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.

A "HISTORY" refresher course - REMEMBER WHO DID THIS?!

Hmmm, a read such as this should make you rethink your position. Maybe Liberals / Progressives want to change this history too.

If there is anyone out there who doesn't have a clue, this is the best presentation that I can give to explain it. Now don't be mad at us "old" people, but just remember who did this.


Our Social Security
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced Social Security (FICA) Program. He Promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:


----------THEN---------


1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.

It was a democratically controlled Congress.

Apparently Congress' logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.

By the way, it was President Kennedy who used Social Security funds to start the Peace Corp.


------------WORSE STILL-------------


Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat,Term of Office: November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.


(Are any of you seeing a theme beginning to develop here?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Answer: You guessed it. The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 10, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .


(I guess he decided to take the day off from "inventing" the Internet to cast that vote.)


THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK!!!!


Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?


ANSWER:

That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. (JIMMY CARTER) (DEMOCRAT, TERM OF OFFICE: JANUARY 20, 1977 TO JANUARY 20, 1981 AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAID A DIME INTO IT!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and try to tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away?!

PLEASE!!!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens actually believe it!


If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe real changes that ALL LEGAL AMERICANS can agree on. I doubt it, but then what do I know besides "fuzzy math" and history?

(Heck, I'm still recovering from the whiplash received from Al Gore's "LOCK BOX" idea for our economy.)

If responsible voters on the Democratic Party won't listen to the facts we Republicans want to share with them, then maybe they will believe one of their own.


Thomas Jefferson, 3rd. President and a Democrat, once said;

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".

If they (the democratic youth) still feel that President Bush stole the 2000 election, just wait another 30 to 40 years when it will be their turn to receive Social Security Benefits and find out there isn't any.

And as for "Obama Care"? Well..........I wonder what their excuse will be or just WHO they will blame when it's their turn to be euthanized for the "GOOD OF THE PEOPLE" since there isn't anything they'll be able to do about it?

Some will see it as "KARMA".


I think I'll call it "POETIC JUSTICE".