OBAMA: Would take $30,000 from a small business and give $1000 to 30 couples. He says that the extra $1000 each year will let those people "move up, send their kids to college, buy homes and cars."
I have to ask, when was the last time $1000 could do all that - 1789?
MCCAIN: Would let the small business owner keep the $30,000 so he could hire another employee, produce more and make more money. He says that the person who gets that new job will be able to use that $30,000 a year to "move up, send their kids to college, buy homes and cars."
That I can understand. Someone actually does move up. And the increased production produces more income, which could result in still more jobs,
The difference, when you take the time to actually look at it, and extrapolate it to its conclusion, is stark.
In both cases, $30,000 gets pumped into the system. But only in the McCain scenario does it have any true and lasting effect. In the Obama scenario, it is nothing more than a case of buying votes. By promising 60 million people a check for $1,000, Obama is simply buying votes, and buying the election. That goes against everything this country stands for, and tells me that the man is unworthy of being our leader.
We do not need a man who stoops to buying votes. We need a man capable of being a leader. In the 21 months Obama has been running, he has yet to produce one iota of evidence that he can lead anything more than a horde of groupies. Nothing in his RECORD shows leadership. Nothing in his RECORD shows any executive experience. Nothing in his RECORD shows a strength to stand against our enemies.
Nothing in his record allows me to vote for him. His choice of cultivated relationships does not allow me to vote for him. His desire to redistribute my money does not allow me to vote for him. And his attempt to buy the election only turns my stomach!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Have we heard this before?
Senator Obama has made no secret that he plans to take from the wealthy and give it to the poor, i.e. "spreading the wealth." He admitted it again, on ABC, stating that he stands by his "spread the wealth" comments.
“ there may be no one who lacks what he needs for a living, even though it may be necessary that the wealthy who are wildly squandering may be deprived of the right to do so, for the benefit of those who have nothing at all.”
No, those are not the same words Obama used, although it means exactly the same thing. But here is the problem - those words were spoken by Peron of Argentina, a socialist and fascist whose financial and leadership stupidity caused 3000% inflation, and a starved country.
What is truly amazing is that Obama still manages to command an almost hypnotic effect on his followers. It seems he could become an axe murderer and his followers would still see him as the Annointed One.
Does the name Jim Jones ring a bell?
“ there may be no one who lacks what he needs for a living, even though it may be necessary that the wealthy who are wildly squandering may be deprived of the right to do so, for the benefit of those who have nothing at all.”
No, those are not the same words Obama used, although it means exactly the same thing. But here is the problem - those words were spoken by Peron of Argentina, a socialist and fascist whose financial and leadership stupidity caused 3000% inflation, and a starved country.
What is truly amazing is that Obama still manages to command an almost hypnotic effect on his followers. It seems he could become an axe murderer and his followers would still see him as the Annointed One.
Does the name Jim Jones ring a bell?
Be Careful of What You Wish For
I recently received an email from one of my customers. He is a business owner with 31 employees.
He has resigned himself to the probability that Obama will be our next President, and will follow through on his promises to tax him to death. In anticipation, he has figured what his additional tax burden would be, and has a plan to offset it, as he must - otherwise, his family would have to suffer those losses alone.
He estimates that the first thing he must do is raise all his prices by at least 8%, so all of his customers will pay more (and have less for themselves). He would also have to lay off 6 employees in order to save enough on salaries and benefits so that he can pay those extra taxes without hurting his own family.
His problem lay in the fact that all of his people are like family. He found it impossible to "pick and choose" who would get laid off.
The answer came to him as he pulled into the parking lot the next morning, and noticed that several of his employees had OBAMA bumper stickers.
Guess who is getting laid off :o)
He has resigned himself to the probability that Obama will be our next President, and will follow through on his promises to tax him to death. In anticipation, he has figured what his additional tax burden would be, and has a plan to offset it, as he must - otherwise, his family would have to suffer those losses alone.
He estimates that the first thing he must do is raise all his prices by at least 8%, so all of his customers will pay more (and have less for themselves). He would also have to lay off 6 employees in order to save enough on salaries and benefits so that he can pay those extra taxes without hurting his own family.
His problem lay in the fact that all of his people are like family. He found it impossible to "pick and choose" who would get laid off.
The answer came to him as he pulled into the parking lot the next morning, and noticed that several of his employees had OBAMA bumper stickers.
Guess who is getting laid off :o)
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Associations
Since this political season has revolved largely upon a candidates associations, I thought I would chime in with my two cents worth. But first, a brief recap....
Among the questionable associations of Barak Obama are:
Among the questionable associations of Barak Obama are:
- Reverend Wright, a self-proclaimed racist, bigot and anti-semite
- William Ayers, a known domestic terrorist
- Reverend Pfleger, another racist preacher
- Meeks, a well-known Marxist
- Louis Farrakahn, leader of the Nation of Islam
- Anthony Rezko, convicted felon, convicted of "buying" politicians, among other things
- Nadhami Auch, convicted of fraud, bagman for Saddam Hussein
- ACORN
- Rashid Kahlidi, a man long known for his anti-semite beliefs, and patron of the Palestinian Liberation Org
OK, so it is a long and growing list of "bad guys", all with ties to Obama. But is it really important? Does this mean Obama shares their anti-American, anti-semite views?
Taken separately, no. But taken together, absolutely! It's like the old adage says - you are known by the company you keep. If one of your friends is a bad dude, that is not a problem - we all know bad dudes. But when MOST or ALL of a person's associates are bad dudes, and all with the same proclivities, then it becomes obvious that the person is of like mind. People are attracted to those who think as they do, and believe as they do. And they are repelled by those who are opposites of what they believe - for example, a good Christian who believes in the Bible is unlikely to have a lot of friends who are drug dealers, or anti-Christians.
Birds of a feather, if you will.
As I said, if a person has one or two questionable associates, fine. But when all of their time is spent cultivating such associations, that is a problem. A BIG problem.
If, for example, you were to learn that I am friends with drug dealers, friends with people in the KKK, and friends with people on death row, you just might get the impression that I, too, am a bad dude. Why else would I cultivate so many associations that are so questionable?
Maybe Obama is OK. Maybe. But I doubt it - there are just too many....
More important, we are talking about making someone the most powerful leader in the world - our leader. And "maybe" just isn't good enough. If I am not convinced the associations are meaningless, then I cannot vote for the man. And Obama has gone to great lengths to NOT explain those associations. And in every case, he first tried to dismiss them altogether.
Not good enough, Senator. A glib tongue is OK for a snake-oil saleman, but not enough for anyone wanting to lead America. That, my friend, requires character and good judgement. And based on who you have chosen to associate with, you do not appear to have either. And you have made no effort to quiet the growing suspicions.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Unbelievable
I think we all understand that the economy is pretty bad right now. Most folks are affected by it. Which makes the following even more unbelievable.
Obama's newest ad asks people to take a day off work or school on election day to help him, Obama, get elected.
WOW! Imagine hundreds of thousands of people taking a day off - American production goes down, and the people lose a day's pay during tough times - just to help The Annoited claim his crown.
This guy is unbelievable. He really believes he is God's Gift. "Hey, you peons, blow off your job and lose money just so I can use you to boost myself up onto the throne."
Anyone that arrogant and elitist should not get elected to any office! America does not need a king. We need a LEADER. And a leader would never suggest that the people blow off their jobs, or their education, just to become the leader's step-stool.
Obama's newest ad asks people to take a day off work or school on election day to help him, Obama, get elected.
WOW! Imagine hundreds of thousands of people taking a day off - American production goes down, and the people lose a day's pay during tough times - just to help The Annoited claim his crown.
This guy is unbelievable. He really believes he is God's Gift. "Hey, you peons, blow off your job and lose money just so I can use you to boost myself up onto the throne."
Anyone that arrogant and elitist should not get elected to any office! America does not need a king. We need a LEADER. And a leader would never suggest that the people blow off their jobs, or their education, just to become the leader's step-stool.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Should Felons Vote?
During a troubled time when organizations such as ACORN are bent on destroying the American voting process, it seems only appropriate to ask if felons should be allowed to vote. Currently, two states allow felons in prison to vote, and a few other states allow ex-felons to vote. Most states do not.
My question is simple: should felons be allowed to vote? My answer is almost as simple.
Felons go to prison because they have deprived others of their rights and/or property. I do not think they should be given the opportunity to vote for the very people we entrust to protect us from such people.
There are several states that have blocked Jessica's Law, thereby protecting child molesters. And judges in at least two states tend to give child molesters probation. And the legislatures of several states have refused to enact various protections for the honest citizen, while protecting the criminals. I contend that if felons are permitted to vote, they are likely to vote for more of those who do not take crime seriously. They will vote for the politicians who will protect them, the felons, from us, the honest citizens.
They will vote for gun control, so they can rob our homes and businesses without getting shot. They will vote against Jessica's Law, or any other law that makes them pay for their crimes. They will vote to legalize pot, and other drugs. They will vote in favor of lowering the age of consent, so they can rape our children.
Felons have already shown they cannot be trusted; that they have little use for the rules of society. So why should we permit them to help make, or change those rules?
No, felons definitely should not be allowed to vote. They forfeited their rights when they took it upon themselves to deprive other people of their rights.
As a side note: neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights includes a right to vote. Frankly, I do not think any uninformed citizen should be allowed to vote, either. If they do not even know who the current Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader are, then they should not be making decisions that impact the future and security of this great country.
My question is simple: should felons be allowed to vote? My answer is almost as simple.
Felons go to prison because they have deprived others of their rights and/or property. I do not think they should be given the opportunity to vote for the very people we entrust to protect us from such people.
There are several states that have blocked Jessica's Law, thereby protecting child molesters. And judges in at least two states tend to give child molesters probation. And the legislatures of several states have refused to enact various protections for the honest citizen, while protecting the criminals. I contend that if felons are permitted to vote, they are likely to vote for more of those who do not take crime seriously. They will vote for the politicians who will protect them, the felons, from us, the honest citizens.
They will vote for gun control, so they can rob our homes and businesses without getting shot. They will vote against Jessica's Law, or any other law that makes them pay for their crimes. They will vote to legalize pot, and other drugs. They will vote in favor of lowering the age of consent, so they can rape our children.
Felons have already shown they cannot be trusted; that they have little use for the rules of society. So why should we permit them to help make, or change those rules?
No, felons definitely should not be allowed to vote. They forfeited their rights when they took it upon themselves to deprive other people of their rights.
As a side note: neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights includes a right to vote. Frankly, I do not think any uninformed citizen should be allowed to vote, either. If they do not even know who the current Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader are, then they should not be making decisions that impact the future and security of this great country.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Ho-Hum...
Well, the great United States Supreme Court Jesters have done it again.
The Ohio Secretary of State has broken Federal law by refusing to do what the law requires, as far as checking for voter registration fraud. She claims she "doesn't have the time" to do her job.
