| “THE-TRUTH-IS-OUT-THERE” (Obama-Files) |
| “THE-TRUTH-IS-OUT-THERE” (Obama-Files) |
| In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012) http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ |
|
|
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73475.html
Seriously?! You ARE joking…right?!
If the republicans pull back the curtain and trot out a new candidate at their republican convention in Tampa in August 2012 from outside the current field of candidates, I’ll turn in my republican voter-registration card and disavow the republican party.
This is a complete disgrace by any republican to now be swirling such ideas around at a time during which this newly-designed, grueling primary process, that these so-called brilliant minds have created, is well underway.
We, the people, have gotten to know every one of the candidates up to this point — you know, those ones who’ve had the courage to put their names out there very early on, along with their family members, and who’ve made the sacrifices required to become a presidential nominee. All of the candidates we’ve seen so far, some of who remain, and some who don’t, have all had the courage and the strength to trudge through the waters of public scrutiny, media assaults, debate after debate after debate for months now in order to allow voters a real opportunity to get to know them and their families, and who they are, and what they stand for.
This whole notion of someone new jumping in at the republican convention at the eleventh hour makes me want to throw-up.
| A Democratic lawmaker is speaking out against an inflammatory ad in the Clarendon Metro station that tells President Obama to “go to hell.”
The lighted ad, located near the end of one of platforms, promotes a DVD documentary called “Sick and Sicker: When the Government Becomes Your Doctor,” which sharply criticizes President Obama’s health care reform law and compares it to publicly-funded health care in Canada. “Barack Obama wants politicians and bureaucrats to control America’s entire medical system,” the ad reads. “Go to hell Barack.” The Democratic blog Blue Virginia first reported the ad this morning. It’s been in place at the Clarendon Metro station since at least last week, based on a search of Twitter posts. “This advertisement is inappropriate, disrespectful of the President, and should be removed immediately,” Moran said in a letter to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. “The families with children and thousands of tourists who take Metro everyday should not be subjected to such garbage. I understand WMATA vets these advertisements before allowing them to go up, but it seems someone wasn’t doing their job when this ad was approved.” It’s unclear if the ad has been placed in any other Metro stations. |
Many of the states look pre-determined, so unless we live in a “swing state,” does our vote really matter?
The Electoral College Map from 1972 to present:
http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
|
|
Romney 165
Santorum 44
Santorum ought to come aboard as VP and let’s get the anti-Obama Express rolling! Enough Republican infighting…
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/scorecard/statebystate/r
Goodbye RINO beeyotch. Thanks for driving up my health care costs and screwing up the country by voting for Obamacare.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Snowe-Main-Republican-wont/2012/02/28/id/430881
| ObamaCon asks “since when are hardworking men & women special interests?” – Since the greedy self-interest-only charlatan made them his special interest, that’s when!!
|
| At a time of record deficits, a new soccer field for detainees at Camp 6 in Guantanamo Bay is just getting the finishing touches — at a cost of $750,000 to taxpayers.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/28/guantanamo-detainees-get-new-750g-soccer-field/ |
|
| Now why would we want the Loser, to the Loser in 08 – to be our Republican Nominee in 2012??? now Mitt was supposedly the rightful nominee in 08 but along came that shiesterHuckster and we got stuck w/ McLame right? – just like now Santorum is the rightful (conservative) nominee and along comes Newtie and we could get stuck w/ Mittens right? hmmmmm……. so i guess Newt is the present day Perot, and Mitt is BillyBoyClinton – kinda fits too, they’re both moderates….. |
| wahwahwwahwha 😦 Mitt sounds like my Morley wahwah pedal piped thru my Marshall Stack & LesPaul cranked up to 10!!! haha so sorry mittens “Operation-Obamney-Chaos” love it!!! Go Ricky (say 10 ourfathers & 10 hail marys and we’ll forgive you bro) Mitt: is this the same outrage& disgust you felt after you were warned not to attack your fellow repubs – huckster &Rudy in 08 &Newtie&Santorum current??? huh you hypocrite Massmoderatemushhead w/ nice hair!! slick aint gonna get it done w/ Conserv’s Ace……. ps (Mitts already lost in MI in that Rick is even this close 🙂 Like UncleTedNugent always says: “here i come again now baby, just like a dog in heat – got you in a Stranglehold baby, you best get the F outta the Way!!” http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-on-santorum-robocalls-outrageous-and-disgusting–20120228#.T0zoEYKqrtU.email |
Catholic Bishop Eviscerates Contraception Mandate with “The Parable of the Kosher Deli”
(CNSNews.com) – On Feb. 16, Roman Catholic Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., testified in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in opposition to the Obama administration’s new regulation that will force all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive, including those that induce abortions.
