Monday, November 30, 2009

Liberals Aren't Giving Og Their Money,But Conservatives Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is

 Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word. And if you think Al Gore is a hypocrite self-centered narcissist take a look at how little Barack Hussein Obama and Joey Biden gave over the last 10 yrs. Liberalism is a religion that takes from society. While conservatives tend to have a religion and they give freely. If the liberals gave like the conservative gave most of the countries problem would be solved. But they want what they want and they want you to pay for it for them.  It has been proven time and time again how fake the liberals compassion is and now is the time to start taking these narcissist to task for acting like they are better then conservatives. Liberals are the serpants of the political world and they will say anything to get what they want.
 Bidens has been amazingly tight-fisted when it comes to their charitable giving.  Despite income ranging from $210,432 - $321,379 over the ten-year period, the Bidens have given only $120 - $995 per year to charity, which amounts to 0.06% - 0.31% of their income:
It is jarring that a couple earning over $200,000 per year would give as little as $2 per week to charity.  This giving compares very unfavorably to John McCain, whose tax returns show that he gave 27.3% - 28.6% of his income to charity in 2006-2007.  During the same period, the Obamas' tax returns show that they gave 5.8% - 6.1% of their income to charity.
Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan:  "Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)"
Update: Independent Sector reports that 89% of American households contribute to charity, with an average contribution of $1,620 -- 3.1% of income. 
IRS statistics reveal that the average taxpayer with AGI over $200,000 makes over $20,000 of charitable contributions:
  • $15,000-$30,000 AGI:  $1,916 average charitable deduction
  • $30,000-$50,000 AGI:  $2,158 average charitable deduction
  • $50,000-$100,000 AGI:  $2,703 average charitable deduction
  • $100,000-$200,000 AGI:  $4,057 average charitable deduction
  • $200,000 or more of AGI:  $20,434 average charitable deduction

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Biblical Reasons For Concern Regarding The Natrional Health Care Plan:

1) Abortion degrades the gift of life given by God. He creates and  values all life...regardless of size or condition.  PSALM 139:13-16"...YOU created my inmost being...Your works are wonderful..."    JEREMIAH 1:5- "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born I set you apart..."             2)Rationing care based upon 'quality of  life' is contrary to God's Word.     PROVERBS 31:8- "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the right of all who are destitute."     GALATIONS 6:2- Carry each other's burdens,and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ."             3) As people of God,we should not participate in deeds of darkness.   EXODUS 23:2- "Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong."  EPHESIANS 6:12- "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but...against the powers of this dark world..."      I know not all believe in God or the Holy Bible but we do and our beleifs must be respected.  For more information go to .  You will find that this isn't a Lutheran,Roman Catholic or Jewish issue alone. This is an issue of Law not Gospel and the Law is clear on it. If you need to be reminded of the horror of abortion then watch the video I posted of an abortion last month. Watch the child being torn apart limb by limb while fighting for his life. Please pray for those murdered children and pray for the murderers.
Barack Obama Promises to Sign FOCA 1:52

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Warning: This Is a Video The Left Don't Want Us To See.

WARNING: A video the crazy left liberals (democrat dumbocrat) will KILL to get removed
Watch this video and then comment on it. The Democrats don't want this video passed around. So tell everyone to watch it and watch the liberals cringe at the truth.

Friday, November 27, 2009

Buffoon Fest At The Pre 9/11 White House

November 25, 2009  

Video: Reporter 'surprised' to see couple

Video: Charges for dinner crashers?

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Left Wing Fearmongers Owe An Apology

In case you’re wondering, this call is due to the announcement that census worker Bill Sparkman killed himself for the insurance money (H/T: R.S. McCain) - which means that he was not murdered by conservative monsters from the id, or murdered for ideological purposes - or, in fact, was murdered at all.  I’m sure that this would be an embarrassment for everyone on the Other Side who flogged this particular narrative, except this would imply that they cared about Sparkman in the first place.  Which they didn’t, so expect a grudging bare minimum, at best.

PS: For the record: when you try to set up your suicide to make it look like you’ve been murdered by your ideological opponents, you have officially abrogated any obligation for me to be upset at your plight.

