It's Hard To Believe That The "Good Old Days" Were Just Last Year.

Next time a person tells you that electing a Democrat would increase your taxes, I suggest you listen.


Under former President George W. Bush, federal spending for 2008 was $2,979 Billion Dollars.   It broke down this way:

Fiscal Year 2008 U.S. Federal Spending - Cash or Budget Basis.

Note: Chart excludes US$188 billion earmarked towards "activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the war on terrorism".

Now that Barack Obama  is the president and Democrat's have control in both houses of Congress over the past 11 months,  you who voted for "change" are now feeling the effects of that change where it hurts the most.


Your WALLETS!


In spite of the August town hall meetings and TEA PARTY protests, those elected officials have continued their pursuit to destroying the way of life our country's founding fathers fought against.   TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!   Our country already had a deficit in 2008.   And although I would agree that it was somewhat high, that deficit was at least manageable.


With all the spending on Obamacare as well as over 10% unemployment in the country, what's next?

   BANKRUPTCY!


Just look at the proposed budget over the next 10 years below.  

And this only took 11 months.   Aren't any of you afraid of what is in store for America should this continue for the rest of his term?   I am.   And we still have a year before we can elect the necessary, responsible people able to put a stop to it.   WAS THIS THE "CHANGE" YOU WERE LOOKING FOR?


I used to be a member of a Bible group called Prophecy News Watch ( located in Canada ).   I left this group because some of its moderators tend to be "censor" happy when it comes to posts they personally disagree with. On one such post I had a theory of a scenario in which an Obama administration would place the country against Israel.   The Bible prophesied that during the last days the "whole world" would be against Israel, including the United States.   My "theory" ( posted in mid 2008 ) involved the Islamic world was planning and waiting for a president ( Obama ) who would sympathize with them.   That through that president, they could ( and would ) destroy America from within.   I was CENSORED for my theory by one of their moderators ( Sue ).   It "bothered" her my posting such a theory.   It was only after objections from others that she re-posted it citing the following:



Political Discussions
As a guideline I would like to limit direct political discussions to one thread. You are welcome to discuss the issues and the positions that the candidates take on certain issues. If there is a non-campaign issue related to politics  I may allow a 2nd thread but please check with one of the mods first.
http://prophecynewswatch.com/message/viewtopic.php?t=27687

Sue

As a response to this, I sent the following:

To: Sue
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:35 am
 
Sorry. I thought I was bringing a theory to the board for discussion. I wasn't aware that its content was interpreted as "political".

Please, keep me informed as to the results from your review. I would like to hear how you came to your conclusions as to the nature of my post so further interpretations of my posts can be avoided. I'll be awaiting your response.

Thank you

This request received the following:

From: Sue
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:48 am

"Sorry. I thought I was bringing a theory to the board for discussion. I wasn't aware that its content was interpreted as political.

Please, keep me informed as to the results from your review. I would like to hear how you came to your conclusions as to the nature of my post so further interpretations of my posts can be avoided. I'll be awaiting your response."

Thank you 
 
I moved your thread back to the Prophecy section. I think your theory has merit.
Click Here: http://prophecynewswatch.com/message/viewtopic.php?t=31535

I was uneasy with you stating " ties to terrorist (or terrorism), whether directly or indirectly"... about Obama; a candidate running for the office of President of the U.S. As far as I know he has no ties to terrorist "directly or indirectly".   IMO your theory works just as well with a candidate who has no terrorist ties but would be sympathetic to the Muslim, radical Islam's.

Blessings
Sue


My statement (theory) she was referring to dealt with his father having being Muslim.  And that growing up under this religious influence, he would have been exposed to the Muslim intolerance of the Christian views and Jews living in Israel.   Or are we to believe that like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, President Obama never heard anything anti-semitic by any Muslim including his own father?   PLEASE!   I have more common sense than that.   I have heard that prejudicial rhetoric in our V.A. Hospitals from black patients and some of our "so-called" Christian churches.  Maybe many of you have too.   In any case, with the recent suggestion that the 9/11 prisoners from GITMO coming back to NYC so they can stand trial, giving them the platform to justify the attacks, only helps to prove my "theory" as well as hurt those who lost loved ones on that tragic day.   Way to go Mr. "Messiah".


Remember this photo?

I haven't heard of the Obama's deciding on a Christian church in Washington D.C. to attend.   Even after selling the country on the idea that he is Christian during his campaign.   Have you?   The best way to bring down America seems to be from within.   First divide the nation on things like "WHO" really won the 2000 election, the war or terror, GAY marriage and any other thing that raises public descention,  then elect people whose policies will eventually BANKRUPT the country and conquer those same people from within.    Was this the change you liberals wanted?


Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who used this same strategy against the Soviet Union before their fall in the 1980s?   I guess the Muslims were paying attention and decided to stir the egos of  Liberals stupid enough to fall in line.  Others they found with either bribes, campaign promises and / or contributions.    Some of which still remain in office.    They know who they are even if we ( the American people ) don't.    So, you liberals better  enjoy the ride while it lasts.   But keep in mind that there will be a "Judgment Day".   And that will be a day when we all will have to pay the fiddler  for this "change" most of you Obama supporters voted for.

And the way it's looking,  that day could be as soon as tomorrow.

"Season's Greeting" From Your Friendly Neighborhood "TERRORIST" .

WELL, it's that time of the year again.

"THANKSGIVING". A time for families getting together to give thanks to God for getting through this past year relatively safe. Some, if not all, will celebrate by having turkey stuffed with stuffing passed down from their mom's ( or grandma's ) own recipe, while yet others will be watching those parades and, of course, the annual Dallas Cowboys and Detroit Lions football games. And following those games and the parting of ways that must eventually come, most families will have "leftovers" to eat for the next week. And then, the very next day begins that first day over the next 30 to shop for those "perfect" Christmas gifts for the loved ones in their lives. Spending their life's savings or placing untold amounts on credit cards. We know it as "Black Friday".

However, this year "Black Friday" could take on a whole different meaning should "terrorist" decide to hit those "soft targets" they tend to seek for maximum effect.

NOW, I first want to point out that I have NO PROOF or INSIDE KNOWLEDGE of any such threats. MY INPUT IS STRICTLY SPECULATION. With that said, I want to point certain "facts" that most of you need to be reminded of. THIS WILL BE THE FIRST YEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA will have the responsibility of protecting us from any terrorist attack.

