Monday, August 31, 2009

The Ultimate Jew, speaks out against PC Idiocy!

Friday, August 28, 2009

A Godly Constitution

The following is an interpretation and follow up to A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore by Daniel L. Dreisbach and David Barton’s American Heritage Series: Our Biblical Constitution episode.

There are so many who blindly claim that God had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution or our government. We’ve already seen that the considerations of and to the God of the bible were very much a part of the formation of the federal government. And that each and every state in the union gives glory to God in its constitution.

So yet again, we must look at some facts regarding the proof of God’s direct influence in our nation.

Of all of the sources that our founding fathers used to quote political ideals, University of Houston political historians have analyzed 15,000 writings of our Founding Fathers. 3,154 quotations and sources made or referenced by the founders reveal that the bible was quoted most by those founders at 34% (This was more than the next three highest sources – Montesuqieu, Blackstone and Locke – combined).

George Washington and Alexander Hamilton both confirmed that the separation of powers in our government is based on a bible verse that was a subject of many sermons during the founding era - Jeremiah 17:9 – “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” This meant that human will and emotion could be uneven and should not be trusted alone. And in government, total power given to one person or group in government would be the same way.

Specifically from the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8 – Uniform Immigration Laws – “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States” has its roots in Leviticus 19:34 – “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” To be sure, this is regarding LEGAL IMMIGRATION because deceptiveness in immigration would violate God’s commandments.

Article II, Section 1 – President must be natural born citizen – “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States” has its roots in Deuteronomy 17:15 – “Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.”

Article III, Section 3 – regarding witnesses and capital punishment – “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court” can be attributed to Deuteronomy 17:6 – “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.”

Article III, Section 3 – Provision against attainder – “The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted” come from Ezekiel 18:20 – “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

Article IV, Section 4 – Republicanism (elections at local, county, state and federal levels) – “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government” is derived from the concepts in Exodus 18:21 – “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens” Furthermore, Noah Webster, who was personally responsible for Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 8 specifically cited Exodus 18:21 – “Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]... [I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted... If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”

Three branches of government come from Isaiah 33:22 – “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” The founders obviously understood that only God could be judge, lawgiver, and king and that a government needed to separate those three in order to govern effectively.

The idea of tax exemptions for churches comes from Ezra 7:24 – “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests… or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

John Jay and George Washington, among other founders, frequently attributed religious causes as the basis for elections of American leaders.

John Adams affirmed the Constitution’s connection with the bible in his letters to Thomas Jefferson. - “The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United:... Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.”

In the constitution, there are various other clauses connected to the God of the bible:

Article I, Section 7 contains the Sundays Excepted clause. This was placed in reverence and respect for the day that gives recognition to Resurrection Day.

The four oath clauses mentioned are to be taken as seriously as that of Numbers 30:2 – “If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”

At the conclusion is the “In the Year of our Lord” clause. The framers placed it here as a very specific homage to the fact that they were living in a time of Christ. To merely put a date down would cover the requirement for time reference. But the framers knew to give glory to the reign of our Lord and Savior and sovereignty to God Almighty.

In 1854, Congress even acknowledged the significance of the role Christianity played in the formation of our nation:

“Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.” – Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 6-9.

And in 1892, the Supreme Court even reaffirmed this:

[N]o purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation... There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. - Justice Brewer; Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Our constitution is an amazing document that has been the longest lasting government document of legal record in history. It is no coincidence that so many biblical principles are indelibly evident.

For you non-Christians out there, don’t be so ready to get rid of God’s influence in government. After all it is only a real and true God that would allow freedom of religion.

Worship how you wish, or even not at all, but please understand that just because you do have that freedom, it doesn’t mean that you are the only ones that have it.

May God be glorified in this writing!

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Oscar Mayer talks about the public option on Fox and Friends

I saw the following interview with Congressman Weiner of New York on Fox and Friends this morning:

First, I’d like to say that at least this guy is trying to make his point FOR a public option in healthcare when even the President hasn’t been able to. Plus, we have yet to see Pelosi or Reid on Fox shows make their case. They spend too much time dissing the American people to attempt to make their case.

One of Weiner’s points seemed to be that since the American people like it and are happy with it, Medicare and the like are good things and the way to go. The logic doesn’t quite work when applied in reality.

I used to like beer a good bit, and would have loved it if all the beer I wanted was supplied free of charge. But is that really the best thing for me or those who have to pay for it?

