This is merely a place where I can express myself. I will post news articles, points of faith, stories, fellow blogger posts (with due credit of course), and generally anything I feel is worthwhile.
Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean Senator Obama, Sir. Um . . . I know you're busy and important and stuff. I mean running for president is very important and -- ah -- I hate to bother you Sir. I will only take a minute. Ok Sir?
See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know... no big deal, just some loose ends and things.
Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like this on TV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know?
Oh, sorry Sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island Sir? No? I didn't think so.
Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "Not released" or "Not available." I'm sure it's just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could tell me where these things are -- I -- I have them written down here somewhere -- oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you.
Could you please help me find these things Senator?
1. Occidental College records -- Not released 2. Columbia College records -- Not released 3. Columbia Thesis paper -- Not available 4. Harvard College records -- Not released 5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released 6. Medical records -- Not released 7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available 8. Illinois State Senate records -- Not available 9. Law practice client list -- Not released 10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released 11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released 12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
Oh, and one more thing Senator, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me Sir?
Oh but, hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy.
I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after. . .
What's that Senator? Who wants to know these things?
We the People of the United States of America. You know... the ones that vote.
...I am beginning to think that H stands for the name of another historical leader...
Ronald Reagan was surely not a prophet. However, compare his warnings to Barack Obama’s quotes below:
“[T]he Founding Fathers… knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.” – Ronald Reagan, 1964
And now from BHO:
“I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change” – Barack Obama, 2001
Coalition of powers to bring about redistributive change? Now, go back and re-read Reagan’s warning again. See the connection?
Or in other words…
“We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as our military]." – Barack Obama, 2008
By JOHN FUND JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL OCTOBER 30, 2008
Acorn, the liberal "community organizing" group that claims it will deploy 15,000 get-out-the-vote workers on Election Day, can't stay out of the news.
The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group's quality-control efforts were "minimal or nonexistent" and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.
The Obama campaign denies it "has any ties" to Acorn, but Mr. Obama's ties are extensive. In 1992 he headed a registration effort for Project Vote, an Acorn partner at the time. He did so well that he was made a top trainer for Acorn's Chicago conferences. In 1995, he represented Acorn in a key case upholding the constitutionality of the new Motor Voter Act -- the first law passed by the Clinton administration -- which created the mandated, nationwide postcard voter registration system that Acorn workers are using to flood election offices with bogus registrations.
Ms. MonCrief testified that in November 2007 Project Vote development director Karyn Gillette told her she had direct contact with the Obama campaign and had obtained their donor lists. Ms. MonCrief also testified she was given a spreadsheet to use in cultivating Obama donors who had maxed out on donations to the candidate, but who could contribute to voter registration efforts. Project Vote calls the allegation "absolutely false."
She says that when she had trouble with what appeared to be duplicate names on the list, Ms. Gillette told her she would talk with the Obama campaign and get a better version. Ms. MonCrief has given me copies of the donor lists she says were obtained from other Democratic campaigns, as well as the 2004 DNC donor lists.
In her testimony, Ms. MonCrief says she was upset by Acorn's "Muscle for Money" program, which she said intimidated businesses Acorn opposed into paying "protection" money in the form of grants. Acorn's Brian Kettering says the group only wants to change corporate behavior: "Acorn is proud of its corporate campaigns to stop abuses of working families."
Ms. MonCrief, 29, never expected to testify in a case brought by the state's Republican Party seeking the local Acorn affiliate's voter registration lists. An idealistic graduate of the University of Alabama, she joined Project Vote in 2005 because she thought it was empowering poor people. A strategic consultant for Acorn and a development associate with its Project Vote voter registration affiliate, Ms. MonCrief sat in on policy-making meetings with the national staff. She was fired early this year over personal expenses she had put on the group's credit card.
She says she became disillusioned because she saw that Acorn was run as the personal fiefdom of Wade Rathke, who founded the group in 1970 and ran it until he stepped down to take over its international operations this summer. Mr. Rathke's departure as head of Acorn came after revelations he'd employed his brother Dale for a decade while keeping from almost all of Acorn's board members the fact that Dale had embezzled over $1 million from the group a decade ago. (The embezzlement was confirmed to me by an Acorn official.)
"Anyone who questioned what was going on was viewed as the enemy," Ms. MonCrief told me. "Just like the mob, no one leaves Acorn happily." She believes the organization does some good but hopes its current leadership is replaced. She may not be alone.
Last August two of Acorn's eight dissident board members, Marcel Reed and Karen Inman, filed suit demanding access to financial records of Citizens Consulting Inc., the umbrella group through which most of Acorn's money flows. Ms. Inman told a news conference this month Mr. Rathke still exercises power over CCI and Acorn against the board's wishes. Bertha Lewis, the interim head of Acorn, told me Mr. Rathke has no ties to Acorn and that the dissident board members were "obsessed" and "confused."