The bishop, who chairs the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, submitted written testimony which he called, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.” Here the bishop used an analogy to explain the Catholic Church’s argument against the contraception mandate. The bishop’s “parable” was not reported in the establishment press. Fox News did quote one line from it, as did ABC–not the ABC here in the United States, but the Australian Broadcasting Company.
Bishop Lori’s parable, according to a Lexis-Nexis search of English-language news sources, was not reported in The New York Times, The Washington Post, or in any other major English-language newspaper.
The bishop is scheduled to testify again–this time before the House Judiciary Committee–on Tuesday, Feb. 28.
Here is the bishop’s written testimony in full:
“THE PARABLE OF THE KOSHER DELI”
Written Testimony of The Most Reverend William E. Lori
Roman Catholic Bishop of Bridgeport, Conn.
For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”
Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.
The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.
Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.”
Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”
But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.
First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe—even if they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions.
Does the fact that large majorities in society—even large majorities within the protesting religious community—reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews.
Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers.
Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.
In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.
In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new “accommodation.” You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.
Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu, and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things. First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches.
Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.
This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.
The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way.
Thank you for your attention.
5 Evildoers do not understand what is right,
but those who seek the LORD understand it fully.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+28&version=NIV
More evidence politicians of all walks cannot be trusted…
—
For some consumer advocates, the diversion is reminiscent of the 1998 tobacco settlement in which states spent billions on projects that had nothing to do with curbing smoking.
“We shouldn’t be in the position of taking money that is intended to help consumers and their mortgage tribulations and putting that to another purpose,” said Joan Bray, a former Democratic Missouri senator who now is chairwoman of the Consumers Council of Missouri.
States that use the onetime payout for immediate expenses may also face the question of what to do next year when the money is used up. But officials in struggling states say they must deal with the most immediate problems first.
| This is such an accurate observation and one i’m afraid legions of Mittmites are overlooking 😦 and yes Mitt – “it is worth getting angry over”, in fact it’s worth getting pissed about you foolish moderate! (no wonder John mclame loves you) – Mitt lyin’ about his obamneycare contraceptive mandate at last wks debate should also be a wake up call hellllloooooo !!??? anyone home in the mushymiddleswamp…. wake up and support Rick or Newt or we gonna get our conservative asses kicked again in Nov!!! remember 2010 and the formula that actually works and does not give the Libs cover patriots! cant give healthcare issue away!!!!
|
“If I had to guess, I’d say Obama’s Defense Department had a lot to say about whom the bad guys were to be. The people that Obama has spent most of his presidency bowing to, giving apologizing speeches to, relinquishing all American military superiority to, attempting to ignore all their connections to violent terrorism, are the people that are completely left out of the movie: radical Islamist Middle Eastern Arabs.”
http://www.redstate.com/prupaine/2012/02/26/movie-review-act-of-valor/
“Yelling racist and bigot and charging cowardice are the only stratagem left to liberals who cannot win on the merits of their arguments. They dismiss defense of marriage and pro-life measures as ‘wedge issues.’ In fact, they are bridge issues, since they form a bridge between races, religions, and ethnic groups. Those liberals who press to overturn marriage laws resort to name-calling and character assassination. All the while they hypocritically wrap themselves in the mantle of civility. … In the past decade, the Supreme Courts of Washington State, New York, and Maryland — three very liberal states — came down on the side of true marriage. Why? Each court said that the raising of children was a compelling state interest. Each court — of course — is being radically transformed by liberal governors to facilitate their assault on the family. In Maryland, Attorney General Doug Gansler openly avows this as his governor’s strategy. We who defend true marriage are equally committed to civil rights. We strongly believe that marriage is a civil right — and that overturning true marriage will cause grave harm to all Americans, not the least to the poor and to minorities.” –columnist Ken Blackwell
3 Stone is heavy and sand a burden,
but a fool’s provocation is heavier than both.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+27&version=NIV
wonder if Mcchelle will send this 04 fundraising letter out for the current campaign bid?