The Ohio GOP sued, to force her to adhere to the law. The Appeals court agreed - she should do what the law - and her job - requires of her.
But then it gets to those clowns in the Supreme Court, and rather than rule on it, they throw the entire case out because they don't think the GOP is the right entity for bringing suit!
How dumb is that? Call me old fashioned, but where I come from the courts are supposed to insure that the lawbreakers are held to account, and that justice should prevail. And any citizen could file a complaint against a lawbreaker, and any citizen could sue.
Personally, I think it's time someone fired the entire Supreme Court and started from scratch. Believe it or not, the Constitution gives the President the right to do just that. It was done only once before in this country's history.
I think that would shake things up enough to force justices to get a Reality Check. They have become far too cocky and complacent, falsely believing that they answer to no one.
It's time we corrected them on that!
The Ohio Secretary of State has broken Federal law by refusing to do what the law requires, as far as checking for voter registration fraud. She claims she "doesn't have the time" to do her job.
The Ohio GOP sued, to force her to adhere to the law. The Appeals court agreed - she should do what the law - and her job - requires of her.
But then it gets to those clowns in the Supreme Court, and rather than rule on it, they throw the entire case out because they don't think the GOP is the right entity for bringing suit!
How dumb is that? Call me old fashioned, but where I come from the courts are supposed to insure that the lawbreakers are held to account, and that justice should prevail. And any citizen could file a complaint against a lawbreaker, and any citizen could sue.
Personally, I think it's time someone fired the entire Supreme Court and started from scratch. Believe it or not, the Constitution gives the President the right to do just that. It was done only once before in this country's history.
I think that would shake things up enough to force justices to get a Reality Check. They have become far too cocky and complacent, falsely believing that they answer to no one.
It's time we corrected them on that!
Update On Poor Joe
Well, the folks on the left are really in a tizzy about "Joe the Plumber". His point has become so hot that the liberals are tripping over themselves (and tripping over the truth) to discredit Poor Joe. That's how important this is.
So, they spread the word that "Joe is a phony - his name isn't even Joe." Well, the truth is, his name IS Joe. But not his first name, which is Samuel. Joe doesn't care much for his first name, so like millions of other folks, he goes by his middle name. So this is just a red herring being tossed out by desperate liberals.
Then they claim that Joe the Plumber is not licensed. Actually, that's not quite true, either. He WORKS for a licensed plumber, and as such does not require any license. But the left won't tell you about that, either. Remember, they will say anything to discredit this guy.
They said Joe is not a registered voter. However, he is, and he even voted in the primary. Some in the media even said that Joe is a McCain plant - but they could not explain how that is possible, since it was Obama that walked into Joe's neighborhood, unexpectedly, and approached Joe. Not vice versa. And here is the lowest - a left-wing blogger that said McCain "planted" Joe because he is the real father of Bristol Palin's baby. That is lower than the slime on a snake's belly. But it is what we now expect from the whackos on the far left.
Then they claim he is a deadbeat because he owes property taxes. But what they do not tell you is that this is the case with many Americans struggling to pay their bills. But more important, the left-wing media conveniently avoids the fact that it is said Martin Nesbitt, the treasurer of Obama’s campaign, has tax liens. So do his companies. You’d think that matters more than the tax liens of Joe the Plumber, wouldn’t you? But good luck finding a Big Media story about Nesbitt’s liens. They won't say a word about that.
And THAT is the real injustice here. We should be able to depend upon the media as being objective, and seeking the whole truth. But that is no longer the case. The media has turned into an arm of the Democrat party. The only truth they will tell you is the part that they want you to hear. It is a case of lying by "cherry-picking" the facts they choose to present - and how they choose to present them.
I have not purchased a newspaper in several years because they will not tell the whole story. Nor do I watch network news - all three, including their hundreds of local subsidiaries - except to be able to see for myself how they slant their news with a bias that favors liberals. The way they hold back facts and distort the truth to vilify "Joe the Plumber" is just one small example of their "business as usual." And I am sick of it!
If Joe really is a phony, then present all the facts, and not innuendo. I'll believe the truth. But to call him a phony when he is not, simply to push an agenda, is unacceptable.
So, they spread the word that "Joe is a phony - his name isn't even Joe." Well, the truth is, his name IS Joe. But not his first name, which is Samuel. Joe doesn't care much for his first name, so like millions of other folks, he goes by his middle name. So this is just a red herring being tossed out by desperate liberals.
Then they claim that Joe the Plumber is not licensed. Actually, that's not quite true, either. He WORKS for a licensed plumber, and as such does not require any license. But the left won't tell you about that, either. Remember, they will say anything to discredit this guy.
They said Joe is not a registered voter. However, he is, and he even voted in the primary. Some in the media even said that Joe is a McCain plant - but they could not explain how that is possible, since it was Obama that walked into Joe's neighborhood, unexpectedly, and approached Joe. Not vice versa. And here is the lowest - a left-wing blogger that said McCain "planted" Joe because he is the real father of Bristol Palin's baby. That is lower than the slime on a snake's belly. But it is what we now expect from the whackos on the far left.
Then they claim he is a deadbeat because he owes property taxes. But what they do not tell you is that this is the case with many Americans struggling to pay their bills. But more important, the left-wing media conveniently avoids the fact that it is said Martin Nesbitt, the treasurer of Obama’s campaign, has tax liens. So do his companies. You’d think that matters more than the tax liens of Joe the Plumber, wouldn’t you? But good luck finding a Big Media story about Nesbitt’s liens. They won't say a word about that.
And THAT is the real injustice here. We should be able to depend upon the media as being objective, and seeking the whole truth. But that is no longer the case. The media has turned into an arm of the Democrat party. The only truth they will tell you is the part that they want you to hear. It is a case of lying by "cherry-picking" the facts they choose to present - and how they choose to present them.
I have not purchased a newspaper in several years because they will not tell the whole story. Nor do I watch network news - all three, including their hundreds of local subsidiaries - except to be able to see for myself how they slant their news with a bias that favors liberals. The way they hold back facts and distort the truth to vilify "Joe the Plumber" is just one small example of their "business as usual." And I am sick of it!
If Joe really is a phony, then present all the facts, and not innuendo. I'll believe the truth. But to call him a phony when he is not, simply to push an agenda, is unacceptable.
Attack On The Average Man
"Joe the Plumber" has become something of a celebrity these last few days. An average American, living on a modest income with dreams of something more. And because he had the audacity to ask Senator Obama how his tax plan would affect his dream, the liberal Democrat attack machine is tearing away at the average guy.
If you don't believe it, you have insulated yourselves. I have read numerous newpapers and blogs, watched the "Obama" commericials, and listened to the liberal media. In almost every instance they are trying desperately to discredit Joe.
EXAMPLE 1: Most are claiming Joe is not a licensed plumber. By making this statement, they hope to cast seeds of doubt in people's minds. But what they conveniently neglect to say is that Joe WORKS for a licensed plumber, and a plumber's apprentice or assistant is not a licensed position. But the liberals won't tell you that part. They would prefer to mislead you.
EXAMPLE 2: Joe is behind on his property taxes, so he is not a good example of an average American. This tends to plant seeds in empty minds that Joe is a deadbeat. What they do not tell you is that one in every five homeowners let their property taxes slide once in awhile, in order to feed their families - especially in these hard times. Or haven't the liberal elites in their ivory towers noticed that these ARE hard times. And the fact is, Joe really IS the average guy on the street, struggling desperately to keep his head above water. But to the liberals, that just makes Joe a deadbeat. They are wrong!
This is not the first time Obama and his minions have attacked average Americans. Remember Obama's speech about how we "cling to our guns and Bibles" because we, the "little people" are ignorant? Or how about Michelle Obama saying she was "never proud of my country until now."
I can tolerate a lot from the liberal spin srtists. But when they start attacking the average guy on the street simply because he has the audacity to question the Great Messiah, Obama, then that's where I draw the line, because it was not long ago that I was "Joe the Plumber". Anyone who has read my books, or know of my history know that I climbed out of homelessnes and scratched and clawed my way up to a postion of some wealth. That is the American Dream. That is the dream that Joe has. It's the dream that most American's have.
And for the Democrats to attack Joe, they are attacking that dream. Where the dream has always been, "If you work hard, you will get ahead", Obama and his crowd are trying to change that to, "If you work hard, we'll take it from you so OTHERS who have not worked as hard can get ahead at your expense."
That is not America. In fact, that is the principle of Marxism - communism.
Maybe liberal Democrats like Obama don't want to believe that a sweating working stiff, living in a modest home on a modest income, a little behind on his taxes (which, by the way, Democrats want to increase) and dreaming of something better is the "Average American". Maybe they don't think so because they live in penthouses, and make millions each year. And maybe they think that earning $250,000 a year means you are "rich". But they need a reality check.
In today's world, putting just one child through college costs upwards of $100,000. The average home costs $250,000. And $250,000 in 2008 is the equivalent of only $30,000 in 1960, when "millionaire" meant you were rich. So, if $30K in 1960 was not even close to "rich", then $250,000 today is not close, either.
Here is the Obama plan: 12 year old Bobby goes out and works up a sweat mowing lawns, while his lazy brother, Johnny watches TV and plays ball. Bobby takes his earnings to the store and buys the things he worked so hard for. Johnny cries because he does not have all those great things. So dad takes some of Bobby's hard earned goods and gives them to Johnny to make him stop whining, and Johnny goes back to watching TV. Dad figures he will have equality if he redistributes the wealth. Equality, yes. Fairness, no. Now, if you are Johnny, you would like Obama's plan because it allows you to have everything without having to earn it or pay for it - "equality" is more important than "fairness". A free ride. But if you are the AVERAGE American - Bobby (or Joe, the Plumber) - then you would have a big problem with that plan, because you believe fairness is more important than equality. And so do I.
It is important that every American has equal opportunity. But if they are unwilling to take that opportunity, or unwilling to put in the effort, then they are not entitled to an equal share of the wealth. If you want an equal share of the wealth, that's fine, but you must then put in an equal share of the effort - get educated, work hard, think straight, and use your assets wisely. If you do not do what the successful person does, you cannot expect, and do not deserve, what the successful person has. Period!
If you don't believe it, you have insulated yourselves. I have read numerous newpapers and blogs, watched the "Obama" commericials, and listened to the liberal media. In almost every instance they are trying desperately to discredit Joe.
EXAMPLE 1: Most are claiming Joe is not a licensed plumber. By making this statement, they hope to cast seeds of doubt in people's minds. But what they conveniently neglect to say is that Joe WORKS for a licensed plumber, and a plumber's apprentice or assistant is not a licensed position. But the liberals won't tell you that part. They would prefer to mislead you.
EXAMPLE 2: Joe is behind on his property taxes, so he is not a good example of an average American. This tends to plant seeds in empty minds that Joe is a deadbeat. What they do not tell you is that one in every five homeowners let their property taxes slide once in awhile, in order to feed their families - especially in these hard times. Or haven't the liberal elites in their ivory towers noticed that these ARE hard times. And the fact is, Joe really IS the average guy on the street, struggling desperately to keep his head above water. But to the liberals, that just makes Joe a deadbeat. They are wrong!