SINCE 9/11, under former President Bush, America wasn't attacked thanks to policies his administration put in place. People could shop with safety because of policies like the Patriot Act. We looked out for unusual purchase's from people. Purchase's like 15 - 20 or more cell phones, above normal requests for fertilizer, kerosene, even truck and plane reservations. Americans became more aware of those around them.

Since President Obama has taken office, there has been more activity from potential terrorist. We already have an example of that taking place.

FORT HOOD!

With so many "red flags" on Major Hasan, how in the world was he allowed to remain in the military? WHY DID 13 MURDERED SOLDIERS NEEDLESSLY DIE? WHY WERE SO MANY INJURED? WHO DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS ONE? WHO IS REALLY TO BLAME? It makes you wonder. Now doesn't it?

When a terrorist can murder soldiers on a military post ( which should be a difficult thing to do ), how do the President and his DHS Secretary ( Janet Napolitano ) expect the American citizens to believe softer targets like Walmart, Target, K-Mart and others will not be easier and tempting to those who want to escalate the fears most people already have?

Whether or not an attack does come, it's still up to us to be ever so vigilant in recognizing any signs of a potential threat. We need to be forever ready to protect our own potentially "soft targets" for ourselves. It's now become clear that the government won't.

Or is the correct word "can't".

Maybe they are just too distracted with HEALTH CARE or the ECONOMY. Or could the President of these United States suddenly have a backache from all the "bowing" he's done so far to foreign leaders around the world? Not to mention all that a$$ kissing to our enemies as well. I really don't know.

PERSONALLY, I think he's impotent and needs to grow a NEW pair ( if you know what I mean ). I guess Michelle "whipped" him early in their marriage. She is more like a Hillary Clinton than a Laura Bush. Wouldn't you agree?

Whatever it is, any "outgoing" White House cards that is to be sent to the American People this year should begin or end with the following line; " Have a SCARY "X"mas and a Happy New Year ( of fear ) ".

As politically correct as they are ( and want us to become ), I wouldn't be looking for the any words like "CHRISTMAS" or "PEACE" to be there anytime soon. After all, those words only express the real reason for the season.

Don't they?

Transparency?! "Right"!!

Does any of this sound familiar?



I wish our Presidential "Messiah" would see to it that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be just as transparent as he pledged to be.

WAIT A MINUTE !   THEY ARE !!


According to an article written for Coral Ridge Ministries "FRONTLINES REPORT",  Robert H. Knight wrote the following:

The Health Bill’s Stealth Homosexual Agenda



Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009 As the Senate works behind closed doors to combine the newly passed House health care takeover bill with two Senate versions that have already passed separate committees, special interest groups are rallying their members to lobby for favored provisions. The House bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (3962), passed on Nov. 7 by a vote of 220 to 215. The Senate’s timetable is unclear, with Majority Leader Harry Reid pledging to complete a bill before Christmas, but many observers say that this is unlikely because of the sheer immensity of the proposal and the growing opposition.


Among the biggest winners in the House version were homosexual activists. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest "gay" pressure group, the House bill contains several key elements that "have been part of HRC’s legislative agenda as free-standing bills for many years," says the group’s Website, which boasts that HRC lobbied hard to have them included. The only negative aspect in HRC’s eyes is the Stupak-Pitts amendment barring federal funding for abortions, which passed 240 to 194. HRC pledges to "work with our pro-choice coalition allies to help see that it is removed or revised as health care reform moves forward."


That’s a good bet, since President Obama promised Planned Parenthood that abortion subsidies would be part of health care reform. Key pro-homosexual provisions highlighted by HRC include:


Special treatment  A section designating "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as special categories would open up "health data collection and grant programs focused on health disparities related to sexual orientation and gender identity." The "gay" lobby, which has been promoting the fiction, especially among schoolchildren, that homosexual behavior is natural and poses no health risks, admits here that the behavior involves unique health problems. Unmentioned are astronomically higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS among homosexual males, and increased rates of domestic violence, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, and mental illness among both sexes.


Domestic partner tax benefits  HR 3296 incorporates the language of the proposed Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, which would apply marital-type tax advantages to same-sex couples. Currently, employer-provided health insurance costs for a married couple are excluded from gross taxable income. This is a way that companies and the tax code historically have supported marriage, which is regarded as a key factor in attracting the most stable, loyal employees. Under the bill, employees who have domestic partners would be treated the same as those with spouses.


More HIV funding for the states  The bill incorporates the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which, according to HRC, "would permit state Medicaid programs to provide HIV treatment to individuals before they develop AIDS. The act would amend Title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide states with the option of covering low-income, HIV-positive people as ‘categorically needy.’ States taking advantage of this option would be provided with an enhanced federal Medicaid match." This is the only provision that might make some sense—getting aid to people before they develop full-blown AIDS. But it needs more examination in light of its impact on Medicaid, etc. 


Pro-homosexual, comprehensive sex education  HR 3962 provides funding for comprehensive condom-focused sex education programs, while leaving out abstinence programs, which HRC dismisses as "discriminatory" because they don’t facilitate "safe" gay sex. Given that after three decades of "comprehensive" sex ed, that homosexual males are still by far the largest category of AIDS cases and deaths and represent the lion’s share of syphilis and other STDs, the claim to be able to teach "safe" gay sex should be regarded as an oxymoron. The HRC also does not like the emphasis that abstinence programs put on delaying sex for marriage and supports programs that sexualize children at younger and younger ages.


Non-discrimination The bill "prohibits consideration of personal characteristics unrelated to the provision of health care." HRC sees this as elevating "sexual orientation" to a civil rights category within the health care system.

The two Senate versions so far "do not contain the important provisions for LGBT people incorporated in the House-passed bill," HRC notes, promising to lobby for final inclusion of its list.

ACTION

Please contact your two U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose HR 3962 and the two Senate health care takeover bills, S1796 and S1679. The Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121. Click here for additional contact information for your U.S. senators.

Robert H. Knight is Senior Writer and Washington, D.C., Correspondent at Coral Ridge Ministries. He is the author of Fighting For America’s Soul



Is it any wonder why the Democrat's win the White House and both houses in Congress every so often only to be swept from one or all positions 2 to 4 years later.