|
Referring to the burning of “radical Islamic material” that included the Qurans, the former House speaker said the situation had been “blown into a huge incident by various fanatics in Afghanistan.” He told a crowd gathered at a campaign rally at the Bing Crosby Theater that while the president had apologized for the burning, he had not called on the Afghan government to issue an apology for the deaths of two NATO soldiers who were killed by a man wearing an Afghan army uniform during increasingly violent protests of the desecration of the Muslim holy book.
“There seems to be nothing that radical Islamists can do to get Barack Obama’s attention in a negative way,” Gingrich said, “and he is consistently apologizing to people who do not deserve the apology of the president of the United States, period.”
A muslim judge? There goes the neighborhood… How are we to ever have justice in the courtroom?
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/atheist-choked-by-muslim-and-then/
|
|
| mitt & ron sittin’ in a tree………… how sweeeeet
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/23/are_mitt_romney_and_ron_paul_in_cahoots |
| The president knows he is in trouble, so he has given up leading the country and is now focused solely on campaigning for re-election. Obama has little chance of winning in November, but this does not stop the mainstream media from selling the message that he has a chance. Fortunately for them, many voters are uninformed and can still be influenced by the constant media spin. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_has_already_lost_and_he_doesnt_even_know_it.html#ixzz1nJ1pU9b3 |
| Obama is now telling people of faith and moral conscience that they must obey him rather than God or pay enormous fines if they remain true to conscience. He needs to “go back to Scripture” and “remind” himself: “We must obey God rather than men.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_and_the_problem_of_evil.html#ixzz1nJ16SMCf |
3 By wisdom a house is built,
and through understanding it is established;
4 through knowledge its rooms are filled
with rare and beautiful treasures.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+24&version=NIV
So much for impartial application of the law, the very heart of being a judge. Another scumbag proud to be a Democrat.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Gay-Dallas-Judge-Wont-Perform-Marriages-140154903.html?dr
Clue- the father’s name is ‘Mohamed.’ You can figure the rest out without even reading the article. Including the part where he lied to police about the source of the 11 year old child’s bloody face.
| Why would we want the loser, to the loser in 08 – to be the republican nominee in 2012?? |
MD Governor O’Malley is a damned liar. Thankfully, there will be a public referendum to give purity one last chance in Maryland.
—
In a written statement, Gov. O’Malley said: “All children deserve the opportunity to live in a loving, caring, committed, and stable home, protected equally under the law. The common thread running through our efforts together in Maryland is the thread of human dignity– the dignity of work, the dignity of faith, the dignity of family, the dignity of every individual.”
The bill would not go into effect now since those for and against the bill agree it should go to referendum on the November ballot.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/02/23/md-senate-to-debate-gay-marriage-bill/
Once again Ann Coulter is spot on!
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-02-22.html
WHAT’S THEIR PROBLEM WITH ROMNEY?
Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)
Romney’s approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine.
Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.
Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He’s had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.
The chestnut about Mitt Romney being pushed on unsuspecting conservatives by “the Establishment” is the exact opposite of the truth. The Establishment, by any sensible definition, is virulently opposed to Romney — and for completely contradictory reasons.
The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.
Meanwhile, many of the pillars of the conservative establishment also implacably oppose Romney. Fox News is neutral, but its second-highest-rated host, Sean Hannity, is unenthusiastic about Romney, as is prominent Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, who has told Fox viewers she’d vote for Gingrich — and also offered herself up as a possible presidential nominee at a contested convention. (Wouldn’t a former candidate for vice president on a major party’s ticket be part of the Establishment?)
The No. 1 conservative talk-radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh, is critical of Romney, and another top conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, is adamantly against Romney — though both Limbaugh and Levin supported Romney as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and Romney has only gotten better since then.