This is not the first time Obama and his minions have attacked average Americans. Remember Obama's speech about how we "cling to our guns and Bibles" because we, the "little people" are ignorant? Or how about Michelle Obama saying she was "never proud of my country until now."
I can tolerate a lot from the liberal spin srtists. But when they start attacking the average guy on the street simply because he has the audacity to question the Great Messiah, Obama, then that's where I draw the line, because it was not long ago that I was "Joe the Plumber". Anyone who has read my books, or know of my history know that I climbed out of homelessnes and scratched and clawed my way up to a postion of some wealth. That is the American Dream. That is the dream that Joe has. It's the dream that most American's have.
And for the Democrats to attack Joe, they are attacking that dream. Where the dream has always been, "If you work hard, you will get ahead", Obama and his crowd are trying to change that to, "If you work hard, we'll take it from you so OTHERS who have not worked as hard can get ahead at your expense."
That is not America. In fact, that is the principle of Marxism - communism.
Maybe liberal Democrats like Obama don't want to believe that a sweating working stiff, living in a modest home on a modest income, a little behind on his taxes (which, by the way, Democrats want to increase) and dreaming of something better is the "Average American". Maybe they don't think so because they live in penthouses, and make millions each year. And maybe they think that earning $250,000 a year means you are "rich". But they need a reality check.
In today's world, putting just one child through college costs upwards of $100,000. The average home costs $250,000. And $250,000 in 2008 is the equivalent of only $30,000 in 1960, when "millionaire" meant you were rich. So, if $30K in 1960 was not even close to "rich", then $250,000 today is not close, either.
Here is the Obama plan: 12 year old Bobby goes out and works up a sweat mowing lawns, while his lazy brother, Johnny watches TV and plays ball. Bobby takes his earnings to the store and buys the things he worked so hard for. Johnny cries because he does not have all those great things. So dad takes some of Bobby's hard earned goods and gives them to Johnny to make him stop whining, and Johnny goes back to watching TV. Dad figures he will have equality if he redistributes the wealth. Equality, yes. Fairness, no. Now, if you are Johnny, you would like Obama's plan because it allows you to have everything without having to earn it or pay for it - "equality" is more important than "fairness". A free ride. But if you are the AVERAGE American - Bobby (or Joe, the Plumber) - then you would have a big problem with that plan, because you believe fairness is more important than equality. And so do I.
It is important that every American has equal opportunity. But if they are unwilling to take that opportunity, or unwilling to put in the effort, then they are not entitled to an equal share of the wealth. If you want an equal share of the wealth, that's fine, but you must then put in an equal share of the effort - get educated, work hard, think straight, and use your assets wisely. If you do not do what the successful person does, you cannot expect, and do not deserve, what the successful person has. Period!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A Book To Keep Away From Our Children
If you have children or grandchildren, work with children at church, or you have neighborhood children whose parents you know, please take note of the information below and pass it along to others. Schools are distributing this book to children through the Scholastic Book Club.
The name of the book is "Conversations with God". James Dobson talked about this book twice this week. It is devastating. Parents, churches and Christian schools need to be aware of it. Please pass this information on to church/e-mail addressees, Parents, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins,friends.
Please pay special attention not only to what your kids watch on TV, in movie theaters, on the Internet, and the music they listen to, but also be alert regarding the books they read.
Two particular books are, "Conversations with God" and "Conversations with God for Teens", written by Neale D. Walsch. They sound harmless enough by their titles alone. The books have been on the New York Times best sellers list for a number of weeks, don't judge this book by its cover or title.
The author purports to answer various questions asked by kids using the 'voice of God'. However, the 'answers' that he gives are not Bible-based and go against the very infallible word of God. For instance (and I paraphrase), when a girl asks the question 'Why am I a lesbian?' His answer is that she was 'born that way' because of genetics (just as you were born right-handed, with brown eyes, etc.). Then he tells her to go out and 'celebrate' her differences.
Another girls poses the question 'I am living with my boyfriend. My parents say that I should marry him because I am living in sin. Should I marry him?'
His reply is, 'Who are you sinning against? Not me, because you have done nothing wrong.'
Another question asks about God's forgiveness of sin. His reply 'I do not forgive anyone because there is nothing to forgive. There is no such thing as right or wrong and that is what I have been trying to tell everyone, do not judge people. People have chosen to judge one another and this is wrong, because the rule is ''judge not lest ye be judged.'
Here is a quote from the book:
"Author: But those who have taught me all about the rights and wrongs, the dos and don'ts, the shoulds and shouldn'ts, told me all those rules were laid down by You—by God.
God: Then those who taught you were wrong. I have never set down a "right" or "wrong," a "do" or a "don't." To do so would be to strip you completely of your greatest gift—the opportunity to do as you please, and experience the results of that.... To say something—a thought, a word, an action—is "wrong" would be as much as to tell you not to do it.... To prohibit you would be to restrict you. To restrict you would be to deny the reality of Who You Really Are. I do not love "good" more than I love "bad.' Hitler went to Heaven."
Are you kidding me?
In other words, there were no 10 Commendments. No Beatitudes. No parables. According to this secular progressive jerk, God wants us to "do as we please - there is no right or wrong." If this is the nonsense being taught to our children in schools and the liberal media, it is no wonder that kids murder kids in school. They are taught there is no sin. They can do what they want - lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape....no boundaries accoring to Neale Walsch, the liberal author of this tripe. And Scholastic Book Club and our schools are promoting this garbage.
Not only are these books the false doctrine of the devil, but in some instances quote (in error) the Word of God.
And the list goes on. These books (and others like it) are being sold to schoolchildren through (The Scholastic Book Club), and we need to be aware of what is being fed to our children.
Our children are under attack. So I pray that you be sober and vigilant about teaching your children the Word of God, and guard against their exposure to worldly mediums, because the devil is the Great Deceiver, and roams about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). We know that lions usually hunt for the slowest, weakest and YOUNGEST of its prey.
The left wing of our society is intent, by any means, to indoctrinate our children to their beliefs so that they may take over our society and finally have the lifestyle they adore - to be able to do whatever feels good, without guilt or repercussion. Liberals do not want to have to turn from temptation. They do not want to have to control themselves. They want to be completely unfettered, in a world where there is no "right and wrong", or any moral fabric to act as a barrier to their "fun". In liberal Vermont they sey child molesters free, to molest again. In Massachusetts it's the Man-Boy Love Association. In CT and CA it's gay marriage. And in every liberal stronghold, they are doing away with Christmas, Easter and trying to eliminate Christianity altogether. They use the schools to introduce kindergarteners to sex and the gay lifestyle, and in CA some 1st Graders were brought to City Hall to participate in their teacher's lesbian wedding. Here in Maine, they now provide condoms to 11 year olds in school, without consent of the parents.
Make no mistake about it - there is a concerted effort to turn our society into a more permissive and chaotic society of anarchy, where anything goes and people no longer need to worry about temptation because everything will be acceptable. Sound familiar? Reminds one of Sodom & Gomorrah.
We should consider boycotting the Scholastic Book Club, since they take pride in reviewing books they offer. So, they must have been aware that these books use deceptive titles to worm their way into Christian homes. We can no longer trust Scholastic Book Club to look out for the interests of our children.
Pass this on to every Believer you know. God bless! And, if you are in doubt, check out the books yourself.
The name of the book is "Conversations with God". James Dobson talked about this book twice this week. It is devastating. Parents, churches and Christian schools need to be aware of it. Please pass this information on to church/e-mail addressees, Parents, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins,friends.
Please pay special attention not only to what your kids watch on TV, in movie theaters, on the Internet, and the music they listen to, but also be alert regarding the books they read.
Two particular books are, "Conversations with God" and "Conversations with God for Teens", written by Neale D. Walsch. They sound harmless enough by their titles alone. The books have been on the New York Times best sellers list for a number of weeks, don't judge this book by its cover or title.
The author purports to answer various questions asked by kids using the 'voice of God'. However, the 'answers' that he gives are not Bible-based and go against the very infallible word of God. For instance (and I paraphrase), when a girl asks the question 'Why am I a lesbian?' His answer is that she was 'born that way' because of genetics (just as you were born right-handed, with brown eyes, etc.). Then he tells her to go out and 'celebrate' her differences.
Another girls poses the question 'I am living with my boyfriend. My parents say that I should marry him because I am living in sin. Should I marry him?'
His reply is, 'Who are you sinning against? Not me, because you have done nothing wrong.'
Another question asks about God's forgiveness of sin. His reply 'I do not forgive anyone because there is nothing to forgive. There is no such thing as right or wrong and that is what I have been trying to tell everyone, do not judge people. People have chosen to judge one another and this is wrong, because the rule is ''judge not lest ye be judged.'
Here is a quote from the book:
"Author: But those who have taught me all about the rights and wrongs, the dos and don'ts, the shoulds and shouldn'ts, told me all those rules were laid down by You—by God.
God: Then those who taught you were wrong. I have never set down a "right" or "wrong," a "do" or a "don't." To do so would be to strip you completely of your greatest gift—the opportunity to do as you please, and experience the results of that.... To say something—a thought, a word, an action—is "wrong" would be as much as to tell you not to do it.... To prohibit you would be to restrict you. To restrict you would be to deny the reality of Who You Really Are. I do not love "good" more than I love "bad.' Hitler went to Heaven."
Are you kidding me?
In other words, there were no 10 Commendments. No Beatitudes. No parables. According to this secular progressive jerk, God wants us to "do as we please - there is no right or wrong." If this is the nonsense being taught to our children in schools and the liberal media, it is no wonder that kids murder kids in school. They are taught there is no sin. They can do what they want - lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape....no boundaries accoring to Neale Walsch, the liberal author of this tripe. And Scholastic Book Club and our schools are promoting this garbage.
Not only are these books the false doctrine of the devil, but in some instances quote (in error) the Word of God.
And the list goes on. These books (and others like it) are being sold to schoolchildren through (The Scholastic Book Club), and we need to be aware of what is being fed to our children.
Our children are under attack. So I pray that you be sober and vigilant about teaching your children the Word of God, and guard against their exposure to worldly mediums, because the devil is the Great Deceiver, and roams about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). We know that lions usually hunt for the slowest, weakest and YOUNGEST of its prey.
The left wing of our society is intent, by any means, to indoctrinate our children to their beliefs so that they may take over our society and finally have the lifestyle they adore - to be able to do whatever feels good, without guilt or repercussion. Liberals do not want to have to turn from temptation. They do not want to have to control themselves. They want to be completely unfettered, in a world where there is no "right and wrong", or any moral fabric to act as a barrier to their "fun". In liberal Vermont they sey child molesters free, to molest again. In Massachusetts it's the Man-Boy Love Association. In CT and CA it's gay marriage. And in every liberal stronghold, they are doing away with Christmas, Easter and trying to eliminate Christianity altogether. They use the schools to introduce kindergarteners to sex and the gay lifestyle, and in CA some 1st Graders were brought to City Hall to participate in their teacher's lesbian wedding. Here in Maine, they now provide condoms to 11 year olds in school, without consent of the parents.