According to public records, the IRS filed three tax liens totaling almost $1 million against Acorn this spring. Also this spring, CCI was paid $832,000 by the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote efforts in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting the filings after the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.
"Acorn needs a full forensic audit," Ms. MonCrief says, though she doesn't think that's likely. "Everyone wants to paper things over until later," she says. "But it may be too late to reform Acorn then." She strongly supports Barack Obama and hopes his allies can be helpful in cleaning up the group "after the heat of the election is gone."
Acorn's Mr. Kettering says the GOP lawsuit "is designed to suppress legitimate voters," and he says Ms. MonCrief isn't credible, given that she was fired for cause. Ms. MonCrief admits that she left after she began paying back some $3,000 in personal expenses she charged on an Acorn credit card. "I was very sorry, and I was paying it back," she says, but "suddenly Acorn decided that . . . I had to go. Since then I have gotten warnings to 'back off' from people at Acorn."
Acorn insists it operates with strict quality controls, turning in, as required by law, all registration forms "even if the name on them was Donald Duck," as Wade Rathke told me two years ago. Acorn whistleblowers tell a different story.
"There's no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances," says Nate Toler, who worked until 2006 as the head organizer of an Acorn campaign against Wal-Mart in California. And Ms. MonCrief says it is longstanding practice to blame bogus registrations on lower-level employees who then often face criminal charges, a practice she says Acorn internally calls "throwing folks under the bus."
Gregory Hall, a former Acorn employee, says he was told on his very first day in 2006 to engage in deceptive fund-raising tactics. Mr. Hall has founded a group called Speaking Truth to Power to push for a full airing of Acorn's problems "so the group can heal itself from within."
To date, Mr. Obama has declined to criticize Acorn, telling reporters this month he is happy with his own get-out-the-vote efforts and that "we don't need Acorn's help." That may be true. But there is no denying his ties with Acorn helped turbocharge his political career.
The following videos are from a 1995 Connie Martinson interview about Barack Obama’s book, “Dream From My Father.” In his own words, you can hear his thoughts on race, his heroes being persecuted by the government, his views on “normal” Americans, etc.
Barack Obama with Connie Martinson Talks Books (1995 Part 1)
He also talks about affirmative action and how the courts aren’t aptly addressing the issues in favor of minorities. There is also talk about “Marty,” a pseudonym for Gerald Kellman who recruited Obama as a community organizer for Chicago. Why was it necessary to use a pseudonym?
Barack Obama with Connie Martinson Talks Books (1995 Part 2)
Lastly, Obama discusses an economic “common ground” that would be mutually beneficial to everybody. And then there is Reverend Jeremiah Wright – BEFORE the bus tire skid marks. Wright is described as a “wonderful man,” who helps Obama discover his own faith, “Which is not necessarily a traditional faith.” He learns to cherish the “hope” and “liberation that is embodied in the historically African American Church.” He then states that Wright “represents the best of what the black church has to offer.”
Barack Obama with Connie Martinson Talks Books (1995 Part 3)
Let me start by stating that I still strongly endorse McCain, even on the abortion issue.
However, like a lot of you, I feel that the pro-life issue has been hijacked by the GOP inasmuch as has become a partisan issue. The issue used to be one of conscience that was beyond party loyalty. But in the last 30 years, the sanctity of life has taken a back seat because voters look at it in terms of political party rather than conscience. You can read an explanation of why abortion is murder here.
As a Christian, this is one of those issues in which I have had a problem with McCain. Yes, his voting record is politically pro-life and yet he would still allow abortion to be legal where some states rule it legal. This would encourage interstate travel and more deception by those seeking abortions.
But as a political conservative, I agree with him that, constitutionally, the federal government should not be involved in the issue. And McCain has promised to nominate SCOTUS judges that will interpret the constitution as it was intended. That is why he is the better candidate on this issue.
Despite Barack Obama’s mantra to reduce abortions, he will nominate judges that will follow the DNC’s platform to unswervingly uphold Roe v. Wade. This would make abortions “safe and legal.”
Sarah Palin is absolutely pro-life and will promote a legal end to abortions nationwide based on her Christian faith.
Joe Biden is simply a conniving coward when it comes to practicing his faith in terms of applying it to the abortion issue.
Now, I strongly believe that National Security is the main reason to vote McCain-Palin. If Obama is elected, our nation faces a physical and social invasion where Islamic law would become a standard. If that happens, abortions will be controlled by the government and there will NOT be ANY choice.
In conclusion, even though neither candidate would effectively put an end to abortion altogether, McCain is the candidate who would promulgate a stronger start to protecting the sanctity of life.