Purely to hurt Romney, the Iowa Republican Party fiddled with the vote tally to take Romney’s victory away from him and give it to Rick Santorum — even though the “official count” was missing eight precincts. Isn’t the party apparatus of a state considered part of the Establishment?
I’m not sure what part of the Establishment supports Romney. Is it Romney supporter Christine O’Donnell, erstwhile tea party candidate for the U.S. Senate from Delaware? Am I the face of the Establishment? (If so, the country is going to be just fine.)
I would think that the pristine example of the Republican Establishment is Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor Bill Kristol. But he wants anybody but Romney, even proposing that we choose someone not running by means of a contested convention.
Who are we trying to get nominated in a contested convention, anyway?
Without having seen this mystery candidate in action, how do we know he won’t be another Rick Perry? You’ll recall that Perry was the dream candidate until we saw him talk.
In 2008, Romney was enthusiastically supported not only by Limbaugh and Levin, but also by Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and many others who now seem to view Romney as a closet liberal. This is especially baffling because there is no liberal candidate in the Republican primary this year.
Just four years ago, one Republican candidate for president was avowedly pro-abortion (Rudy Giuliani). One had opposed Clinton’s impeachment and tort reform (Fred Thompson). One supported amnesty for illegals, restrictions on core First Amendment speech, federal laws to combat nonexistent global warming, and opposed Guantanamo and the Bush tax cuts (“tax cuts for the rich!”) and called waterboarding “torture.”
That last one was our nominee: John McCain.
This year, every Republican candidate for president opposes abortion, promises to repeal Obamacare, opposes raising taxes, and on and on. Only one candidate is strong on illegal immigration, which is second only to repealing Obamacare as the most important issue facing the nation.
That’s the alleged liberal, Mitt Romney.
Conservatives scratch their heads wondering how the NFM can convince millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans paying $3.57 for a gallon of gas that the economy is improving simply by repeatedly saying so.
But then a large minority of those same conservatives are completely convinced that Romney is an Establishment candidate simply because they have heard that repeated so often.
As we say to dunderhead liberals: What we’re looking for here is facts, not chants or epithets.
But instead of popping Champagne corks over our final triumph over Rockefeller Republicanism, some conservatives are still fighting old wars, rather like an old cold warrior prattling about the Soviet Union after the rest of us have moved onto the war on terrorism.
This strange new version of right-wing populism comes down to reveling in the feeling that you are being dissed, hoodwinked or manipulated by the Establishment (most of which happens to oppose Romney) the same way liberals want to believe that “the rich,” the “right-wing media” and Wall Street Republicans (there are three) are victimizing them.
It’s as if scoring points in intra-Republican squabbles is more important than beating Obama. Instead of talking about the candidates’ positions — which would be confusing inasmuch as Romney is the most conservative of the four remaining candidates — the only issue seems to be whether “They” are showing respect for “Us.”
Striking a pose as the only true fighter for real Americans may be fun, but this is no way to win elections. This is Sharron Angle on a national level.
The obsession with sticking it to the Establishment (which includes Christine O’Donnell, but excludes Bill Kristol) by voting for a loose cannon demagogue or a crusading Catholic who can’t seem to move the conversation past contraception is as pie-in-the-sky delusional as anything dished by Democrats carrying on about “green jobs.”
If saving the environment is the best way to create new jobs, then it could be true that being a hard-core environmentalist nutcase is the best way to appeal to the mass of independent voters.
Similarly, if reducing contraception use, lobbying for Freddie Mac and promoting huge government programs such as moon colonies and No Child Left Behind are the best ways to create jobs, then it could be true that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are our strongest candidates in a general election.
Of course, it might also be true that dousing yourself in fairy dust does not guarantee that you will find the perfect mate and get the perfect job.
We’re being asked to hand Obama another four years in the White House in order to “send a message.” To whom? And what message? That we’re morons? Message received!
Meanwhile, Romney cheerfully campaigns on, the biggest outsider and most conservative candidate we’ve run for president since Reagan, while being denounced by the Establishment as “too Establishment.”