Many people love dessert foods. Would it be a good thing if all desserts were supplied free of charge? If that were the case, people would go out for dessert only and not eat anything else because dessert is free.

There is a cost to everything in this world. Science reinforces it: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The only things this nation has ever guaranteed are life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. And yet even these had a price to be paid.

The government was NEVER set up to provide for anything other than the common defense.

"Anthony Weiner has a way with B O L O G N A!"

Friday, August 21, 2009

How About a Conscientious Morality, Mr. President?

Thanks to Todd Friel and the folks at ”Wretched TV” for inspiring this.

On Wednesday, President Barack “above my pay-grade” Obama attempted to appeal to faith-based groups to garner support for government involvement in health care reform. He invoked religious thought with proselytizing phrases like “bearing false witness” and “my brother’s keeper.”

In other words, unless we support his “above my pay-grade” health-care agenda, we are going against God.

What a crock!

Instead of running off any conservative or libertarian talking points, let’s look at this from a biblical perspective. We should be Christians first and then conservatives, republicans, libertarians, or patriots. Inasmuch as we may agree with Rush, Glenn or Sean, the truth of the bible is the main thing we need to be in agreement with. So, let’s do that.

“Bearing false witness” comes from Exodus 20:16, the Ninth Commandment – “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (KJV). John MacArthur puts it this way. “Justice is not served by any untruthful testimony. Practically all societies have recognized this principle and adjure all witnesses in courts to tell the truth and nothing but the truth” (The MacArthur Study Bible). The English Standard Version Study Bible states in its notes; “Acting as a false witness suggests a legal trial in which false testimony could lead to punishment for one's neighbor. Bearing “false witness” is condemned in Scripture for its disastrous effects among people and its utter disregard for God's character. The Lord's righteousness and justice were to be reflected in Israel's life as a nation, which was thus to exclude speaking falsely, especially for the sake of gaining something at the expense of another person and perverting justice.”

By invoking this line, President Obama seemed to be “speaking falsely, especially for the sake of gaining something at the expense of another person and perverting justice.”

“My brother’s keeper” is not a statement but rather a question from Cain to God in Genesis 4.

“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?” And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.” (Genesis 4:1-11 ESV). Again from the MacArthur Study Bible; “Cain’s sarcasm was a play on words, based on the fact that Abel was the “keeper” of sheep. Lying was the third sin resulting from Cain’s attitude of indifference to God’s commands. Sin was ruling over him.”

Barack Obama apparently expects not to be his brother’s keeper but rather to be the “keeper of sheep.” The bible makes it clear who is supposed to be our shepherd and it isn’t Barrack Hussein Obama.

Maybe, the President should have attended that National Prayer event.

AND since the President has decided to take up a religious mantle regarding universal healthcare, let’s really examine what the bible says about it.

Could the liberals actually be right about what a Christian perspective should be regarding universal healthcare?

Isn’t it the Christian thing to do? Liberally logical, isn’t it?

Among others, Ed Shultz brings up “Christian” leaders like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen. The former didn’t seem to have room for the Gospel in his “Purpose Driven Life” book and the latter seems to think that our best life isn’t the eternal one paid for by Jesus. Mr. Shultz also talks about Jesus “feeding the hungry, clothing the poor and healing the sick.” And no, Jesus wasn’t concerned with Insurance. JESUS WAS CONCERNED WITH GLORIFYING GOD BY DOING GODLY WORKS! Jesus also did NOT preach anything about either the Herodian kingdom or the Roman government to provide healthcare for all. It was Jesus in the flesh who fed, clothed and healed so that He would be known as the prophesied Messiah. The rest of the video is a standard debate geared from a liberal point of view that really doesn’t address the issue from a biblical standard. There is a mention of Matthew 25, but without contextual interpretation.

So, Are the liberals right?