Obama Can't Decide If He Should Praise Or Criticize President Reagan
"You know, I think that Ronald Reagan was delivering the right message at the right time. Because what had happened was I think the Democrats had gotten complacent, had gotten fat and happy. They thought you could get a government program to solve every problem. There wasn't much attention to how regulation might be choking business. And so Ronald Reagan came in and said we need to break out of the old ways of doing things and create a leaner, more effective government. That was the right message then." (Fox 13 Tampa Bay's "MyFoxTampaBay.com," 10/17/08)
VS.
"I spent a lifetime fighting against Ronald Reagan's policies." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Debate, Myrtle Beach, SC, 1/21/08)
On Iran:
"Iran is a major threat." (Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," 9/4/08)
VS.
"I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Pendleton, OR, 5/18/08)
"You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Pendleton, OR, 5/18/08)
On Tapping the S.P.R.:
Obama Is Proposing To Tap The Strategic Petroleum Reserve. "In a reversal, Barack Obama is proposing tapping the nation's strategic oil reserves to help drive down gasoline prices, his campaign said Monday." (Tom Raum, "Obama: Tap Nation's Oil Reserve To Help Gas Prices," The Associated Press, 8/4/08)
VS.
"I do not believe that we should use the strategic oil reserves at this point. I have said and, in fact, supported a congressional resolution that said that we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve, but the strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency. You have a situation, let's say, where there was a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia that was destroyed as a consequence of terrorist acts, and you suddenly had huge amounts of oil taken out of the world market, we wouldn't just be seeing $4-a-gallon oil. We could see a situation where entire sectors of the country had no oil to function at all. And that's what the strategic oil reserve has to be for." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Media Availability, St. Louis, MO, 7/7/08)
On Nuclear Power:
"I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. There are no silver bullets to this issue." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)
"I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store it properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Hanover, NH, 9/26/07)
"I've said this before, I don't think that nuclear power is a panacea. But I also think that given that it doesn't emit greenhouse gases, for us to invest some R&D into seeing whether we can store nuclear waste safely, or reuse it. These are all areas where the market interacting with a clear set of rules by the federal government and billions of dollars devoted to research and development can, I think, trigger the kind of economic growth that we haven't seen in this country for a long time." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Meeting With Democrat Governors, Chicago, IL, 6/20/08)
VS.
"I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Town Hall Event, Newton, IA, 12/30/07)
In the current presidential campaign, everyone has been trying to either connect Barack Obama to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers or trying to play down the connection. There are some who are even trying to claim that there is no connection at all.
I say that there is a connection, a solid connection, and it is the only connection that really matters.
My conclusion is that Bill Ayers is guilty of being a murderous terrorist and would be in jail had the prosecution not blown the case.
Therefore, if Ayers were in jail, he wouldn’t have been able to promulgate Barack Obama into Chicago politics and their ultimately wouldn’t be a Barack Obama running for President of the United States.
Yes, there were other figures who helped to foist Barack Obama into the political world, but if you remove Bill Ayers from the equation, the path Obama took wouldn’t have been there.
Barack Obama minus Bill Ayers does not equal a presidential nomination.
Recent Fraud State Year Details AR 1998 A contractor with ACORN-affiliated Project Vote was arrested for falsifying about 400 voter registration cards.
CO 2004 An ACORN employee admitted to forging signatures and registering three of her friends to vote 40 times. 2005 Two ex-ACORN employees were convicted in Denver of perjury for submitting false voter registrations.
FL 2004 A Florida Department of Law Enforcement spokesman said ACORN was “singled out” among suspected voter registration groups for a 2004 wage initiative because it was “the common thread” in the agency’s fraud investigations.
MI 2004 The Detroit Free Press reported that “overzealous or unscrupulous campaign workers in several Michigan counties are under investigation for voter-registration fraud, suspected of attempting to register nonexistent people or forging applications for already-registered voters.” ACORN-affiliate Project Vote was one of two groups suspected of turning in the documents.
MO 2007 Four ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City for charges including identity theft and filing false registrations during the 2006 election. 2006 Eight ACORN employees in St. Louis were indicted on federal election fraud charges. Each of the eight faces up to five years in prison for forging signatures and submitting false information. 2003 Of 5,379 voter registration cards ACORN submitted in St. Louis, only 2,013 of those appeared to be valid. At least 1,000 are believed to be attempts to register voters illegally.
NC 2004 North Carolina officials investigated ACORN for submitting fake voter registration cards.
NM 2005 Four ACORN employees submitted as many as 3,000 potentially fraudulent signatures on the group’s Albuquerque ballot initiative. A local sheriff added: “It’s safe to say the forgery was widespread.” 2004 An ACORN employee registered a 13-year-old boy to vote. Citing this and other examples, New Mexico State Representative Joe Thompson stated that ACORN was “manufacturing voters” throughout New Mexico.