February 22, 2012
COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500
What business do transgendered people have promoting rights for themselves? One again liberal elitism pushes for class warfare- the object is to divide the American People against themselves while liberal politicians promise to save us from each other. Andy Harris rightly recognizes class warfare and calls it out. Notice this foolishness always starts in major urban areas with entrenched Democrat representation, e.g. Baltimore.
| i recommend the pampered 2012 obama diapers – they hold a ton of poo ……
|
|||||||
|
There is REAL evil in the world. The liberals give Santorum a rash of crap for saying the Prince of Darkness has his sights set on America and our families and the media types think it’s a big joke. And then EVERYDAY you read about tragedies like this one where people with the sacred trust of raising children give in to the darkness and our children lay dead in the streets. Horrible…
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/22/stepmom-grandmother-charged-in-girls-running-death/
2 Rich and poor have this in common:
The LORD is the Maker of them all.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+22&version=NIV
| The ObamaCon media is the most serious threat we face in this critical election cycle and it is the vehicle and key to his victory – understanding, recognizing and targeting the media is crucial for our nominees to neutralize and blunt the impact while using to their advantage – kudos to Newt for doing this at points in the debates but this was just tip of the iceberg – we face the same type of media propaganda machine that existed in Nazi Germany in terms of it’s effectiveness and level of deception – there needs to be a consistent and unified effort against the media bias & bigotry and a cutting off at the knees of their preferred method of deceit and influence.
Media Bigotry Showing – http://www.americanthinker.com/archived-articles/../2010/09/media_bigotry_showing.html |
Europe’s socialist monetary policies are failing. We can learn from their mistakes by continuing with capitalism. Capital belongs in the hands of the people. The people have the innovation and the ingenuity to deliver goods and services to the marketplace better than any government ever could. Further, our Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal Government to keep them in their box and out of our bank accounts.
—
The prospect of higher taxation on pensions comes as savers complain that low interest rates and quantitative easing have pushed down returns on savings and pensions.
Charlie Bean, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, last night insisted that those people should accept the pain as the price of restoring the wider economy to health.
The Confederation of British Industry, in its Budget submission today, urges ministers not introduce new levies on the rich, warning that the UK “will become a less attractive location for entrepreneurs and key employees”.
Domestic enemies of America- all of them!!!
—
Village Idiots by Patriot Post
Revisionist history: “[George Washington] began the political tradition that produced a Union victory in the Civil War, the Federal Reserve Board, Social Security, Medicare and, more recently, Obamacare.” –historian Joseph Ellis in Time magazine
Down with capitalism: “While we believe that capitalism is fundamentally superior to any other system for organizing economic activity, it is also clear that some of the ways in which it is now practiced do not incorporate sufficient regard for its impact on people, society and the planet.” –Global Warming spokesperson Al Gore
Disturbing dismissal: “[Occupiers] can be as filthy and they can rape people — if you want to make stuff up — but the fact is nobody really cares about it because that message isn’t about the messengers, it’s not about who’s delivering the message, but the message itself which really resonates at a very core emotional level with people who are suffering in this economy.” –Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas
Blame the GOP: “And the fact is, is that because Republicans decided to play politics with Keystone, their action essentially forced the administration to deny the permit process because they insisted on a timeframe within which it was impossible to appropriately approve the pipeline. … So the fact that the process ended the way it did in terms of that permit request is wholly the responsibility of the Republicans who insisted on playing politics with the payroll tax cut extension back at the end of last year.” –White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
Clueless: “And people in America are very practical people across the political spectrum. Very conservative women want their kids, their daughters taking birth control.” –former DNC head Howard Dean
1 A good name is more desirable than great riches;
to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+22&version=NIV
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/2/getting-a-reading-on-romney/
Getting a reading on Romney
Mitt’s not perfect, but he’s good enough
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times, Thursday, February 2, 2012
Illustration by Linas Garsys for The Washington Times
Conservatives are asking a reasonable question: Will a Mitt Romney candidacy turn into another debacle like Sen. John McCain’s in 2008? The Arizona maverick was said to be the most “electable” of the Republican nominees. Many GOP voters held their noses and supported Mr. McCain. Yet he was defeated – convincingly – by Barack Obama. Following Mr. Romney’s crushing victory in Florida’s Republican primary this week, many rank-and-file activists are wondering whether history is about to repeat itself.