Face it America, since the Jimmy Carter years, I have never seen so much incompetence and deliberate acts of defiance against the wishes of the American people that they are suppose to represent.   You would think that with the "TEA PARTY PROTESTS" and the August "TOWN HALL MEETINGS", leaders in both houses of Congress as well as the President would get the message.   Even losing 2 governorships ( New Jersey and Virginia ) earlier this month didn't faze them.

Sink or swim, the Liberals in Washington D.C. have placed ALL THEIR EGGS in one basket on one last attempt to steal the souls of the American people.  And they still have an "Ace in the hole" to play should they begin losing their control around the throat of the American People.

George W. Bush !!!

Think about it.  Every time they feel pressure from the opposition to their Liberal agenda's,  Democrat's play one of two cards.  The BUSH CARD or the RACE CARD.   And now that they see that the RACE CARD is no longer getting the traction it once had ( thanks to idiots like Rev. Jeremiah Wright,  Janeane Garofalo,  Bill Maher,  Keith Olbermann,  Rachel Maddow and many others ),  it's now time to use the BUSH CARD.

Don't tell me you don't see this coming.   A blind man could see this from a mile ahead.   Why do you think Attorney General Eric Holder announced that self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba would be transported onto U.S. soil to face justice in civilian court?


So the courts can publicly embarrass the BUSH administration, the C.I.A., the military or any other government agency involved in the gathering of intelligence to protect America.  If they can convince you that "water boarding" and  "sleep deprivation" is torture, they hope you'll focus your attention on that instead of what they are doing.  Remember how engrossed America became during the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson trials? 

It will be the same way during the TERRORIST'S TRIALS.  You can put money on it.

And while we vegetate on these 9/11 trials in N.Y.C., the Liberal Leadership is counting on the American people to forget to take the time to notice "little" things like actually READING THE BILLS that they pass, attending those time consuming TOWN HALL MEETINGS to object to PORK BARREL SPENDING, the RAISING OF TAXES to fund their agenda,  as well as those subtle changes in our CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS that would allow them to RELINQUISH OUR OWN NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY over to a foreign power in order to form that ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT they so eagerly want.  


Now, how is that for their so-called "transparency"?

Don't let your RIGHT hand know what your LEFT hand is doing.

COLUMN WRITER ROBERT H. KNIGHT wrote an article about that narrow weekend vote
of the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives.  Nancy Pelosi has put the first "nail" in the Democratic Party's coffin.  Harry Reid will soon get his turn at the hammer.  Then our "President" will take his swing.

This is just another reason why the 2nd Amendment has to be protected. ( More on that later. ) Right now, I want you to read this article.   Mr. Knight has a take on this subject that needs your attention.


House Passes Health Takeover in Late-Night Vote

Monday, Nov. 9, 2009 -- Despite an enormous pushback of e-mails, calls, faxes and a rally of 10,000 people on Capitol Hill on Thursday, the House voted 220 to 215 late Saturday night to pass the massive ObamaCare health takeover plan. The 1,990-page bill, titled the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" (HR 3962), now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to face far more opposition.


The narrow victory for the massive health takeover plan came after passage of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which bars federal subsidies to health insurance plans that fund abortions. According to Accuracy in Media, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops threw their weight behind the measure, once the abortion amendment was approved. The New York Times reported that the bishops had told President Obama months ago that they would support the health care takeover as long as abortion was not covered.


Here’s how Operation Rescue President Troy Newman described what happened:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment, which will deny tax funding for abortions, handily passed with a vote of 240-194. Abortion funding had threatened to derail the entire House bill on health care with pro-life Democrats strongly opposed to Pelosi’s scheme to force taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions.

A plan to stop the bill by having the amendment fail with pro-life GOP members voting "present" was foiled when National Right to Life told them that they were going to score that vote as "pro-abortion" on their next electoral scorecard. The amendment, according to The Wall Street Journal, "gave cover to 40-some Democrats to support the larger bill."


The Journal, which described the bill as "a breathtaking display of illiberal ambition, intended to make the middle class more dependent on government through the umbilical cord of ‘universal health care,’" editorialized that the bill was ultimately anti-life, since "the government will have no choice but to ration medical care, starting with the aged and grievously ill." Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi), who had said before the vote that even if his amendment failed, he could still vote for ObamaCare, "played the right-to-lifers like a Stradivarius," the Journal concluded.


However, RedState.com’s Eric Erickson, in a post entitled "Divided We Fall, warned Monday against finger-pointing among conservatives, saying, "Most of the Republican leaders on the Hill encouraged a "yes" vote for the Stupak Amendment because (A) its passage would send a strong message that there is a pro-life majority in the House of Representatives and (B) its passage would not affect the final outcome. Regardless of how you view Stupak, we know now there is a pro-life majority in even this Democratic House of Representatives, and Stupak very clearly will not affect the final outcome." Erickson, like others, predicts that the House-passed bill is "dead on arrival" in the Senate.


Abortion advocates Planned Parenthood and NARAL sharply rejected the Stupak Amendment and vowed to fight it in the Senate. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richardson condemned House passage of the pro-life amendment and called it an "unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill." With its passage, she said in a statement, Planned Parenthood "has no choice but to oppose HR 3962."


Saturday’s narrow House vote for PelosiCare came four days after voters displayed their displeasure with Washington. The Nov. 3 Republican victories in New Jersey, and Virginia and even passage of the "people’s veto" of homosexual "marriage" in liberal Maine, have sent a message that opposition to the liberal political agenda is rising. So the House Democratic leadership twisted arms for a quick vote on the health bill.


Despite the final vote in the House, people who made the visits and calls should not feel their time was wasted. The harder it is for liberals to pass something, the more they fear doing it the next time. It also sends two messages to the Senate. Abortion could be the poison pill that ultimately will take the bill down. And leaders can ask legislators to fall on their swords and go against constituents only so many times.


Robert H. Knight is Senior Writer and Washington, D.C., Correspondent at Coral Ridge Ministries. He is the author of Fighting For America’s Soul (Coral Ridge Ministries, 2009).

You may want to check out this web site also: http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=CRH0946_F.



NOW, I wish to point out something you are not hearing a lot about. The following events you are either hearing or reading about, while important, is just a distraction. That's right! A DISTRACTION!

Here is why I call it a distraction.