Make no mistake about it - there is a concerted effort to turn our society into a more permissive and chaotic society of anarchy, where anything goes and people no longer need to worry about temptation because everything will be acceptable. Sound familiar? Reminds one of Sodom & Gomorrah.
We should consider boycotting the Scholastic Book Club, since they take pride in reviewing books they offer. So, they must have been aware that these books use deceptive titles to worm their way into Christian homes. We can no longer trust Scholastic Book Club to look out for the interests of our children.
Pass this on to every Believer you know. God bless! And, if you are in doubt, check out the books yourself.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Punish The Hard Worker
Obama was taped telling a plumber that as President, he would increase the guy's taxes. He stated, "I believe that spreading the wealth around is good for everyone."
Well now - all these years the Democrats have been trying to convince us their increasing of taxes is not a redistribution of wealth. Punitive taxes.
Here's the problem: If a farmer has to turn over more of his "seed money" to the government, he cannot grow as many crops next season. Can't feed as many people. Won't make as much money, so the government won't get as much, either. And everything spirals downward.
Every business is a farmer, of sorts. And their excess profits are their "seed money" for hiring help, buying supplies and inventory, contributing to the growth and wealth of the nation.
Obama also said in that video that, "We have to consider the needs of those below you." In other words, if a person works really hard and succeeds, Obama wants to take a chunk of your success and just give it to folks who have not worked hard. In most cases, the money would go to people who refuse to work, or refuse to get an education.
I feel for the people who are at the bottom of the economic "food chain." I really do. And that is why we have charities, churches and community organizations to assist them. But it is 100% wrong to arbitrarily force people to help others, even before they are allowed to help their own families. Before you can put food on your own table, the Democrats want to take your money out of your paycheck and put food on the tables of those who do not work.
Who is Barak Obama to say how much I do or do not need? He does not know what my bills are? He does not know how many kids I have to put through college, or how many people and charities in my community I contribute to. So how can he say that just because I make "X" number of dollars, all I need is "Y" dollars, and he can take the rest?
That is unconstitutional, for one thing. Just as importantly, it is economically dangerous and morally wrong.
Let's say Obama figures that all I need for my own needs is $250,000 a year (less the current 52% in combined taxes for that bracket). He taxes me an extra $40,000 a year because I am "wealthy" in his view. I cannot afford to just lose $40,000. I have to try and recoup that. So guess what I will have to do? You guessed it - I have to lay off one or two employees.
Now multiply that by the 8.9 million small businesses in the U.S. That's a lot of folks out of work, uninsured, and collecting entitlements from the public teat. Less money going in to the treasury, and more going out.
But regardless of the severe damage that Obama's taxes would do, it is just plain wrong! I would ask you (and Obama): "WHY should I work hard to succeed? If I just sit back and watch soaps all day, the government will take care of me." Why work my butt off, just so Obama can take the rewards of my hard work and give them to some lazy bum?
I was manager of New Hampshire's largest homeless shelter. And 91% of the people in the shelter were there either because they were alcoholics, drug addicts or criminals. And because they were so "poor" and unemployed (by choice), every one of them collected hundreds of dollars a month in federal entitlements. And every dime would be used for alcohol or drugs, or other things the taxpayer should not be paying for, like attending strip clubs. And then add in the thousands per month in free medical care, courtesy of taxpayers. They drink themselves into a stupor, and you and I must then pay the medical bills to get them back on their feet so they can do it again. And we must pay for those things even before we can collect our paycheck and feed our own families.
And now Obama wants to give them even more money....
That is socialism. And we saw the results in the USSR. Workers had no incentive to do any more than absolutely necessary. No point in trying to invent a new product - the government would just take the profits and give them to others. No point in producing more. No point in trying. No point in thinking. No point! Because no matter what, you will have the same as everyone else, through income redistribution.
And socialism has detroyed, or is currently destroying every nation that took that road.
And I must ask - what if Obama later decides the poor need even more help? So he starts taking "excess income" from everyone? You, your parents, your kids...right now, the limit is $250,000. But that figure is bound to change, especially with a bad economy, and a growing population and unrestrained illegal immigration.
And we are well on the road to being the next "union of socialist states". America will be no more. Freedoms will be but a memory.
And the American Dream - believing if you work hard you will get ahead - will become the Obama nightmare where working hard produces nothing for you except blisters and the contempt of others.
Great idea, Obama! Penalize the very people whose money pays salaries and healthcare. Stick a tax spigot into the very people who create all the wealth in this country so they are unable to create more.
When I put my "excess" money into the stock market, companies use that money to grow. To hire. To pay insurance benefits. That does more good for the poor than anything else. It provides jobs, health care, security. And at the same time it makes me even more money to invest, so those companies can hire even more people.
But Obama wants to stop all that growth with punitive taxes. Instead of "allowing" me to invest in growth, he would rather take that money away from me and just give it away to people who will do nothing to contribute to growth. And at the end of the day, those people will still be poor, and we will have to do it all over again tomorrow.
Let's be perfectly clear. There is truth to the ancient adage "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." I would add the following: "If, after teaching the man to fish he chooses not to, but rather to lay around in the sun, then let him go hungry, because that is his own choice." We owe him nothing further.
Or, as the Bible so aptly put it, "The Lord helps those who help themselves." If it's good enough for the Lord, it's good enough for me. I'll give a man a hand up, but not a hand-out.
And a final point - if, instead of giving people more entitlements we should instead give much, much less, I contend a lot of those people will suddenly start working, and contributing to the growth of the country. They would have to. And I know that would be the case because the Welfare Reform Act of the Republican Congress in the 90's did just that - and people went to work.
Obama, your economic and tax plan is foolish and dangerous, and proves you have no concept of what is good for the economy or the people.
'Nuff said.
Well now - all these years the Democrats have been trying to convince us their increasing of taxes is not a redistribution of wealth. Punitive taxes.
Here's the problem: If a farmer has to turn over more of his "seed money" to the government, he cannot grow as many crops next season. Can't feed as many people. Won't make as much money, so the government won't get as much, either. And everything spirals downward.
Every business is a farmer, of sorts. And their excess profits are their "seed money" for hiring help, buying supplies and inventory, contributing to the growth and wealth of the nation.
Obama also said in that video that, "We have to consider the needs of those below you." In other words, if a person works really hard and succeeds, Obama wants to take a chunk of your success and just give it to folks who have not worked hard. In most cases, the money would go to people who refuse to work, or refuse to get an education.
I feel for the people who are at the bottom of the economic "food chain." I really do. And that is why we have charities, churches and community organizations to assist them. But it is 100% wrong to arbitrarily force people to help others, even before they are allowed to help their own families. Before you can put food on your own table, the Democrats want to take your money out of your paycheck and put food on the tables of those who do not work.
Who is Barak Obama to say how much I do or do not need? He does not know what my bills are? He does not know how many kids I have to put through college, or how many people and charities in my community I contribute to. So how can he say that just because I make "X" number of dollars, all I need is "Y" dollars, and he can take the rest?
That is unconstitutional, for one thing. Just as importantly, it is economically dangerous and morally wrong.
Let's say Obama figures that all I need for my own needs is $250,000 a year (less the current 52% in combined taxes for that bracket). He taxes me an extra $40,000 a year because I am "wealthy" in his view. I cannot afford to just lose $40,000. I have to try and recoup that. So guess what I will have to do? You guessed it - I have to lay off one or two employees.
Now multiply that by the 8.9 million small businesses in the U.S. That's a lot of folks out of work, uninsured, and collecting entitlements from the public teat. Less money going in to the treasury, and more going out.
But regardless of the severe damage that Obama's taxes would do, it is just plain wrong! I would ask you (and Obama): "WHY should I work hard to succeed? If I just sit back and watch soaps all day, the government will take care of me." Why work my butt off, just so Obama can take the rewards of my hard work and give them to some lazy bum?
I was manager of New Hampshire's largest homeless shelter. And 91% of the people in the shelter were there either because they were alcoholics, drug addicts or criminals. And because they were so "poor" and unemployed (by choice), every one of them collected hundreds of dollars a month in federal entitlements. And every dime would be used for alcohol or drugs, or other things the taxpayer should not be paying for, like attending strip clubs. And then add in the thousands per month in free medical care, courtesy of taxpayers. They drink themselves into a stupor, and you and I must then pay the medical bills to get them back on their feet so they can do it again. And we must pay for those things even before we can collect our paycheck and feed our own families.
And now Obama wants to give them even more money....
That is socialism. And we saw the results in the USSR. Workers had no incentive to do any more than absolutely necessary. No point in trying to invent a new product - the government would just take the profits and give them to others. No point in producing more. No point in trying. No point in thinking. No point! Because no matter what, you will have the same as everyone else, through income redistribution.
And socialism has detroyed, or is currently destroying every nation that took that road.
And I must ask - what if Obama later decides the poor need even more help? So he starts taking "excess income" from everyone? You, your parents, your kids...right now, the limit is $250,000. But that figure is bound to change, especially with a bad economy, and a growing population and unrestrained illegal immigration.
And we are well on the road to being the next "union of socialist states". America will be no more. Freedoms will be but a memory.
And the American Dream - believing if you work hard you will get ahead - will become the Obama nightmare where working hard produces nothing for you except blisters and the contempt of others.
Great idea, Obama! Penalize the very people whose money pays salaries and healthcare. Stick a tax spigot into the very people who create all the wealth in this country so they are unable to create more.
When I put my "excess" money into the stock market, companies use that money to grow. To hire. To pay insurance benefits. That does more good for the poor than anything else. It provides jobs, health care, security. And at the same time it makes me even more money to invest, so those companies can hire even more people.
But Obama wants to stop all that growth with punitive taxes. Instead of "allowing" me to invest in growth, he would rather take that money away from me and just give it away to people who will do nothing to contribute to growth. And at the end of the day, those people will still be poor, and we will have to do it all over again tomorrow.
Let's be perfectly clear. There is truth to the ancient adage "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." I would add the following: "If, after teaching the man to fish he chooses not to, but rather to lay around in the sun, then let him go hungry, because that is his own choice." We owe him nothing further.
Or, as the Bible so aptly put it, "The Lord helps those who help themselves." If it's good enough for the Lord, it's good enough for me. I'll give a man a hand up, but not a hand-out.
And a final point - if, instead of giving people more entitlements we should instead give much, much less, I contend a lot of those people will suddenly start working, and contributing to the growth of the country. They would have to. And I know that would be the case because the Welfare Reform Act of the Republican Congress in the 90's did just that - and people went to work.
Obama, your economic and tax plan is foolish and dangerous, and proves you have no concept of what is good for the economy or the people.