One Nation Under GOD

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not works, so that no one can boast.    Ephesians  2:8-9

Name One

Name one good thing liberals have don't right. Name one city or state that is run better liberal then conservative. Where is your proof on the left that your way is better then the conservative way that made America the best,richest and most gracious country the world has ever known? We aren't this mean warmongering country like Obama and the left want to portray. We fight wars to give freedom to other countries. To give democracy to the people and to overthrow the tyrants and dictators that threaten our freedom and those of every person. We give back people of the worlds God given freedom. We don't overthrow governments to take them over for our own use. We don't take their riches as our own. We bleed and pay for their freedom with our money and our blood. The liberals want the opposite. They want Dictators because they think people are dumb and can't govern themselves. They want to plunder our country and those of our allies.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

This Is The Republican Solutions To Health Care Reform And It Doesn't Cost Us A Dime

The American people have spoken. They oppose government-run health care. Republicans are on the side of the American people.

What Americans want are common-sense, responsible solutions that address the rising cost of health care and other major problems. In the national Republican address on Saturday, October 31, 2009, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) discussed Republicans’ plan for common-sense health care reform our nation can afford.  Boehner’s address emphasized four common-sense reforms that will lower health care costs and expand access to quality care without a government takeover of our nation’s health care system that kills jobs, raises taxes on small businesses, or cuts Medicare for seniors:
  • Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
  • Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
  • Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
  • Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
For the full text of Leader Boehner’s address, click HERE.
For more information about some of the other common-sense health care reforms proposed by Republicans, please visit the links below:

Libberman Is Digging In His Heels And Will Filibuster Health Care

The Wall Street Journal reports Joe Lieberman is digging in his heels. He will filibuster any health care legislation that contains a public option, even if the legislation allows states to opt-out.
Lieberman has been a thorn in the side of the left ever since they decided to challenge him back in 2006. In that year, the left beat Lieberman in the Connecticut Democrat Primary. Lieberman decided to stay in as an independent in the general election and won. With a number of his long time Senate friends endorsing the Democrat in 2006 because the man had a “D” next to his name, Lieberman has been his own man ever since.
Lieberman retains his Senate committee chairmanship and the privileges of being a Democrat member of the Senate. That may change soon as Harry Reid is staking his reputation on passage of the health care legislation.                                                                                                                                              This health care reform is bad for women,elderly and the sick and the Democrats want it that way. You will be paying for this bill for 5 years before it is viable. How does that make you feel knowing that the Democrats plan does nothing but underfund Medicare/caid for 5 years while you might need help now. Can you afford another tax? Can the country afford another tax without any immediate benefits? And the worse part is the Democrat bill doesn't cover everybody. So why are they trying to takeover 1/6 of the economy in such a hurry? I think it's because they are power hungry and this will feed the Democrats need for more govt power in their progressive agenda.

Global Warming Is A Lie The Conservatives Were Right Again

Tony Kane wrote of the recent email hack aimed at Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia. In today’s Huntsville Examiner, his article “ClimateGate emails provide unwanted scrutiny of climate scientists” describes the professional practices rampant among the Western World’s scientific elite.
On the surface, the emails seem to indicate scientists modified data to fit the anthropogenic global warming theory, tried to silence dissenting opinions and reflect a concerted effort to restrict access to climate data possibly by deleting it.
So other than that, we can all just relax and trust the gubbermint. This bill of particulars is damning if true. Kane cites specific emails describing or demanding unethical practices. Climate Research Unit Director, Dr. Phil Jones, appears particularly mendacious and culpable. Here, Dr. Jones discusses ways to thwart FOIA requests concerning the center’s academic research data.