OH 2007 A man in Reynoldsburg was indicted on two felony counts of illegal voting and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties. 2004 A grand jury indicted a Columbus ACORN worker for submitting a false signature and false voter registration form. In Franklin County, two ACORN workers submitted what the director of the board of election supervisors called “blatantly false” forms. In Cuyahoga County, ACORN and its affiliate Project Vote submitted registration cards that had the highest rate of errors for any voter registration group.
MN 2004 During a traffic stop, police found more than 300 voter registration cards in the trunk of a former ACORN employee, who had violated a legal requirements that registration cards be submitted to the Secretary of State within 10 days of being filled out and signed.
PA 2008 An ACORN employee in West Reading, PA, was sentenced to up to 23 months in prison for identity theft and tampering with records. A second ACORN worker pleaded not guilty to the same charges and is free on $10,000 bail. 2004 Reading’s Director of Elections received calls from numerous individuals complaining that ACORN employees deliberately put inaccurate information on their voter registration forms. The Berks County director of elections said voter fraud was “absolutely out of hand,” and added: “Not only do we have unintentional duplication of voter registration but we have blatant duplicate voter registrations.” The Berks County deputy director of elections added that ACORN was under investigation by the Department of Justice.
TX 2004 ACORN turned in the voter registration form of David Young, who told reporters “The signature is not my signature. It’s not even close.” His social security number and date of birth were also incorrect.
VA 2005 In 2005, the Virginia State Board of Elections admonished Project Vote and ACORN for turning in a significant number of faulty voter registrations. An audit revealed that 83% of sampled registrations that were rejected for carrying false or questionable information were submitted by Project Vote. Many of these registrations carried social security numbers that exist for other people, listed non-existent or commercial addresses, or were for convicted felons in violation of state and federal election law.
In a letter to ACORN, the State Board of Elections reported that 56% of the voter registration applications ACORN turned in were ineligible. Further, a full 35% were not submitted in a timely manner, as required by law. The State Board of Elections also commented on what appeared to be evidence of intentional voter fraud. "Additionally,” they wrote, “information appears to have been altered on some applications where information given by the applicant in one color ink has been scratched through and re-entered in another color ink. Any alteration of a voter registration application is a Class 5 Felony in accordance with § 24.2-1009 of the Code of Virginia."
WA 2007 Three ACORN employees pleaded guilty, and four more were charged, in the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history. More than 2,000 fraudulent voter registration cards were submitted by the group during a voter registration drive.
WI 2004 The district attorney’s office investigated seven voter registration applications Project Vote employees filed in the names of people who said the group never contacted them. Former Project Vote employee Robert Marquise Blakely told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he had not met with any of the people whose voter registration applications he signed, “an apparent violation of state law,” according to the paper.
Does God want us to die in Iraq? NOPE. Here quote from a speech at a church in Wasilla Alaska states: “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.” This is stating that her prayer is that we are following God’s will, not the God has a desire for us to die. Furthermore, she has a son fighting in Iraq.
As governor, did Sarah Palin ignore issues of protecting women and of rape in Alaska? NOPE. Although there was an issue put on hold due to the “troopergate” investigation, Palin pushed for and got an increase in the state budget for protecting women. While the rape rate is high, the statistic has been that way for years and not because Palin became governor.
SPREAD THE WEALTH, SPREAD THE WEALTH, SPREAD THE WEALTH
What Obama and the Democrats are going to do is make it even worse than the current so-called barstool economics tax plan:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay NOTHING. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still pay NOTHING.
But what about the other six current paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing--(100%savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 ----- (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 ----- (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ----- (25%savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ----- (22%savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 ----- (16%savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that's right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved two dollars. It's unfair that he got five times more than I!”
“That's true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
No, Democratic Tax strategies aren’t socialism, they’re economic treason….And yes, they actually are socialism.
This past weekend, former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for Senator. I am going to present some links showing Powell’s scatter-brained history during this election season.
"I will vote for the candidate I think can do the best job in America -- whether that candidate is a Republican or Democrat or an independent." – Colin Powell
Powell told NBC’s Tom Brokaw that he was “troubled” by Republicans’ personal attacks on Obama, especially false intimations that Obama was Muslim and the recent focus on Obama’s alleged connections to William Ayers, a co-founder of the radical ’60 Weather Underground.
Stressing that Obama was a lifelong Christian, Powell denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to Obama but also to Muslims.
“The really right answer is what if he is?” Powell said, praising the contributions of millions of Muslim citizens to American
I had originally christened him “Ditto” Joe due to his illustrious writing and speech expositions.