'Nuff said.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Huntin'
There are a lot of hunters here in Maine. As for myself, I was an avid hunter, trapper and angler for many, many years.
Folks up here in New England tend to understand hunting, and generally have no problem with it because they know that everything we eat was at one time a living thing. And we understand there is no real difference between shooting your own, and paying someone else to kill it for you and wrap it in plastic at the local Hannaford's. On the one hand you have a person who acknowledges reality, while on the other hand you have someone who would prefer to ignore it.
So it truly amazes me that so many good folks on the left attack Sarah Palin not for her political beliefs, but because she hunts, and can field-dress a moose. In an effort to belittle her, they make claims that she is a "murderer". I even read the depraved rantings of one blogger who said she is a phony on being pro-life because she kills pregnant moose! And I ask myself, how would that clown even know if she ever killed a female moose, let alone a pregnant one? And just exactly how does a moose equate to the level of a human being on the issue of abortion?
I would suggest to that blogger that she, too, is responsible for such acts if she has ever eaten a cheeseburger. A cow was murdered so she could pass the A-1. And MAYBE that cow was pregnant. Who would know?
What really got me, however, was that the blogger mentioned that Governor Palin "kills God's creatures." This seems to indicate the blogger believes in God. So how is it that she conveniently forgets that God decreed that we are to "eat of the flesh of the beasts with cleaved hooves, and that chew their cud"? Perhaps her belief in God is only part-time, or a matter of convenience rather than a foundational belief.
Frankly, I respect any person who is unafraid to act in a natural, real fashion. A person who accepts the realities of life, rather than ignore the things we deem unpleasant. The former tend to get stronger with adversity, while the latter tend to falter when adversity comes.
And when hard times or trouble comes, I for one would rather have a Maine (or Alaskan) hunter beside me than a San Francisco weenie with flowers in his hair (or a Chicago empty suit with a glib tongue).
Well, our nation is in trouble. Hard times are upon us. I can't stand McCain. But we really need a few Palin's in Washington. Apparently she is not afraid to "abuse her power" if it is what's necessary to do the right thing, and get the job done. And with the rats' nest in Washington, the only way it will ever get cleaned out is if some gutsy person bucks the system and "abuses" their power. Because those Washington crooks will not just give up and walk away because someone says "Pretty please." It's going to take another Buford Pusser ("Walking Tall"). He, too, abused his power - and cleaned up a very corrupt county. Couldn't get the job done any other way.
Back to hunting. The season is upon us. I miss hunting. But I don't really miss the frozen toes, or the hemorrhoids from sitting on cold rocks near a hot trail. And I do not miss the killing - I never enjoyed that part, but accepted it. What I do miss is the commune with nature; the warmth of the woodstove when you come in at dusk. The camaraderie of other hunters, all trying to tell a bigger lie. And the sweet smell of Hoppes gun cleaning solvent....
Folks up here in New England tend to understand hunting, and generally have no problem with it because they know that everything we eat was at one time a living thing. And we understand there is no real difference between shooting your own, and paying someone else to kill it for you and wrap it in plastic at the local Hannaford's. On the one hand you have a person who acknowledges reality, while on the other hand you have someone who would prefer to ignore it.
So it truly amazes me that so many good folks on the left attack Sarah Palin not for her political beliefs, but because she hunts, and can field-dress a moose. In an effort to belittle her, they make claims that she is a "murderer". I even read the depraved rantings of one blogger who said she is a phony on being pro-life because she kills pregnant moose! And I ask myself, how would that clown even know if she ever killed a female moose, let alone a pregnant one? And just exactly how does a moose equate to the level of a human being on the issue of abortion?
I would suggest to that blogger that she, too, is responsible for such acts if she has ever eaten a cheeseburger. A cow was murdered so she could pass the A-1. And MAYBE that cow was pregnant. Who would know?
What really got me, however, was that the blogger mentioned that Governor Palin "kills God's creatures." This seems to indicate the blogger believes in God. So how is it that she conveniently forgets that God decreed that we are to "eat of the flesh of the beasts with cleaved hooves, and that chew their cud"? Perhaps her belief in God is only part-time, or a matter of convenience rather than a foundational belief.
Frankly, I respect any person who is unafraid to act in a natural, real fashion. A person who accepts the realities of life, rather than ignore the things we deem unpleasant. The former tend to get stronger with adversity, while the latter tend to falter when adversity comes.
And when hard times or trouble comes, I for one would rather have a Maine (or Alaskan) hunter beside me than a San Francisco weenie with flowers in his hair (or a Chicago empty suit with a glib tongue).
Well, our nation is in trouble. Hard times are upon us. I can't stand McCain. But we really need a few Palin's in Washington. Apparently she is not afraid to "abuse her power" if it is what's necessary to do the right thing, and get the job done. And with the rats' nest in Washington, the only way it will ever get cleaned out is if some gutsy person bucks the system and "abuses" their power. Because those Washington crooks will not just give up and walk away because someone says "Pretty please." It's going to take another Buford Pusser ("Walking Tall"). He, too, abused his power - and cleaned up a very corrupt county. Couldn't get the job done any other way.
Back to hunting. The season is upon us. I miss hunting. But I don't really miss the frozen toes, or the hemorrhoids from sitting on cold rocks near a hot trail. And I do not miss the killing - I never enjoyed that part, but accepted it. What I do miss is the commune with nature; the warmth of the woodstove when you come in at dusk. The camaraderie of other hunters, all trying to tell a bigger lie. And the sweet smell of Hoppes gun cleaning solvent....
Friday, October 10, 2008
Here We Go Again
Well, the Connecticut Supreme Idiots just decided that somehow, the Constitution says gays can get married. Not really sure just where they see that in the Constitution.
Let's first understand that I am fully 100% behind all couples having the same legal rights, whether they are straight, gay, or something yet to be determined. But let's also get it straight that marriage is not a legal right, anymore than driving is a legal right. Under a legal right, everyone is entitled. But are the blind entitled to drive? No. So driving is not a legal right. And neither is marriage.
Allow me to explain - and offer a common sense solution to all this stupidity.
Marriage is a religious rite, not a state right. Marriage in its various forms was created by religions to recognize the union of two people in God's sight according to God's law. In recent times, states took it upon themselves to require licensing for the purpose of trying to prevent the spread of venereal disease by requiring testing. But when that was deemed unconstitutional, the state kept requiring licenses simply because they did not want to give up all that money, and they wanted a method of determining whether or not a couple had "shared" legal rights. Rather than create a state sanctioned method of bestowing such rights, they co-opted marriage for that purpose, in violation of the separation of church and state.
But licensing, as we saw with drivers, does not constitute a "right". But many think it does, even though that is not the case.
What many folks overlook is that this does not just concern gays and their rights. If gays are allowed to be "married", it robs religious people of their own right to hold marriage as an institution sanctified by God, and turns it into something less, santified by the state. So there are rights at stake for all concerned. And that is why we have the problem.
But no problem is without a solution, if folks want to put aside their prejudices and narrow-mindedness long enough to consider reasonable possibilities. No one has any right to say that gays should not be allowed to be couples, or to deny them any rights. Some may condemn the lifestyle, but no one has the right to judge them - particularly Christians, who are supposed to understand that you may hate the sin, but love the sinner. And to "judge not, lest ye be judged."
If everyone can accept that all people are entitled to their own happiness - even though we may not approve of their lifestyle - then the battle is half won.
So here is a possible solution: The state may only issue licenses for civil unions for ANY couple wishing to have the legal rights and protections under the law that is afforded to couples legally united. The state must never issue a marriage license - marriages are a religious rite, and under the 1st amendment, no state may legislate in any way to interfere with religion.
Now, everyone may obtain a license for a civil union. Those who are religious, belong to a church and can get their church to approve their union may consummate their union in the church, in the "sight of God". The civil union, sanctioned by the state, has now become a marriage also, sanctioned by God. In any other case where a church does not permit said marriage, or the couple does not wish to unite in a church (atheists, for example), they may still unite legally at the City Hall or Justice of the Peace. Any union consummated outside of a church shall be deemed a civil union only, and not a marriage, as marriage is a church-sponsored religious ceremony only. But all the legal aspects are identical.
The short take - All are civil unions. Only those who wish to marry in a church, and are allowed by the church to do so according to church doctrine, may then elevate their civil union into a marriage. It's a lot like education - we are all entitled to high school. If we CHOOSE to go on to college, and are willing to pay the price, then we can elevate our education. If we do not go to college, we are not entitled to a college degree. It's that simple. There would be unions that are not sanctioned by a church (civil union), and unions that are sanctioned by a church (marriage).
So, gays and straights would all be entitled to civil unions, with all the same rights. But only those willing to adhere to the tenets of their church may elect to take the next step into marriage, with the church's permission. And if a church allows gay marriage, so be it - since marriage belongs only to the church, the church may decide what their doctrine permits. If it permits gays to marry, and the gays belong to that church, they may be married.
Whether or not the Good Lord looks fondly upon such marriages is, again, between the Lord and His children. It is not for us to judge. But married or not, santified by God or just the state, we are all entitled to the same legal rights. Civil unions, complete with all the legal rights and protections, and sanctified by the state would, indeed, be a human right that we would all be entitled to, provided unions are still limited to two consenting adults. Marriage, however, would be a religious ritual for the express purpose of uniting people sanctified by the church, in the eyes of God, and would have no legal status or "extra" rights other than any provided by the church for its parishioners. In other words, marriage would be an option available to those who qualify for it, like a college degree, or a low-interest credit card.
Simple. Reasonable. But most importantly, it is fair to all, and preserves human rights without sacrificing our personal religious freedoms or beliefs.
Let's first understand that I am fully 100% behind all couples having the same legal rights, whether they are straight, gay, or something yet to be determined. But let's also get it straight that marriage is not a legal right, anymore than driving is a legal right. Under a legal right, everyone is entitled. But are the blind entitled to drive? No. So driving is not a legal right. And neither is marriage.
Allow me to explain - and offer a common sense solution to all this stupidity.
Marriage is a religious rite, not a state right. Marriage in its various forms was created by religions to recognize the union of two people in God's sight according to God's law. In recent times, states took it upon themselves to require licensing for the purpose of trying to prevent the spread of venereal disease by requiring testing. But when that was deemed unconstitutional, the state kept requiring licenses simply because they did not want to give up all that money, and they wanted a method of determining whether or not a couple had "shared" legal rights. Rather than create a state sanctioned method of bestowing such rights, they co-opted marriage for that purpose, in violation of the separation of church and state.
But licensing, as we saw with drivers, does not constitute a "right". But many think it does, even though that is not the case.
What many folks overlook is that this does not just concern gays and their rights. If gays are allowed to be "married", it robs religious people of their own right to hold marriage as an institution sanctified by God, and turns it into something less, santified by the state. So there are rights at stake for all concerned. And that is why we have the problem.