First, let’s try to look at universal healthcare as if it IS the Christian thing to do:

1. Jesus and the Apostles Healed.
2. Jesus said, “Love the poor.”
3. Romans 13 promotes general welfare
4. It’s about Justice in making it right for all
5. Bringing the Kingdom of God to the Earth
6. Equality in lifestyle
7. Too many greedy and dishonest companies

But in the contextual truth of the bible, Jesus and the Apostles healed to support their message and point to the Messiah, not to support universal healthcare. As far as the poor goes, anyone who hates them is NOT a Christian. The bible describes the poor as those who have nothing and cannot help themselves, either through disease, calamity or infirmity and it is those that Christians need to be helping. Romans 13 actually defines the role of government and it doesn’t include anything about universal healthcare. Bible justice is not about evening the playing field; it’s about punishment for those who do bad. The Kingdom of God isn’t about making things better on the planet but about drawing others to it by getting people to change towards repentance and faith… on the inside first. Equality in lifestyle is NOT a biblical principal. Having opportunity to improve your lifestyle is. And although it is vital for Christians to be against greed and dishonest gain, it is biblically okay for people and companies to make a profit.

The above list may be considered the “Christian” thing to do by liberals and proponents of universal healthcare. However, It is MUCH better to have a BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW as given in scripture.

Now let’s look at what the bible says that would be against universal healthcare:

1. The bible says DO NOT STEAL (Exodus 20:15) – Taking from one to give to another is still a form of theft. And the potential taxes raised to pay for universal healthcare would do just that.
2. The Apostle Paul said “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10) – In the same context there are some cases of the uninsured that would be covered under universal healthcare that are capable of, but not willing to work and pay for it themselves.
3. End of Life counseling Issues and Abortion – There is NOTHING biblical that would support either of these being covered in universal healthcare. Even though Democrats have said that “Death Panels” and abortions are NOT going to be funded, the congress will NOT put language in the bill to ensure this.
4. Rationing or who gets what when – Biblically, God views only two types of people, the saved and the unsaved. Age, gender, color, size, etc. make no difference as it could in universal healthcare.
5. Old Testament Pattern – providing ownership, mercy, and safety nets for the really poor and not for those who want it for everyone.
6. Debt. – Not a good thing according to the bible. The cost of universal healthcare would exponentially increase our already growing debt.
7. Inheritance – We will be leaving to our posterity a huge debt because we cannot afford universal healthcare. Again, not a good thing as far as the bible goes.

As Ed Shultz said in the video, we do need to have our bibles handy in this issue. And liberals would love for us to leave them at home collecting dust:

So take your bible with you to the next Tea Party, Town Hall Meeting or Healthcare Rally. Be ready to give a biblical perspective on why universal healthcare is not biblical. Be a Christian first, then a political person.

Todd Friel has some great sign ideas to have at the next rallies:

Thou shall not steal
Exodus 20:9
Stealing from the rich is still stealing.

The wicked borrows and does not pay back
Psalm 37:21
A 1.3 Trillion dollar debt is very wicked.

It is an abomination for kings to commit wicked acts
Proverbs 16:12
Forcing us to pay for abortions is very wicked.

All hard work brings profit.
Proverbs 14:23
Nancy, the bible is okay with making a profit.

A good man leaves and inheritance for his children.
Proverbs 13:22
You are not good men.

Government’s role is to punish the wicked.
Romans 13:4
Healthcare is not government’s role.

If our political leaders and nightly talking heads are going to play the religious game, we can too. We just need to be better equipped at it and the only way to do that is to know your bible.

Don’t take my word for it, read God’s Word and find out for yourself!

Friday, August 14, 2009

Hmm... seems about right

Nate Beeler

fear mongering, racism, or a possible future?

If you take EVERYTHING into consideration, ObamaCare, his Czars' attitudes on life and science, his radical tutelage and associations, Obama COULD start a dystopian society from which we won't be able to escape.

It may not be listed in the current HealthCare bill. However, IF there is a national crisis where resources are depleted enough, the actions in the following video MAY be a possible future IF the current bill passes. And the attitude of the enforcers WILL develop from the NEED to put SOCIETY and the ENVIRONMENT first.

Now watch one from a contemporary point of view:

Monday, August 10, 2009

The Obama Press Conference You Won’t See

At a press conference proclaiming an international relations success, President Obama was asked an unrelated question regarding the brutal attack of independent entrepreneur Kenneth Gladney by men wearing Service Employees International Union shirts out side of a St. Louis Town Hall on Health Care on August 6th. The timbre of the question even inquired as to what the incident said about Obama and race relations in America

