At a gathering of students at Liberty University, Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann talked to students about her personal faith and stand on political issues.
On limiting government, Bachmann stated, "I'd grown up in a very conservative background. I had never seen people spend money like this before, so I decided I could not hold back. I had to get involved."
She also zeroed in on government and our liberties, saying, "Probably the most egregious level of (government) taking our liberty is the issue of Obamacare. Obamacare is the first time in the history of our nation that we have taxpayer subsidized abortion."
In a recent poll by American Research Group, Inc., among "Likely Republican Caucus Goers" from Iowa, Bachmann stands at 15 percent.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Ron Paul said at a sold out rally of supporters in New York City that "The country is ripe for a true revolution."
Eric Brakey, Media Coordinator for NYC Liberty HQ, which hosted the rally, said, "We are seeing a level of enthusiasm for Ron Paul that can be compared with President Obama in 2008. Congressman Paul's youth support is different now than it was during his last presidential campaign. It's more organized and it's picking up steam and continues to grow"
"The country has changed in the last four years, but my message hasn't changed" added Paul.
Blasting the horrendous policies of the Federal Reserve received the most enthusiastic response from his supporters, who also chanted his name after blasting Obama for the $1 billion set aside for his re-election campaign, saying "when truth prevails you don't need a billion dollars."
According to American Research Group, Inc., of the "Likely Republican Caucus Goers" of Tea Party persuasion in Iowa, Ron Paul stands at 13 percent. That puts him at a tie with Gingrich and a point behind Perry. That's almost certain to change for the better for him as the campaign goes on.
For all Iowan "Likely Republican Caucus Goers," Paul has 12 percent of the vote at this time.
Eric Brakey, Media Coordinator for NYC Liberty HQ, which hosted the rally, said, "We are seeing a level of enthusiasm for Ron Paul that can be compared with President Obama in 2008. Congressman Paul's youth support is different now than it was during his last presidential campaign. It's more organized and it's picking up steam and continues to grow"
"The country has changed in the last four years, but my message hasn't changed" added Paul.
Blasting the horrendous policies of the Federal Reserve received the most enthusiastic response from his supporters, who also chanted his name after blasting Obama for the $1 billion set aside for his re-election campaign, saying "when truth prevails you don't need a billion dollars."
According to American Research Group, Inc., of the "Likely Republican Caucus Goers" of Tea Party persuasion in Iowa, Ron Paul stands at 13 percent. That puts him at a tie with Gingrich and a point behind Perry. That's almost certain to change for the better for him as the campaign goes on.
For all Iowan "Likely Republican Caucus Goers," Paul has 12 percent of the vote at this time.
According to the latest Harris Poll, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul beats out Obama by a 51 percent to 49 percent margin; something that will probably get better for Paul as the Republican race to produce a presidential candidate continues on.
Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton, said this, “This is yet another poll that clearly proves how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President. Dr. Paul is making strides, affirming that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates.”
Paul has consistently been the top performer against Obama of all declared Republican candidates for president, and if he wins the nomination, would almost certainly beat Obama to become president of the United States.
All of this even though the mainstream media outlets act as if Paul isn't a viable candidate or one that could compete against Obama and beat him. As time goes on, we should see Paul extending his lead over Obama, suggesting it would be a wise move for Republicans to start to rally behind him.
Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton, said this, “This is yet another poll that clearly proves how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President. Dr. Paul is making strides, affirming that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates.”
Paul has consistently been the top performer against Obama of all declared Republican candidates for president, and if he wins the nomination, would almost certainly beat Obama to become president of the United States.
All of this even though the mainstream media outlets act as if Paul isn't a viable candidate or one that could compete against Obama and beat him. As time goes on, we should see Paul extending his lead over Obama, suggesting it would be a wise move for Republicans to start to rally behind him.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Called the most significant archeological discovery by many in the 20th century, the Dead Sea Scrolls have now been made available online for the first time on Monday.
The national museum of Israel and Google are working together to present the ancient scrolls on the Internet.
To begin with, what are considered the five most important of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been made available, including the Temple Scroll and the Book of Isaiah.
Included with the interactivity of the Scrolls will be the ability to translate the verses into English, zoom in and out, and to search for verses of interest.
The Israel Antiquities Authority, owns the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and has their own project underway to have them almost all placed on the Internet by 2016.
The national museum of Israel and Google are working together to present the ancient scrolls on the Internet.
To begin with, what are considered the five most important of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been made available, including the Temple Scroll and the Book of Isaiah.
Included with the interactivity of the Scrolls will be the ability to translate the verses into English, zoom in and out, and to search for verses of interest.
The Israel Antiquities Authority, owns the majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and has their own project underway to have them almost all placed on the Internet by 2016.
Upbeat gospel singer Jessy Dixon passed away today at the age of 73, according to his sister Miriam Dixon. She said he died Monday morning at his home in Chicago.
Dixon was also formerly the keyboard player with Earth Wind and Fire, and had a number of his songs performed by Christian and secular artists, including Amy Grant and Diana Ross.
He was the opening act for Paul Simon for eight years.
Dixon in recent years has been a costant presence on Bill Gaither’s Gospel Series.
He produced five gold records during his career.
Along with his sister Miriam, Dixon is survived by a brother.
Jessy Dixon Singing "I Am Redeemed"
Dixon was also formerly the keyboard player with Earth Wind and Fire, and had a number of his songs performed by Christian and secular artists, including Amy Grant and Diana Ross.
He was the opening act for Paul Simon for eight years.
Dixon in recent years has been a costant presence on Bill Gaither’s Gospel Series.
He produced five gold records during his career.
Along with his sister Miriam, Dixon is survived by a brother.
Jessy Dixon Singing "I Am Redeemed"
Saturday, September 24, 2011
After doctors attempted to convince cystic fibrosis patient Kandace Smith to abort her triplets, she resisted the counsel and gave birth to the identical triplets, which were all girls.
The reason the doctors told her to terminate the pregnancy was because it increased the risk of dying from cystic fibrosis, as pregnancy makes it harder to breath.
Those with cystic fibrosis have lungs which produces a thick, sticky mucus, making it hard to breath.
Smith rejected the advice, delivering the babies at 28 weeks when it bacame more difficult for her to breath.
Smith said, “It has been the hardest fight of my life - but it has been worth every second. I would have died for my girls if I’d had to.”
The reason the doctors told her to terminate the pregnancy was because it increased the risk of dying from cystic fibrosis, as pregnancy makes it harder to breath.
Those with cystic fibrosis have lungs which produces a thick, sticky mucus, making it hard to breath.
Smith rejected the advice, delivering the babies at 28 weeks when it bacame more difficult for her to breath.
Smith said, “It has been the hardest fight of my life - but it has been worth every second. I would have died for my girls if I’d had to.”
The EPA is quickly morphing into an organization like the Federal Reserve, making decisions and taking actions they believe are above the law and the courts of the United States.
Mike and Chantell Sackett acquired a piece of land in a residential subdivision of Priest Lake, Idaho, and when they started developing it were ordered by the EPA to stop their improvements and bring the property back to its original condition, asserting it was protected wetlands.
One report said "the Environmental Protection Agency showed up on the building site, demanded that the work stop and issued a 'compliance order' that the couple remove the fill they had brought in, restore the land to its native condition, plant trees every 10 feet, fence it off and let it sit for three years."
"Then they would, for costs estimated at roughly a quarter of a million dollars, be allowed to "request" permission from the government to build on their own land.
"Or else, warned the agency, there is the possibility of fines of $37,500 per day – with the total now surpassing $40 million."
The Pacific Legal Foundation has taken up the case on behalf of the Sacketts, where attorney Damien Schiff will argue the case before the Supreme Court.
Schiff said, the Sacketts "bought property, and the government in effect has ordered them to treat the property like a public park."
"The EPA has not paid them a dime for that privilege. The regime we have operating now allows the EPA to take property without having to pay for it, or giving the owners the right to their day in court."
Schiff added that the authority attempted to be exercised by the EPA is extraordinary, saying there is "no question that the power the EPA is claiming it has under the Clean Water Act is significant."
"Even if you have a good basis the think the EPA is wrong, the EPA won't let you get into the courthouse. They are able to shut the courthouse door by issuing compliance orders that are not judicially reviewable."
The stakes in this case are amazingly high. If the Supreme Court allows this type of authority to the EPA, they are essentially being granted unlimited power within the parameters of the department, and could, without the availability of the courts to its victims, take whatever steps it chooses concerning the property of American citizens.
This is why the EPA as a government entity needs to be not just brought under control, but eliminated altogether, as it serves no function allowed for the government by Jesus Christ.
Mike and Chantell Sackett acquired a piece of land in a residential subdivision of Priest Lake, Idaho, and when they started developing it were ordered by the EPA to stop their improvements and bring the property back to its original condition, asserting it was protected wetlands.
One report said "the Environmental Protection Agency showed up on the building site, demanded that the work stop and issued a 'compliance order' that the couple remove the fill they had brought in, restore the land to its native condition, plant trees every 10 feet, fence it off and let it sit for three years."
"Then they would, for costs estimated at roughly a quarter of a million dollars, be allowed to "request" permission from the government to build on their own land.
"Or else, warned the agency, there is the possibility of fines of $37,500 per day – with the total now surpassing $40 million."
The Pacific Legal Foundation has taken up the case on behalf of the Sacketts, where attorney Damien Schiff will argue the case before the Supreme Court.
Schiff said, the Sacketts "bought property, and the government in effect has ordered them to treat the property like a public park."
"The EPA has not paid them a dime for that privilege. The regime we have operating now allows the EPA to take property without having to pay for it, or giving the owners the right to their day in court."
Schiff added that the authority attempted to be exercised by the EPA is extraordinary, saying there is "no question that the power the EPA is claiming it has under the Clean Water Act is significant."
"Even if you have a good basis the think the EPA is wrong, the EPA won't let you get into the courthouse. They are able to shut the courthouse door by issuing compliance orders that are not judicially reviewable."
The stakes in this case are amazingly high. If the Supreme Court allows this type of authority to the EPA, they are essentially being granted unlimited power within the parameters of the department, and could, without the availability of the courts to its victims, take whatever steps it chooses concerning the property of American citizens.
This is why the EPA as a government entity needs to be not just brought under control, but eliminated altogether, as it serves no function allowed for the government by Jesus Christ.
Friday, September 23, 2011
The draconian FDA has gone on the offensive against those suffering from asthma, as they are forcing those with the ailment to acquire inhalers which are up to three times the cost of current inhalers, and according to some with the disorder, don't work nearly as well.
This is all in the name of keeping the ozone layer from getting damaged, even though there is no proof it is under duress in any way.
Think of it. Obama recently backed off implementing new ozone regulations at the Epa because of the backlash concerning costs. Yet wants to throw his psychotic base a bone by getting rid of inhalers using chlorofluorocarbons.
An agreement between a variety of nations concerning using substances which allegedly deplete the ozone layer are behind the controlling actions by the FDA.
Here's another reason it simply needs to be closed down as a government agency, as it's being used to promote the progressive, socialist agenda, and ultimately attempt to put in place a one world government to control all aspects of our lives.
It also appears to be a wider move to put all things under the control of the FDA related to health, such as vitamins and supplements. This may be the first step towards moving in that direction.
Most steps taken by the big government advocates only move us backwards in quality, as they attempt to push the human raise back to population levels they approve of.
Gradually eliminating those things which improve our quality of live and health, such as the asthma inhaler, will ultimately slowly cut back on population growth, part of the strategy these quacks and big government types self consciously have planned.
When I say eliminating the inhaler, I'm talking about making it so expensive and of lower quality that it could do harm to the users, and almost surely will.
Think of the extra costs obtaining and using the prescription for these inhalers will be over time, spread across all patients needing them.
Any honest person will admit the junk products created for people hating environmentally friendly purpose, are a disaster as to quality. Think of the low-flow toilets, light bulbs, dryers, and dish washer cleaners, which have had phosphate removed from them.
If you ever wonder why your dishwasher doesn't work any more, it's not the dishwasher, it's the removal of phosphate from the detergent which has caused the problem. Pressure from eco-terrorists resulted in this outrage.
Bottom line? Get rid of the EPA and FDA, and start suing these people and organizations into oblivion. They're wicked, base many of the assertions upon unproven theories, and are working to pressure the government to control all aspects of our lives in the name of their ideology.
This is all in the name of keeping the ozone layer from getting damaged, even though there is no proof it is under duress in any way.
Think of it. Obama recently backed off implementing new ozone regulations at the Epa because of the backlash concerning costs. Yet wants to throw his psychotic base a bone by getting rid of inhalers using chlorofluorocarbons.
An agreement between a variety of nations concerning using substances which allegedly deplete the ozone layer are behind the controlling actions by the FDA.
Here's another reason it simply needs to be closed down as a government agency, as it's being used to promote the progressive, socialist agenda, and ultimately attempt to put in place a one world government to control all aspects of our lives.
It also appears to be a wider move to put all things under the control of the FDA related to health, such as vitamins and supplements. This may be the first step towards moving in that direction.
Most steps taken by the big government advocates only move us backwards in quality, as they attempt to push the human raise back to population levels they approve of.
Gradually eliminating those things which improve our quality of live and health, such as the asthma inhaler, will ultimately slowly cut back on population growth, part of the strategy these quacks and big government types self consciously have planned.
When I say eliminating the inhaler, I'm talking about making it so expensive and of lower quality that it could do harm to the users, and almost surely will.
Think of the extra costs obtaining and using the prescription for these inhalers will be over time, spread across all patients needing them.
Any honest person will admit the junk products created for people hating environmentally friendly purpose, are a disaster as to quality. Think of the low-flow toilets, light bulbs, dryers, and dish washer cleaners, which have had phosphate removed from them.
If you ever wonder why your dishwasher doesn't work any more, it's not the dishwasher, it's the removal of phosphate from the detergent which has caused the problem. Pressure from eco-terrorists resulted in this outrage.
Bottom line? Get rid of the EPA and FDA, and start suing these people and organizations into oblivion. They're wicked, base many of the assertions upon unproven theories, and are working to pressure the government to control all aspects of our lives in the name of their ideology.