But no problem is without a solution, if folks want to put aside their prejudices and narrow-mindedness long enough to consider reasonable possibilities. No one has any right to say that gays should not be allowed to be couples, or to deny them any rights. Some may condemn the lifestyle, but no one has the right to judge them - particularly Christians, who are supposed to understand that you may hate the sin, but love the sinner. And to "judge not, lest ye be judged."
If everyone can accept that all people are entitled to their own happiness - even though we may not approve of their lifestyle - then the battle is half won.
So here is a possible solution: The state may only issue licenses for civil unions for ANY couple wishing to have the legal rights and protections under the law that is afforded to couples legally united. The state must never issue a marriage license - marriages are a religious rite, and under the 1st amendment, no state may legislate in any way to interfere with religion.
Now, everyone may obtain a license for a civil union. Those who are religious, belong to a church and can get their church to approve their union may consummate their union in the church, in the "sight of God". The civil union, sanctioned by the state, has now become a marriage also, sanctioned by God. In any other case where a church does not permit said marriage, or the couple does not wish to unite in a church (atheists, for example), they may still unite legally at the City Hall or Justice of the Peace. Any union consummated outside of a church shall be deemed a civil union only, and not a marriage, as marriage is a church-sponsored religious ceremony only. But all the legal aspects are identical.
The short take - All are civil unions. Only those who wish to marry in a church, and are allowed by the church to do so according to church doctrine, may then elevate their civil union into a marriage. It's a lot like education - we are all entitled to high school. If we CHOOSE to go on to college, and are willing to pay the price, then we can elevate our education. If we do not go to college, we are not entitled to a college degree. It's that simple. There would be unions that are not sanctioned by a church (civil union), and unions that are sanctioned by a church (marriage).
So, gays and straights would all be entitled to civil unions, with all the same rights. But only those willing to adhere to the tenets of their church may elect to take the next step into marriage, with the church's permission. And if a church allows gay marriage, so be it - since marriage belongs only to the church, the church may decide what their doctrine permits. If it permits gays to marry, and the gays belong to that church, they may be married.
Whether or not the Good Lord looks fondly upon such marriages is, again, between the Lord and His children. It is not for us to judge. But married or not, santified by God or just the state, we are all entitled to the same legal rights. Civil unions, complete with all the legal rights and protections, and sanctified by the state would, indeed, be a human right that we would all be entitled to, provided unions are still limited to two consenting adults. Marriage, however, would be a religious ritual for the express purpose of uniting people sanctified by the church, in the eyes of God, and would have no legal status or "extra" rights other than any provided by the church for its parishioners. In other words, marriage would be an option available to those who qualify for it, like a college degree, or a low-interest credit card.
Simple. Reasonable. But most importantly, it is fair to all, and preserves human rights without sacrificing our personal religious freedoms or beliefs.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Not Funny - But Laughable
The government keeps trying to stop the bleeding on Wall Street. And it just keeps bleeding. And politicians, typical of their breed, don't have a clue as to "why". They think it is because of the economy. It's not. If it were, all these bailout plans would have had at least some effect.
Isn't it strange that the politicians and Washington elites do not do the first thing that common sense dictates - ASK THE INVESTORS why they keep selling. Perhaps they are afraid of the answer.
But as an investor, I am not afraid to speak up. It's simple, really. Ask yourself, what is an investor? He is someone who puts money on the table in the hope or anticipation that tomorrow it will be worth more. In other words, investors do not gamble on yesterday. They do not gamble on today. They gamble only on tomorrow.
This is mid October. In four short weeks we will elect another president. Normally cause for some concern, since Wall Street knows that a Democrat win always historically harms capitalism, as Democrats tend to be somewhat socialist. Nothing new there. But what is new is Obama. He is not the typical Democrat. He has already proposed huge tax increases on all the people who are responsible for the generation of wealth. He has proposed a hefty tax increase on capital gains. And right now, there is a better than even chance he will win.
And not a single investor that I know - and I know quite a few - want to be heavily vested in the market if that happens. So, they are pulling out, regardless of any petty attempts put forward by ignorant politicians.
And here is something else - if Obama does win, the money will not go back into the markets, and the economy will continue to tank. But if by some chance McCain happens to squeak out a victory, most investors will begin to slowly reinvest, and the economy will slowly regain its footing.
So, all those politicians should simply stop wasting their time and our money trying to stop the bleeding. It will not stop until investors have only the bare amounts in the markets to maintain a position of strength for "if and when" McCain wins. If he does not win, I think you should prepare for a long, deep hurtin' spell. Not because I am against Obama, but because that is simply how investors react.
In short, if you have reason to believe someone is going to take shots at you, get the Hell out of the way. Obama has already said he plans on shooting at investors, so what does anyone expect?
There are those who do not understand that believe investors are at fault here. Some people hate investors because they think we are "predators" of some sort. They are not. The backbone of America is its workers and its investors. The workers create the products and perform the services. The investors provide the money that makes it possible to work. Without investors, companies cannot sell stock to raise money for the business. If they cannot sell stock, they go broke. No business, no jobs, no products or services. It costs money to operate a business. And the money comes from investors. Investors would have no money to invest if not for work. But there would be no work if not for investors. They need each other. When one falters, they both take the hit.
This is why it is important that voters consider the ramifications of their vote. They should understand that their vote will choose either a socialist direction, or a capitalist direction. If capitalism fails, America fails. Not one single nation that ever turned to socialism has ever succeeded nor have any prospered. And the ultimate socialism was reflected in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Isn't it strange that the politicians and Washington elites do not do the first thing that common sense dictates - ASK THE INVESTORS why they keep selling. Perhaps they are afraid of the answer.
But as an investor, I am not afraid to speak up. It's simple, really. Ask yourself, what is an investor? He is someone who puts money on the table in the hope or anticipation that tomorrow it will be worth more. In other words, investors do not gamble on yesterday. They do not gamble on today. They gamble only on tomorrow.
This is mid October. In four short weeks we will elect another president. Normally cause for some concern, since Wall Street knows that a Democrat win always historically harms capitalism, as Democrats tend to be somewhat socialist. Nothing new there. But what is new is Obama. He is not the typical Democrat. He has already proposed huge tax increases on all the people who are responsible for the generation of wealth. He has proposed a hefty tax increase on capital gains. And right now, there is a better than even chance he will win.
And not a single investor that I know - and I know quite a few - want to be heavily vested in the market if that happens. So, they are pulling out, regardless of any petty attempts put forward by ignorant politicians.
And here is something else - if Obama does win, the money will not go back into the markets, and the economy will continue to tank. But if by some chance McCain happens to squeak out a victory, most investors will begin to slowly reinvest, and the economy will slowly regain its footing.
So, all those politicians should simply stop wasting their time and our money trying to stop the bleeding. It will not stop until investors have only the bare amounts in the markets to maintain a position of strength for "if and when" McCain wins. If he does not win, I think you should prepare for a long, deep hurtin' spell. Not because I am against Obama, but because that is simply how investors react.
In short, if you have reason to believe someone is going to take shots at you, get the Hell out of the way. Obama has already said he plans on shooting at investors, so what does anyone expect?
There are those who do not understand that believe investors are at fault here. Some people hate investors because they think we are "predators" of some sort. They are not. The backbone of America is its workers and its investors. The workers create the products and perform the services. The investors provide the money that makes it possible to work. Without investors, companies cannot sell stock to raise money for the business. If they cannot sell stock, they go broke. No business, no jobs, no products or services. It costs money to operate a business. And the money comes from investors. Investors would have no money to invest if not for work. But there would be no work if not for investors. They need each other. When one falters, they both take the hit.
This is why it is important that voters consider the ramifications of their vote. They should understand that their vote will choose either a socialist direction, or a capitalist direction. If capitalism fails, America fails. Not one single nation that ever turned to socialism has ever succeeded nor have any prospered. And the ultimate socialism was reflected in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
No Guts!
That is what I saw as I watched the presidential debate. Both candidates addressed the financial crisis, but neither one showed an ounce of passion. No anger. Neither one related to we, the People.
As I listened to these two losers, all I heard was, "Gee whiz, I know you are hurting. And I will fix it." Not exactly what I would call commanding.
Tell ya what - regardless of party affiliation, I will vote for the first one to stand up, get angry, and say, "When I am president, I will find out the people responsible for this. I will identify those who robbed us of our pensions. And I will punish them to the maximum extent that the law allows. Jail time, not bail time! I don't care who they are, or what party they belong to. I'm going to nail them. And then I will make sure that this will never, ever happen again."
But I am betting that neither will do that, and do it with conviction. Because I do not see any passion or guts in either of them. Yes, McCain is a war hero. But in matters such as this, where the people expect him to take on the crooks, he and Obama are both gutless.
If you feel as I do, feel free to do as I did - write to the clowns that manage these losers and tell them how you feel. I wrote to both the chairman and the campaign manager, at chairman@gop.com and political@gop.com, because personally, I do not believe Obama would ever turn on those that supported him. But if you are an Obama fan, then contact his handlers. But for crying out loud, ONE of these idiots needs to show some passion, conviction and guts.
As I listened to these two losers, all I heard was, "Gee whiz, I know you are hurting. And I will fix it." Not exactly what I would call commanding.
Tell ya what - regardless of party affiliation, I will vote for the first one to stand up, get angry, and say, "When I am president, I will find out the people responsible for this. I will identify those who robbed us of our pensions. And I will punish them to the maximum extent that the law allows. Jail time, not bail time! I don't care who they are, or what party they belong to. I'm going to nail them. And then I will make sure that this will never, ever happen again."
But I am betting that neither will do that, and do it with conviction. Because I do not see any passion or guts in either of them. Yes, McCain is a war hero. But in matters such as this, where the people expect him to take on the crooks, he and Obama are both gutless.
If you feel as I do, feel free to do as I did - write to the clowns that manage these losers and tell them how you feel. I wrote to both the chairman and the campaign manager, at chairman@gop.com and political@gop.com, because personally, I do not believe Obama would ever turn on those that supported him. But if you are an Obama fan, then contact his handlers. But for crying out loud, ONE of these idiots needs to show some passion, conviction and guts.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Fixing The Problem
During the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden said, concerning this economic crisis, that in order to prevent this from happening again, we must first understand how it happened this time. He's right. So some bright folks went forth and tracked it down, starting from the day it started in 1938. Joe, be careful what you wish for next time.
Today, as our economy is threatened with collapse, Americans are asking, "What happened? Who is to blame for this?" And, as can be expected, the majority automatically blame the current administration - Bush and Republicans (even though Republicans are not in control of Congress right now).
So, just what DID happen, and whose fault is it, really? The answer is complex, but can be broken down by following the history that brought us here.
During the Great Depression, FDR initiated the "New Deal", the largest upsizing of government in history. He was able to do this because the depression had created desperation among the people - much as 9/11 caused us to over-react with passage of bills that went too far, and encroached on our freedoms. People will accept the unacceptable when desperate.