They ( the Liberals / Progressives ) have the power now. Recently, President Obama, through his Attorney General ( Eric Holder ) announced that self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba would be transported onto U.S. soil to face justice in civilian court.

Why?

I believe it is the Democrat's "ACE IN THE HOLE" should they be behind in the polls come time to vote in 2010 and 2012.

By having the trials here in America, the Liberal courts can push the blame on the Bush administration for the way they conducted the theater in the war on terror by exposing any and all interrogation techniques used. When the domestic policies fail you, fall back to foreign polices. It's an old game leaders have used when they want to change the subject. "Tricky Dick" Nixon used it with China during the time of the Watergate scandal. "Slick Willy" used foreign policies when he faced impeachment to avoid the disgrace of lying to the American people of his affair during Kenneth Starr's investigation into the relationship between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Ten years ago, anyone who pointed out Bill or Hillary Clinton’s glaringly obvious lies were dismissed as extremists, kooks, dividers, liars, and talk radio robots. Now, for some odd reason — which has nothing to do with the media love affair with Obama — the mainstream media decided to investigate Hillary’s campaign speeches.

The conclusion: Hillary Clinton is a patholigical liar who will say or do anything to get elected.

Well, NO S--T SHERLOCK!!! The Clinton's got away with things that Richard Nixon never even dreamed of doing. And now we have leaders like Obama, Pelosi and Reid to take their place.

SO, lets take a look at this years "illusionists". How is their report card so far?

Consider what Obama and Congress has accomplished just since January:

--He has smeared medical doctors with reckless charges that they administer unnecessary courses of treatment for profit, e.g., tonsillectomies and limb amputations.

--He publicly berated Chrysler's senior creditors as a "small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else," merely because they wouldn't acquiesce to his demands and insisted on asserting their contractual rights.

--He has demonized "big oil" and other energy producers, free market capitalists, corporate executives, pharmaceutical companies, Republicans who oppose his health care plan as dishonest and partisan, the wealthy, municipal policemen who dared arrest his Ivy League professor friend for disturbing the peace, pro-lifers, global warming skeptics, the CIA, the military, the best health care system in the world, and George W. Bush every time he needs cover for the inevitably negative consequences of his policies.

--He uses his White House blog to attack his political opponents.

--He condemned opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens as "demagogues."

--He foreshadowed his true nature in the campaign with his spontaneous denunciation of small-town Americans as bitterly clinging to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.

--His administration has likened "tea party" protestors to an "angry mob" and "potential terrorists." His adviser David Axelrod has said they "are not in the mainstream and not in the majority" and represent "the angriest and most strident voices."

--In reference to opponents of his health care scheme, he said in a speech to a joint session of Congress, "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it." He also said: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so (Democrats) can clean up the mess." And this: "If you misrepresent what is in this plan, we will call you out."

--He has targeted and vilified the entire insurance industry for daring to oppose his plan, describing them as "those who would bend the truth -- or break it -- to score political points and stop our progress as a country," and accusing them of "filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads ... designed to mislead the American people." Even the liberal New York Times acknowledged Obama's use of "unusually harsh terms" in attacking the industry as being "interested only in preserving their own 'profits and bonuses.'" And in a true Stalinesque intimidation move, he is threatening to repeal the industry's antitrust exemption.

--He has abused the office of the presidency to personally attack Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and conservative talk radio in general. As we speak, his "czars" are devising schemes to shut down that very medium.

--Now he has launched an orchestrated attack against the only television network that makes a sincere effort at offering balance, Fox News Channel, in an attempt to isolate, demonize and delegitimize the organization because it won't follow suit and join the state-run media. The administration is vacillating between boycotting and allowing some administration officials to appear on the network. Obama singled Fox out as "entirely devoted to attacking my administration." Rahm Emanuel said it's "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." David Axelrod said, "It's really not news; it's pushing a point of view." Axelrod implored ABC's George Stephanopoulos and his network "not to treat (Fox) as a news organization." White House communications director Anita Dunn, who has bragged about her success at controlling the media, said Fox is "like a wing of the Republican Party" that "spouts Republican talking points."

The common denominator of all these vicious White House attacks is that their targets are those who oppose the administration's agenda. Instead of selling its agenda the old-fashioned way -- by convincing the unconvinced -- it attacks those who dare to articulate and air the opposing point of view. This is a totalitarian, bullying administration, which is revealing its heightened state of panic and desperation over the public's growing awareness of the dangerousness of its policy prescriptions for America.

Want more proof?

The DHS under Janet Napolitano, is trying to demonize political dissent. And it's no big surprise who's directly in their crosshairs: supporters of the Second Amendment, including veterans and gun owners. Therefore, you and I are now being viewed as dangerous rightwing extremists that law enforcement officials need to be watching out for!

According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":

The United Nations
The New World Order
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion
Illegal Immigration

With a report card such as this, DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY HAVE A SNOWBALLS CHANCE OF GETTING RE-ELECTED? Can America afford 7 more years of this obvious abuse of power ( or at the very least, "STUPIDITY" that borders closer and closer towards TREASON ).

I don't.

These Liberals in the Democrat Party have placed ALL their eggs in one basket. Health care is just the latest addition. They didn't care what we said at those town hall meetings in August. They have the majority in both houses. And in order to stay there, they plan to push the "Bush" button as long, hard and often as they can. They hope you'll be so engrossed in these trials ( as many were during the trials of O. J. Simpson and Michael Jackson ) you won't catch them rewriting history, laws and our CONSTITUTION. And Hollywood will help them as usual. If fact, it has already begun with movies like 2012 which is already in theaters. Already the focus of Americans are on the Earth's destruction, this time from a Mayan Prophecy. ( Whatever happened to that "global warming" crap they said would be our demise. )

See?   A DISTRACTION!

If you are stupid enough to still put your trust in Washington these days, I have some "swamp land" in Nevada and a "bridge" in San Fransisco to sell you.

REAL CHEAP!

David Limbaugh: "Barack's Enemies List"

For those of you who do not receive
you may have missed David Limbaugh's column today. In his column entitled "Barack's Enemies List", Mr. Limbaugh describes what I was warning about in an earlier blog I posted on Wednesday, August 12th of this year.