“I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” Jones apparently considered ways to stymie or limit FOIA requests by “removing station data” and “omit some other countries” because “it would annoy them [those requesting the data].”
This procedure is used when Dr. Jones is forced to acknowledge that the data exists at all. Otherwise; he executes The Fawn Hall option, and makes inconvenient data vanish from existence. Here he describes what correspondence he’d like to see flushed down the Orwellian Memory Hole.
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”
Inconvenient data, stuff that’s not truthy enough, that just gets left out of Climate Research Unit presentations. Scientist Mick Kelly describes how data sufficiency is currently defined in the Geophysics research community.
One scientist, Mick Kelly, discussed giving a presentation and rather than include the cooling he said, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”
When journals printed articles that Dr. Michael Mann didn’t like, the climate cabal then colluded to have them discredited as valid sources of scientific knowledge. Dr. Mann describes his concern about some published material in the American Geophysics Union Research Letters.
Mann seemed particularly concerned about a ‘contrarian’ with the name Saiers, presumably James Saiers of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences [where Saiers completed his PhD] that causes me some unease,” Mann wrote.
Always open-minded and relentless to hear every point of view; Dr. Tom Wigley knew how to adjust Dr Saiers’ attitude. Nothing quite educates the rest of us like a good example. Wigley described how he intended to make Dr. Saiers into one below.
“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”
The data got edited, the data got deliberately misreported, and when “necessary,” it even got destroyed. Journals that published dissenters got threatened with interdict. The dissenters, themselves, got black-balled from the scientific community. This would be tantamount to professional ruin in their chosen avocations.
In a similar scientific environment, soon after the Medieval Warm Period, Galileo and Copernicus managed top-notch work. Yet few others even tried to publish their work. Human knowledge lagged behind societal needs and life was quite often what Hobbes would describe as “nasty, brutish and short.” This typically happens to cultures where scientific inquiry is forcibly muted or curtailed.
Behavior synonymous to that of the Climate Research Unit could usher in a new dark age. One where the words still get published, but only after censorious auditors denude them of verity and applicable wisdom. This new age would publish plenty of science, but would strive to educate and improve the lives of nobody.
The Journals would go unread. The authors would truly care less. The awards would go unearned, but always, like the now-laughable Nobel Peace Prize, be copiously awarded. Many would work as “scientists.” None would dare to disprove the null hypothesis. We would “understand” everything: or else, but it would avail us nothing of value or use.
Scientific knowledge, like genuine religious faith, is one of the few marked differences between civilized man and the apes that first climbed down from the trees and walked upright. It sets us apart, helps define our existence and drives us ever forward towards better life and a more decent society.
At least it does these things until it is censored. When the progression of learning is thwarted by fear, greed or mendaciousness, the societal base of knowledge can only crumble and rot. As the genius is lost, the innovation goes away. One less trait differentiates our society from the hidebound oligarchy imagined in the Planet of The Apes movies.
In these purloined emails, we see the cynical corruption and meretricious evil that these jackals have perpetrated at The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. A key motor that drives our progress and growth as human beings has been stilled to satisfy the transitory greed of a political elite. Rome eventually fell because of similar self-delusion. If our society is to survive, scientific inquiry must be retaken from the iniquitous emailers, revealed as malefactors by the Great Email hack of 2009.

Monday, November 23, 2009

The Manhattan Declaration

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
  1. the sanctity of human life
  2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
  3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.                                                                                                                                                        Go to and sign the Declaration. We need to come together as Christians. This is the beginning of the Christian conservative organizing. We must be willing to do what we need to to insure all religions have freedom to organize and make fundamental change within the political community. The liberals don't want us Christians to have a voice. But we need to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. As a Christian it is our calling to stand up for the same things God tells us to stand up for within the Bible. God bless you all.

The Way Forward From Here

Sixty Senators voted to proceed to debate health care. There will be another shot at stopping it through filibuster.
Mary Landrieu, after getting $300 million in the bill for Louisiana, voted for it.
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas not only voted for it, but now favors a public option.
Voters will remember.
Along the way, there seems to be divisions shaping up within the Democratic Party. Amendments will be offered to try to patch up differences.
Republicans should exploit this. Drag out consideration of the bill as those divisions grow, then offer amendments to exploit the divisions.
As I have said before, if Republicans work to improve the legislation, they presuppose its passage. Instead, the GOP should plan for the destruction of the bill by offering amendments designed to divide and fracture the Democrat coalition.                                                                                                                                    How do you think we should move forward? And what should we do to give the power back to we the people?

Friday, November 20, 2009

Conservative Christians Give Warning

Associated Press smallWASHINGTON, DC - Conservative Christian leaders are releasing a declaration and warning today on what they're calling "moral issues of great concern."

Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries, helped draft the Manhattan Declaration, which affirms the sanctity of human life, marriage as the union of one man and one woman, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience. Where those values are threatened, the document endorses civil disobedience under some circumstances.

Organizers of today's official release say the Manhattan Declaration sends "a clear and strong call to Christians" and "a warning to civil authorities."

They say it's been signed by more than 125 evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian leaders.  We conservative Americans have been standing on the sideline way to long. We need to organize and protest and right letters like the liberals did. We need to keep the peace but speak with boldness and without fear. You on the left better get ready because the Christians are coming.

The Left Wing Protesters Of Bush

 protest happened, and the Web site that originally hosted the report is now defunct.)

Two different pictures of the same sign saying “Bush — the only dope worth shooting,” at the March 15, 2008 anti-war rally in Los Angeles.
(Source: photo on the left from Ringo’s Pictures; photo on the right reposted on

A sign showing Bush being shot in the head, at the March 15, 2008 anti-war rally in Los Angeles.
(Source: Ringo’s Pictures.)

Remember the guy in our first picture? Here he is again, with another explicit death threat against the president, this time calling for “Death to…Bush” at the October 27, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime. Click picture to see the image in context with other pictures from that day.)

And here he comes again with a third message, this time brazenly calling for “Death to…Bush” at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime. Click picture to see the image in context with other pictures from that day.)

A protester with a sign showing Bush being beheaded.
(Reposted on; original source unknown.)

Bush being beheaded by a guillotine, at an Obama campaign rally, Denver, October 26, 2008.
(Source: Looking at the Left.)

Bush’s head in a basket after being decapitated by a guillotine, at an Obama campaign rally, Denver, October 26, 2008.
(Source: Looking at the Left.)

A sign saying “SMITE BUSH” at the June 5, 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime. Click picture to see the image in context with other pictures from that day.)

Protesters call for Bush to be beheaded with a guillotine, at a protest against Bush’s second inauguration, January 20, 2005, in New York.
(Source: Fred Askew Photography.)

An effigy of Bush being killed, at the April 10, 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime. Click picture to see the image in context with other pictures from that day.)

Bush being burned in effigy, at a November 3, 2004 post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime. Click picture to see the image in context with other pictures from that day.)

There are literally hundreds of videos currently viewable on YouTube of Bush being burned in effigy. I’ve posted a screenshot of one above, but rather than clog up this post with several embedded YouTube videos (which slows down the page loading), I’ll simply post links to several of the videos here:
Bush getting burned
bush you liar we’ll set your ass on fire
Burning George Bush
George W Bush burns in effigy (Washington DC)
And for a little variety: Bush getting smashed
(On the “Related videos” sidebars for all of these you can find many additional burning-Bush-in-effigy videos.)
In case you feel that burning Bush in effigy “doesn’t count” — just imagine the outcry there would be if even a single instance of Obama being burned in effigy was filmed (claims of “lynching,” etc.).

Bush being lynched by an American flag at a rally in New York on September 19, 2006.
(Source: Fred Askew Photography.)

A protester with a shirt that said “Death to all posers” with a picture of Bush superimposed, at the October 27, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime. Click picture to see the image in context with other pictures from that day.)

This sign from a protest in Chicago says “Lee Harvey, where are you?” at the bottom, referring to JFK’s assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
(Source: Chicago Indymedia.)

A protester in Denver calls for Bush to the get the Louis XVI treatment — i.e beheaded by a guillotine.
(Source: Looking at the Left.)

Woman holding a puppet of Bush being hung by the neck, from a March 17, 2007 protest in Hollywood, California.
(Source: Ringo’s Pictures.)

Fantasy of Saddam Hussein killing Bush, from an October 27, 2007 protest in Los Angeles.
(Source: Ringo’s Pictures.)

A sign implying Bush should be killed for being a war profiteer. From an October 27, 2007 protest in Los Angeles.
(Source: Ringo’s Pictures.)

A child holding Bush’s tombstone, at the February 16, 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
(Source: zombietime. Click picture to see the image in context with other pictures from that day.)