For a long time I've operated under one assumption when digesting things that make no sense, and that is pull back and look in another direction, as there are another element or elements at play which aren't obvious, and that's the case with the willingness of members of the European Union, especially Germany, to continue to bail out Greece, even though the country lies, covers up, or refuses to take the promised steps of austerity.
It doesn't make sense, does it? So that means we have to look elsewhere for an explanation, and that explanation is the ongoing drive by powerful people to create a one word order or governing body to centralise rule under one umbrella.
This is why the pressure is on Germany's Merkel to continue to support bailouts of Greece even in the face of fierce opposition at home, which all but ensures her ouster in the next elections.
When you have this type of behavior counter to the usual looking out for your political survival, that means something bigger is at stake, and that something bigger is the battle to keep the European Union from falling apart, as it's the foundation from which those supporting one world government to expand from.
If it fails in Europe, it will be stopped in its tracks, dealing another blow to socialism and its faltering Utopian dreams. Socialism, or forced redistribution of wealth, is one of the underlying dreams of the one world, centralized plan, and the two are connected to one another. If one falls, the other will as well, although that will be different, depending on which nations we're talking about.
For Europe and the rest of the West, that's where most of the socialist dream will be smashed to smithereens, as it becomes increasingly apparent to a growing number of people that it is unsustainable, as is its failed economic theory: Keynesianism.
All of these things, among others, will fail as the European Union begins to unravel, starting with the inevitable default of Greece, which is a surety.
Even if the countries continue to operate under the name of the European Union, the reality that it's a toothless and powerless entity will make it a joke to all of those watching who matter.
After all, what could the EU do if countries started pulling out of it or were kicked out? There are no sanctions that could be imposed other than the refusal to allow the country to trade within the block.
Bottom line? When Greece defaults and is allowed to do whatever it wants, it will be at that time most people will understand it's a group of countries with no power or ability to impose sanctions on a member country.
When the smoke clears with all of this, there could very easily be an escalation of trade wars as in the 1930s, which will be economically devastating to the world. Who knows where that will lead to?
As for a Greece default, that will have a larger impact on France in the short term, as they are largely spent out, even though Germany has been bearing the brunt of the bailouts.
What happens with the rest of the PIIGS take note of the weak EU? It will probably only be a short time after that that they decide to do an Iceland to the EU, knowing they can get away with it.
Either way, the European Union experiment isn't far from failure, and in reality, other than being propped up, has already failed economically, as the idea of a centralized world government is an anemic one, and we'll probably see a knockout punch in the near future which will all but excise that dream out of the people with illusions trying to make it happen.
I'll rejoice when the EU falls; so should you.
The problem is, will the consequences of that fall end up with violence as it has with Greece? Or will there be a quiet and fatalistic acceptance that the grand experiment has failed? The future of the 21st century will probably be decided by that answer.
Some really good news is that progressives, liberals and socialists will suffer a blow to their confidence in their horrid ideas and assumptions, paving the way for something to take its place. Hopefully that will be free markets and exchange of trade, smaller government, less taxes, and a growing entrepreneurial spirit.
It doesn't make sense, does it? So that means we have to look elsewhere for an explanation, and that explanation is the ongoing drive by powerful people to create a one word order or governing body to centralise rule under one umbrella.
This is why the pressure is on Germany's Merkel to continue to support bailouts of Greece even in the face of fierce opposition at home, which all but ensures her ouster in the next elections.
When you have this type of behavior counter to the usual looking out for your political survival, that means something bigger is at stake, and that something bigger is the battle to keep the European Union from falling apart, as it's the foundation from which those supporting one world government to expand from.
If it fails in Europe, it will be stopped in its tracks, dealing another blow to socialism and its faltering Utopian dreams. Socialism, or forced redistribution of wealth, is one of the underlying dreams of the one world, centralized plan, and the two are connected to one another. If one falls, the other will as well, although that will be different, depending on which nations we're talking about.
For Europe and the rest of the West, that's where most of the socialist dream will be smashed to smithereens, as it becomes increasingly apparent to a growing number of people that it is unsustainable, as is its failed economic theory: Keynesianism.
All of these things, among others, will fail as the European Union begins to unravel, starting with the inevitable default of Greece, which is a surety.
Even if the countries continue to operate under the name of the European Union, the reality that it's a toothless and powerless entity will make it a joke to all of those watching who matter.
After all, what could the EU do if countries started pulling out of it or were kicked out? There are no sanctions that could be imposed other than the refusal to allow the country to trade within the block.
Bottom line? When Greece defaults and is allowed to do whatever it wants, it will be at that time most people will understand it's a group of countries with no power or ability to impose sanctions on a member country.
When the smoke clears with all of this, there could very easily be an escalation of trade wars as in the 1930s, which will be economically devastating to the world. Who knows where that will lead to?
As for a Greece default, that will have a larger impact on France in the short term, as they are largely spent out, even though Germany has been bearing the brunt of the bailouts.
What happens with the rest of the PIIGS take note of the weak EU? It will probably only be a short time after that that they decide to do an Iceland to the EU, knowing they can get away with it.
Either way, the European Union experiment isn't far from failure, and in reality, other than being propped up, has already failed economically, as the idea of a centralized world government is an anemic one, and we'll probably see a knockout punch in the near future which will all but excise that dream out of the people with illusions trying to make it happen.
I'll rejoice when the EU falls; so should you.
The problem is, will the consequences of that fall end up with violence as it has with Greece? Or will there be a quiet and fatalistic acceptance that the grand experiment has failed? The future of the 21st century will probably be decided by that answer.
Some really good news is that progressives, liberals and socialists will suffer a blow to their confidence in their horrid ideas and assumptions, paving the way for something to take its place. Hopefully that will be free markets and exchange of trade, smaller government, less taxes, and a growing entrepreneurial spirit.
In an odd response by Fox News, when polling viewers on who won the Orlando Republican debate, they resoundingly said Ron Paul won the debate, with almost 40 percent voting his way. Fox pulled the results and bizarrely declared Mitt Romney the winner, even though only 22.89 percent agreed with that viewpoint.
Ron Paul, according to poll, generated 39.27 percent, or 27,573 of just over 70,000 votes, who thought he was the clear winner, as you see below.
To me it's not right to distort the fact that Ron Paul is connecting with voters and make it appear he isn't really in the race.
Establishment types just don't want to hear Paul's message of limited government, less spending, and lower taxes. It's a threat to the regime, which is attempting to hold onto its power and status in the world, even though the United States and its people can no longer afford it.
Ron Paul, according to poll, generated 39.27 percent, or 27,573 of just over 70,000 votes, who thought he was the clear winner, as you see below.
To me it's not right to distort the fact that Ron Paul is connecting with voters and make it appear he isn't really in the race.
Establishment types just don't want to hear Paul's message of limited government, less spending, and lower taxes. It's a threat to the regime, which is attempting to hold onto its power and status in the world, even though the United States and its people can no longer afford it.
Click on Image for Larger View
Unsurprisingly, a Gallop poll found that 55 percent of Americans have little or not trust of mainstream media outlets, with 44 percent saying they have a fair amount of, or great deal of trust in major media outlets.
Concerning bias in mainstream media, 47 percent believe they are far too liberal, while 36 percent see it as being "just about right." Hilariously, 13 percent say mainstream media is too conservative.
Among Republicans, 75 percent say media are too liberal. Independents are split on the issue, with 50 percent saying media is too liberal. Moderates are also split, with 50 percent saying media are just about right. The majority of liberals see media as just about right, with 57 percent holding to that position.
The results of the poll are pretty much the same as they were in 2010.
Concerning bias in mainstream media, 47 percent believe they are far too liberal, while 36 percent see it as being "just about right." Hilariously, 13 percent say mainstream media is too conservative.
Among Republicans, 75 percent say media are too liberal. Independents are split on the issue, with 50 percent saying media is too liberal. Moderates are also split, with 50 percent saying media are just about right. The majority of liberals see media as just about right, with 57 percent holding to that position.
The results of the poll are pretty much the same as they were in 2010.
In a recent study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, it was found that bossy wives had less sex than their more agreeable counterparts.
According to Professor Michelle Hindin, the lead author of the study, “The more decisions a woman reported making on her own, as compared to joint decision making, the less likely she was to have sex and the longer it was since she last had sexual intercourse.”
Although it wasn't broken down, I have a feeling that the decisions concerning family and friends was more the deal breaker than the financial decisions, although that would be more subjective, depending on whether or not a particular wife had discipline in financial matters.
It also appears that the women in the study may have controlled most of the decisions, rather than maybe one of two.
Either way, a dominant woman married to a man will be far less sexually desirable to him than one that is more cooperative and wanting to work as a team, or respecting the input or decisions of her husband.
In this day of so-called empowerment, which is a buzz word for dominating a man by a woman, it's far better to be less empowered than it is to attempt to control and be in charge of everything so you can get your own way.
As shown, it will affect your sex life with your husband if you're not.
According to Professor Michelle Hindin, the lead author of the study, “The more decisions a woman reported making on her own, as compared to joint decision making, the less likely she was to have sex and the longer it was since she last had sexual intercourse.”
Survey participants were also asked to indicate the person in the household who typically had the final say on the following decisions: health care, large household purchases, household purchases for daily needs and visiting family and friends. Researchers also examined socio-demographic and relationship factors such as age, wealth, parity, husband’s residence, and marital duration.
Although it wasn't broken down, I have a feeling that the decisions concerning family and friends was more the deal breaker than the financial decisions, although that would be more subjective, depending on whether or not a particular wife had discipline in financial matters.
It also appears that the women in the study may have controlled most of the decisions, rather than maybe one of two.
Either way, a dominant woman married to a man will be far less sexually desirable to him than one that is more cooperative and wanting to work as a team, or respecting the input or decisions of her husband.
In this day of so-called empowerment, which is a buzz word for dominating a man by a woman, it's far better to be less empowered than it is to attempt to control and be in charge of everything so you can get your own way.
As shown, it will affect your sex life with your husband if you're not.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Rick Perry pulled out a trick from the progressive or liberal camp at the Thursday debate, attempting to paint his opponents as heartless when pressured concerning his dismal record on immigration.
Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich all took Perry to account over his allowing illegal aliens to tap into in-state tuition benefits.
Concerning opposing the practice, Perry said of his opponents, "I Don't Think You Have a Heart." Talk about a bleeding liberal, which it appears many of Perry's policies have been over the years in political office.
Perry noted, "If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they've been brought their through no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart," adding, "We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society. I think that's what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature when this issue came up [there were] only four dissenting votes. This was a state issue. Texas voted on it. And I still support it today."
There are of course a number of issues withing these comments raised by Perry, including state's rights. But the question is whether Federal tax dollars are used to pay for the in-state tuition for illegals or not.
More importantly, and to the point I wanted to comment on, the Bible doesn't condone the bleeding heart, emotional responses asserted by liberals like Perry.
It talks directly and practically to issues like these, and says with food and clothing we should be content. That includes not only concerning ourselves, but also concerning charities or the government, as we shouldn't be giving beyond those parameters, neither are we required to.
Not that the government should be involved with charity or handouts. But I just include the government because that's the misguided reality at this time.
That's not to say an individual or charity can't give beyond these necessities, just that there is absolutely no imperative from God to, and many times it does more harm than good.
The more Perry talks, the more he in fact does appear to be a big-government man intent on continuing on the misguided policies of this administration if he is voted into office.
What about cutting spending and the size of government don't most of the Republican candidates get? Perry obviously doesn't get it. Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann seem to be the only two that really do within the field.
Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich all took Perry to account over his allowing illegal aliens to tap into in-state tuition benefits.
Concerning opposing the practice, Perry said of his opponents, "I Don't Think You Have a Heart." Talk about a bleeding liberal, which it appears many of Perry's policies have been over the years in political office.
Perry noted, "If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they've been brought their through no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart," adding, "We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society. I think that's what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature when this issue came up [there were] only four dissenting votes. This was a state issue. Texas voted on it. And I still support it today."
There are of course a number of issues withing these comments raised by Perry, including state's rights. But the question is whether Federal tax dollars are used to pay for the in-state tuition for illegals or not.
More importantly, and to the point I wanted to comment on, the Bible doesn't condone the bleeding heart, emotional responses asserted by liberals like Perry.
It talks directly and practically to issues like these, and says with food and clothing we should be content. That includes not only concerning ourselves, but also concerning charities or the government, as we shouldn't be giving beyond those parameters, neither are we required to.
Not that the government should be involved with charity or handouts. But I just include the government because that's the misguided reality at this time.
That's not to say an individual or charity can't give beyond these necessities, just that there is absolutely no imperative from God to, and many times it does more harm than good.
The more Perry talks, the more he in fact does appear to be a big-government man intent on continuing on the misguided policies of this administration if he is voted into office.
What about cutting spending and the size of government don't most of the Republican candidates get? Perry obviously doesn't get it. Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann seem to be the only two that really do within the field.
With the vision of turning "Bentonville (Arkansas) into an international destination for art lovers," Wal-Mart heiress Alice Walton continues to build out her "Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art," which she started working on in 2007.
Walton has committed the project to displaying American art only, which will be housed in a 217,000 square foot series of galleries.
There is no expense being spared for the unique art museum, which is scheduled to be opened in November 2011. It appears already $1 billion has been garnered for the project, with more where that came from when needed.
Alice Walton has a fortune of about $21 billion she inherited from her father Sam Walton, who launched the retail chain, and the Walton Family Foundation has already endowed the museum with $800 million.
More importantly, Walton isn't a clueless rich woman throwing her money around, as she has a good sense of art history and art works, and can intelligently make decisions and give input concerning what she wants and the scope and direction she wants the museum to take.
Although some have raised their eyebrows at the American-only focus of Walton concerning the art museum, she said in a recent New Yorker article, "My parents were both very patriotic, and I would not consider anything but American art."
A $20 donation to the museum by Wal-Mart will allow everyone to enjoy the art for free.