In that blog, which can be read at  http://bit.ly/FbFth, I wrote that in an interview with FOX NEWS, Bill Burton four (4) times to either tried redirect the question of a "White House Enemies List" to something else or change the intended meaning of her (Megyn Kelly) question all together. This was in response to a report that questioned the forwarding of e-mails by Obama supporters from those whom opposed the White House "Health Care Plan". You can view that interview on my blog.

Well, here is what Mr. Limbaugh wrote today.

Barack's Enemies List
By David Limbaugh
October 20, 2009

Sorry to disillusion those of you who are still in denial about President Barack Obama's true socialistic and dictatorial nature, but this guy's militancy against his perceived enemies puts Richard Nixon's White House to shame. His war on Fox News is just his latest salvo.

Obama's perceived enemies are all those who have the temerity not to roll over for his extreme agenda. They all must be demonized, marginalized and silenced by a president who has turned the Oval Office into a glorified street organizing headquarters to attack his opponents. Indeed, this self-described uniter is the most divisive president in memory, and his uncontrollable ego can't countenance legitimate dissent.

Consider:

--He has smeared medical doctors with reckless charges that they administer unnecessary courses of treatment for profit, e.g., tonsillectomies and limb amputations.

--He publicly berated Chrysler's senior creditors as a "small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else," merely because they wouldn't acquiesce to his demands and insisted on asserting their contractual rights.

--He has demonized "big oil" and other energy producers, free market capitalists, corporate executives, pharmaceutical companies, Republicans who oppose his health care plan as dishonest and partisan, the wealthy, municipal policemen who dared arrest his Ivy League professor friend for disturbing the peace, pro-lifers, global warming skeptics, the CIA, the military, the best health care system in the world, and George W. Bush every time he needs cover for the inevitably negative consequences of his policies.

--He uses his White House blog to attack his political opponents.

--He condemned opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens as "demagogues."

--He foreshadowed his true nature in the campaign with his spontaneous denunciation of small-town Americans as bitterly clinging to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.

--His administration has likened "tea party" protestors to an "angry mob" and "potential terrorists." His adviser David Axelrod has said they "are not in the mainstream and not in the majority" and represent "the angriest and most strident voices."

--In reference to opponents of his health care scheme, he said in a speech to a joint session of Congress, "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it." He also said: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so (Democrats) can clean up the mess." And this: "If you misrepresent what is in this plan, we will call you out."

--He has targeted and vilified the entire insurance industry for daring to oppose his plan, describing them as "those who would bend the truth -- or break it -- to score political points and stop our progress as a country," and accusing them of "filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads ... designed to mislead the American people." Even the liberal New York Times acknowledged Obama's use of "unusually harsh terms" in attacking the industry as being "interested only in preserving their own 'profits and bonuses.'" And in a true Stalinesque intimidation move, he is threatening to repeal the industry's antitrust exemption.

--He has abused the office of the presidency to personally attack Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and conservative talk radio in general. As we speak, his "czars" are devising schemes to shut down that very medium.

--Now he has launched an orchestrated attack against the only television network that makes a sincere effort at offering balance, Fox News Channel, in an attempt to isolate, demonize and delegitimize the organization because it won't follow suit and join the state-run media. The administration is vacillating between boycotting and allowing some administration officials to appear on the network. Obama singled Fox out as "entirely devoted to attacking my administration." Rahm Emanuel said it's "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective." David Axelrod said, "It's really not news; it's pushing a point of view." Axelrod implored ABC's George Stephanopoulos and his network "not to treat (Fox) as a news organization." White House communications director Anita Dunn, who has bragged about her success at controlling the media, said Fox is "like a wing of the Republican Party" that "spouts Republican talking points."

The common denominator of all these vicious White House attacks is that their targets are those who oppose the administration's agenda. Instead of selling its agenda the old-fashioned way -- by convincing the unconvinced -- it attacks those who dare to articulate and air the opposing point of view. This is a totalitarian, bullying administration, which is revealing its heightened state of panic and desperation over the public's growing awareness of the dangerousness of its policy prescriptions for America.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.DavidLimbaugh.com.

If you still believe there isn't an "Enemies List", then I guess you think you're being like the 3 wise monkeys.

                                                   "Hear no evil, See no evil, Speak no evil".  

But, IMO, I think you are being more like the foolish monkey that's lead with a leash. You know, the "Monkey SEES, Monkey DO" type. They're the ones with NO DIRECTION except that of the organ grinder. Just following the music wherever he goes.

The Pied Piper played a flute too. And we all know how that story ended.

Firearms aren't the only things covered under the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment states;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Although this is often connected to the possession firearms ( as I believe was the intent ), I would like to point out that it wasn't limited to just firearms. Wikipedia describes the meaning of "bear arms" as the following:

It is undisputed that the term "bear arms" has often been used in a military context, and has also been used with reference to self-defense, for example in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776: “The people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.”

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the phrase To bear arms as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." The OED dates this use to 1795.

Garry Wills, an author and history professor at Northwestern University, has written of the origin of the term bear arms:

By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pœnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms." ... "One does not bear arms against a rabbit...

Garry Wills also cites Greek and Latin etymology:

... "Bear Arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek 'hopla pherein' and Latin 'arma ferre') – one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, 'equipment' (from the root ar-* in verbs like 'ararisko', to fit out). It refers to the 'equipage' of war. Thus 'bear arms' can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all military callings.

Don Kates, a civil liberties lawyer, cites historic English usage describing the "right to keep and bear their private arms."

Likewise, attorney Sayoko Blodgett-Ford notes a non-military usage of the phrase in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention:

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..."

Historian Jack Rakove, in an amicus brief signed by a dozen leading historians filed in District of Columbia. v. Heller,[118] identifies several problems with the Kates and Blodgett-Ford argument. Coxe's reference describes the ownership of weapons, not the purpose for which the weapons were owned. Thus, privately owned weapons were state mandated as a means of meeting one's legal obligation to contribute to public defense. Other historians have noted that the Second Amendment was as much a civic obligation as it was a right in the modern sense. The meaning of the Pennsylvania dissent of the minority is even more hotly disputed. A number of scholars, including Gary Wills, Jack Rakove, and Saul Cornell have all noted that this text, written by the Anti-Federalist minority of a single state, was hastily written and never emulated by any other ratification convention.

Some historians have claimed that prior to and through the 18th century, the expression "bear arms" appeared primarily in military contexts, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians. According to historian Richard Uviller:

In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. ... As a review of the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of 'bear arms' and 'bearing arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia.