The emergence of Newt Gingrich isn’t being driven by a love for the former House speaker. Rather, many conservatives are rallying behind him because he is the only viable alternative to Mr. Romney. Unlike the former Massachusetts governor, Mr. Gingrich is willing to wage a frontal assault on President Obama’s leftist policies. He is not afraid to attack Mr. Obama relentlessly – and with passion, emotion and courage. Gingrich Republicans argue that Mr. Romney possesses no ideological core, that he lacks any fundamental conservative convictions.
Moreover, Gingrich supporters think Mr. Romney is simply another moderate Republican in the mold of Bob Dole and Mr. McCain. Just as those men crashed and burned, so will Mr. Romney, in their view. In their eyes, the Republican Party is about to commit suicide: By abandoning its principles in favor of power, the GOP will lose both. Hence, Mr. Romney must be stopped – even if it means backing a flawed candidate like Mr. Gingrich. This is why his followers are urging him to fight on in the remaining 46 states.
There are similarities between Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain. Both are establishment Republicans. Both are distrusted and disliked by large segments of the conservative movement – especially talk radio. Both have signature issues – Romneycare, McCain-Feingold – that constitute major political liabilities. And both lack personality and charisma. Yet that is where it ends.
In fact, the two men could not be more different. Mr. Romney is a much stronger candidate. He is more articulate, telegenic and disciplined and possesses a considerably deeper grasp of the issues. Mr. Romney would be the first GOP nominee since President Reagan to be able to defend Republican positions effectively. The Bushes, Mr. Dole and Mr. McCain were all dismal failures regarding a key aspect of politics: communication. This alone makes Mr. Romney a serious threat to Mr. Obama’s re-election.
Most important, there is one overriding difference between Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain: The former venture capitalist is not a creature of Washington. The Arizona senator had spent decades on Capitol Hill. He was and still is the consummate insider. During the 2008 campaign, he came across – like Mr. Dole in 1996 – as a career politician, someone obsessed with process and Senate wheeling and dealing.
Mr. Romney is the exact opposite. He has spent most of his life in the private sector, running a successful business and turning around troubled corporations. He has what Mr. McCain never had: genuine executive experience. Also, unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney understands free-market capitalism. He is a pro-business Republican who will repeal Obamacare, slash burdensome regulations, cut government spending and unleash the economy’s animal spirits. The divergent perspectives of the two men can be seen on illegal immigration. Mr. McCain has championed amnesty; Mr. Romney staunchly opposes it. Mr. McCain embodies Beltway Republicanism, while Mr. Romney adheres to more traditional GOP beliefs such as states’ rights, market-driven growth and a thriving entrepreneurial class. Mr. Romney is running to loosen Washington’s suffocating grip on national life; Mr. McCain cannot imagine life without Washington’s daily involvement. This was Mr. McCain’s Achilles’ heel in 2008.
The great irony is that it was Tea Party conservatives – running on a platform of limited government, low taxes and balanced budgets – who propelled the GOP to make historic gains in the 2010 election. Yet the two leading candidates for the movement’s presidential nomination come from the establishment. The right is understandably demoralized.
His rhetoric notwithstanding, Mr. Gingrich is not an insurgent. In fact, he is less electable and less conservative than Mr. Romney. The former House speaker’s record is littered with betrayals on a wide range of issues – he supports massive ethanol subsidies, something even Al Gore concedes is a clean-energy boondoggle; he championed a health care individual mandate for more than a decade, including publicly praising Romneycare in 2006; he backed caps on carbon emissions and demanded government action to combat climate change, including filming a TV ad with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; he voted to create the Department of Education; he believes in some form of amnesty; he took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac; and he wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in massive projects, such as building a space colony on the moon, establishing a huge power-grid corridor across the Northeast and modernizing ports in Charleston. S.C., and Jacksonville, Fla. In short, Mr. Gingrich is a big-government corporatist masquerading as a conservative populist.
Mr. Romney has serious weaknesses. He is certainly not a Reagan nationalist – my kind of Republican. But he has several indispensable qualities: He can beat Mr. Obama. He can stop America’s decline into a second-rate power. He can reverse our slide toward socialism and economic ruin. He can turn around the bankrupt corporation that is America. “The perfect is the enemy of the good,” wrote the French philosopher Voltaire. Mr. Romney is far from perfect. He is, however, good enough. He is not the second coming of John McCain. He can win in November. For that alone, he deserves conservative support.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.