Then, due to Biden’s mangling of the facts regarding FDR, 1929 and Television, I granted him the moniker “Wikipedia” Joe.
Now This!
“Wiki/Ditto” Joe has obviously been given the clairvoyance of a tabloid soothsayer. So now, I have been burdened with applying new title.
I came up with this:
NOSTRA-BIDEN!!!
Good golly! I am going to run out of creative juices. I certainly hope that this will pacify the guy who wants to be “America’s #2.” (Oh, no! NOT AGAIN!)
The following mock debate is based on issues of morality. Notice how each stereotypical candidate answers, and then compare their answers to the real answer of our true political leaders.
And from our elected officials…
Nancy Pelosi:
She obviously didn’t check the bible about it and her understanding of the early church fathers is WAY off.
Joe Biden:
“Wikipedia” Joe forgot to check his facts as well.
Sarah Palin:
Barack Obama on Late Term Abortion:
McCain on Partial Birth Abortion:
Obama and McCain at Saddleback Church with Rick Warren:
Get the connection. Why do we champion the morality of issues like rape, incest, domestic abuse, etc. and yet we refuse to acknowledge that abortion is a moral issue that affects not only the mother but the life of the human being growing inside of her?
Now, check this clip where pro-life is proven to be factually TRUE!
If you vote for someone who is in favor of abortions and participates in pro-abortion legislation, you are just as guilty as those who choose and perform abortions.
Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.
In other words, arguments based on “choice” or “privacy” miss the point entirely. Would anyone that you know support a mother killing her toddler in the name of “choice and who decides?” Clearly, if the unborn are human, like toddlers, we shouldn’t kill them in the name of choice anymore than we would a toddler. Again, this debate is about just one question: What is the unborn?
At this point, some of you may object that those comparisons are not fair—that killing a fetus is morally different than killing a toddler. Ah, but that’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn, like toddlers, members of the human family? That is the one issue that matters.
We can be vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. We can support a woman’s right to choose her own doctor, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, and to choose her own religion, to name a few. These are among the many choices that we can and should fully support for women. But some choices are wrong; like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves. No one should be allowed to choose that.
Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this.
Philosophically, we can say that embryos are less developed than newborns (or, for that matter, toddlers) but this difference is not morally significant in the way abortion advocates need it to be.
Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not adequately address.
Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today.
SIZE: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.
LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than adults. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
ENVIRONMENT: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.
DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.
In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.
I challenge you to be intellectually honest: Q - Do you think that birth makes the unborn human? A – If so, how does a mere change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb change the essential nature of the unborn? Q - Does brain development or higher consciousness makes us human? A – If so, would you agree with Joseph Fletcher that those with an IQ below 20 or perhaps 40 should be declared non-persons? If not, why not?
Some of you are going to ignore the scientific and philosophic case presented for the pro-life view and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. I remind you that if we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter what the cost to our own self-interests.
So then ask yourself – Is your position on abortion one of logic and science or one of self-interest.
This last video is of Scott Klusendorf speaking at Gordon College in Massachusetts. BE WARNED, THERE ARE ABOUT 95 SECONDS OF VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES. Scott Klusendorf - Speech to Gordon College
There are many of you who still have the question of victims of rape and incest. And I empathize with those who have that concern. As a Christian, I believe that the life of the unborn child is just as valid as that of the victim mother, and one cannot be give priority over the other, except where the life of the mother is threatened. We Christians have got to acknowledge that a victim is suffering and we cannot erase that by promoting the life of the unborn. However, what we should do is to show compassion and generosity towards the mother, by ensuring that she understands the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that God’s will is for her to have the baby. We should NOT EVER minimize a victim’s experiences simply because we know that her unborn child has the right to life.
In addition to the evidence presented above, I believe that the primary elemental DNA coding of life happens at conception. Everything that the unborn human will be is determined the moment the sperm meets the egg through that genetic coding. Don’t agree? Then ask why embryonic stem cells are seen as ultimately valuable in medical research.
On the issue of whose tax plan would provide more relief to middle-income taxpayers, Barack Obama once again brought out this line:
“And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut. In fact, independent studies have looked at our respective plans and have concluded that I provide three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families than Sen. McCain does.”
The "95 percent" figure is correct. Even though many conservatives have argued that you can't cut taxes for people who pay no income taxes, most of those who are receiving refundable tax credits on the income tax side are still net taxpayers given that they do pay payroll taxes, corporate income tax, excise taxes, etc. (And even that assumes the fact that a person is a net taxpayer even matters, versus the net fiscal incidence of the person, and once we go down that road, at least we are actually getting somewhere on the core questions of public finance and the role of government in distributional outcomes.)
