstruct the Constitution’s original meaning. As this book demonstrates, that view is substantially incorrect. Competent Founding-Era scholars largely agree on what most of the original Constitution’s provisions mean. Much of the disagreement among constitutional writers results from unfamiliarity with the historical record or with eighteenth-century law. We will never be absolutely certain of the complete meaning of every constitutional clause.

But we can reconstruct most of the original Constitution’s meaning with clarity and confidence.


The preceding preface was taken from the book “The Original Constitution, What it Actually Said and Meant”.
This incredible book, which unlike most non-fiction books is an absolute page turner.