The museum will officially open on November 11, 2011
It was despicable that Republican leadership attempted to ram through a continuing resolution through the House of Representatives that would have had the funding in place for Planned Parenthood, the United Nations Population Fund, the Palestinian Authority and Obamacare.
If it wasn't for the 48 House conservatives that voted against the CR, all of this would have been allowed to go forward. The bill was defeated 195 to 230.
Democrats voted against it for reasons associated with FEMA. In that case, it attempted to slash $1.5 billion from the $25-billion Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program that provides government-subsidized financing to auto manufacturers.
House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.) were the major promoters of the bill, calling into question their leadership qualifications.
What about cutting spending don't these guys understand? It's a blow to the stomach of Tea Partiers who gave Republicans such a strong sweep the last election, and they and their message aren't going away.
RINOs better beware in the years ahead, as those in the Tea Party back ideas, not parties, and they will punish those by throwing them out of office if they keep up this type of behavior.
According to the conservative House Republican Study Committee, the CR pushed by Boehner “continues funding for the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency known for its involvement in China’s brutal one-child policy. It also continues $300 million in annual funding to the Title X family planning program, which is a prime funding source for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”
“Note that Medicaid also provides $1.4 billion in family planning assistance to low income individuals,” said the committee. “The CR also continues to provide international population control funds at a rate of $575 million per year.”
“Some conservatives may be concerned that the legislation does not block funding for Obamacare during the period covered by the legislation,” the committee added.
Finally the committee concluded, “The legislation does not include many other ‘riders’ that conservatives have advocated during the appropriations process,” said the Republican Study Committee analysis. “This includes a ban on funding for abortion providers, prohibiting funds for various new environmental regulations, and prohibiting funds for Net Neutrality regulations. The legislation provides the same funding formula for most programs, with final funding levels left to November 18, 2011 for individual program levels. This means that the cr continues to provide funding for many programs that conservatives would object to, such as NRR, the Palestinian Authority, and Legal Services Corporation.”
It's incredible that some Republicans take these types of actions. I think it's because they think the electorate will behave as it has in the past, largely neglecting or forgetting what their representatives voted for. Those days are gone, and the memories of Tea Party voters have lengthened, and they'll be the ones that decide elections in the years ahead. Republicans better get that straight in their heads if they want our support.
If it wasn't for the 48 House conservatives that voted against the CR, all of this would have been allowed to go forward. The bill was defeated 195 to 230.
Democrats voted against it for reasons associated with FEMA. In that case, it attempted to slash $1.5 billion from the $25-billion Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans program that provides government-subsidized financing to auto manufacturers.
House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R.-Va.) were the major promoters of the bill, calling into question their leadership qualifications.
What about cutting spending don't these guys understand? It's a blow to the stomach of Tea Partiers who gave Republicans such a strong sweep the last election, and they and their message aren't going away.
RINOs better beware in the years ahead, as those in the Tea Party back ideas, not parties, and they will punish those by throwing them out of office if they keep up this type of behavior.
According to the conservative House Republican Study Committee, the CR pushed by Boehner “continues funding for the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency known for its involvement in China’s brutal one-child policy. It also continues $300 million in annual funding to the Title X family planning program, which is a prime funding source for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”
“Note that Medicaid also provides $1.4 billion in family planning assistance to low income individuals,” said the committee. “The CR also continues to provide international population control funds at a rate of $575 million per year.”
“Some conservatives may be concerned that the legislation does not block funding for Obamacare during the period covered by the legislation,” the committee added.
Finally the committee concluded, “The legislation does not include many other ‘riders’ that conservatives have advocated during the appropriations process,” said the Republican Study Committee analysis. “This includes a ban on funding for abortion providers, prohibiting funds for various new environmental regulations, and prohibiting funds for Net Neutrality regulations. The legislation provides the same funding formula for most programs, with final funding levels left to November 18, 2011 for individual program levels. This means that the cr continues to provide funding for many programs that conservatives would object to, such as NRR, the Palestinian Authority, and Legal Services Corporation.”
It's incredible that some Republicans take these types of actions. I think it's because they think the electorate will behave as it has in the past, largely neglecting or forgetting what their representatives voted for. Those days are gone, and the memories of Tea Party voters have lengthened, and they'll be the ones that decide elections in the years ahead. Republicans better get that straight in their heads if they want our support.
A Christian honors student was suspended at Western Hills High School in Forth Worth, Texas for saying to another student that homosexuality is wrong.
The context of the situation was freshman Dakota Ary was in German class when the discussion turned to religion and the views of Germany were concerning homosexuality.
According to Ary's attorney Matt Krause, Dakota responded saying, 'I'm a Christian and I believe being gay is wrong,'. He was just expressing his viewpoint and he did it in a very non-hostile, benign way to a friend."
Krause said his client has every right to express that view based upon his First Amendment rights.
Ary was suspended in-school for his comments when the teacher heard them, but the suspension was reversed after his mother retained legal counsel and challenged Principal James Wellman over the issue.
His mother Holly Pope said, "He is not a troublemaker or a bully of any kind. This was not out of context. This was in a discussion about religion. ... I knew this subject had come up in class before because he told me last week that the teacher had a picture of two men kissing on a wall that had pictures from across the world."
It appears the homosexual lifestyle is being imposed on the classroom, as evidenced by the inappropriate picture of the two males kissing. It's the teacher and the school which is creating the hostile environment, as the homosexual evangelists refuse to stop their marketing of the lifestyle to students across the United States and the world.
While I understand what Holly Pope asserts concerning context, it's irrelevant what the context was, as from the point of view of Jesus Christ, homosexuality is sin, and all true Christians will oppose it, as this honest and brave teenager did.
The context of the situation was freshman Dakota Ary was in German class when the discussion turned to religion and the views of Germany were concerning homosexuality.
According to Ary's attorney Matt Krause, Dakota responded saying, 'I'm a Christian and I believe being gay is wrong,'. He was just expressing his viewpoint and he did it in a very non-hostile, benign way to a friend."
Krause said his client has every right to express that view based upon his First Amendment rights.
Ary was suspended in-school for his comments when the teacher heard them, but the suspension was reversed after his mother retained legal counsel and challenged Principal James Wellman over the issue.
His mother Holly Pope said, "He is not a troublemaker or a bully of any kind. This was not out of context. This was in a discussion about religion. ... I knew this subject had come up in class before because he told me last week that the teacher had a picture of two men kissing on a wall that had pictures from across the world."
It appears the homosexual lifestyle is being imposed on the classroom, as evidenced by the inappropriate picture of the two males kissing. It's the teacher and the school which is creating the hostile environment, as the homosexual evangelists refuse to stop their marketing of the lifestyle to students across the United States and the world.
While I understand what Holly Pope asserts concerning context, it's irrelevant what the context was, as from the point of view of Jesus Christ, homosexuality is sin, and all true Christians will oppose it, as this honest and brave teenager did.
Citing the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, Kaye Beach filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma over a new rule that forces driver's license applicants to have a "biometric" digital photograph taken of them.
Commenting on the case, John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said this, "Whether a biometric ID card in the form of a driver's license or other government-issued form of identification is the mark of the Beast or merely the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same – ultimate control by the government."
"As Kaye Beach's case makes clear, failing to have a biometric card can render you a non-person for all intents and purposes, with your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on jeopardized," he added. The Rutherford Institute is representing Beach in the case.
According to the lawsuit, the scriptures Rev. 13:16-18 and 14:9-11 are cited, saying they specifically command "believers to not participate in a global numbering identification system using the number of man, and eternally condemns participation in that system."
The lawsuit was filed against the state of Oklahoma's Department of Public Safety and Public Safety Commissioner Michael C. Thompson, along with several others.
Commenting on the case, John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said this, "Whether a biometric ID card in the form of a driver's license or other government-issued form of identification is the mark of the Beast or merely the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same – ultimate control by the government."
"As Kaye Beach's case makes clear, failing to have a biometric card can render you a non-person for all intents and purposes, with your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on jeopardized," he added. The Rutherford Institute is representing Beach in the case.
According to the lawsuit, the scriptures Rev. 13:16-18 and 14:9-11 are cited, saying they specifically command "believers to not participate in a global numbering identification system using the number of man, and eternally condemns participation in that system."
The lawsuit was filed against the state of Oklahoma's Department of Public Safety and Public Safety Commissioner Michael C. Thompson, along with several others.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Huffmans, a married senior couple attempting to figure out how to use their new computer, have become a YouTube sensation after their granddaughter posted a video clip of their humorous attempt.
Mrs. Huffman showed visible frustration over how to work with the webcam, even while it taped her.
What was fun was the response of her husband, who took time to lighten things during the frustrating experience by singing some songs and having fun.
Over a period of thirty days the video has well over 7 million hits.
Mrs. Huffman showed visible frustration over how to work with the webcam, even while it taped her.
What was fun was the response of her husband, who took time to lighten things during the frustrating experience by singing some songs and having fun.
Over a period of thirty days the video has well over 7 million hits.
One of the immediate ways the U.S. government can cut back on spending is to get rid of the national parks and lands in the country, as it goes far beyond the purpose of Jesus Christ concerning government.
The idea of confiscating land so the government can implement its endlessly useless and irrelevant ideology on them is a crime.
It's far better for private individuals and industry to own land, as it can then be developed for something that is useful to society, rather than the government wastes concerning the earth God has given us.
Not only does the government take taxpayer dollars to run and operate the land, but then they force citizens to pay a fee for admission to the land the people allegedly own.
Every year though thousands of Americans are dooped into "volunteering" to clean up these public lands in what they are manipulated into thinking is some type of patriotic act.
Pressure needs to be exerted to have government sell the lands and get it into the hands of those that will do something good with it for the benefit of people.
The idea of confiscating land so the government can implement its endlessly useless and irrelevant ideology on them is a crime.
It's far better for private individuals and industry to own land, as it can then be developed for something that is useful to society, rather than the government wastes concerning the earth God has given us.
Not only does the government take taxpayer dollars to run and operate the land, but then they force citizens to pay a fee for admission to the land the people allegedly own.
Every year though thousands of Americans are dooped into "volunteering" to clean up these public lands in what they are manipulated into thinking is some type of patriotic act.
Pressure needs to be exerted to have government sell the lands and get it into the hands of those that will do something good with it for the benefit of people.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The lack of discernment, or possibly even care by the Obama administration over numerous issues, has resulted in the loss of popularity for Barack Obama, as he clearly has no idea on how to choose is fights, even if his ideology allows him to, which is questionable in light of his behavior and disregard for the will of the American people. The horrid Obamacare is one of those things he has forced upon us, along with support for homosexuals in the military and homosexual marriage as well.
Now he is siding with the terrorist-supported Palestinians against long-term ally in the Middle East - Israel, and that has a growing number of Jewish people up in arms. The recent win in highly Democratic New York has Republicans smelling blood, and the sharks are definitely circling as Obama bungles issue after issue with no apparent understanding of the consequences of his actions.
As for the nation of Israel itself, much of this came from Obama's decision to press for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders in order to push the process forward.
While American Jews only represent less than 3 percent of voters, in some very important swing states, specifically Ohio and Florida, they could make a big difference in the outcome. If those states go Republican, there's no way Obama would have a chance to win the election; although it's increasingly appearing that he has slim if little chance either way, as voters are increasingly disgruntled and disapproving of his performance.
Although this is very important in the next year, over the long term it could be the long-awaited breakthrough by Republicans in gaining a larger portion of the Jewish vote, which since the New Deal has been cast for Democrats as faithfully as any group, and more so than most, with the possible exception of the black community.
Democrats and their media allies have been attempting to downplay the victory in New York by the Republicans, but it was unprecedented, as Democrats held it for close to 100 years, and the demographic makeup of the Jews residing there are close to those living in Florida and Ohio.
Obama can't take back his course of action and decisions, and it's unlikely within the short time until the election the Jews in the United States supporting the nation of Israel will forget what he has done. They very well may not in the future either, potentially changing the results of some key districts.
Palestinians have taken advantage of Obama's errors, and are now going straight to the United Nations in an attempt to force a vote on statehood for them.
The administration is now posturing as ready to immediately veto the resolution, but for Obama, it may be too little, too late, as perceptions are he may have opened the door because of being perceived as weak and accomidating by the Palestinians.
No wonder just about everyone can't wait to end the misery of the country by voting this clueless man out of office before he does any more damage, both foreign and domestic.
Now he is siding with the terrorist-supported Palestinians against long-term ally in the Middle East - Israel, and that has a growing number of Jewish people up in arms. The recent win in highly Democratic New York has Republicans smelling blood, and the sharks are definitely circling as Obama bungles issue after issue with no apparent understanding of the consequences of his actions.
As for the nation of Israel itself, much of this came from Obama's decision to press for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders in order to push the process forward.
While American Jews only represent less than 3 percent of voters, in some very important swing states, specifically Ohio and Florida, they could make a big difference in the outcome. If those states go Republican, there's no way Obama would have a chance to win the election; although it's increasingly appearing that he has slim if little chance either way, as voters are increasingly disgruntled and disapproving of his performance.
Although this is very important in the next year, over the long term it could be the long-awaited breakthrough by Republicans in gaining a larger portion of the Jewish vote, which since the New Deal has been cast for Democrats as faithfully as any group, and more so than most, with the possible exception of the black community.
Democrats and their media allies have been attempting to downplay the victory in New York by the Republicans, but it was unprecedented, as Democrats held it for close to 100 years, and the demographic makeup of the Jews residing there are close to those living in Florida and Ohio.
Obama can't take back his course of action and decisions, and it's unlikely within the short time until the election the Jews in the United States supporting the nation of Israel will forget what he has done. They very well may not in the future either, potentially changing the results of some key districts.
Palestinians have taken advantage of Obama's errors, and are now going straight to the United Nations in an attempt to force a vote on statehood for them.
The administration is now posturing as ready to immediately veto the resolution, but for Obama, it may be too little, too late, as perceptions are he may have opened the door because of being perceived as weak and accomidating by the Palestinians.
No wonder just about everyone can't wait to end the misery of the country by voting this clueless man out of office before he does any more damage, both foreign and domestic.
A poll by McClatchy-Marist found that the inept and floundering Barack Obama is losing ground against every Republican candidate vying for the nomination to be the next person to run against Obama for President, including Sarah Palin.
While some in the media are attempting to do the "even Sarah Palin" is gaining on Obama, that's because they have done so much to try to destroy her. It has to be spun that way in order to hide the fact the general public hasn't bought into it.
In other words, they're trying to point the blame on Barack Obama for Palin's rise in popularity, rather than it being because of her attraction as a candidate.
That of course doesn't excuse Obama, who may be the worst president in American history. But the point is people, for the first time really, are starting to seriously look at the upcoming election for president, and their preferences are beginning to come out. For Palin, that would have happened no matter how Obama performed, although his performance does make it quicker and easier to embrace her for some that were on the fence line.
Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the national survey, said this about Obama's prospects, "This will require him to find ways to either win back the middle or energize his base in ways that hasn't happened so far."
The problem for Obama is he has completely lost the middle, and the major reason he lost the middle is because he refused to quit pandering to his base, which is the lunatic fringe of the controversial and despotic progressive/socialist/liberal element of the party.
Choose whatever name you like, the progressives are so out of touch with mainstream America that it is surprising that Obama continues to forward their agenda, further distancing himself from the reality of who we are as a people.
He should have stopped after throwing them a few bones, and in the case of Obamacare, a full course meal. But his outrageous behavior and obedience to these types of people have resulted in his extraordinary loss of popularity.
Think of the ridiculous and evil rescinding of barriers to homosexuals in the armed forces, as the most recent attack on the morality of the country reveals. Like that's some issue we're all worried about: the inclusion of homosexuals in the military in order to fight our wars. That's a priority all right.
Even with the majority of the population opposing higher taxes, he still is attempting to force that down our throats as well, even when the numbers don't add up and it takes even more away from productive people.
In other words, Obama refuses to make real spending cuts, so his only other gambit is to impose more "stimulus," print more money, or raise taxes. Since the rest have been a disaster and opposed by most, he now is attempting to do the class warfare thing, again missing the winds of the mood of the country, which is tired of it all.
The only answer of course is smaller government through cuts in spending and taxes. And it needs to be done across the board.
Obama is so unpopular through these misguided efforts and others like it, that the majority of voters see him losing no matter who the candidate is opposing him in the election.
But they're also saying they're going to put their vote where their mouths are, as 49 percent say they'll definitely vote against Obama in the next election, while only 36 percent say they'll vote for him. It's highly likely it'll get worse as the election nears, and the vote is actually cast.
Obama is losing everyone now, even his base, because he simply stands for absolutely nothing. He is so enslaved to the issue flavor of the day, he can't seem to realistically comprehend or discern which ones really are important to the country and which aren't.
For example, you know with Michelle Bachmann where she stands with Obamacare if she were to be elected president. She has repeatedly said she'll work to have it repealed. She is also very clear on where she stands on abortion and spending.
Obama on the other hand, continues to flip flop on just about everything. He's backed off his promise to stand up for marriage being between a man and a woman, and has aggressively expanded the forced acceptance of homosexuals in many areas of American life, even though the majority of the country opposed homosexual marriage.
His attempts to appease his base by the nonsensical push for so-called "green" energy while attacking the energy foundation we now use, making it much more expensive to extract from the earth, has been a disaster, and now, as we're finding out with Solyndra scandal, there is apparently a lot of questions that need to be answered for wasting so much of the taxpayers' dollars on these failed boondoggles.
As for Sarah Palin, she's only behind Obama by 49 to 44, and she hasn't even decided whether she's going to enter the race or not.
Michelle Bachmann is also gaining on Obama in August, jumping from 17 percent down in July to 13 percent now. In all fairness, she has been the brunt of some of the more brutal and dishonest attacks from the media, similar to what Sarah Palin has went through in the past, and could have had a much better showing if that wasn't the case.
As for the gains for all Republican candidates, all of this is because Obama has lost ground with the independent vote, which is the key to anyone winning an election.
Interestingly, the majority of her supporters don't want her to run in this election cycle. It seems the reason is people are in the midst of making up their minds on their candidates, and if Palin enters the race, the process and weighing and balancing would have to be begin all over again.
And the truth is, Palin, this time around, may be better playing a supporting role, while prepping for her own opportunity in the future, if she decides to take it.
While some in the media are attempting to do the "even Sarah Palin" is gaining on Obama, that's because they have done so much to try to destroy her. It has to be spun that way in order to hide the fact the general public hasn't bought into it.
In other words, they're trying to point the blame on Barack Obama for Palin's rise in popularity, rather than it being because of her attraction as a candidate.
That of course doesn't excuse Obama, who may be the worst president in American history. But the point is people, for the first time really, are starting to seriously look at the upcoming election for president, and their preferences are beginning to come out. For Palin, that would have happened no matter how Obama performed, although his performance does make it quicker and easier to embrace her for some that were on the fence line.
Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the national survey, said this about Obama's prospects, "This will require him to find ways to either win back the middle or energize his base in ways that hasn't happened so far."
The problem for Obama is he has completely lost the middle, and the major reason he lost the middle is because he refused to quit pandering to his base, which is the lunatic fringe of the controversial and despotic progressive/socialist/liberal element of the party.
Choose whatever name you like, the progressives are so out of touch with mainstream America that it is surprising that Obama continues to forward their agenda, further distancing himself from the reality of who we are as a people.
He should have stopped after throwing them a few bones, and in the case of Obamacare, a full course meal. But his outrageous behavior and obedience to these types of people have resulted in his extraordinary loss of popularity.
Think of the ridiculous and evil rescinding of barriers to homosexuals in the armed forces, as the most recent attack on the morality of the country reveals. Like that's some issue we're all worried about: the inclusion of homosexuals in the military in order to fight our wars. That's a priority all right.
Even with the majority of the population opposing higher taxes, he still is attempting to force that down our throats as well, even when the numbers don't add up and it takes even more away from productive people.
In other words, Obama refuses to make real spending cuts, so his only other gambit is to impose more "stimulus," print more money, or raise taxes. Since the rest have been a disaster and opposed by most, he now is attempting to do the class warfare thing, again missing the winds of the mood of the country, which is tired of it all.
The only answer of course is smaller government through cuts in spending and taxes. And it needs to be done across the board.
Obama is so unpopular through these misguided efforts and others like it, that the majority of voters see him losing no matter who the candidate is opposing him in the election.
But they're also saying they're going to put their vote where their mouths are, as 49 percent say they'll definitely vote against Obama in the next election, while only 36 percent say they'll vote for him. It's highly likely it'll get worse as the election nears, and the vote is actually cast.
Obama is losing everyone now, even his base, because he simply stands for absolutely nothing. He is so enslaved to the issue flavor of the day, he can't seem to realistically comprehend or discern which ones really are important to the country and which aren't.
For example, you know with Michelle Bachmann where she stands with Obamacare if she were to be elected president. She has repeatedly said she'll work to have it repealed. She is also very clear on where she stands on abortion and spending.
Obama on the other hand, continues to flip flop on just about everything. He's backed off his promise to stand up for marriage being between a man and a woman, and has aggressively expanded the forced acceptance of homosexuals in many areas of American life, even though the majority of the country opposed homosexual marriage.
His attempts to appease his base by the nonsensical push for so-called "green" energy while attacking the energy foundation we now use, making it much more expensive to extract from the earth, has been a disaster, and now, as we're finding out with Solyndra scandal, there is apparently a lot of questions that need to be answered for wasting so much of the taxpayers' dollars on these failed boondoggles.
As for Sarah Palin, she's only behind Obama by 49 to 44, and she hasn't even decided whether she's going to enter the race or not.
Michelle Bachmann is also gaining on Obama in August, jumping from 17 percent down in July to 13 percent now. In all fairness, she has been the brunt of some of the more brutal and dishonest attacks from the media, similar to what Sarah Palin has went through in the past, and could have had a much better showing if that wasn't the case.
As for the gains for all Republican candidates, all of this is because Obama has lost ground with the independent vote, which is the key to anyone winning an election.
Interestingly, the majority of her supporters don't want her to run in this election cycle. It seems the reason is people are in the midst of making up their minds on their candidates, and if Palin enters the race, the process and weighing and balancing would have to be begin all over again.
And the truth is, Palin, this time around, may be better playing a supporting role, while prepping for her own opportunity in the future, if she decides to take it.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
One of the dirty little secrets of the wind turbine industry is the amount of harm it does to wildlife.
Those wind turbine farms located on land are very destructive to birds and bats, killing tens of thousands of them, if not more annually.
When BP (NYSE:BP) had its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a big deal was made about the damage to wildlife, even thought it was extremely minimal, and not even close to the damage these wind turbine farms do in just one day to wildlife.
Evidently the media likes to show a few birds with oil on them. Unfortunately they don't show the mangled birds and bats.
Now as far as those wind turbines located in some parts of the sea, they can also be extremely destructive to wildlife via secondary effects.
For example, off the coast of Great Britain it has been extremely destructive to shrimp. That's because when the wind turbines are being put in place, and to a lesser extent, when they're operating, it attracts huge numbers of starfish which gorge on the shrimp. This is extremely destructive to the industry, and those within the shrimping industry fear they could lose their livlihoods over it.
For some reason when shrimp fishermen are impacted by oil that's a scandal, when they're affected by the even more brutal wind turbine industry, somehow it just doesn't matter, and the media largely ignores it.
Starfish come to the areas that are disturbed, such as in relationship to wind turbines, because they instinctively know when the area is disturbed they're going to be able to feed well.
Wind turbines are growing increasingly controversial, and the mainstream media, for the most part, refuses to point out the damage from these ugly monsters.
Those wind turbine farms located on land are very destructive to birds and bats, killing tens of thousands of them, if not more annually.
When BP (NYSE:BP) had its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a big deal was made about the damage to wildlife, even thought it was extremely minimal, and not even close to the damage these wind turbine farms do in just one day to wildlife.
Evidently the media likes to show a few birds with oil on them. Unfortunately they don't show the mangled birds and bats.
Now as far as those wind turbines located in some parts of the sea, they can also be extremely destructive to wildlife via secondary effects.
For example, off the coast of Great Britain it has been extremely destructive to shrimp. That's because when the wind turbines are being put in place, and to a lesser extent, when they're operating, it attracts huge numbers of starfish which gorge on the shrimp. This is extremely destructive to the industry, and those within the shrimping industry fear they could lose their livlihoods over it.
For some reason when shrimp fishermen are impacted by oil that's a scandal, when they're affected by the even more brutal wind turbine industry, somehow it just doesn't matter, and the media largely ignores it.
Starfish come to the areas that are disturbed, such as in relationship to wind turbines, because they instinctively know when the area is disturbed they're going to be able to feed well.
Wind turbines are growing increasingly controversial, and the mainstream media, for the most part, refuses to point out the damage from these ugly monsters.
The outrageous forcing of the CSAPR cap and trade on responsible states which have no problems generating electricity for its people via coal, is being battled by Republican Senator Rand Paul, who introduced S.J. Res 27 in order to try to get rid of the EPA's implementation of the draconian rule.
Effectively, the strategy by the radical environmentalists and earth worshippers was to put the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) into place, and then from there lay the foundation for CSAPR, which now uses that as an excuse to force it on other states in the name of the inability of neighboring states to maintain compliance with the laws because of "Cross-State" pollution.
Of course what that is is an outright attempt to slash alleged coal plant pollution in America, which would ultimately destroy its use in energy in America. The industry will continue to flourish though, as the global demand for inexpensive energy like coal is high.
As usual, the environment wacko, people haters are going to hurt people in America through their outrageous and ridiculous "green" energy projects, which can't even come close to providing America's energy needs, and if they are able to supplement it, are much higher in cost, hurting the most poor in the country.
Just look at California and its rolling blackouts to see how this attack on energy ends up affecting people.
With the election in 2012 almost assuredly to radically change the balance of power in America, we should be able to see this evil repelled soon afterwards.
To take out God-given energy source and not allow it to be used to help people is the typical practice of those who allegedly are concerned about clean air for people, but wouldn't mind them suffering, and in the case of the elderly and children, some dying from the lack of energy, in order to promote their true agenda, which is the worship of the planet above the concern for human beings.
Beyond that, it's also the workings of those wanting to put a one-world government in place to control the world.
Effectively, the strategy by the radical environmentalists and earth worshippers was to put the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) into place, and then from there lay the foundation for CSAPR, which now uses that as an excuse to force it on other states in the name of the inability of neighboring states to maintain compliance with the laws because of "Cross-State" pollution.
Of course what that is is an outright attempt to slash alleged coal plant pollution in America, which would ultimately destroy its use in energy in America. The industry will continue to flourish though, as the global demand for inexpensive energy like coal is high.
As usual, the environment wacko, people haters are going to hurt people in America through their outrageous and ridiculous "green" energy projects, which can't even come close to providing America's energy needs, and if they are able to supplement it, are much higher in cost, hurting the most poor in the country.
Just look at California and its rolling blackouts to see how this attack on energy ends up affecting people.
With the election in 2012 almost assuredly to radically change the balance of power in America, we should be able to see this evil repelled soon afterwards.
To take out God-given energy source and not allow it to be used to help people is the typical practice of those who allegedly are concerned about clean air for people, but wouldn't mind them suffering, and in the case of the elderly and children, some dying from the lack of energy, in order to promote their true agenda, which is the worship of the planet above the concern for human beings.
Beyond that, it's also the workings of those wanting to put a one-world government in place to control the world.
At a Republican convention in California, Texas congressman Ron Paul spoke to a raucous audience of supporters, continuing his consistent message through his long political career of the need to slash the size of the American government.
This time around he targeted some of the continual suspects, including the need to shut down the Federal Reserve, bring U.S. troops home, get out of NATO, and end the war on drugs.
Paul has also lashed out at so-called social-net programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He has stated because people in many cases are totally dependent upon them, that would have to be addressed gradually.
Many people don't understand that Paul opposes many of these programs at the Federal level and wants it to be brought back to the states to deal with.