However, this conclusion is quesioned by published research of Clayton Cramer and Joseph Olson who argue that while previous scholarly examination of the phrase "bear arms" in English language documents published around the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts, that this perhaps is reflective of a selection bias problem arising from the use of a limited selection of government documents that overwhelmingly refer to matters of military service. Cramer and Olson note:

Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that...have nothing to do with military service...[and] The common law was in agreement. Edward Christian’s edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries that appeared in the 1790’s described the rights of Englishmen (which every American colonist had been promised) in these terms 'everyone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [unlawful] destruction of game.' This right was separate from militia duties."

LIBERAL / PROGRESSIVE opponents of the 2nd Amendment would like us to believe that they are referring only to firearms and GUN CONTROL regulations. In my opinion, what they really want is to remove any means to defend ourselves from those wanting to destroy the intent of the our founding fathers when they originally wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Why do you think the oaths our governments officials and military vow the following:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

In other words, the 2nd Amendment protect ALL Americans from those wanting to destroy what many have fought and died for from within our borders as well. For them to be able to do that they first need to know who has weapons ( registration ) and removing those weapons ( the means to defend ourselves ) by any means possible. And the courts are being used as one of those means. Have the courts change the law from the bench has been useful to them so far. A.C.L.U. lawyers challenge everything these days from banning the Bible from public schools, removing God from the public square as well as government owned land or forcing the Boy Scouts to have homosexual scout masters. You see it happening almost daily on television.

The next time someone wants you to vote for a candidate who supports GUN CONTROL legislation, remind them of that little fact. And always keep in mind that it isn't the gun that kills a person. It's often the evil in the heart of the person pulling the trigger. And owning a weapon to protect ones self, family or country isn't a sin.

It's a God given RIGHT.

The 2nd Amendment . Protector For The "RIGHTS" Of All .

             Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I firmly believe that this amendment guarantees and ensures that the rest of our God given rights under the U.S. Constitution are protected.  The very rights our founding fathers were willing to sacrifice their money, public standing and their lives and the lives of  family members they cherished so much.  Rights they left from England ( and all of Europe ) to acquire.  Rights that today, many of us take for granted.

Without the 2nd Amendment, there would not be a 1st Amendment declaring FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 

One of the big reasons why many came to America for because many in Europe were executed for speaking their convictions.  Those in charge of the Catholic Church often directed from Rome the monarchy in Europe.  And it was heresy to question anything the Catholic Church dictated.   Should the Church deem so, many rightful rulers could not be recognized and crowned as the legitimate ruler without the blessing of the church.  Many rulers, ( King Henry VII for example ) often ruled ruthlessly with the approval of the church.  ( IE. The Spanish Inquisition ).  It was these reasons many escaped to America to be free of.  It would be years later that Napoleon Bonaparte would attack Rome and capture Pope Pius VI that this would end.



So why are so many people on the "LIBERAL" LEFT wanting to have it removed? 

IMO, as long as the 2nd Amendment exists, Liberals / Progressives and many of their agendas would face resistance to any political overhaul that changes those very freedoms guaranteed by a God they deny exists.  If they can't achieve their goals by the rules and laws that apply for all of us, they attack the laws from the inside.  They use the courts to circumvent the laws of the land by usurping the true intentions of the writers of our Constitution.   And if they can remove our right to defend ourselves with the arms granted to us by God and the blood spilled by the founding father, LIBERALS / PROGRESSIVES can (and will) strip more and more of those rights.  

Already you can see some of the attempts taken by our government to grasp a "choke" hold on the people.
 I posted on my blog this past April the following:

Saturday, April 18, 2009

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

I was forward this e-mail. It reads as follows:

DHS DECLARES THAT SECOND AMENDMENT
SUPPORTERS ARE "RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS":
TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN REPORT! Dear Concerned Citizen,

Did you know that your government considers you to be a "rightwing extremist?"

IT'S TRUE!

According to news reports, the Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," labeling citizens opposed to new firearms restrictions, returning veterans and conservatives as "rightwing extremists" and associating them with white supremacists and violent antigovernment groups.

You read that right -- it appears that the Obama Administration, and especially the DHS under Janet Napolitano, is trying to demonize political dissent. And it's no big surprise who's directly in their crosshairs: supporters of the Second Amendment, including veterans and gun owners.

Who is funding this kind of nonsense? Well, YOU are. Why would your government spend your money attacking YOU, instead of spending your money PROTECTING you?

This calls for grassroots action, on a HUGE scale!

TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT
ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS:
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW! The report also says that Congressional debates about immigration and gun control make extremist groups suspicious and give them a rallying cry:

"It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists," the report said.

Why are they worried? Because since November, more than 7 million people have applied for criminal background checks in order to buy weapons. And as far as the Obama administration is concerned, buying guns equals "weapons stockpiling," buying ammo equals "hoarding of ammunition," and expressing concern about Congress passing gun control legislation qualifies YOU as part of an "extremist group."

Therefore, you and I are now being viewed as dangerous rightwing extremists that law enforcement officials need to be watching out for!

This is OUTRAGEOUS!

TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT
ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS:
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW! This report was released "hot on the heels" of another (state) government agency report in February: the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this horrific "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members."

According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":

The United Nations
The New World Order
Gun Control
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Abortion
Illegal Immigration

Well, there you have it! You see? You ARE a dangerous rightwing extremist!

As ridiculous as that report seems, it was distributed to law enforcement officials across the state of Missouri. And it wasn't until the state government was FLOODED with protests from patriotic Americans across the country, that they finally came out and denounced and retracted the MIAC document.

Now, it's happened again -- but this time, at the Federal level! Our own government is turning against us, and unless there is a HUGE outpouring of outrage from every part of this nation, it will just keep getting WORSE!

TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT
ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS:
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW! Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding "conservative" or "right-wing" philosophies were identified in BOTH the MIAC report AND the Homeland Security "assessment."

This shouldn't be too surprising: both of these reports are similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies, courtesy of DHS-sponsored "Fusion Centers." MIAC is one of those Centers, sponsored by the DHS!

So now, even veterans are targets of our own government: The Homeland Security assessment specifically says that "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat."