The independent study that Sen. Obama is referring to comes from the Tax Policy Center, which does indeed verify this fact for middle-income tax units when you exclude the effects of the two candidates' health care plans. What Sen. Obama doesn't tell us is that Sen. McCain's health care tax plan (which he criticizes on many occasions, and in his ubiquitous TV ads) would actually provide more savings to middle-income tax units (as a group) than Sen. Obama's health care plan. And when you include the effects of these health care plans, the "three-times as much tax relief" claim no longer holds. When TPC ran the tax plans, they analyzed the health care plans separately from the other parts of the candidates' tax plans.
Speaking of Sen. McCain's health care plan, Sen. Obama once again made this invalid comparison:
“By the way, the average policy costs about $12,000. So if you've got $5,000 and it's going to cost you $12,000, that's a loss for you.”
Sen. Obama's saying outright that Sen. McCain's plan is a loss for you is nonsense.
The $12,000 cost and $5,000 credit are not comparable unless one assumes two facts for McCain's health care tax plan: (1) the worker will be dropped by his employer, and (2) the worker's wages will not increase to offset the lost health care. For most workers, this isn't going to happen. If somebody is receiving $12,000 in health insurance that is now taxed as ordinary income (and there is no dropping of coverage), a $5,000 credit is going to more than offset the additional tax a person must pay on his/her employer-provided health insurance. Eventually, since the credit is indexed for inflation and not health-care costs, the credit's value would diminish. But over the next ten years, the Tax Policy Center has estimated that McCain's health care tax plan is a $1.3 trillion tax cut for American taxpayers, and they have shown that the average middle-income tax unit would be better off under McCain's health care tax plan than Obama's in that time period. Now it is true that the average doesn't hold for everyone in the middle, and some will gain a lot in the middle and some could lose a lot in the middle (such as those whose coverage is dropped), but the reality is that the health care tax plan is the most progressive part of Sen. McCain's plan. It would make the federal income tax more progressive.
Finally, on the issue of small businesses, Sen. Obama said this in defense of his tax plan's impact on small businesses: “The last point I'll make about small businesses. Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy. They produce the most jobs.”
That "98 percent" figure is technically correct under certain assumptions, but it's basically irrelevant given the latter point he wanted to make. Under Sen. Obama's metric where the mere number of tax returns affected by his tax plan is what matters (2 percent), a small business that earned $100 in business income and had only one employee would have the same "drive" of the economy as a small business that earned $500,000 in net income and had 50 employees. Obviously, that's ridiculous, but it fits with the theme of this campaign: if it sounds good, say it, even if it's misleading (or not true).
Even though it’s totally irrelevant to you now… If you are successful, you should be grateful because if I were president when you were struggling, you would have had a tax cut. Then you could have saved so that I would be able to tax your frugalness and hard work.
I appreciate that you have worked hard and saved, BUT… You need to be taxed more because you have worked hard.
I don’t WANT to punish your success, BUT… I want everyone to have that same opportunity at success so I can say I don’t want to punish their success as well.
I like the flat tax, BUT… The problem is that it seems too fair and doesn’t punish the wealthy.
And here’s the ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHING SOCIALIST zinger!
“I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” – Barack Obama, October 14, 2008
Who won?
Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher is the winner. But not just him.
Now there are a ton of everyday, regular people who are starting to realize they won as well. It is great that the election has finally become about Joe the Plumber AND:
Mikey the Electrician Suzy the Beautician Leo the Cable Guy Janey the Diner Cook Petey the Cabbie Kelly the Daycare Worker Jackie the Butcher Donna the Realtor Johnny the Enbalmer
And when these folks get into the voting booth, who are they going to think about when it comes to the best person to be the leader of the free world?
It ain’t the guy who is going to tax hard word and success.
It ain’t the guy who believes that America is a mediocre place.
It ain’t the guy who wants to take the rewards of your hard word and share it with everyone else.
It ain’t the guy who doesn’t believe that life begins at conception.
It ain’t the guy who believes that small town Americans CLING to bibles and guns.
It ain’t the guy who was raised and mentored by Marxists and Muslims, and atheists.
It ain’t the guy who thinks we should follow the world rather than lead it.
It ain’t the guy who doesn’t understand that your associations are a part of what defines you.
And it ain’t the guy who throws those associations and friendships away when they can hurt his political career.
James T. Harris is the host of the "James T. Harris Show" on Milwaukee’s radio channel 620 WMTJ. Harris appeared on CNN to speak about the various repercussions of his support for US Senator John McCain in the 2008 US presidential election. Speaking about his experiences, he has been subject to various insults from Obama supporters such as "Uncle Tom" and a "traitor". Many of the insults were from fellow African-Americans that disagree with his views. In addition, he cites that he has received numerous death threats from various people who deem him a sellout.