Part of the New deal was the creation of Fannie Mae in 1938. The purpose of Fannie Mae was to make it possible for more people to own homes. Though a good intention, the basis was faulty.
30 years later, in 1968, Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat Congress initiated the second biggest upsizing of government, called "The Great Society". And part of this "great society" included the privatization of Fannie Mae, which put it into the position of allowing corruption to creep in. It opened the door to greed.
Then, in 1977, Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. While this also had good intentions - bring fairness into lending, and making discrimination illegal, it also put lenders in the untenable position of having to make risky loans, to avoid being accused of, and prosecuted for, discrimination. Banks were now required to make loans to low income people who were less able to repay those loans.
Along comes ACORN, a radical activist group determined to push a radical agenda and change how American government works, to turn the economy upside down - the power would be in the hands of the poor. To this end, one of the things ACORN accomplished was to pressure banks into making even riskier loans. In fact, ACORN threatened families of bankers, and even took them to court. Eventually, by court order, they pressured lawmakers to lower the credit standards, to make even more low income people able to qualify for loans they could not afford, nor repay.
In 1999, President Clinton signed into law a bill that literally forced lenders to take on even riskier loans. The law actually required that fully one-half of all mortgage loans must be to low income people.
This, then, is the history of how we got here.
In 2003, 2004, and 2005, some Republicans, including John McCain and Judd Gregg, tried passing bills that would regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They saw the disaster looming on the horizon. But these bills were blocked by Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer, both Democrats.
How could they do this? Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid millions of dollars into Democratic coffers. The three biggest receipients of those funds were, in order of amounts received, Chris Dodd (D), Barack Obama (D) and Chuck Schumer (D).
Republicans again tried to push through a regulatory bill in 2006, spearheaded by John McCain. But the bill was shot down by the Democratic majority in Congress.
The short take: From its inception in 1938, Democrats have spearheaded the Fannie Mae Debacle throughout its 70 years. Created by FDR (D), privatized by LBJ (D), forced to accept bad loans by Jimmy Carter (D), forced to make at least 50% of all loans to bad credit risks by Bill Clinton (D), with reform and regulation thwarted by Barney Frank (D) and Chuck Schumer (D), it would seem that the fault lies heavily at the door of the Democrats.
But the fault lies deeper than that. It lies with us. We, the People. First, we elected those people, and gave them the power to do this. And because this "loose credit" helped us all to live the American Dream with less hassle and responsibility, we soaked it up like a dry sponge soaking up a puddle. It was we, the People, who wanted the best of everything, and we wanted it now. We wanted it, even if we could not afford it.
So we kept electing these "beneficial Democrats" who were making it all possible.
We never stopped to think that if you want to dance to the music, sooner or later, someone must pay the piper.
The piper is here, and he's demanding to be paid!
The real question now, just before a critical election, is who should we trust to fix this mess. Frankly, not the party that created and fed the beast for 70 years, then set it loose among us.
I'm not certain the Republicans can fix it, either, but at least they were not part of its creation, and were the only ones to warn of this debacle years ago. So it would seem our best chance is with them.
To elect Democrats to fix the economy would be to hire the fox to guard the henhouse.
Care to begin your own research? Here are some places to start:
Origin/about Fannie Mae: http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html, and http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/index.jhtml
Privatized: http://www.fanniemae.com/faq/faq8.jhtml?p=FAQ
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977: http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/
Gramm-Leach-Bliley act 1999: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_ActACORN & Obama: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rnc-obama--acorn-fact/story.aspx?guid=%7B29569FA1-136D-4B95-9D51-4EF9E87ED547%7D&dist=hppr
Regardless of your party affiliation, understand this: the 2008 election is probably the most important election in American history. If you want to continue the trend of the New Deal and the Great Society that caused this problem, that is your choice. But if you want a chance at changing things, and fight the big government that caused this, then you need to get out there and vote this year. It is that close. If you sit back and leave it up to other people to vote, do not expect them to vote in a way that protects you and your family. Get up. Get out. Vote. Because this year, every vote counts. The people who created this monster, fed it, and set it loose to wreak havoc are pushing hard to win this election. They are getting new people registered. YOU can offset that. But only if you take this seriously and do your part. If you do not, it is a guarantee that you will not like what comes next!
Today, as our economy is threatened with collapse, Americans are asking, "What happened? Who is to blame for this?" And, as can be expected, the majority automatically blame the current administration - Bush and Republicans (even though Republicans are not in control of Congress right now).
So, just what DID happen, and whose fault is it, really? The answer is complex, but can be broken down by following the history that brought us here.
During the Great Depression, FDR initiated the "New Deal", the largest upsizing of government in history. He was able to do this because the depression had created desperation among the people - much as 9/11 caused us to over-react with passage of bills that went too far, and encroached on our freedoms. People will accept the unacceptable when desperate.
Part of the New deal was the creation of Fannie Mae in 1938. The purpose of Fannie Mae was to make it possible for more people to own homes. Though a good intention, the basis was faulty.
30 years later, in 1968, Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat Congress initiated the second biggest upsizing of government, called "The Great Society". And part of this "great society" included the privatization of Fannie Mae, which put it into the position of allowing corruption to creep in. It opened the door to greed.
Then, in 1977, Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. While this also had good intentions - bring fairness into lending, and making discrimination illegal, it also put lenders in the untenable position of having to make risky loans, to avoid being accused of, and prosecuted for, discrimination. Banks were now required to make loans to low income people who were less able to repay those loans.
Along comes ACORN, a radical activist group determined to push a radical agenda and change how American government works, to turn the economy upside down - the power would be in the hands of the poor. To this end, one of the things ACORN accomplished was to pressure banks into making even riskier loans. In fact, ACORN threatened families of bankers, and even took them to court. Eventually, by court order, they pressured lawmakers to lower the credit standards, to make even more low income people able to qualify for loans they could not afford, nor repay.
In 1999, President Clinton signed into law a bill that literally forced lenders to take on even riskier loans. The law actually required that fully one-half of all mortgage loans must be to low income people.
This, then, is the history of how we got here.
In 2003, 2004, and 2005, some Republicans, including John McCain and Judd Gregg, tried passing bills that would regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They saw the disaster looming on the horizon. But these bills were blocked by Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer, both Democrats.
How could they do this? Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid millions of dollars into Democratic coffers. The three biggest receipients of those funds were, in order of amounts received, Chris Dodd (D), Barack Obama (D) and Chuck Schumer (D).
Republicans again tried to push through a regulatory bill in 2006, spearheaded by John McCain. But the bill was shot down by the Democratic majority in Congress.
The short take: From its inception in 1938, Democrats have spearheaded the Fannie Mae Debacle throughout its 70 years. Created by FDR (D), privatized by LBJ (D), forced to accept bad loans by Jimmy Carter (D), forced to make at least 50% of all loans to bad credit risks by Bill Clinton (D), with reform and regulation thwarted by Barney Frank (D) and Chuck Schumer (D), it would seem that the fault lies heavily at the door of the Democrats.
But the fault lies deeper than that. It lies with us. We, the People. First, we elected those people, and gave them the power to do this. And because this "loose credit" helped us all to live the American Dream with less hassle and responsibility, we soaked it up like a dry sponge soaking up a puddle. It was we, the People, who wanted the best of everything, and we wanted it now. We wanted it, even if we could not afford it.
So we kept electing these "beneficial Democrats" who were making it all possible.
We never stopped to think that if you want to dance to the music, sooner or later, someone must pay the piper.
The piper is here, and he's demanding to be paid!
The real question now, just before a critical election, is who should we trust to fix this mess. Frankly, not the party that created and fed the beast for 70 years, then set it loose among us.
I'm not certain the Republicans can fix it, either, but at least they were not part of its creation, and were the only ones to warn of this debacle years ago. So it would seem our best chance is with them.
To elect Democrats to fix the economy would be to hire the fox to guard the henhouse.
Care to begin your own research? Here are some places to start:
Origin/about Fannie Mae: http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html, and http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/index.jhtml
Privatized: http://www.fanniemae.com/faq/faq8.jhtml?p=FAQ
Community Reinvestment Act of 1977: http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/
Gramm-Leach-Bliley act 1999: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_ActACORN & Obama: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/rnc-obama--acorn-fact/story.aspx?guid=%7B29569FA1-136D-4B95-9D51-4EF9E87ED547%7D&dist=hppr
Regardless of your party affiliation, understand this: the 2008 election is probably the most important election in American history. If you want to continue the trend of the New Deal and the Great Society that caused this problem, that is your choice. But if you want a chance at changing things, and fight the big government that caused this, then you need to get out there and vote this year. It is that close. If you sit back and leave it up to other people to vote, do not expect them to vote in a way that protects you and your family. Get up. Get out. Vote. Because this year, every vote counts. The people who created this monster, fed it, and set it loose to wreak havoc are pushing hard to win this election. They are getting new people registered. YOU can offset that. But only if you take this seriously and do your part. If you do not, it is a guarantee that you will not like what comes next!
A New Direction?
A young college student, as often happens in our colleges, gets involved in radical activities. It is a sort of rebellion of the youth. This particular student is smart, and ambitious. He soon discovers that radical changes cannot make any headway because the vast majority of people do not want anything to do with radicalist changes.
He also understands that the only way he will be able to effect radical changes lies in being elected to a position of great power. So, he sets his sights on politics - the only hope for radical change. He then surrounds himself and learns from the most radical people in the country, including a radical domestic terrorist, a radical organizer, and a radical preacher, all of whom call for the annihilation of "white America".
But this young man is very clever. He knows there are two ways to approach this. He can tell everyone of his radical views, and ask people to elect him so he can effect those changes. But he knows that a person who takes that road would have no chance of getting elected.
The other road is to hide his radical agenda, and by using deceit, try to fool people into thinking he is their "saviour" of sorts. He builds his platform, not on radical change, but simply on "change". That becomes his mantra. He easily builds his popularity by convincing the public that we need "change". And we do. But what the people do not know is that his idea of change is nothing like the change they envision. The people want, and expect, change in how America handles its problems. But the young politician plans radical changes that involve transforming the actual method of government.
You know this man. He is a man whose first indoctrination to religion was as a muslim. He is part Arab, part white, and a very small part black. He attended colleges that tend to be radical in nature. He learned from and was influenced by radicals such as the Black Panthers, Louis Farrakahn (Nation of Islam founder), Saul Alinski, William Ayers, Kahlid al Masour, Flager and Reverend Wright.
This man spent his entire life learning from such people, and pushing a radical agenda. Muslim leaders, radical leaders, domestic terrorists, and those who have a serious problem with "white America". Discontented haters, all. And now, today, he tries to distance himself from those associations in an effort to convince Americans that he is our "agent of change". He is taking advantage of our unhappiness with our government to deceive us into electing him as our president.
If this does not open your eyes, and scare you to death, then this deceiver will win. And America will, indeed, get "change". But when you discover, too late, what that change entails, don't say you were not warned.