Threats in other settings (i.e. not at protests)

Bumper sticker implying that Bush should be hanged.
(Photo by Last Mohican.)
As far as I can tell, no one was ever stopped or investigated by the Secret Service for displaying this bumper sticker. Compare that to what happened to a man in Oklahoma on February 12, who had a sign in his car saying “Abort Obama Not the Unborn” — which not only caused the police to pull him over and confiscate the sign, but which eventually led to the Secret Service searching his house looking for evidence that he was a threat to the president. Double standard? You decide.

Wider-angle shot showing the bumper sticker above in context, with a pro-Obama sticker on the same car, proving that the sticker was displayed by a Bush detractor, not a supporter.
(Photo by Last Mohican.)

The anti-Israel conspiracy site hosts this pdf file which describes a mock trial and execution of George Bush for a bizarre litany of purported crimes; included in the document is this image of Bush being hanged at the trial.

A promotional photo from the mock-docmentary film “Death of a President,” showing Bush being killed. You can watch a short clip of the film’s assassination sequence here on YouTube.
(Source: USA Today.)

Threats against Bush by celebrities which were never investigated
John Kerry

The picture above shows John Kerry as he was being interviewed by Bill Maher in October of 2006 on the HBO show Real Time. As can be seen in this video exclusively on the ongoodmove blog, starting at about one minute into the clip Kerry says what can only be interpreted as a threat to kill Bush:
Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
Full transcript of the interview here.
Was John Kerry ever questioned or investigated for making a threat against Bush? No.
(Source: National Review.)
Betty Williams (Nobel Peace Prize winner)

On July 11, 2007, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Betty Williams gave the keynote speech to the International Women’s Peace Conference in Dallas, Texas, and said (to laughter and applause from the audience):
“I mean right now, I could kill George Bush, no problem. No, I don’t mean that. I mean — how could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that.”
You can hear the audiotape of her threat on Breitbart.TV. Despite the fact that threatening to kill the president is a crime, the Secret Service refused to question her or detain her; according to the Dallas Morning News, “Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren in Washington declined to comment, but a Dallas agent said Ms. Williams had not been questioned and there were no plans to do so.” However, the people who emailed the conference in anger about her threats — they were the ones investigated: “Conference organizers reported that a Dallas police detective was working with hotel security to review about 40 hateful e-mails received in response to Ms. Williams’ speech.”
Earlier, Betty Williams said essentially the same thing in a speech in Australia on July 24, 2006, proving that this was not just a slip of the tongue but something she thinks about frequently:
“I have a very hard time with this word ‘non-violence,’ because I don’t believe that I am non-violent…. Right now, I would love to kill George Bush…. I don’t know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief.”
Was Betty Williams ever questioned or investigated for making a threat against Bush? No.
(Source: wikipedia.)
Craig Kilborn

On August 4, 2000, when Bush won the Republican nomination (but before he was president), Craig Kilborn on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn ran a graphic of the words “SNIPERS WANTED” under George Bush as he gave his acceptance speech. Although CBS belatedly apologized five days later, Kilborn was never investigated, questioned or punished, and continued to host the show for four more years.
Was Craig Kilborn ever questioned or investigated for making a threat against Bush? No.
(Source: The Smoking Gun.)
Also see:
New York State comptroller, Alan Hevesi said during a June 1, 2006 speech that Senator Charles Schumer “will put a bullet between the president’s eyes if he could get away with it.” Hevesi later apologized for the statement.

Death threat t-shirts

Look at the two pictures above. Which do you find more offensive? Which is more obviously a threat to kill or disrespect a president?

For a while, CafePress allowed violent anti-Bush paraphernalia (such as this “Kill Bush” shirt) to be sold by users on its site, but after they were publicized by the Drudge Report, they were pulled offline; though, as far as I can tell, the designers were never investigated by the Secret Service.
(Source: Lifelike Pundits.)