He rightly sees a large central government as a threat to our liberties, and that has been proven out as it attempts to extend its tentacles into all areas of our lives. Christians should be wary of any government getting that powerful, as historically, our enemies have aligned with that power to persecute us.
Remember Joseph. Just because a government in one period of time is favorable to us doesn't mean that it will continue. Eventually it will attempt to remove our liberties and enslave us all into dependence upon it, if we allow the government to do so.
This time around he targeted some of the continual suspects, including the need to shut down the Federal Reserve, bring U.S. troops home, get out of NATO, and end the war on drugs.
Paul has also lashed out at so-called social-net programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He has stated because people in many cases are totally dependent upon them, that would have to be addressed gradually.
Many people don't understand that Paul opposes many of these programs at the Federal level and wants it to be brought back to the states to deal with.
He rightly sees a large central government as a threat to our liberties, and that has been proven out as it attempts to extend its tentacles into all areas of our lives. Christians should be wary of any government getting that powerful, as historically, our enemies have aligned with that power to persecute us.
Remember Joseph. Just because a government in one period of time is favorable to us doesn't mean that it will continue. Eventually it will attempt to remove our liberties and enslave us all into dependence upon it, if we allow the government to do so.
Michelle Bachmann has been a consistent opponent of illegal immigration, and to that effect met with the legendary Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has heroically battled the influx of illegals in attempts to stem the violence flowing into Arizona from drug cartels in Mexico.
Some people have attempted to make it look as if Arpaio is neglecting violent crimes in order to pursue the illegals, although the two go hand-in-hand; although obviously not all illegals from south of the border are involved in the drug cartels or are violent.
Bachmann said this on her consistent immigration stand:
“People have made it very clear to me that they do not want to see taxpayer-subsidized benefits go to illegal aliens.
“I think what sets me apart is, No. 1, that I have already proven myself to be a consistent champion in Washington, D.C. already fighting on these issues. I’m the person who fought ObamaCare. I was the person who introduced the full repeal of ObamaCare. We need someone who has stood squarely and strongly on that issue.
“When it comes to immigration, I’ve been a very consistent, strong, conservative voice on securing the border and fighting on immigration.”
As to her drop in the polls since the entry of Rick Perry into the race, Bachmann said, “That’s pretty typical when you have a new candidate come in, a change of the dynamic,” she said. “Certainly that happened four years ago. Fred Thompson came in, his polling was very high. The same with Rudy Giuliani. John McCain was way back in the pack.
“It’s not a sprint, it’s a marathon. And I think with the debates, we’re continuing to see more and more of the layers peeling back, of who the candidates are, what they stand for.”
Some people have attempted to make it look as if Arpaio is neglecting violent crimes in order to pursue the illegals, although the two go hand-in-hand; although obviously not all illegals from south of the border are involved in the drug cartels or are violent.
Bachmann said this on her consistent immigration stand:
“People have made it very clear to me that they do not want to see taxpayer-subsidized benefits go to illegal aliens.
“I think what sets me apart is, No. 1, that I have already proven myself to be a consistent champion in Washington, D.C. already fighting on these issues. I’m the person who fought ObamaCare. I was the person who introduced the full repeal of ObamaCare. We need someone who has stood squarely and strongly on that issue.
“When it comes to immigration, I’ve been a very consistent, strong, conservative voice on securing the border and fighting on immigration.”
As to her drop in the polls since the entry of Rick Perry into the race, Bachmann said, “That’s pretty typical when you have a new candidate come in, a change of the dynamic,” she said. “Certainly that happened four years ago. Fred Thompson came in, his polling was very high. The same with Rudy Giuliani. John McCain was way back in the pack.
“It’s not a sprint, it’s a marathon. And I think with the debates, we’re continuing to see more and more of the layers peeling back, of who the candidates are, what they stand for.”
Michele Bachmann took aim at Barack Obama over his outrageous spending, health care, and enormous debt incurred under his short time of heading the country.
Reminding Tea Party supporters that one of the major foundations of the movement is limited government, she said at Orange County, “I know that we have everything we need to put this country back on strong financial footing. The No. 1 way to do it is have the federal government spend less money than what they bring in. That’s what the Tea Party stands for.”
While Bachmann has been pressured since Rick Perry entered the presidential race, she remains a strong voice in the party, and it has yet to be determined her role in 2012.
That's not to say she won't regain traction in the race once the new wears off Perry's run for the presidency, as it has happened in the past with other candidates.
It's a sound strategy to not only go on the offensive against her Republican rivals, but also against the clueless, floundering and hapless Obama, whose popularity is diminishing at a fast rate, as his own base and the overall country weary of his ineptness and unwillingness to hear their voices.
Reminding Tea Party supporters that one of the major foundations of the movement is limited government, she said at Orange County, “I know that we have everything we need to put this country back on strong financial footing. The No. 1 way to do it is have the federal government spend less money than what they bring in. That’s what the Tea Party stands for.”
While Bachmann has been pressured since Rick Perry entered the presidential race, she remains a strong voice in the party, and it has yet to be determined her role in 2012.
That's not to say she won't regain traction in the race once the new wears off Perry's run for the presidency, as it has happened in the past with other candidates.
It's a sound strategy to not only go on the offensive against her Republican rivals, but also against the clueless, floundering and hapless Obama, whose popularity is diminishing at a fast rate, as his own base and the overall country weary of his ineptness and unwillingness to hear their voices.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Michelle Bachmann has been one of the few consistent lawmakers who has steadily opposed Obamacare.
Recently, Bachmann said this about this as it relates to crony capitalism, "Whether its Obamacare or whether its PerryCare, I oppose any governor or president who mandates a family's health care choices."
Bachmann went on to blast opponent Rick Perry for the connection between the rejected HPV vaccine and big drug companies.
She said, "We cannot forget that in the midst of this executive order there is a big drug company that made millions of dollars because of this mandate."
"The governor's former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company. The drug company gave thousands of dollars in political donations to the governor, and this is just flat-out wrong."
Recently, Bachmann said this about this as it relates to crony capitalism, "Whether its Obamacare or whether its PerryCare, I oppose any governor or president who mandates a family's health care choices."
Bachmann went on to blast opponent Rick Perry for the connection between the rejected HPV vaccine and big drug companies.
She said, "We cannot forget that in the midst of this executive order there is a big drug company that made millions of dollars because of this mandate."
"The governor's former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company. The drug company gave thousands of dollars in political donations to the governor, and this is just flat-out wrong."
Thankfully another socialist experiment and failure is teetering on its final legs, as the European Union is on a slow descent which will culminate in its eventual collapse.
It's the same old story of the failure of progressives (socialists) and their Utopian dream of a one-world government. (One idea to rule them all: wealth redistribution.)
As always, whenever a group of anyone gets together, whether locally or in its ultimate expression - nations, progressives or socialists, always have their idiotic Utopian fantasies dashed when it is discovered, as Margaret Thatcher has famously said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money," and that's the end game of all socialist, progressive efforts. And it's also where the failed European Union will end up as well, no matter how they try to extend and save the experiment by making ignorant and counterproductive decisions. Usually that takes the form of throwing more money at the problem.
Incredibly, Max Hastings, who has been a staunch supporter of the EU for all of his adult life, recently recanted from his position.
He said:
"All my adult life, I have called myself a pro-European. I deplored Brussels’ follies as much as anyone, but went on hoping for better things. I believed Europe was broadly a force for good.
"However, today, I recant. After much agonising and hesitation, I adopt the conclusion that many of you probably reached years ago: that the EU in its present form has become a disaster, which threatens the future of its major members, unless its terms and powers are drastically recast."
What Hastings still has to admit, is there is nothing to recast. Socialism is simply not sustainable, no matter how you attempt to spin it.
The usual practice of those who believe they're entitled sitting back and soaking up the results of the productivity of others always comes to an end; either practically or ideologically, as producers come to the realization they've been had.
And to think the socialist or progressives in the United States have been using the EU as a model for they're attempts to transform America into a socialist state.
Now the EU will have to pay the price of allowing its most productive nations to be abused by the countries abusing their membership in the Union, as they have allowed them to live at levels by simply having them drain money from their coffers, without being productive in their own right. Where I come from they're called parasites or deadbeats. But now they have been even more socialists into believing they're owed this by their neighbors.
So now that austerity will be forced upon them, whether they like it or not, the response will be the outrage we've already seen, based upon nothing more than the undeserved recipients of the misguided generosity of other European countries throwing tantrums and wrecking and destroying everything they can get their hands on; like a child breaking up his room because he doesn't continue to get an ongoing number of toys at a pace he thinks he should.
Hastings rightly concludes, "The cost of Brussels has become insupportable. If we continue to burden employers and wealth generators, large and small, with its Utopian vision, only relentless decline can lie ahead."
We in America had better learn this quickly.
It's the same old story of the failure of progressives (socialists) and their Utopian dream of a one-world government. (One idea to rule them all: wealth redistribution.)
As always, whenever a group of anyone gets together, whether locally or in its ultimate expression - nations, progressives or socialists, always have their idiotic Utopian fantasies dashed when it is discovered, as Margaret Thatcher has famously said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money," and that's the end game of all socialist, progressive efforts. And it's also where the failed European Union will end up as well, no matter how they try to extend and save the experiment by making ignorant and counterproductive decisions. Usually that takes the form of throwing more money at the problem.
Incredibly, Max Hastings, who has been a staunch supporter of the EU for all of his adult life, recently recanted from his position.
He said:
"All my adult life, I have called myself a pro-European. I deplored Brussels’ follies as much as anyone, but went on hoping for better things. I believed Europe was broadly a force for good.
"However, today, I recant. After much agonising and hesitation, I adopt the conclusion that many of you probably reached years ago: that the EU in its present form has become a disaster, which threatens the future of its major members, unless its terms and powers are drastically recast."
What Hastings still has to admit, is there is nothing to recast. Socialism is simply not sustainable, no matter how you attempt to spin it.
The usual practice of those who believe they're entitled sitting back and soaking up the results of the productivity of others always comes to an end; either practically or ideologically, as producers come to the realization they've been had.
And to think the socialist or progressives in the United States have been using the EU as a model for they're attempts to transform America into a socialist state.
Now the EU will have to pay the price of allowing its most productive nations to be abused by the countries abusing their membership in the Union, as they have allowed them to live at levels by simply having them drain money from their coffers, without being productive in their own right. Where I come from they're called parasites or deadbeats. But now they have been even more socialists into believing they're owed this by their neighbors.
So now that austerity will be forced upon them, whether they like it or not, the response will be the outrage we've already seen, based upon nothing more than the undeserved recipients of the misguided generosity of other European countries throwing tantrums and wrecking and destroying everything they can get their hands on; like a child breaking up his room because he doesn't continue to get an ongoing number of toys at a pace he thinks he should.
Hastings rightly concludes, "The cost of Brussels has become insupportable. If we continue to burden employers and wealth generators, large and small, with its Utopian vision, only relentless decline can lie ahead."
We in America had better learn this quickly.
It's extraordinary to see many of the foundations of the feminist and liberal agenda collapse under the ongoing evidence concerning a number of issues that have been clouded out be politics and out-of-control political correctness, the latest being the long-term effects of dumping a child in daycare at an early age.
According to Aric Sigman, a fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, placing a child in daycare "could raise its risk of heart disease," based on high levels of stress.
Sigman concludes that children being cared for by strangers over a long period of time sends stress hormones soaring, which in the short-term cause colds and coughs, and in the long-term, the higher potential for heart disease.
Children not getting time from their mother in the important first three years of their lives have a good chance of having difficulty building relationships when they become adults.
Sigman rightly notes that the focus on women’s rights, which includes women getting the "right" to go back to work after giving birth, sets aside the importance of looking honestly at the dangers daycare produces for children.
"The uncomfortable question remains: which is better for a young child during weekdays – the biological mother or a paid career at an institution?," said Sigman. "This has been a significant impediment, involving a serious conflict of interest: Women’s rights and self-fulfilment are not the same issue as a child’s well-being and may often compete for precedence."
Increased stress produces higher levels of cortison, which has been proven to lower resistance to infection and heart disease.
According to Aric Sigman, a fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, placing a child in daycare "could raise its risk of heart disease," based on high levels of stress.
Sigman concludes that children being cared for by strangers over a long period of time sends stress hormones soaring, which in the short-term cause colds and coughs, and in the long-term, the higher potential for heart disease.
Children not getting time from their mother in the important first three years of their lives have a good chance of having difficulty building relationships when they become adults.
Sigman rightly notes that the focus on women’s rights, which includes women getting the "right" to go back to work after giving birth, sets aside the importance of looking honestly at the dangers daycare produces for children.
"The uncomfortable question remains: which is better for a young child during weekdays – the biological mother or a paid career at an institution?," said Sigman. "This has been a significant impediment, involving a serious conflict of interest: Women’s rights and self-fulfilment are not the same issue as a child’s well-being and may often compete for precedence."
Increased stress produces higher levels of cortison, which has been proven to lower resistance to infection and heart disease.
The outright lie by the American Physical Society, supposedly the premier physics society, that concerning man made global warming, "the evidence is incontrovertible."
Dr. Ivar Giaever, winner of the the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the now disreputable physics society, saying simply in an email: "I resign from APS."
Giaever said in the same email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society, "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
The expected backlash against the immoral physics society resulted in it placing an addendum concerning its statement. It now says, "The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."
Even the use of the word 'incontrovertible' within the group itself has stirred up controversy, as it generated debate which resulting in the above statement.
Giaever said about the assertion, "The claim … is that the temperature has changed from -288.0 to -288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."
His assessment lines up with the facts, which are the Earth has had warmer periods of time in the past than it is now. It also must be taken into account that the predictive models concerning man made global warming or climate change have failed time after time.
Why is all of this pursued by scientists in light of the mounting evidence their theory is wrong? They're after the grant money, for one, by attempting to appease politicians around the globe attempting to use the fake issue to shore up the fantasy of these globalists to create a world government.
The good news is the story is getting out that there has never been a consensus among scientists about man made global warming, and bold steps by men of integrity like Dr. Ivar Giaever continue to pound at the falsehoods of the climate change theory, getting the word out to the general public, which according to a Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll, now to the tune of 57 percent, understand there is a lot of disagreement among the scientific community concerning global warming.