PLEASE, don't think we're making a "big deal" out of nothing! Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban specifically told the press, "This is nothing unusual," and added that the Homeland Security Department did this "to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again."

The authors of this assessment are pushing an "Us against Them" philosophy. You and I are being marginalized -- labeled as fringe kooks, "rightwing extremists," so that it will be easier to violate our liberties and take away our right to keep and bear arms in the future.

The only thing that will put a STOP to this nonsense is a huge public outcry opposing it. If we do nothing, however, it will soon be too late to do anything. We either stop it NOW, or it will grow into an out-of-control monster that will monitor and control the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country.

As patriotic Americans, we need to DEMAND that this outrageous report be CONDEMNED by our Representatives in Congress, and RETRACTED by the Obama administration -- NOW. They, along with Secretary Napolitano, owe every conservative American, every veteran and every gun owner who supports limited government an apology. Please, SELECT HERE NOW to send Blast Faxes to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS, telling them to take action against this report TODAY!

Sincerely,

Alan Gottlieb, Chairman
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

P.S. As tens of thousands of faxes now begin to pour in to the offices on Capitol Hill, the CCRKBA is ready to LOBBY HARD to make sure that our Congressmen follow through on our demands. But lobbying costs money -- so we need YOUR help to keep pounding away on these legislators to do the right thing!

PLEASE MAKE YOUR BEST CONTRIBUTION NOW:
DONATE ONLINE! It's ironic, isn't it, that Barack Obama's friend, William Ayers, is a convicted leftwing terrorist bomber, but nothing in this report suggests monitoring HIS activities.

This administration needs to be reminded that its words and actions have consequences, and irresponsible statements, reports and actions fuel fires that are counterproductive to democracy in America.

TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT
ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS:
SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org


Please, feel free to let your common sense tell you what you have to do now. Only you can STOP the LIBERAL NONSENSE as well as their hidden agendas. If you won't act on your own behalf, then WHO WILL?

And the following month I posted the following:

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Napolitano Does It Again.

Shifting Stories: Napolitano’s Recent Comments No Comfort to Patriotic Conservative Americans ─ Lawsuit Moves Forward

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

People - Janet Napolitano 2 - SmallANN ARBOR, MI – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s May 12, 2009, revised explanation to a congressional subcommittee about her Department’s controversial “Rightwing Extremism” report raises even more questions about her candor and competence to protect our nation from terrorists.

Napolitano originally told Americans that she had been briefed before its release and stood by the “Report.” However, when public outrage over its contents reached a crescendo, she backtracked and told Americans she would have “reworded” the section that labeled returning veterans as potential terrorists. When that did not calm the outrage, she apologized to veterans. Now, Napolitano claims a rogue employee published the report without authorization.

On May 12, 2009, Napolitano told a congressional subcommittee that the Report “was not authorized to be distributed, ” and that it was taken off the Department’s website.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, reacted to her latest explanation, “Our lawsuit against Secretary Napolitano will continue. Since we filed that lawsuit, additional information has been brought to our attention that creates even more concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is unconstitutionally targeting Americans merely because of their conservative beliefs. Moreover, simply removing the report from the DHS website, without a condemnation of its contents and specific instructions to all the enforcement agencies receiving it that that it should not be used, is merely hiding the evidence of an insidious ongoing agenda to go after conservative Americans. In fact, her comment to the subcommittee that the report is being ‘redone’ and will be ‘much more precise’ in view of her previous linguistic contortions, is too vague to give comfort to conservative Americans.”

Significantly, Napolitano has never apologized or retracted the report’s specific targeting as ‘potential terrorists’ conservative Americans who:

* Oppose abortions
* Oppose same-sex marriage
* Oppose restrictions on firearms
* Oppose lax immigration
* Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
* Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
* Are suspect of foreign regimes
* Fear Communist regimes
* Oppose a “one world” government
* Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
* Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
* . . . and the list goes on.

Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremism” report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, ” which was first made public in a “leaked” Intelligence Assessment violates the civil liberties of American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs.

Click here to read the Department of Homeland Security’s Report.

On April 16, 2009, the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan filed a lawsuit against Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.

The Law Center claims that DHS has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that DHS encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.

Click here to read the Law Center’s complaint.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.



This is another example of how YOUR tax dollars are at work.

If you are opposed to any Liberal agenda and a VETERAN, you are now a "TERRORIST".

What ever happened to the Democrats supporting our troops? In fact, it wasn't very long ago we heard comments from the Democrats that told the American people just how much they supported the troop. Of course, 2008 was an election year.

Now, we've seen over the past couple of weeks Nancy Pelosi tried to "LIE" her way from the comments about how the C.I.A. "lied to Congress" about enhanced interrogation techniques in briefings she obviously knew about.

It would be comical were it not that they now are in charge of all three branches of government. You may think I'm being a little premature when I say this, but with Judge Sutter retiring from the Supreme Court you can bet Obama, A.C.O.R.N., Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Liberal "LOONS" will push for a far-left person to take his place.

So those of you that put these idiots in office I say this, when you are paying a days wage for a loaf of bread, you only have yourselves to blame. And that day isn't that far off.


Sorry about your luck.




I'm looking forward to viewing a new episode of the brand new show "The Obama Drama" and see what the Liberals will get away with this week.  With Thanksgiving only a few weeks away, they may want to name the new episode "FREEZE TURKEY"!  Because if they get their way on the 2nd Amendment, they'll be the only ones with the guns. 


On second thought, maybe I should read a book instead.



 

Are We There Yet?! ( A blog I posted in April 2009 originally titled ''And There Will Be Scoffers". )

Prophecy: "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." 2 Peter 3:3-4

ARE WE THERE YET?!

In my opinion, I believe we are. And today, leading the ''scoffing" and mocking charge in the media, are three on air personalities. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Bill Maher, the host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.

A closer look at the three gives you an idea as to their views on Conservative Christianity.

IMO, the #1 scoffer has to be Rachel Maddow. According to Wikipedia;

Rachel Anne Maddow (born April 1, 1973) is an American radio personality, television host, and liberal political commentator. Her syndicated talk radio program, The Rachel Maddow Show, airs on Air America Radio. Maddow also hosts a nightly television show, The Rachel Maddow Show, on MSNBC; she was formerly a guest host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann and other MSNBC shows.

Maddow is the first openly gay anchor to host a prime-time news program in the United States.