New ACORN Video And Our Corrupt Government

Watch this Hannity video on ACORN. No one in our government is doing anything to Acorn about these videos. But they are coming after the kids that shot the video. I take it that our new admin. doesn't see anything wrong with ACORN help in the illegal trade of 13 year old girls into this country. They see nothing wrong with the rape and sale of 13 year old girls being treated like a commodity instead of being treated like humans. What Roman did to that 13 year old girl was no big deal to the liberals. They backed that guy too. And we thought that idealogy stopped at the grinding up of babies in their mothers womb. What the heck if they are Christian girls being inslaved for sex slavery it's a two for deal for the liberals in power. These kids exposed the inner workings of this criminal organization ACORN and they are the ones getting sued in court. They didn't go after the Black Panthers for intimidation or have they gone after the SEIU members that beat a black man while calling him a "fucking nigger". Justice isn't blind while the Democrats are in charge.

Health Care Open Debate

This is a open debate on health care reform and it's effects on our country. I would like to hear from many of the readers that don't post or haven't posted in the past. You don't have to attach your name to it if you don't feel comfortable doing so. It is important that we dialogue about this bill. Have fun and try and be nice to one another.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Where Is Our Country Going?

Pastor Removal from Television

Removal of Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Charles Stanley, David Jeremiah and other pastors from the airwaves.
An organization has been granted a Federal Hearing on the same subject by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
Washington , D.C. .. 

Their petition, Number 2493, would ultimately pave the way to stop the reading of the gospel of our Lord and Savior, on the airwaves of
America They got 287,000 signatures to back their stand! If this attempt is successful, all Sunday worship services being broad cast on the radio or by television will be stopped. 

This group is also campaigning to remove all Christmas
programs and Christmas carols from public schools! You, as a Christian, can help!

We are praying for at least 1 million signatures. This would defeat their effort and show that there are many Christians alive, well and concerned about our country.... As Christians, we must unite on this.

Please don't take this lightly. 
We ignored one lady once and lost prayer in our schools and in offices across the nation. Please stand up for your religious freedom and let your voice be heard. Together we can make a difference in our country while creating an opportunity for the lost to know the Lord.

Please, if you don't wish to participate, return this email to whoever sent it to you so they can at least keep this email going or forward it to someone you know who will wish to participate. 
Dr. Dobson is going on CNBC to urge every Christian to get involved. I hope you will sign and forward to all your family and friends. Please press forward, CLEAN UP THE MESSAGE, and forward this to everyone you think should read this....

Not a word said ,,  but actions speak very loud. 

10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 
Romans 10:9
  that if you confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved

Please copy this and send it out to all your friends and family. We need to start standing up for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are Christian soldiers and we need to act like it. If you have any thought about this subject feel free to post them. You know I except all points oif view so feel free to voice them.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Why Are Democrats Playing Politics With Guantanamo Prisoners?

To quickly summarize the case against the trials:

1] The trials are wholly unnecessary; the Administration is holding some enemy combatants without trial and trying others through the military commission system, thus conceding that it has alternatives. As a result, any risks, expenses or other downsides of the trials are being undertaken solely for the purpose of empty symbolism.
2] The trials risk disclosure of sensitive intelligence information and sources. This is the most significant objection of all.
3] The trials create a heightened risk or incentive for a terrorist attack/jailbreak effort in Manhattan.
4] The additional security required to guard against #3 will cost the federal and city governments a fortune, interfere with the administration of justice in a busy federal district and busy federal prison, add to the traffic and delays already extant in lower Manhattan, and place a great burden on the jurors, judge, and prosecutors.
5] The detainees, as they have shown in the past, are especially dangerous to guards, a problem that’s more acute when in transit or in civilian prisons than in a facility like Guantanamo that’s designed to house them.
6] The trials will give these extremists the opportunity to grandstand.
7] There is, inherent in civilian criminal trials and given the likelihood that the defense will seek to play politics with the trial, some risk of one or more acquittals or hung juries that would give a propaganda victory to the terrorists and destroy what little symbolic value the trials have if the defendants are remanded to custody after being acquitted.
8] There is a risk that, to guard against #7, rules and precedents governing criminal procedure will be distorted in ways that have lingering effects on the regular justice system.
9] Trying terrorists in civilian courts perversely rewards their war crimes; they have not earned the rights of either American citizens nor lawful combatants under international law, and should not be granted them.
Well, the polls are in, and the news should not be encouraging to the Administration. First, the Rasmussen poll, conducted nationally:
Fifty-one percent (51%) of U.S. voters oppose the Obama administration’s decision to try the confessed chief planner of the 9/11 attacks and other suspected terrorists in a civilian court in New York City.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% of voters favor the president’s decision not to try the suspects by military tribunal at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba where they are now imprisoned. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure whether it was the right decision or not.
Only 30% of Americans said suspected terrorists should have access to U.S. courts
As Rasmussen notes from prior polls, “Most voters have consistently opposed moving any of the Guantanamo prisoners to prisons in the United States out of safety concerns.” And public awareness is high:
Seventy-five percent (75%) of all voters say they have followed news stories about the decision to try the suspected terrorists in a civilian court at least somewhat closely. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say they have been following very closely. Only six percent (6%) are not following the news about the decision at all.
Locally, the Marist poll of New York City residents (H/T) finds a small plurality of the overwhelmingly Democratic City in favor of the trials - but a significant group opposed, and a larger minority among New Yorkers than nationally who are concerned about the elevated security risks:
45% of residents think it’s a good idea to have the trial in New York City while 41% believe it’s a bad one. 14% just aren’t sure.
What about the risk of future terrorist attacks? Although 47% say the location of the trial will not affect the likelihood of another terrorist attack occurring in New York City, a significant proportion are concerned the trial will put a bull’s eye on the city. In fact, 40% believe having the trial in New York City will increase the possibility of another terrorist attack in the area. 7% think it will be less of a target, and another 6% are unsure about the implications of the trial for the city’s security.
The left-wing response to the criticisms of the trials has been to focus only on point #3 above and essentially throw a tantrum, accusing anyone concerned with the risk of an attack of either cowardice or fear-mongering. As I have explained at some length before, this is shtick, not argument, and especially ridiculous given some of the people making it. Thus, we have people like left-wing activist Greg Sargent getting so wrapped up in their own shtick that they try to spin the Rasmussen poll as a victory, even in the face of the public being against them on the bottom line:
[P]ublic opposition is not a response to all the lurid fearmongering we’ve heard from Rudy Giuliani and other diehard anti-terror warriors. It’s more rooted in a sense that the justice system isn’t a proper venue to prosecute terrorism, because it places suspected terrorists - symbolically, perhaps more than legally - on an equal footing with your run-of-the-mill suspected murderers….While a majority does oppose the trial, it appears that most Americans aren’t quite as fearful of it as Rep. Shadegg is.
Sargent further notes of the Marist poll: “Opposition to trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators in a New York court is almost entirely driven by old, white, and Republican voters.” Well, good thing none of those groups is a significant voting bloc, eh?
A few more such victories, as Phyrrus said, and Obama and his fans are finished.

Grab Your Guns And Bible 'Cuz Obamas Coming

As if we didn't have enough to get upset about! If you have a gun, I hope it isn't registered!  It begins... more Freedom gone...the right to protect yourself and your family gone!  Now ALL GUNS must be listed on your next (2010) tax return!
Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own.  It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.  This bill was introduced on February 24, 2009, by the Obama staff.  BUT, this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986.  This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all.  Trust Obama?  You must be kidding!  The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage:  You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.  You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do.
Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.  Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009:  Obama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.  It has begun....  Whatever Obama's "Secret Master Plan" is... this is just the 'tip of the iceberg!'  Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.  This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.  Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usual, the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it!
To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Goggle HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
1) It is registered
2) You are fingerprinted
3) You supply a current Driver's License
4) You supply your Social Security number
5) You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
Each update change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25. Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.  There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision.  Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 years in prison.
If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along.  Any hunters in your family?  Pass this along.  This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.  This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.
Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right to choose.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

SEIU And The White House Are In Bed Together

Print     Email

Glenn Beck: SEIU vs. You

How do you like the thought that all of us are paying for what SEIU gets? The purple shirt liberals attacked a black protesters and nothing has been done about it yet. This President has made us Americans the enemy and it is time to do something about it for the future of our nation. While men and women are dieing for our freedom we just sit back and do nothing to insure they have a country to come back to. I will never be intimidated by any person or oganization. I dare any purple shirt SEIU member to attack me at a protest.

Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel