Thursday, May 20, 2010

EPA And Church's Merge In Faith Based Initiative

Where is the ACLU this time? Where are all the liberals crying separation of Church and state? It is as if the ACLU is a sham organization. That or this time it is the government going into the Church. The ACLU and the liberals don't want separation of Church and state. The want religion gone period. When you look at our money and most of our founding documents there is God in almost everything. They didn't define who God is as that is our right. We decide if we are Lutheran,Baptise,Muslim or Pagan. But Gods is a big part of our country and is not separated from our country. But the government has no right to go into Church and govern over them. As the liberals try and remove God and religious influence from the US they are replacing it with government. They are the ones that take our money and then give it to who they seem fit. The Federal government was not set up to be a charity. They were set up to protect us from outside invaders. But now they take our money and they chose who to give it too. The Fed better start doing their job so we can do ours. They need to protect us form foreign invaders and not take over the job of religion and FREE WILL giving. When the government takes our money to give it to who or what they deem "needy" it take away our right to give freely to who and what WE deem "needy". We have as a nation always been gracious with our gifts. And it has been proven the conservativeves are not the problem when it come to giving of their own free will. It is the liberals that have the problem with free will giving. Just look at how little Joe Bidden and Barack Obama gave over the last decade. It's enough to make you sick. Even the Clinton's don't help out their own blood relatives when they are in need. Do we really want to have those that find it difficult to give in charge of our giving? Do we want them to engineer a giving program that mandate Americans to work  and make money so the government can take it? Isn't that nothing more then theft and slavery? The government doesn't have the right to take our money and redistribute it. Social justice is just another way of saying prejudges we have just changed who we can enslave and treat poorly because they have made it politically correct to go after a class of people instead of a color. Shame on them and shame on our country. We are not that kind of country and we have come too far from the days of enslaving a man to do your bidding to just change who we have enslaved.

19 comments:

  1. lol....offering loans to green there churchs, the insideousness. the heathens...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Take a closer look Joe. Don't always believe every talking head on msnbc. I looked into this and see many problem with them having their foot in the door. The government now controls free speechin religions by taking away their tax exempt status. They get a tax break if they don't talk about government. Take a closer look at the picture they are painting and you might open your eyes. What better way to shut up politics from the pulpit. It's about control.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As usual, JoeC Batman is clueless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This article sickens me (see below). I have nothing against DNA samples of convicted criminals. But what gives the government the right to take a sample of anyone that is merely arrested? Where is the ACLU? What are the libtards thoughts on the invasion of privacy? You would think they would have been against this when Bush was president. Of course that loser Gary Peters voted for this. He never met a Pelosi vote he didn't like.

    House votes to expand national DNA arrest database
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005458-38.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon, i don't watch msnbcthanks for playing. The only one believing talking heads here is Chris. He's the one whose blogs consist of 90 percent Glenn Beck videos, 5 percent rightwing chain emails and 5 percent limbaugh reposts and zero percent non-biased factual sources.

    As for controlling free speech in Churches thats not factual correct nor is it legally correct. As the Supreme Court observed in the 1983 case of Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, “a legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right.”

    And i read the report that Glen is ranting about. rather than rely on Glens translation, which the blogger did (listening to a talking head) i went to the source for the info. Wish the right would do that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. would we like to see the people making the recommendations...these are the guys going to take away tax exempt status for churches.

    Bishop Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ...

    The Reverend Canon Peg Chemberlin, President, National Council of Churches; Executive Director, Minnesota Council of Churches

    Nathan J. Diament, Director of Public Policy,
    Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (my bet it was him, he's not christian..joke)

    The Reverend William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.

    Jill Schumann, President and CEO, Lutheran Services in America (OMG a Lutheran is taking away tax exempt status from churches, but that's Chris and my denomination. Those bastards)

    The Reverend Larry J. Snyder, President and CEO, Catholic Charities USA

    So you get the picture now....i don't have to cut and paste the whole list do i?

    ReplyDelete
  7. And yet Joe you are saying the same thing as the talking heads on the left 100% of the time. What are the odds of that? Could it be you just find any left wing hack off of Google and you paraphrase? Isn't it funny how you call Beck a hack and when Obama and all in his admin didn't read the Arizona bill but lied about it you said nothing. Oops

    ReplyDelete
  8. Joe just because Obama got some religious leaders to back his plan doesn't mean anything. Just look at all those "doctors" he had around him for obamacare. Lets see what the masses of religious leaders have to say not just the ones Obama hand picked and gave the hard sell to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And Joe take another look at your 90% of my posts are from Glenn Beck theory. That means 9 out of 10 of my posts are Glenn Beck and so far it doesn't even look close to that. You aren't trying to be dishonest are you?lol

    ReplyDelete
  10. Chris, hmmmmm i say the same things as the talking heads on the left do one hundred percent of the time. so 10 out of 10 times i say what they say and so far it doesn't even look close to that. You aren't trying to be dishonest are you?

    For a person lockstep with Faux news and their cadre of extremist talking heads, you have little room to suggest any one is following talking heads. In fact i have a wider variety of sources than you use. For this post i went to the actual report generated by the commision TO president Obama not from President Obama. You used a video of Faux news.

    i do have a issue with another thing you said. How is it that you can criticise someone for making statements about a bill they haven't read, when you haven't read the report your criticising on this blog? HMMMMMMMMM, sounds strangely like a double standard to me.

    It never gets old smacking you around and showing you the error of your ways.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Poor Joe can dish it out but he can't take it.LOL. Yes Joe I do agree with Fox News Commentators for the most part. But I'm not the one playing like you are the only one with original thought. So hypocritical of you my friend. HMMMMMMMM. Only you think that it is you smaking me around instead of the other way around. Now go Google a responce like you always do. It never gets old. Even good old Bruce has given up on this admin. You are the only one willing to fight for the Democratic party. But you agree with them lock,stock and barrel.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Poor Chris, he can dish it out but he can;'t take it. Yes, i do agree with some liberal types, but I'm not the one criticisng the admin for not reading something they are making statements on while doing the exact same thing.

    As for the second point thats because your readers aren't so bright. Al, doesn't know history, John plays the hypocrite daily.

    I will continue to look up the truth rather than rely on what Beck and Faux news says. You'll just post what they without fact-checking it. Far be it from to understand why you don't google your post topics before you just go along with what the video says. It would make you look more educated than your usual posts do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. and alot of time when i google things, its to find out what uncredited writer wrote you blog. Any blog without a video i check for plagerism and i find alot of them with you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ROFLMAO ... Joe is the pot in this scenario, lol

    what an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Am I the only one concerned about the government cataloging DNA of anyone merely arrested for a crime?!?

    ReplyDelete
  16. John The Word CONVICTED Is The Key Word And On That I Do Agree. Minor Crimes That Do Not Reach Felony Status Police Have Enough To Do! Fingerprints Have Been Establish Method For Over Century To ID Citizens In Most Cases That Should Suffice!

    All COINVICTED Felons Should Be Tested And Like Finger Their Finger Prints Kept On File!

    ReplyDelete
  17. John,they will get it when you see the doctor now. So what? Are you scared they may clone you or something?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous A Doctor Should Diffently Be In Your Future And If They Clone You That Will Be A Experiment Gone Bad!

    ReplyDelete
  19. John, i'm not anything in this. I paraphrase items and use short bits of work, but i don't copy the whole work and leave it uncredited. Thats Chris's blog.

    John making accusations he can't back up..

    What an moron

    ReplyDelete

Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.