Also very important is the growing perception among the public that at minimum, some scientists have falsified research in order to support what is increasingly being realized as a scientific religion, based upon a belief system and theories, not upon sound scientific observation and conclusions.
The bottom line: There is a continual push by those interesting in imposing a global government upon the world to either create or expand upon uncertainties which engender fear in people in order to convince them to give more and more control to governments around the world, and ultimately to a global, centralized government.
Just ask yourself the question as to why something is being pushed so fast and hard by governments, scientists and the mainstream media. When you remove the rocks, underneath them you'll usually find the one world government fetish.
Dr. Ivar Giaever, winner of the the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the now disreputable physics society, saying simply in an email: "I resign from APS."
Giaever said in the same email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society, "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
The expected backlash against the immoral physics society resulted in it placing an addendum concerning its statement. It now says, "The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."
Even the use of the word 'incontrovertible' within the group itself has stirred up controversy, as it generated debate which resulting in the above statement.
Giaever said about the assertion, "The claim … is that the temperature has changed from -288.0 to -288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."
His assessment lines up with the facts, which are the Earth has had warmer periods of time in the past than it is now. It also must be taken into account that the predictive models concerning man made global warming or climate change have failed time after time.
Why is all of this pursued by scientists in light of the mounting evidence their theory is wrong? They're after the grant money, for one, by attempting to appease politicians around the globe attempting to use the fake issue to shore up the fantasy of these globalists to create a world government.
The good news is the story is getting out that there has never been a consensus among scientists about man made global warming, and bold steps by men of integrity like Dr. Ivar Giaever continue to pound at the falsehoods of the climate change theory, getting the word out to the general public, which according to a Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll, now to the tune of 57 percent, understand there is a lot of disagreement among the scientific community concerning global warming.
Also very important is the growing perception among the public that at minimum, some scientists have falsified research in order to support what is increasingly being realized as a scientific religion, based upon a belief system and theories, not upon sound scientific observation and conclusions.
The bottom line: There is a continual push by those interesting in imposing a global government upon the world to either create or expand upon uncertainties which engender fear in people in order to convince them to give more and more control to governments around the world, and ultimately to a global, centralized government.
Just ask yourself the question as to why something is being pushed so fast and hard by governments, scientists and the mainstream media. When you remove the rocks, underneath them you'll usually find the one world government fetish.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Responding to the dismal approach by Barack Obama to create jobs, Michelle Bachmann said it is nothing but an continuation of "failed gimmicks."
Not only will it fail, in Bachmann's view, it'll make the U.S. economy even worse.
Bachmann rightly noted that Obama is "philosophically incapable of doing what needs to be done," and is "politically paralyzed."
As for the so-called job plan itself, all Obama had to offer was the tired old idea of spending on construction projects. That's another way of saying he's clueless, and will attempt to "create" jobs in a market with no real demand. In other words, he's about to waste about $447 billion in taxpayer money for nothing.
Now the idea of cutting taxes is actually a good one, but anything that is attempted without cutting spending is just taking the country closer to an economic precipice it will eventually fall off of.
Until we get enough representatives in Congress with the will to slash spending, we will continue on the road which leads to economic destruction.
Not only will it fail, in Bachmann's view, it'll make the U.S. economy even worse.
Bachmann rightly noted that Obama is "philosophically incapable of doing what needs to be done," and is "politically paralyzed."
As for the so-called job plan itself, all Obama had to offer was the tired old idea of spending on construction projects. That's another way of saying he's clueless, and will attempt to "create" jobs in a market with no real demand. In other words, he's about to waste about $447 billion in taxpayer money for nothing.
Now the idea of cutting taxes is actually a good one, but anything that is attempted without cutting spending is just taking the country closer to an economic precipice it will eventually fall off of.
Until we get enough representatives in Congress with the will to slash spending, we will continue on the road which leads to economic destruction.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
In this set of videos, Gene Edwards lays out the importance of placing the letters of the New Testament in proper order - especially Paul's - and the extraordinary impact that could have on our present-day mindset.
It's a great primer and introduction to what may lead to a revolution if believers take it to heart.
While the idea of understanding culture and context of the time the scriptures were written is nothing new, it is new to focus on placing them in their proper order so believers can understand the unfolding of the work of the Holy Spirit and Christ's way of doing things.
These elements aren't just temporal, but eternal, as they're based on the person of Jesus Christ, and not just focusing on methodology.
As to many of those that are ignorant and unlearned who have commented on this teaching, it would be better to embrace the very provable outline presented by Edwards, rather than continue to display your ignorance.
The primary importance of Edwards' teachings offered here is to help believers understand within the context of the unfolding revelation of Jesus Christ in His people during the early days of the post-resurrection church what the scriptures teach as a whole, and not simply divorced or separated from the story that emerged.
For your convenience, I included all the videos in this one post.
Why you CANNOT understand the Bible/church, otherwise you would REVOLT. (Part 1 of 5)
Why you CANNOT understand the Bible/church, otherwise you would REVOLT. (Part 2 of 5)
Why you CANNOT understand the Bible/church, otherwise you would REVOLT. (Part 3 of 5)
Why you CANNOT understand the Bible/church, otherwise you would REVOLT. (Part 4 of 5)
Why you CANNOT understand the Bible/church, otherwise you would REVOLT. (Part 5 of 5)
It's a great primer and introduction to what may lead to a revolution if believers take it to heart.
While the idea of understanding culture and context of the time the scriptures were written is nothing new, it is new to focus on placing them in their proper order so believers can understand the unfolding of the work of the Holy Spirit and Christ's way of doing things.
These elements aren't just temporal, but eternal, as they're based on the person of Jesus Christ, and not just focusing on methodology.
As to many of those that are ignorant and unlearned who have commented on this teaching, it would be better to embrace the very provable outline presented by Edwards, rather than continue to display your ignorance.
The primary importance of Edwards' teachings offered here is to help believers understand within the context of the unfolding revelation of Jesus Christ in His people during the early days of the post-resurrection church what the scriptures teach as a whole, and not simply divorced or separated from the story that emerged.
For your convenience, I included all the videos in this one post.
Why you CANNOT understand the Bible/church, otherwise you would REVOLT. (Part 1 of 5)
Why you CANNOT understand the Bible/church, otherwise you would REVOLT. (Part 2 of 5)
Why you CANNOT understand the Bible/church, otherwise you would REVOLT. (Part 3 of 5)
Why you CANNOT understand the Bible/church, otherwise you would REVOLT. (Part 4 of 5)
Why you CANNOT understand the Bible/church, otherwise you would REVOLT. (Part 5 of 5)
Here's a video of Ron Paul responding to a question about pro-life at the American Principles Project Palmetto Freedom Forum in Columbia, S.C.
When asked if he would choose a pro-life running mate for vice president, Paul, along with others, answered yes.
When asked if he would choose a pro-life running mate for vice president, Paul, along with others, answered yes.
Here's a video of Michelle Bachmann responding to a question about pro-life at the American Principles Project Palmetto Freedom Forum in Columbia, S.C.
When asked if she would choose a pro-life running mate for vice president, Bachmann answered in the affirmative.
When asked if she would choose a pro-life running mate for vice president, Bachmann answered in the affirmative.
In this video, Jim Rogers talks about the trouble the U.S. faces, and the resultant civil unrest that will ultimately come. He talked about this in the middle of March 2011, to show he saw this coming before it started to happen.
As always when listening to Rogers talk, keep in mind the principles behind his reasoning, as that is where the gold is. Understand those principles, and you'll understand a lot better the forces behind how this world is currently operating, and where they will bring us to.
Rogers says:
As always when listening to Rogers talk, keep in mind the principles behind his reasoning, as that is where the gold is. Understand those principles, and you'll understand a lot better the forces behind how this world is currently operating, and where they will bring us to.
Rogers says:
These are economic hard times. They need to understand what is happening. This is not a time to buy anything. The only sector where the fundamentals are improving is commodities. Oil reserves are declining. If you need to own something, you should learn about commodities and buy accordingly.
If we could time the markets, we would be very very rich. Otherwise look at the long term trends. Farming is going to be a very big business.
Agricultural commodities are going to do better than others. Most are still significantly below their all time highs. There will be civil unrest in the United States very soon. Cash is an alternative to purchasing commodities if you think that the situation is too perilous. People are covering their shorts and that is putting a lot of buying pressure on the dollar.
These are perilous time, and we should expect to see more civil unrest. Japan has huge reserves and they are the largest creditor nation. Asian is filled with creditor nations, and in the past the world center has always moved to where the money is.
Jim Rogers talks on Breakout how the Federal Reserve doesn't solve problems, but rather creates even more of them, and bigger ones.
In the Lord's and my continual battle against all that takes away from Christ being preeminent (surpassing and above all others), it's important to have at least a basic understanding of what New Jerusalem stands for, as it's much more foundational and important than being relegated to some type of focus of the end times.
It goes infinitely beyond so-called end times teaching, although it does relate in the sense of a growing of Jesus Christ in His people in history, which is really what New Jerusalem is all about.
Strangely and wrongly, there are a large number of those professing Christ who consider the earth as their mother, and not New Jerusalem. We only have one mother according to the Bible, and that is identified as New Jerusalem. So it's important that we comprehend what New Jerusalem is, in order to know whether or not we've been birthed from her.
I'm just going to focus on several elements revealed in New Jerusalem in the revelation of Jesus Christ.
First, New Jerusalem is identified as the bride of Christ coming down out of heaven. This points to the fact that the bride of Christ is based upon that which is coming out of heaven.
Keep in mind that much of the mystery of the Bible is culminated in the revelation of Christ residing in people; individually and corporately. That is in truth what a Christian is, and there are fewer of them than supposed, as that is determined by much more than someone repeating a so-called sinner's prayer.
So there is a wall with precious stones, a throne, the Lamb, a tree, a river and a street. At least those are the major parts of the bride of the Lamp, although there are other important parts of her to consider.
Note that all of what is identified in Revelation 21 and 22 as the bride of the Lamb, is located within the walls, other than those precious stones which were the people being seen from the outside.
But what made the stones precious was what on the inside of her, not what was viewed from the outside.
The most important thing to understand is New Jerusalem is something heavenly working within the true people of Christ. People born from above, which through time grows increasingly into the image of Jesus Himself, which is what the eternal purpose is all about, and what the reason for the creation of mankind was for.
Within this heavenly bride is a throne, tree, river and path or street. These are what she is supposed to be predominately made up of. This means of course that Jesus Christ is to rule and reign within her, which is represented by the throne. Then you have the tree, which is of course Jesus Christ the tree of life, which produces fruit from Christ. Then the river of the Holy Spirit flowing through the city and out into the world, is the sharing of Christ with one another, and the living of Christ by His people before the world, which is represented by the Spirit flowing from out innermost beings. The street of gold reveals this is the path that we are all to walk, and one which is walked by Jesus Christ within us by the Spirit.
All of this could be talked and written about forever, and it will be, but what's most important to see, is this is what Paul was talking about when he mentions we are a letter read by all men. This is the letter that we are supposed to represent, Jesus Christ being seen in a people. That is the end result of the eternal purpose of God, planned by the Godhead before time began.
But we have those who attempt to bring the earth touch to all of this, and even imply the earth is our mother, and express it through vain attempts to worship her and the environmentalism that follows.
We are to be a heavenly people, and those truly born again from above, will find themselves ever gravitating beyond the pull of this world to the Christ which dwells in heaven.
This of course is far beyond simple geographics, and refers to the higher life expressed in the person of Jesus Christ. His life lives in true believers, and that is what New Jerusalem really means. It's eternal and ever moving forward, not just something that will somehow become real at the end of this age. It's breaking forth in His true people now!
At the recent presidential debate, hopeful Ron Paul talked about the crucial and Biblical aspect of charity, in that it must be privatized and voluntary.
That is in contrast to the progressive, socialist evil of "mandatory charity" via the extraction from taxpayers and redistribution according to the will of politicians, which is used for the purpose of buying votes at the expense of future and current generations.
We must as a people reject the idea of government programs replacing voluntary charity, as they are extremely costly and ineffective, and are bringing the United States to its financial knees, as they're totally unsustainable.
This doesn't bother most politicians, as they're extremely shortsighted and look at things in the short term, rather than the Christian view and outlook of the long term, and in reality, the eternal.
Even when Ananias and Sapphira were stuck dead by the Holy Spirit, it wasn't because they refused to give, because the voluntarily did. It was because they lied about the amount they gave.
Peter noted that as long as it was in the hands of the couple, they had the right to do with it as they chose to, confirming voluntary giving. But once they voluntarily turned it over, it was a different matter.
The point is of course is even in this terrible judgement by God, it wasn't related to being required to give that was the sin, but that the couple lied about how much they gave.
There is no uncertainty that there was no requirement to give, and that it was completely voluntary by all those involved in the early church.
As Ron Paul said in our time, the principle of voluntary and charitable giving needs to remain private and the choice of those choosing to give. Anything else is against the Biblical record and Christ Himself, who confirmed it by the Holy Spirit.
This is one of the reasons why socialism and progressivism are enemies of Christ.
That is in contrast to the progressive, socialist evil of "mandatory charity" via the extraction from taxpayers and redistribution according to the will of politicians, which is used for the purpose of buying votes at the expense of future and current generations.
We must as a people reject the idea of government programs replacing voluntary charity, as they are extremely costly and ineffective, and are bringing the United States to its financial knees, as they're totally unsustainable.
This doesn't bother most politicians, as they're extremely shortsighted and look at things in the short term, rather than the Christian view and outlook of the long term, and in reality, the eternal.
Even when Ananias and Sapphira were stuck dead by the Holy Spirit, it wasn't because they refused to give, because the voluntarily did. It was because they lied about the amount they gave.
Peter noted that as long as it was in the hands of the couple, they had the right to do with it as they chose to, confirming voluntary giving. But once they voluntarily turned it over, it was a different matter.
The point is of course is even in this terrible judgement by God, it wasn't related to being required to give that was the sin, but that the couple lied about how much they gave.