The following isn’t as extreme as described above. However, one wonders if a majority of African Americans truly feel this way. It’s as if that particular demographic is of the opinion that it’s time to change… The skin color of the president… and that is all that matters.
I know a lot of people of different ethnicities who hold many different political views. And I can say that, at the regretful risk of appearing racist, that there are those African Americans I know who are voting based on issues. Some of them are supporting Obama and some McCain. But yet, the video of the young man above talking solely about race being the reason to support Obama is still disturbing. I can, in no way, ever come close to understanding what the life of an African American is like in this nation. But I do know that there are others like me, of all races, who believe that an individual’s merit and character count above skin color. And although, race should not be a viable reason to support a particular political candidate or issue, no one should ever try to discount or remove the perspective of racial consideration from someone who ostensibly considers it of great importance in how they perceive the various segments of society.
Inasmuch as I do believe Martin Luther King, Jr. preached on the character and merits of an individual to move beyond racial attitudes and actions in society, I also believe that he would have NEVER wanted anyone to forget any part of who they are, including their ethnicity… as long as it isn’t a superficial consideration.
This was one of my favorite games. The video quality was pretty good and, along with former spymasters Colby and Kalugin, it actually had some big name actors:
James Karen ... DDO Gene Warhurst Dennis Lipscomb ... DCI Peter Sterling Charles Napier ... Frank Milkovsky Chase Masterson ... Jaimie Seaton
The games within a game attributes were challenging and entertaining. If you get a chance to go retro, give it a try.
Did you catch Colby's statement about Russia...and this was 1996!
The following is an audio expose about the modern day fascination with UFOs and how they are related to teh Christian world view
You can hear more from Josh Allem's Founding Word HERE.
Genesis 6:2-4 – “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” (ESV) The sons of God, identified elsewhere almost exclusively as angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), saw and took wives of the human race. This produced an unnatural union which violated the God-ordained order of human marriage and procreation (Gen. 2:24). Some have argued that the sons of God were the sons of Seth who cohabited with the daughters of Cain; others suggest they were perhaps human kings wanting to build harems. But the passage puts strong emphasis on the angelic vs. human contrast. The New Testament places this account in sequence with other Genesis events and identifies it as involving fallen angels who indwelt men. Matthew 22:30 does not necessarily negate the possibility that angels are capable of procreation, but just that they do not marry. To procreate physically, they had to possess human, male bodies. The word nephilim is from a root meaning “to fall,” indicating that they were strong men who “fell” on others in the sense of overpowering them. They were already in the earth when the “mighty men” and “men of renown” were born. The fallen ones are not the offspring from the union in Genesis 6:1,2. - MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997, S. Ge 6:2, 4
Senate President Pro Tem Robert Byrd: "Obama for President! (he'll get shot by one of my fellow klansmen, Biden ascends, but he'll get shot because he's an idiot, Nancy Pelosi ascends, She's just plain nuts so I'll beat her to death with the copy of the constitution I have in my pocket and then it'll be PRESIDENT ROBERT BYRD!!!)
The phrases spoken by Obama here are extracted from the following:
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles.” – Barack Obama, Washington, D.C., June 28, 2006
First of all, Barack Obama is obviously NOT anywhere near an expert on religious matter… especially Christian faith and the bible. However, there are a few statements here where he isn’t so far off – he just doesn’t understand their implications.
“no longer just a Christian nation” – Even though there are many faiths and religious practices in America today, this is STILL a Christian nation. The founding fathers intended for the Christian faith to be the faith of the people. Yes, there were and are other religions practiced. And yes, they knew that there would be. But the Almighty God of the Christian faith is the God referred to in all national art, architecture, government documentation. Words like blessings, providence and divine have been used in federal and state documents of state to refer to and honor the God of the Christian faith. We ARE a Christian nation and God deserves ALL the glory for that.
“Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok” - Let’s look at the passage in Leviticus Obama is referring to:
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”
Please understand that I do not condone slavery at all in our society or any other in the world today. As referred to in Leviticus, slavery was considered a humane option for enemies of the Hebrews who would be either destroyed or banished to a certain cruel death in a brutal wilderness. There were also slaves who were the Gentiles that either followed the Hebrews in the Exodus from Egypt or joined them along the way. The “humane” aspect of this was that a bondservant was the complete responsibility of the owner. That means that the slave had to be fed, clothed and sheltered by the owner. The slave owner was to protect the slave and the slave’s family as a member of his own family and the Levitical laws were to be applied to slaves as well. Again, this is not an endorsement, just an explanation of biblical history.
“eating shellfish is abomination” – Leviticus does describe eating shellfish as an abomination.
“But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.” – Leviticus 11:10
Again, let’s look at the context. The MacArthur Study bible says, “All of the reasons for the prohibitions are not specified. The major points were: 1) that Israel was to obey God’s absolute standard, regardless of the reason for it, or the lack of understanding of it; and 2) such a unique diet was specified that Israel would find it difficult to eat with the idolatrous people around and among them. Their dietary laws served as a barrier to easy socialization with idolatrous peoples. Dietary and hygienic benefits were real, but only secondary to the divine purposes of obedience and separation. (MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997.) But Christians, as Obama claims to be, know that the Levitical laws are covered by the sacrifice or and their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Again from John MacArthur, “More than just abolishing the Old Testament dietary restrictions, God made unity possible in the church of both Jews, symbolized by the clean animals, and Gentiles, symbolized by the unclean animals, through the comprehensive sacrificial death of Christ. (MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997.)
“stoning your child if he strays from the faith” – Verses in Deuteronomy about stoning children don’t say anything about straying from the faith. However, for a child to get as bad as described, faith would have been lost because obedience to the Fifth Commandment was shunned by the child.
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
What Barack Obama doesn’t seem to understand that the parents would have been raising this child as commanded by God. That included all sorts of effort after effort and effort to discipline him to eliminate his rebelliousness. When that wasn’t able to be done, then the evil the child had become had to be eliminated and that included the child himself. Another thing Obama doesn’t seem to understand that with this verse as with the Leviticus reference, those laws apply to Jews, not Gentiles. So they wouldn’t matter to which Christianity was followed. Furthermore, Jesus came to fulfill those laws by His grace and glorious sacrifice.
“the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application” – I don’t even need to reference anything to answer this one. But here is a link to the Sermon on the Mount.
If the people of this world were all followers of Jesus Christ and obeyed the Ten Commandments and practiced the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, there would be no need for a Defense Department in any nation.
Barack Obama was being rhetorical in his statements. But when discussing the bible, why be rhetorical? We are commanded to spread the Gospel of Christ and using the bible is one of the very best ways. Obama may not have been intentionally mocking the bible, but in his ignorant ramblings, along with plenty of other liberal positions he touts by using the bible (out of context) to justify those liberal positions.
Christ was not a liberal or conservative. Nor was he democrat or republican. Jesus is the Lord and Savior of the universe and no matter who wins whatever election is being held, it is Jesus who is the master of all!
For those of you who proclaim to follow Christ and expect Him to answer all your hopes and dreams, to give you peace, joy and happiness, fix all your problems. And if that is all you believe about Jesus, you are doomed to hell. Until you surrender to the fact that you are a wretched person who breaks God’s laws, the Gospel is meaningless. You MUST repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior! Understand that He is the one who paid the price for your sins so you wouldn’t have to.
“Jesus isn’t a genie. He’s the Savior.” “This is not about self-fulfillment. This is about self-denial.” “There is no ‘happily-ever-after’ in this world. But what is offered is eternal rescue from hell.” “When [God] looks at the cross, He sees you. When He looks at you, He sees Christ.” - John MacArthur
So He came to Nazareth, [that Nazareth] where He had been brought up, and He entered the synagogue, as was His custom on the Sabbath day. And He stood up to read.
And there was handed to Him [the roll of] the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened (unrolled) the book and found the place where it was written,
The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon Me, because He has anointed Me [the Anointed One, the Messiah] to preach the good news (the Gospel) to the poor; He has sent Me to announce release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to send forth as delivered those who are oppressed [who are downtrodden, bruised, crushed, and broken down by calamity],
To proclaim the accepted and acceptable year of the Lord [the day when salvation and the free favors of God profusely abound.
Then He rolled up the book and gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were gazing [attentively] at Him.
And He began to speak to them: Today this Scripture has been fulfilled while you are present and hearing.
And all spoke well of Him and marveled at the words of grace that came forth from His mouth; and they said, Is not this Joseph's Son?
So He said to them, You will doubtless quote to Me this proverb: Physician, heal Yourself! What we have learned by hearsay that You did in Capernaum, do here also in Your [own] town.
Then He said, Solemnly I say to you, no prophet is acceptable and welcome in his [own] town (country).
But in truth I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were closed up for three years and six months, so that there came a great famine over all the land;
And yet Elijah was not sent to a single one of them, but only to Zarephath in the country of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. [I Kings 17:1, 8-16; 18:1.]
And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and yet not one of them was cleansed [by being healed]--but only Naaman the Syrian. [II Kings 5:1-14.]
When they heard these things, all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage.
And rising up, they pushed and drove Him out of the town, and [laying hold of Him] they led Him to the [projecting] upper part of the hill on which their town was built, that they might hurl Him headlong down [over the cliff].
But passing through their midst, He went on His way. - Luke 4:16-30
Excuse me, Sir, my name is Columbo.