From the political rhetoric currently being bantered around, it would seem that changing viewpoints should disqualify one from ever holding an public office. Should individuals who’ve changed their minds, and say become more conservative, never be allowed to hold public office? Most of us change our minds on many different issues. For many of us, these changes occur as we get older, more mature, and hopefully wiser. So if it’s okay for us to change our viewpoints as we evolve, then why, apparently, can’t politicians? Why is this so terrible? I like to see politicians change their viewpoints and become more conservative – and wiser!
We need to remember that great Presidents, even Ronald Reagan “flip flopped.” Reagan switched parties and went from being a democrat to a republican. He claimed that he didn’t leave the party but that the party had left him. Could it be that his viewpoint changed as he become older and wiser and more conservative? Would that make him what’s now referred to as a “flip-flopper?” Changing viewpoints didn’t prevent Reagan from becoming President, nor should it have. Rather, it more than likely helped him in becoming the great President that he was.
Ronald Reagan was elected as Governor of the state of California from 1967 until 1975. He served as President of the U.S. from 1981 – 1989. However, Reagan was not always conservative on many issues. Here are a few of Ronald Reagan’s “flip-flops”:
Abortion: In 1967, Governor Reagan signed into law the “Therapeutic Abortion Act,” which legalized abortion in the state of California. He later said it was a mistake and declared himself to be a “pro-lifer.” However, the damage was done. He did not rectify this mistake.
Amnesty: President Reagan supported amnesty for illegals. In 1986 he signed the “Immigration Reform and Control Act” which made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire illegals, but it also granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants who had entered the U.S. prior to January 1, 1982.
Family Law: In 1969 Governor Reagan signed “the Family Law Act,” which was the very first no-fault divorce legislation. Reagan later said it was one of his biggest political mistakes. States across the country followed suit with California and “no-fault” divorce laws were then enacted in nearly every other state in the country.
Gun Control: Governor Reagan supported gun control. In 1967 he signed the “Mulford Act” which prohibited carrying firearms on your person or in your vehicle in public. As President, Reagan declared his support of a waiting period and background checks before owning a gun. In 1991, he wrote an editorial in support of the “Brady Act” of 1987.
Taxes: As governor Ronald Reagan hiked taxes in California in 1967 to balance the state budget. As President he cut taxes in 1981 and 1988, but he also raised taxes in 1982 with TEFRA, the largest peace-time tax increase in U.S. history; in 1984 with DEFRA, a high gasoline levy; and in 1986 with a tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history.
I’m so very glad that the electorate in 1980 did not believe that Reagan’s changing viewpoints should have kept him from running for President of the United States or count him out as a “flip-flopper.”
| JAGGER SINGS ‘COMMIT A CRIME’ TO OBAMA AT WHITE HOUSE Tue Feb 21 2012 20:11:21 ET Subject: Pool #1–The BluesPool was escorted into the East Room for “In Performance at The White House: Red, White and Blues” at 6:45pmPOTUS and FLOTUS entered the room at 7:25pm to rousing applause. Highlights: POTUS began his speech by wishing the crowd a “Happy Mardi Gras.” Turning to the Blues, he said the music has “humble beginnings, roots in slavery and segregation, a society that rarely treated Black Americans with the dignity and respect that they deserved.” POTUS said the Blues helped lay the foundation for Rock n Roll, R&B and hip hop. POTUS said the blues “Speaks to something universal.” “No one goes through life without both joy and pain, triumph and sorrow. Blues gets all that sometimes with just one lyric or one note,” he said. The music “teaches us that when we find ourselves at a crossroads, we don’t shy away from our problems. We own them. We face up to them. We deal with them. We sing about them. We turn them into art.” Obama then called BB King, whom he called “the King of the Blues” to the stage, helping him up.BB King (wearing a shiny leaf-patterned jacket) and other musicians listed below then led the crowd in a rendition of “Let the Good Times Roll.” (For all you Rolling Stones fans, Mick Jagger was not on the stage.) Spotted in the crowd: First Granny Marian Robinson, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and WH senior adviser Pete Rouse. Full set list: “In Performance at The White House: Red, White and Blues”B.B King, Trombone Shorty, Buddy Guy, Jeff Beck, Mick Jagger, Shemekia Copeland, Susan Tedeschi, Gary Clark, Jr., Keb’ Mo’, Derek Trucks, Warren Haynes Set List 1. “Let the Good Times Roll” (Ensemble) |
| It’s February, nine months before a presidential election, and only 22 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going. |
Conscience Rights, Religious Liberty Violated
On January 20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reaffirmed a rule that all private health care plans must cover sterilization, abortifacients, and contraception. The exemption provided for “religious employers” is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organization, including Catholic hospitals, universities, and service organizations that help millions each year. Ironically, not even Jesus and his disciples would have qualified because of their commitment to serve others.