But I tell you this - if throughout my life my closest associates were White Supremacists, Nazi's, and members of the KKK, you could - and definitely should - determine that I am likely to be a racist who wants to destroy other races.
Barack Obama's closest associates are radicals, from terrorist William Ayers, to radical "black racist" Rev. Wright and muslims haters of America like Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakahn and Kahlid al Masour. Even his wife, Michelle, has expressed racist and radical views, including, "I have never been proud to be an American until now" (that my hubby is running for president). Obama has helped to organize and fund ACORN, the very group of radicals who helped push Congress into forcing lenders to give bad loans to people with bad credit - for which we are all paying today. ACORN has also been involved in several serious instances of voter fraud over the last several elections - all in favor of liberals and radicals.
The Bible tells us that false prophets, deceivers, shall come upon us and win over the hearts of the people with their deceitful ways. And they will do us great harm. The Bible even goes so far as to say these deceivers will convince the people that they are on the side of right.
Yes, you know the man. You just do not know who he really is.
No, I am not anti-Democrat. But I AM anti-deceiver. I AM against those who would radically change America to suit their racist, bigoted and radical agenda.
He also understands that the only way he will be able to effect radical changes lies in being elected to a position of great power. So, he sets his sights on politics - the only hope for radical change. He then surrounds himself and learns from the most radical people in the country, including a radical domestic terrorist, a radical organizer, and a radical preacher, all of whom call for the annihilation of "white America".
But this young man is very clever. He knows there are two ways to approach this. He can tell everyone of his radical views, and ask people to elect him so he can effect those changes. But he knows that a person who takes that road would have no chance of getting elected.
The other road is to hide his radical agenda, and by using deceit, try to fool people into thinking he is their "saviour" of sorts. He builds his platform, not on radical change, but simply on "change". That becomes his mantra. He easily builds his popularity by convincing the public that we need "change". And we do. But what the people do not know is that his idea of change is nothing like the change they envision. The people want, and expect, change in how America handles its problems. But the young politician plans radical changes that involve transforming the actual method of government.
You know this man. He is a man whose first indoctrination to religion was as a muslim. He is part Arab, part white, and a very small part black. He attended colleges that tend to be radical in nature. He learned from and was influenced by radicals such as the Black Panthers, Louis Farrakahn (Nation of Islam founder), Saul Alinski, William Ayers, Kahlid al Masour, Flager and Reverend Wright.
This man spent his entire life learning from such people, and pushing a radical agenda. Muslim leaders, radical leaders, domestic terrorists, and those who have a serious problem with "white America". Discontented haters, all. And now, today, he tries to distance himself from those associations in an effort to convince Americans that he is our "agent of change". He is taking advantage of our unhappiness with our government to deceive us into electing him as our president.
If this does not open your eyes, and scare you to death, then this deceiver will win. And America will, indeed, get "change". But when you discover, too late, what that change entails, don't say you were not warned.
But I tell you this - if throughout my life my closest associates were White Supremacists, Nazi's, and members of the KKK, you could - and definitely should - determine that I am likely to be a racist who wants to destroy other races.
Barack Obama's closest associates are radicals, from terrorist William Ayers, to radical "black racist" Rev. Wright and muslims haters of America like Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakahn and Kahlid al Masour. Even his wife, Michelle, has expressed racist and radical views, including, "I have never been proud to be an American until now" (that my hubby is running for president). Obama has helped to organize and fund ACORN, the very group of radicals who helped push Congress into forcing lenders to give bad loans to people with bad credit - for which we are all paying today. ACORN has also been involved in several serious instances of voter fraud over the last several elections - all in favor of liberals and radicals.
The Bible tells us that false prophets, deceivers, shall come upon us and win over the hearts of the people with their deceitful ways. And they will do us great harm. The Bible even goes so far as to say these deceivers will convince the people that they are on the side of right.
Yes, you know the man. You just do not know who he really is.
No, I am not anti-Democrat. But I AM anti-deceiver. I AM against those who would radically change America to suit their racist, bigoted and radical agenda.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Figures Are In
There has been a lot of talk - and concern - about all the pork-barrel spending in Washington. "Pork" is when Congress takes money from all of us, and funnels it back to just a few of us, in "special" projects. Some bright person decided to check on just how much pork each of our presidential candidates has actually requested.
In the 941 days that Barack Obama has been in the Senate, he has requested 931 million dollars in pork. About a million dollars a day.
In the 7000+ days that John McCain has been in the Senate, he has asked for - are you ready for this? - he has requested ZERO dollars for pork.
The Democrats are telling us that Mr. Obama will cut pork. The Republicans are saying Mr. McCain will cut pork.
Who do you suppose I am more apt to believe?
In the 941 days that Barack Obama has been in the Senate, he has requested 931 million dollars in pork. About a million dollars a day.
In the 7000+ days that John McCain has been in the Senate, he has asked for - are you ready for this? - he has requested ZERO dollars for pork.
The Democrats are telling us that Mr. Obama will cut pork. The Republicans are saying Mr. McCain will cut pork.
Who do you suppose I am more apt to believe?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Survival
I was listening to the co-founder of Code Pink the other day. Code Pink and several other far-left looney groups have all stated as part of their mission that America should get rid of its military, or keep only a token military to keep order in America, so there can be "peace on Earth". Never has there been a more naive, nor dangerous thought.
Let's assume we did become a nation of peace, without any substantial military strength. Does anyone really believe there would be peace? Particularly since all other countries - and some that hate us - would still have a military. What would prevent them from just walking in and taking over? Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, Syria would all race to see who could get here first and plant their flag on the White House lawn.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's go to La-La land with the far left and assume Code Pink could convince ALL countries to give up their military. Then we would have peace, right?
Wrong! Because then the crime lords, drug lords and street gangs would take over. Who would stop them? Code Pink? Michael Moore? Mayor Newsom? Nancy Pelosi? Barak Obama? Not likely.
The far left needs to come into the real world, a world where there are good people, and there are bad people. And you simply cannot make bad people into good people by smiling, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" around the campfire.
They need to understand that the universe is ruled by natural laws. And the first law of nature is "survival of the fittest". And that is, indeed, a law, not just a suggestion. And as long as survival depends upon fitness and competition, there can never be peace. Nor should there ever be any lasting peace.
War is ugly. War is painful. But war is a necessary part of life. It is one of the mechanisms that nature created in us, as a driving force, to help keep the population weeded. To separate the wheat from the chaff. To determine who is strong enough to carry on the race. And to keep us from over-populating the Earth. And as the population grows, and resources become more scarce and incapable of sustaining everyone, war will become even more prevalent - and more necessary. It is nature's way.
The issue I have with Code Pink and their looney compadres is the simple fact that they want us to lose the race for survival, by default. They want us to give up our teeth, and our claws. And even a 5 year old understands that anything that has no teeth or claws is called "PREY".
In nature, you can be predator, or you can be prey. Being a predator can be a bloody choice, to be sure. But regardless of which you are, there will be bloodshed. The objective should be that the blood is someone else's.
I will be a predator, thank you. Then the blood will not be my own. Survival of the fittest. I would rather be the one to eat the rabbit than to be the rabbit that gets eaten. And don't anyone dare ask me to feel guilty about that.
Let's assume we did become a nation of peace, without any substantial military strength. Does anyone really believe there would be peace? Particularly since all other countries - and some that hate us - would still have a military. What would prevent them from just walking in and taking over? Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, Syria would all race to see who could get here first and plant their flag on the White House lawn.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's go to La-La land with the far left and assume Code Pink could convince ALL countries to give up their military. Then we would have peace, right?
Wrong! Because then the crime lords, drug lords and street gangs would take over. Who would stop them? Code Pink? Michael Moore? Mayor Newsom? Nancy Pelosi? Barak Obama? Not likely.
The far left needs to come into the real world, a world where there are good people, and there are bad people. And you simply cannot make bad people into good people by smiling, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" around the campfire.
They need to understand that the universe is ruled by natural laws. And the first law of nature is "survival of the fittest". And that is, indeed, a law, not just a suggestion. And as long as survival depends upon fitness and competition, there can never be peace. Nor should there ever be any lasting peace.
War is ugly. War is painful. But war is a necessary part of life. It is one of the mechanisms that nature created in us, as a driving force, to help keep the population weeded. To separate the wheat from the chaff. To determine who is strong enough to carry on the race. And to keep us from over-populating the Earth. And as the population grows, and resources become more scarce and incapable of sustaining everyone, war will become even more prevalent - and more necessary. It is nature's way.
The issue I have with Code Pink and their looney compadres is the simple fact that they want us to lose the race for survival, by default. They want us to give up our teeth, and our claws. And even a 5 year old understands that anything that has no teeth or claws is called "PREY".
In nature, you can be predator, or you can be prey. Being a predator can be a bloody choice, to be sure. But regardless of which you are, there will be bloodshed. The objective should be that the blood is someone else's.
I will be a predator, thank you. Then the blood will not be my own. Survival of the fittest. I would rather be the one to eat the rabbit than to be the rabbit that gets eaten. And don't anyone dare ask me to feel guilty about that.
Getting it Straight
Let me see - correct me if I am wrong (I'm not, because I have the videos):
2007, Biden says, "Obama is totally unqualified to be President."
2007, Biden says, "Obama's position on the war, and funding it, is 100% wrong."
June, 2008, Biden says, "I will never consider accepting the nomination for VP."
Last night, during his debate with Palin, Biden said, "Obama is the person most qualified to be President, he was 100% right on the war, and I am proud to be the VP nominee."
My question: where am I supposed to find credibility in Biden, or his ticket?
I don't really care which party holds the office. But I DO insist that whoever it is, they are HONEST, and CREDIBLE, and someone I can TRUST be be straight with me.
Of the 4 people - Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin - the only one that meets that criterion seems to be Palin. So that is where my vote must go. But please note - my vote for McCain is not a vote for McCain - it's a vote for Palin. She'll keep McCain on the straight and narrow. She must, because she plans on being America's first woman President. If McCain gets elected, and fouls it up, her future is over. So I trust she will keep his eye on the ball, and get the job done.
2007, Biden says, "Obama is totally unqualified to be President."
2007, Biden says, "Obama's position on the war, and funding it, is 100% wrong."
June, 2008, Biden says, "I will never consider accepting the nomination for VP."
Last night, during his debate with Palin, Biden said, "Obama is the person most qualified to be President, he was 100% right on the war, and I am proud to be the VP nominee."
My question: where am I supposed to find credibility in Biden, or his ticket?
I don't really care which party holds the office. But I DO insist that whoever it is, they are HONEST, and CREDIBLE, and someone I can TRUST be be straight with me.
Of the 4 people - Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin - the only one that meets that criterion seems to be Palin. So that is where my vote must go. But please note - my vote for McCain is not a vote for McCain - it's a vote for Palin. She'll keep McCain on the straight and narrow. She must, because she plans on being America's first woman President. If McCain gets elected, and fouls it up, her future is over. So I trust she will keep his eye on the ball, and get the job done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)