There is no uncertainty that there was no requirement to give, and that it was completely voluntary by all those involved in the early church.
As Ron Paul said in our time, the principle of voluntary and charitable giving needs to remain private and the choice of those choosing to give. Anything else is against the Biblical record and Christ Himself, who confirmed it by the Holy Spirit.
This is one of the reasons why socialism and progressivism are enemies of Christ.
We have another discovery of the never-found "missing link," this time in South Africa, where the alleged 2 million-year-old bones of a female and juvenile animal of some sort are being touted as a possible evolutionary "game-changer."
This is another of the endless number of outright hoaxes and meaningless "discoveries" of the missing link, which always are proven to be untrue or literally made up by those offering the so-called proof.
Of course as Christians, we all know Jesus Christ created the world and everything in it, and no, there wasn't an evolutionary "mechanism" used by Christ for creation.
We all know the story from the book of Genesis, where God formed man and breathed into him the breath of life. That's the story, and it's irrefutable and unchallengeable. There is no evolutionary mechanism, and no missing link, no matter how hard those attempting to secure more research funds try to create the illusion.
This is why the science cowards refuse to debate Christians, as they know they have absolutely zero proof evolution, and it remains a fixation and lie used by those afraid of, or outraged, that there is a God which has made demands and commands concerning the life they are expected to live while on this earth.
Only the faith of scientists allows this fraud to continue on, as they would be laughed out of legitimate scientific and empiric circles of other disciplines built around no evidence of a theory, after over a 150 years of trying to find or manufacture it.
This is another of the endless number of outright hoaxes and meaningless "discoveries" of the missing link, which always are proven to be untrue or literally made up by those offering the so-called proof.
Of course as Christians, we all know Jesus Christ created the world and everything in it, and no, there wasn't an evolutionary "mechanism" used by Christ for creation.
We all know the story from the book of Genesis, where God formed man and breathed into him the breath of life. That's the story, and it's irrefutable and unchallengeable. There is no evolutionary mechanism, and no missing link, no matter how hard those attempting to secure more research funds try to create the illusion.
This is why the science cowards refuse to debate Christians, as they know they have absolutely zero proof evolution, and it remains a fixation and lie used by those afraid of, or outraged, that there is a God which has made demands and commands concerning the life they are expected to live while on this earth.
Only the faith of scientists allows this fraud to continue on, as they would be laughed out of legitimate scientific and empiric circles of other disciplines built around no evidence of a theory, after over a 150 years of trying to find or manufacture it.
The liberal, progressives, or socialists, whatever moniker flavor they've chosen to use today, are again going pyscho, now wanting to force people in Las Angeles to shop with only reusable bags.
What the new proposed measure would do is disallow the use of paper or plastic bags in all the supermarkets located in L.A. It would also force the supermarkets to offer for sale or provice complimentary reusable or fiber bags only. If the supermarkets don't comply, there would be the imposition of a fine.
Never mind that it's been proven these reusable bags are dirty and filthy, as few people remember to continually clean them.
But this fascist attempt to force the will of the few on the many shows the incredible lack of clear thinking, or even the ability to clearly think through an issue, by the progressives.
This is another reason why people and businesses are fleeing the California cult.
Here we are in the midst of one of the worst economic times in U.S. history, and we have wicked people pursuing their bizarre goals of saving the planet at the expense of people and the health of the economy.
Even some of those in California are calling this proposal a "nightmare." The problem is this nightmare isn't just beginning in California, it has been going on for decades.
What the new proposed measure would do is disallow the use of paper or plastic bags in all the supermarkets located in L.A. It would also force the supermarkets to offer for sale or provice complimentary reusable or fiber bags only. If the supermarkets don't comply, there would be the imposition of a fine.
Never mind that it's been proven these reusable bags are dirty and filthy, as few people remember to continually clean them.
But this fascist attempt to force the will of the few on the many shows the incredible lack of clear thinking, or even the ability to clearly think through an issue, by the progressives.
This is another reason why people and businesses are fleeing the California cult.
Here we are in the midst of one of the worst economic times in U.S. history, and we have wicked people pursuing their bizarre goals of saving the planet at the expense of people and the health of the economy.
Even some of those in California are calling this proposal a "nightmare." The problem is this nightmare isn't just beginning in California, it has been going on for decades.
The sparks were flying during the Wednesday presidential debate between Rep. Ron Paul and Rick Perry, as the two battle head to head over who is best suited to lead the country.
Even when the cameras weren't rolling the atmosphere was tense, as Paul has aggressively pursued Perry concerning his credentials as a real conservative.
Paul has pointed out Perry's written support of Hillary Clinton and her attempt to impose Hillarycare on the United States when her husband was president. Paul responded to the apparent hypocrisy of Perry in his criticism of Romney's health care law he signed in Massachusetts.
Also during the commercial breaks of the debate, ads also pointing out Perry's support for Al Gore when he ran for president in the 1980s were run by Paul's campaign.
The point is, just because Perry showed up at some prayer gathering doesn't mean it's not all opportunism and show. can the leopard change his spots. Maybe. But this has happened over much of Perry's political career, and must be carefully evaluated.
As for Ron Paul, he has been consistent throughout his political career, and we know exactly where he stands on the issues that are important to us all.
Ron Paul handily won a poll after the debate. Here are the results of 147,750 votes cast:
Ron Paul 51.5% (76,019 votes)
Mitt Romney 16.7% (24,726 votes)
Rick Perry 13.9% (20,536 votes)
Jon Huntsman 6.9% (10,141 votes)
Newt Gingrich 4.6% (6,842 votes)
Herman Cain 3.3% (4,883 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.1% (3,099 votes)
Rick Santorum (1,504 votes)
Even when the cameras weren't rolling the atmosphere was tense, as Paul has aggressively pursued Perry concerning his credentials as a real conservative.
Paul has pointed out Perry's written support of Hillary Clinton and her attempt to impose Hillarycare on the United States when her husband was president. Paul responded to the apparent hypocrisy of Perry in his criticism of Romney's health care law he signed in Massachusetts.
Also during the commercial breaks of the debate, ads also pointing out Perry's support for Al Gore when he ran for president in the 1980s were run by Paul's campaign.
The point is, just because Perry showed up at some prayer gathering doesn't mean it's not all opportunism and show. can the leopard change his spots. Maybe. But this has happened over much of Perry's political career, and must be carefully evaluated.
As for Ron Paul, he has been consistent throughout his political career, and we know exactly where he stands on the issues that are important to us all.
Ron Paul handily won a poll after the debate. Here are the results of 147,750 votes cast:
Ron Paul 51.5% (76,019 votes)
Mitt Romney 16.7% (24,726 votes)
Rick Perry 13.9% (20,536 votes)
Jon Huntsman 6.9% (10,141 votes)
Newt Gingrich 4.6% (6,842 votes)
Herman Cain 3.3% (4,883 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.1% (3,099 votes)
Rick Santorum (1,504 votes)
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Jim Rogers is among the best communicators on what is the real condition of the global and U.S. economy, and has the financial insights to back it up.
It would be better to listen to a few dozen videos of Rogers, as far as getting a solid economic and financial education, than just about anything out there. Forget the worthless MBA and other trinkets. They're a waste of time and money.
Rogers is the real thing in his several specialities, which are commodities, currencies and the economy. Listen to him and learn.
Because Rogers talks of underlying principles, even if you find videos that are a little dated, they continue to be relevant for today, although you have to balance what he was investing in at the time he talked.
It would be better to listen to a few dozen videos of Rogers, as far as getting a solid economic and financial education, than just about anything out there. Forget the worthless MBA and other trinkets. They're a waste of time and money.
Rogers is the real thing in his several specialities, which are commodities, currencies and the economy. Listen to him and learn.
Because Rogers talks of underlying principles, even if you find videos that are a little dated, they continue to be relevant for today, although you have to balance what he was investing in at the time he talked.
Jim Rogers talks in this interview with the Financial Times about Ron Paul, the economy, and other topics like gold, the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Constitution, inflation, and the U.S. dollar.
If you want to get a solid understanding of some of the macro-economic realities affecting, or about to affect all of us, you can't do much better than billionaire and commodities expert Jim Rogers.
In this video he talks about the fact the financial crisis in the U.S. is worsening. Other topics are oil prices, the economy, increasing debt and China's growth.
In this video he talks about the fact the financial crisis in the U.S. is worsening. Other topics are oil prices, the economy, increasing debt and China's growth.
Jim Rogers has been a bull on commodities for a number of years, but he has even gotten more positive on the raw materials lately, saying he sees the supercycle has another 20 to 25 years to run before it slows down.
Also commenting on the decision by the Swiss National Bank to battle the appreciation of the franc against the euro, Rogers said it's ”a huge mistake,” adding “the market will have more money in the end than the SNB.”
Rogers said on CNBC that risk faced by the bank is it probably will “totally debase the Swiss franc trying to keep Switzerland ‘competitive’ which will then destroy the traditional Swiss financial industry.”
According to Rogers, he sees the Chinese yuan as the best place to park your money as far as a currency goes. He also likes the U.S. dollar over the short term, but sees it as the worst currency over the long term.
Also commenting on the decision by the Swiss National Bank to battle the appreciation of the franc against the euro, Rogers said it's ”a huge mistake,” adding “the market will have more money in the end than the SNB.”
Rogers said on CNBC that risk faced by the bank is it probably will “totally debase the Swiss franc trying to keep Switzerland ‘competitive’ which will then destroy the traditional Swiss financial industry.”
According to Rogers, he sees the Chinese yuan as the best place to park your money as far as a currency goes. He also likes the U.S. dollar over the short term, but sees it as the worst currency over the long term.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Ron Paul talks on the media blackout in 2012, Perry, Libya, income tax and the moneybomb.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Barack Obama was forced to back off his decision to impose a burdensome smog regulation on business, as the highly controversial and misguided attempt to regulate the environment was rejected by most Americans.
While Obama attempted to save face on the decision, it was categorically rejected, and he had to backpedal or face an even worst economy than has already been anemic throughout his administration.
According to Obama, he said he communicated to the Environmental Protection Agency to put the regulation on hold.
The disastrous effects of the Obama administration on the economy by the endless stream of regulations has made it even worse than it would have been otherwise, even though the anti-business President pretends he is now friends with business as the election cycle heats up.
Who can forget the worst recession since the depression has continued on under his watch, and it appears it'll get much worse before it gets better.
Having said all that, hopefully this will be a great first step in eliminating the literal millions of regulations imposed on the business sector by the government.
Less government equals more freedom.
While Obama attempted to save face on the decision, it was categorically rejected, and he had to backpedal or face an even worst economy than has already been anemic throughout his administration.
According to Obama, he said he communicated to the Environmental Protection Agency to put the regulation on hold.
The disastrous effects of the Obama administration on the economy by the endless stream of regulations has made it even worse than it would have been otherwise, even though the anti-business President pretends he is now friends with business as the election cycle heats up.
Who can forget the worst recession since the depression has continued on under his watch, and it appears it'll get much worse before it gets better.
Having said all that, hopefully this will be a great first step in eliminating the literal millions of regulations imposed on the business sector by the government.
Less government equals more freedom.
A bizarre group of alleged wealthy people who claim to have at some time made over $1 million annually, has attempted to use the media to manipulate people into thinking they're a bunch of good people wanting to be taxed on behalf of putting "our country ahead of politics."
Even that first statement made by these evil people is a lie, as it's just another way of saying we want to have those who are productive in society forced to have more of their wealth redistributed.
Here's what these dangerous people say on their Website:
The vast majority of this more than 100 group of "millionaires" live on the east and west coast, already revealing the mindset of the government cult outlook those areas embrace.
If these people were asking for the government to tax their own personal incomes, no one would care, and it would be their own business. But when they seek to force others to have their wealth redistributed by government spending that is out of of control, it is laughable and outrageous for these progressive socialists to attempt to make other people generating good incomes pay for what their alleged choices are.
After all, you don't see them writing a check to the government. Do you? No. They want everyone to have to write a check to the government, even identifying themselves as "loyal citizens," a manipulative phrase used to make it appear those who don't agree with them aren't loyal citizens, trying to pressure or shame them into capitulating to their wicked demands, which is what this really is all about.
Notice above when these progressive socialists say the country has a choice. Guess what one of their choices don't include? Cutting spending. No. To these types of the educated ignorant, the only choice is to continue to raise taxes in order for their socialist agendas to continue.
Who knows of all the people named on the website how many get government handouts at the taxpayers expense. It may be telling for a study in that regard, although it's not likely to be worth it. Most of us probably already know the motivations behind these strange people.
When they say raising taxes is the foundation from which this country has succeeded, it reveals their agenda, as this country was in no way, shape or form made a success because of socialism and progressive, who rape the economy of the proceeds of the productive in order to create their vision of America and the world, which has already proven to be unsustainable and evil.
Look at the sovereign debt crisis in Europe to show the folly of socialism.
As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is you run out of someone else's money. That's the truth. Raising taxes will do nothing to change the issue of the failed socialist agenda and worldview, and the best thing all of us can push for is limited government and a return to trusting in Jesus Christ and personal responsibility.
Even that first statement made by these evil people is a lie, as it's just another way of saying we want to have those who are productive in society forced to have more of their wealth redistributed.
Here's what these dangerous people say on their Website:
For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
Our country faces a choice – we can pay our debts and build for the future, or we can shirk our financial responsibilities and cripple our nation’s potential.
Our country has been good to us. It provided a foundation through which we could succeed. Now, we want to do our part to keep that foundation strong so that others can succeed as we have.
Please do the right thing for our country. Raise our taxes.
The vast majority of this more than 100 group of "millionaires" live on the east and west coast, already revealing the mindset of the government cult outlook those areas embrace.
If these people were asking for the government to tax their own personal incomes, no one would care, and it would be their own business. But when they seek to force others to have their wealth redistributed by government spending that is out of of control, it is laughable and outrageous for these progressive socialists to attempt to make other people generating good incomes pay for what their alleged choices are.