In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (styled a DPhil) in political science from the University of Oxford. Her doctoral thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons. She was the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship.

Maddow was named in Out magazine's "Out 100" list of the "gay men and women who moved culture" in 2008.

Maddow was voted "Lesbian/Bi Woman of the Year (American)" in AfterEllen's 2008 Visibility Awards.

Maddow won a Gracie Award in 2009, presented by the American Women in Radio and Television.

Also in 2009, Maddow was nominated for GLAAD's 20th Annual Media Awards for a segment of her MSNBC show, "Rick Warren, Change To Believe In?", in the Outstanding TV Journalism Segment category.

On March 28, 2009, Maddow received a Proclamation of Honor from the California State Senate, presented in San Francisco by California State Senator Mark Leno.

An editorial in The Nation describes Maddow as "a liberal in the purest, almost mineral sense of the word." Associated Press columnist David Bauder calls her "[Keith] Olbermann's political soul mate" and refers to the Olbermann/Maddow shows as a "liberal two-hour block". However, Maddow describes herself as more nuanced, saying in one interview that she is a "national security liberal" and in another that she is "not a partisan" and objects to being typecast. The New York Times describes another facet of her politics, calling her a "defense policy wonk" who is currently writing a book on the role of the military in postwar American politics.

During the 2008 presidential election, Maddow did not formally support any candidate. Concerning Barack Obama's candidacy and later presidency, Maddow said, "I have never and still don't think of myself as an Obama supporter, either professionally or actually."



#2 has to be Bill Maher.

William "Bill" Maher, Jr. (pronounced /ˈmɑr/; born January 20, 1956) is an American stand-up comedian, television host, social and political commentator, and author. Before his current role as the host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher hosted a similar late-night talk show called Politically Incorrect on Comedy Central and later on ABC.

Maher is known for his political satire and sociopolitical commentary. His commentaries target a wide swath of topics: religion, politics, bureaucracies of many kinds, political correctness, the mass media, and persons in positions of high political and social power, among many others. He supports the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage and serves on the board of PETA.

He is also a critic of religion and is an advisory board member of The Reason Project. Maher is number 38 on Comedy Central's 100 greatest stand-ups of all time.

Maher and Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA. Maher is on the board of directors of the animal rights group.

Maher was born in New York City, the son of Julie (née Berman), a nurse, and William Maher, Sr., a network news editor and radio announcer. Maher was raised in his Irish American father's Catholic religion, and did not find out that his mother was Jewish until his teenage years; Maher's family stopped attending church when Maher was thirteen, because of Maher's father's disagreement with the Pope's position on birth control.

Maher describes himself as a libertarian and believes that, "government is really there to do the things that people absolutely can't do for themselves" ; however, journalist Dann Halem has questioned Maher's libertarianism, describing him as a liberal.

Maher favors a partial privatization of social security, ending corporate welfare and federal funding of non-profits, and legalization of gambling, prostitution, and marijuana. Maher is a member of NORML's Advisory Board, an organization which supports the decriminalization of marijuana, and is an open marijuana user. Additionally, Maher describes himself as an environmentalist, and he frequently alludes to the topic of global warming on his show Real Time. Moreover, he is highly suspicious of corporations and often criticizes figures with close ties to industry.


And last, but not least, my #3 Conservative Christian "Cynic" is Keith Olbermann, the host of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann



Keith Theodore Olbermann (born January 27, 1959) is an American news anchor, sportscaster, writer, and political commentator. He hosts Countdown with Keith Olbermann, an hour-long nightly news and commentary program on MSNBC.

Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining prominence for his pointed criticism of major politicians and public figures, directed particularly at the political right. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and strongly criticized the George W. Bush administration and John McCain's unsuccessful 2008 Presidential candidacy.

Although it began as a traditional newscast, Countdown With Keith Olbermann has adopted an opinion-oriented format. Much of the program has featured harsh criticism of prominent Republicans and rightward leaning figures, including those working for or supporting the George W. Bush Administration, 2008 Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain, and rival news commentator Bill O'Reilly, whom Olbermann routinely dubs the "Worst Person In The World."

In January 2007 The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz wrote that Olbermann was "position[ing] his program as an increasingly liberal alternative to The O'Reilly Factor." Media watchdog group Media Research Center (MRC) compiled a list of the recipients of Olbermann's "World's Worst" for about a year from its beginning on June 30, 2005, and reported that, of the approximately 600 recipients, 174 (29 percent) of those fit their definition of "conservative" people or ideas while only 23 (6 percent) were what they considered "liberal." During the 2008 Democratic Party primaries Olbermann frequently chastised presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton for her campaign tactics against her principal opponent, Senator Barack Obama, and made her the subject of two of his "special comments". Olbermann has also posted on the liberal blog Daily Kos.

In a Countdown interview with Al Franken on October 25, 2005, Olbermann noted that in 2003, after having Janeane Garofalo and Franken on his show, a vice president of MSNBC had questioned him on inviting "liberals" on consecutive nights, contrasting that occurrence to the apparent ideological latitude he enjoyed at the time of the second Franken interview.

In November 2007, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph placed Keith Olbermann at #67 on their Top 100 list of most influential US liberals. It said that he uses his MSNBC show to promote "an increasingly strident liberal agenda." It added that he would be "a force on the Left for some time to come." Avoiding ideological self-labeling, Olbermann once told the on-line magazine Salon.com, "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American."

Olbermann suffers from a mild case of celiac disease, as well as restless legs syndrome. He also suffered a partial loss of depth perception following a head injury on the subway and, consequently, avoids driving. Along with Bob Costas, he supports the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation as an honorary board member.

Olbermann briefly dated conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham (who has won the "Worst Person in the World" Award numerous times on Countdown) in the 1990s. In June 2006, Olbermann began dating Katy Tur, a reporter with WPIX-TV; the two have lived together in New York City since October of that year.

If anyone has watched the programs these three host then you have seen the arrogant tone they take when discussing their politics as well as Christianity. With noticable voice inflexions and facial expressions, these three lead their viewers and supporters against the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

These are just a few public figures claiming to speak for "mainstream" America.

That is "us", people.

I wonder if they misunderstood what the definition of mainstream means. Or could they just simply be ignoring us. IMO, they just don't care how we feel as long as they get what THEY want (whatever that is).

I'll let you decide.