The President responded by stating “I should say at the outset that even though the SEIU helped me get elected, so I may be a little biased here. Yet Kenneth Gladney is an America citizen. I don’t know all the facts. What’s been reported though, is that the guy was trying to earn a buck by selling ‘pro American” items at a Town Hall near St. Louis, there were several witnesses including video taken of the beating. So far, so good, right? There were plenty of words exchanged. My understanding is that Mr. Gladney proclaimed his freedom of speech rights and the permission given him to sell his items. And at that point he gets brutally beaten for utilizing his freedom of speech. Now, I don’t know, not having been there and seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say that:
1. Any of us would be very shocked and even angry
2. That the SEIU thugs acted stupidly in brutalizing someone for merely being an American
3. What I think we know, separate and apart from this incident, there is a long history in this country of regular Americans, from all ideologies, being verbally and even physically attacked by members of unions. That’s just a fact. And because the attackers were white and the victim is black, that is a sign that race remains a factor in society. And even though I and others have made tremendous progress in spite of racial barriers, those barriers still haunt us. And now the barriers between those in unions and those not are now becoming more apparent. The more we recognize the danger that unions can instill as well as some of the good they do, relations can improve.”


Saturday, August 8, 2009

Revisionist Revisions About Revisionized Religion

I took one of those online quiz/polls about our Founding Fathers and their views on Church state separation. It quickly became apparent that the poll was not to educate about opinions but to bash and discredit the great men who founded this nation.

Provided are responses that basically contradicts the statements of the poll that are so poorly taken out of context:

1. Who said: "When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of”

Benjamin Franklin

To Thomas Paine, Franklin also wrote “though you allow [only] a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection.”

2. Who said: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

5. Who said: "You judge truly that I am not afraid of the priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries, of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering, without being able to give me one moment of pain."

7. Who said: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson also said: “the relations which exist between man and his Maker – and the duties resulting from those relations – are the most interesting and important to every human being and the most incumbent on his study and investigation.”

3. Who said: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition”

4. Who said: "What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones”

James Madison

And yet it is Madison who issued a proclamation for ”a day of pubic Humiliation, and Prayer… to offer… their common vows and adorations to Almighty God”

6. Who said: "I mix religion with politics as little as possible."

John Adams

Adams also stated: “[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.”

8. Who said: "I hope ever to see America in the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality."

George Washington

Washington rarely missed a Sunday morning church service and a likeness of him praying is done in stained glass in the Congressional prayer room at the Capitol. Washington was also very firm in his belief in God as evident in his 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation.

9. True or False: The Supreme Court has ruled that since the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the United States Constitution, it is not binding on the government.

This is a trick question and cannot be answered in the context it is asked. However, There is plenty of information regarding the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

10. Which document contains the language: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

The Treaty of Tripoli

That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. 6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, 7 thus constituting America's first official war as an established independent nation.

Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen 8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada 9). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations.

The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, a "gift" frigate to Algiers, paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, etc.). The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," and by John Adams as "rational." A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:

“The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.”

Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:

“Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!”

More and more of the TRUTH of our history is getting absconded by those that want to deny God and His Divine Glory in the founding and survival of the United States of America.

This author took the quiz, scored 100% and was rewarded with the following:

“You are 100% church-state separation pundit! My hat is off to you! You are a gentleman (or a lady) and a scholar! You can hold your own in a debate with any Christian revisionist.”

I can get the facts correct. What's more is that I know the truth!

Thursday, August 6, 2009

"Was Pelosi So Wrong About Swastikas?"

The following is from SWEETNESS & LIGHT

Was Pelosi So Wrong About Swastikas?
by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, August 6th

As you may have heard by now, the United States Speaker of the House, the number two most powerful elected federal official, Nancy Pelosi, has accused the protesters at Democrat healthcare town halls of carrying swastikas:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?
Pelosi: "I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. "They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

Of course her mistake may be understandable, especially in view of Mr. Obama’s latest logo for his healthcare program:

And it has been suggested that receiving Botox injections can cause blurry vision.

Of course given that she was talking about Democrat town halls, her confusion is even more understandable given the overlap between Nazi programs and Democrats’ pet issues anyway, as we all know.

The Nazis being: against big banks and capitalism in general, against big department stores, against pollution, for two years mandatory voluntary service to the country, for make-work projects (such as the autobahn), against vivisection and cruelty and to animals, against smoking and all tobacco products, for abortion and euthanasia of the infirm and undesirable – and, of course, for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare.

In fact, if you look really hard, you can sometimes even find a hint of anti-Semitism in the Democrat Party.