After all, you don't see them writing a check to the government. Do you? No. They want everyone to have to write a check to the government, even identifying themselves as "loyal citizens," a manipulative phrase used to make it appear those who don't agree with them aren't loyal citizens, trying to pressure or shame them into capitulating to their wicked demands, which is what this really is all about.
Notice above when these progressive socialists say the country has a choice. Guess what one of their choices don't include? Cutting spending. No. To these types of the educated ignorant, the only choice is to continue to raise taxes in order for their socialist agendas to continue.
Who knows of all the people named on the website how many get government handouts at the taxpayers expense. It may be telling for a study in that regard, although it's not likely to be worth it. Most of us probably already know the motivations behind these strange people.
When they say raising taxes is the foundation from which this country has succeeded, it reveals their agenda, as this country was in no way, shape or form made a success because of socialism and progressive, who rape the economy of the proceeds of the productive in order to create their vision of America and the world, which has already proven to be unsustainable and evil.
Look at the sovereign debt crisis in Europe to show the folly of socialism.
As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is you run out of someone else's money. That's the truth. Raising taxes will do nothing to change the issue of the failed socialist agenda and worldview, and the best thing all of us can push for is limited government and a return to trusting in Jesus Christ and personal responsibility.
This channel is dedicated to articles I consider foundational and important to my readers.
~ Gary
The Jesus Conspiracy
Grasping New Jerusalem
Knowing Christ in an Over-Stimulated World
Obama and Fascist America
Christ in a Pre-Christian World
A Life of Repentance
Government is not God
A Worshipful Life in Christ
Death to Self
Jesus and the Lily of the Valley
Jesus and the End of Worldly Empires
Finding Christ in the Quiet
Christianity without Christ
Christ in the Beginning: Genesis 1:2
================
~ Gary
The Jesus Conspiracy
Grasping New Jerusalem
Knowing Christ in an Over-Stimulated World
Obama and Fascist America
Christ in a Pre-Christian World
A Life of Repentance
Government is not God
A Worshipful Life in Christ
Death to Self
Jesus and the Lily of the Valley
Jesus and the End of Worldly Empires
Finding Christ in the Quiet
Christianity without Christ
Christ in the Beginning: Genesis 1:2
================
Long ago when Jesus Christ created the earth, He had created the heavens before them, and spirit beings called angels, which were led by three key angels named Michael, Gabriel and Lucifer.
They were apparently in charge of all angels, with a third being under the leadership of each one. When Lucifer, which was later had his name changed to Satan, rebelled against the plan of God for creation, the angels he oversaw fell with him, and they've been opposing the eternal purpose of God the Father in Christ ever since.
Most of us know that Satan went to the first representatives of the human race - Adam and Eve - and made the offer of an alternative life to live outside of the command and purpose of God. He approached Eve and she was deceived and ate of the alien life form, and then offered it up to Adam to eat of as well. Adam ate the fruit of the life form knowing fully what he was doing, and the human race, from that time forward, has been imprinted with the characteristics and person of Satan, to one degree or another. The Bible calls it the "flesh."
Now Why do I call it a life form rather than the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? The answer is I have never believed it to be a tree, in the physical sense, because the Tree of Life, the life essence offered by God, was never in fact a tree, but Jesus Christ Himself. In the same way the Holy Spirit is identified as a river, so is the Jesus Christ as the Tree of Life.
So what Eve had just digested of the essence of Satan, now was imbibed by Adam. It's doubtful it was really two physical trees standing in the Garden of Eden, but almost certainly two opposing life forms and life styles.
Whether you agree with the physical versus essence argument isn't relevant to the argument, as the consequences are the same, and Jesus and we have to deal with that either way. I only mention to give you an idea of what it is that really happened in Eden, which was the embracing of what and who Satan was, rather than Jesus Christ.
This was all said to say this: Jesus Christ, from that time forward, has entered into a battle with Satan over the hearts and minds of the human race, including Christians, and He has provided a magnificent conspiracy to undermine the works of Satan.
What is that fantastic conspiracy led by Jesus Christ? It's the complete and total victory in the cross, and the resultant resurrection and ascension into Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.
But more than that, the same life that died, resurrected and ascended, was now sent back into those that were born again, or more fully, born from above, and is now expanding and enlarging in true believers who have repented and accepted the life form that had been offered to them thousands of years ago.
In other words, the way to the Tree of Life was again opened by Christ, and we now eat of that life form, which is Christ, as we are transformed into His image. At least that's part of the tremendous eternal purpose of God, where His purpose is to have Christ be pre-eminent in all things.
So while Satan in the world to imprint His person hood on the human race, Jesus Christ surpassed it all and made a completely new humanity that was born directly out of Heaven by the Spirit. That is what a true Christian really is, and there is no other.
Jesus Christ said that you must be born again, or born from above, and only those who have been born of the Spirit are truly saved. That in fact, is the definition of what a Christian is, and you know them by the fruits coming out of their lives from the live of Christ within them.
The is the countermeasure of the Godhead against their enemy, and this grand conspiracy continues on, and will continue on until the end of this age, and then throughout the ages, as Christ continues to reveal Himself in and through us forever and ever.
This goes beyond just getting right with God and being saved, to the full heart of God from before creation and sin, where He and They had a purpose they developed and committed to, which in the heart and mind of God, has never been changed or altered.
Welcome to the conspiracy.
They were apparently in charge of all angels, with a third being under the leadership of each one. When Lucifer, which was later had his name changed to Satan, rebelled against the plan of God for creation, the angels he oversaw fell with him, and they've been opposing the eternal purpose of God the Father in Christ ever since.
Most of us know that Satan went to the first representatives of the human race - Adam and Eve - and made the offer of an alternative life to live outside of the command and purpose of God. He approached Eve and she was deceived and ate of the alien life form, and then offered it up to Adam to eat of as well. Adam ate the fruit of the life form knowing fully what he was doing, and the human race, from that time forward, has been imprinted with the characteristics and person of Satan, to one degree or another. The Bible calls it the "flesh."
Now Why do I call it a life form rather than the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? The answer is I have never believed it to be a tree, in the physical sense, because the Tree of Life, the life essence offered by God, was never in fact a tree, but Jesus Christ Himself. In the same way the Holy Spirit is identified as a river, so is the Jesus Christ as the Tree of Life.
So what Eve had just digested of the essence of Satan, now was imbibed by Adam. It's doubtful it was really two physical trees standing in the Garden of Eden, but almost certainly two opposing life forms and life styles.
Whether you agree with the physical versus essence argument isn't relevant to the argument, as the consequences are the same, and Jesus and we have to deal with that either way. I only mention to give you an idea of what it is that really happened in Eden, which was the embracing of what and who Satan was, rather than Jesus Christ.
This was all said to say this: Jesus Christ, from that time forward, has entered into a battle with Satan over the hearts and minds of the human race, including Christians, and He has provided a magnificent conspiracy to undermine the works of Satan.
What is that fantastic conspiracy led by Jesus Christ? It's the complete and total victory in the cross, and the resultant resurrection and ascension into Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.
But more than that, the same life that died, resurrected and ascended, was now sent back into those that were born again, or more fully, born from above, and is now expanding and enlarging in true believers who have repented and accepted the life form that had been offered to them thousands of years ago.
In other words, the way to the Tree of Life was again opened by Christ, and we now eat of that life form, which is Christ, as we are transformed into His image. At least that's part of the tremendous eternal purpose of God, where His purpose is to have Christ be pre-eminent in all things.
So while Satan in the world to imprint His person hood on the human race, Jesus Christ surpassed it all and made a completely new humanity that was born directly out of Heaven by the Spirit. That is what a true Christian really is, and there is no other.
Jesus Christ said that you must be born again, or born from above, and only those who have been born of the Spirit are truly saved. That in fact, is the definition of what a Christian is, and you know them by the fruits coming out of their lives from the live of Christ within them.
The is the countermeasure of the Godhead against their enemy, and this grand conspiracy continues on, and will continue on until the end of this age, and then throughout the ages, as Christ continues to reveal Himself in and through us forever and ever.
This goes beyond just getting right with God and being saved, to the full heart of God from before creation and sin, where He and They had a purpose they developed and committed to, which in the heart and mind of God, has never been changed or altered.
Welcome to the conspiracy.
Marco Rubio, a Republican senator from Florida, spoke against the outrageous interference of the American government in the lives of the citizens of the country.
Rubio noted that the increased role of government has "actually weakened us as a people."
While this isn't a new message over the last several years, Rubio took it a step further to say that it's not simply an accounting problem, but is a direct connection with our culture. The culture of government has attempted to take the place of the culture of personal responsibility, said Rubio, and problems of overspending and the culture it has created can not be separated. In other words, both now have to be dealt with because of the entitlement culture the liberal, socialist government and its coherts have created.
The question continues to be put forth on whether or not America will return to its roots as a free nation under the rule of God, or it'll continue to spiral down into a progressive welfare state, which is already bankrupt and only held up by the endless creation of money out of nothing by the Federal Reserve, which is already beyond our ability to pay back.
Sen. Rubio also noted that in the recent past parents raised and took care of their children – then when their parents aged, those children paid it back by taking care of their parents. Neighbors also used to take care of their neighbors, not the nanny state.
Now the danger we face, as has already revealed itself in Europe, is the recipients of the welfare and handouts from the government are starting to throw tantrums, which in some cases have ended up in riots and loss of life, as the people slowly discover the government can't play god, and isn't almighty.
The socialist, progressive demonic idea of force wealth redistribution is ending. But it appears these people won't go away quietly, even as the reality of the death of the socialist dream fades into history. There will probably be a wicked response from those who won't admit, even in the light of empirical evidence, that socialism or so-called progressivism is dead, and never had a chance to succeed.
Jesus Christ loves a cheerful giver, and one that isn't forced or coerced into giving. That is the way to deal with the many challenges of life that require needs to be met.
The introduction of the nanny state has taken away some of the incentive of giving, and destroyed much of the former American way of live that had been influenced by Christianity. People now line up to gather money at the public trough rather than remain married, or even get married, as part of the financial commitment that marriage and raising a family, in fact is.
All of us should pray for the only God to move the hearts of His people, and people in general, away from large government, and return to trusting in Him and working to help one another; something that communities in America had always done.
Rubio noted that the increased role of government has "actually weakened us as a people."
While this isn't a new message over the last several years, Rubio took it a step further to say that it's not simply an accounting problem, but is a direct connection with our culture. The culture of government has attempted to take the place of the culture of personal responsibility, said Rubio, and problems of overspending and the culture it has created can not be separated. In other words, both now have to be dealt with because of the entitlement culture the liberal, socialist government and its coherts have created.
The question continues to be put forth on whether or not America will return to its roots as a free nation under the rule of God, or it'll continue to spiral down into a progressive welfare state, which is already bankrupt and only held up by the endless creation of money out of nothing by the Federal Reserve, which is already beyond our ability to pay back.
Sen. Rubio also noted that in the recent past parents raised and took care of their children – then when their parents aged, those children paid it back by taking care of their parents. Neighbors also used to take care of their neighbors, not the nanny state.
Now the danger we face, as has already revealed itself in Europe, is the recipients of the welfare and handouts from the government are starting to throw tantrums, which in some cases have ended up in riots and loss of life, as the people slowly discover the government can't play god, and isn't almighty.
The socialist, progressive demonic idea of force wealth redistribution is ending. But it appears these people won't go away quietly, even as the reality of the death of the socialist dream fades into history. There will probably be a wicked response from those who won't admit, even in the light of empirical evidence, that socialism or so-called progressivism is dead, and never had a chance to succeed.
Jesus Christ loves a cheerful giver, and one that isn't forced or coerced into giving. That is the way to deal with the many challenges of life that require needs to be met.
The introduction of the nanny state has taken away some of the incentive of giving, and destroyed much of the former American way of live that had been influenced by Christianity. People now line up to gather money at the public trough rather than remain married, or even get married, as part of the financial commitment that marriage and raising a family, in fact is.
All of us should pray for the only God to move the hearts of His people, and people in general, away from large government, and return to trusting in Him and working to help one another; something that communities in America had always done.
Friday, September 2, 2011
The monstrous forcing of Obamacare upon the American people by Obama and the Democrats was a major impetus behind the spontaneous emergence of the Tea Party movement, and is a piece of legislation we can't forget about getting rid of even as we face many issues in the near future.
Michelle Bachmann says this on her Website about her plans for Obamacare.
On August 13th, a major battle in the effort to repeal Obamacare was won. A three-judge panel in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled the individual mandate within the health care overhaul to be unconstitutional. In their decision, the judges (two of whom were appointed by former President Bill Clinton) rejected the supposed constitutionality of the individual mandate, or the requirement that all Americans must purchase health insurance. The judges wrote in clear and powerful language that, “the government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence [means that] Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.”
The judges are correct. The individual mandate, the most obtrusive and foundational aspect of Obamacare, is an overwhelming regulation. It would force each of us to buy a federally-approved form of health insurance by 2014 or face a fine. According to Why ObamaCare is Wrong for America, the fine for not abiding by the individual mandate will be whichever is greater, either a flat dollar amount or up to 2.5% of your income. The inclusion of the individual mandate is undeniable evidence of the unchecked and unwanted regulatory powers embedded within Obamacare. But now, this ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals clears the way for the case to be heard in the Supreme Court.
I am deeply encouraged by this development in the fight against Obamacare. At the very core of the ideals that make up this nation is the truth that our rights are God-given, and government should protect, rather than take away, our freedoms. Under Obamacare, the government has been given the power to punish any American for not buying something they do not want. This is not only unconstitutional, it is wrong.
This is why I am committed to do everything in my power to repeal Obamacare. In the past year, I sponsored H.R. 1286, the Healthcare Fiscal Accountability Act of 2011, an act that will allow the current Congress power to control the funding of Obamacare. It is my firm belief that Obamacare is one of the most invasive and destructive pieces of legislation in American history and must be defunded and repealed immediately.
We must hope and pray that this is indeed the case, and that this big government attempt to take over the best medical care in history and socialize it must be stopped and reversed.
Thankfully people like Michelle Bachmann are fighting on our behalf to make this a reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