To correct his threat to religious liberty and conscience rights, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act has been introduced in Congress as H.R. 1179, S. 1467. This measure will ensure those who participate in the health care system “retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.” For more information, go to www.usccb.org/conscience
It is more important than ever that Members of Congress be urged to co-sponsor this measure.
ACTION ALERT – To urge your congress member to co-sponsor these measures:
1. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202)-224-3121.
2. Send an email, go to National Committee for a Human Life Amendment’s (NCHLA) Action Alert Page http://nchla.org/actiondisplay.asp?ID=292 and click the link to “send e-mail to Congress.”
To see the list of current co-sponsors:
1. Go to : thomas.loc.gov
2. Under Search Bill Summary & Status, click on “Bill Number”
3. In the space provided, enter H.R. 1179 or S. 1467
Romney’s record of judicial capitulation
Fixing our judiciary too important to settle for excuses
By Rick Santorum
The Washington Times, Thursday, January 19, 2012
Illustration by Linas Garsys for The Washington Times
Imagine what America would look like today if those nominees named by Republican presidents had been, instead, persons in the tradition of Antonin Scalia, Justice Thomas, John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Alito. Imagine if we had today a reliable majority in favor of preserving marriage, defending the unborn, protecting religious freedom, preserving the proper role of states and upholding the Founders’ view of the Constitution.
Is it that Republican presidents are naive? Are they unaware of the decisive importance of the courts in either protecting or disrupting America’s social ecology, in deterring or advancing liberal social engineering? Are we less committed than Democrats to achieving our political objectives or just more susceptible to elite opinion?
Whatever the diagnosis of past errors, they must not be repeated in the next term. If a Republican is elected in 2012, he likely will have the opportunity to establish an enduring majority on the court. But if a Republican is elected president and appoints the likes of retired Justice Souter or even another Anthony M. Kennedy, this historic opportunity will be lost.
What sort of justice to the Supreme Court will Mitt Romney nominate – a Souter or a Thomas? A Miers or an Alito? A Kennedy or a Scalia? His record as governor of Massachusetts gives no cause for optimism.
Mr. Romney nominated 36 judges while governor, just nine of whom were Republicans. What he says of this record today is that the Massachusetts Governor’s Council had to confirm the nominees, and the members of the council were all Democrats. So his answer was to nominate persons palatable to Democrats.
But this all-Democratic Governor’s Council is effectively no different from the U.S. Senate. Even if, as I expect, Republicans gain a majority of the Senate this year, so long as Democrats have at least 41 members, they will be able to block by filibuster the confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee (or other federal judicial nomination, for that matter).
There is no evidence that Mr. Romney ever fought for a conservative nominee. There is no evidence that he tried to change the composition of the Governor’s Council. He passively accepted the reality that he needed to nominate four Democrats (or independents) for every Republican to the Massachusetts bench.
By comparison, how many Republicans has President Obama nominated to federal courts to placate the near majority in the Senate? Zero. This is because the left views the courts as the unelected engine for social change rather than a body tasked with upholding the Constitution. Get the judges, not the votes.
Mr. Romney told Fox News, “My test for the people that I nominated for judges was, would they follow the law.” But this is a nonstandard: What judge consciously does not follow the law? When a Massachusetts trial court judge found – and the appeals court affirmed – that junior high school boys have a right to wear fingernail polish and skirts to school, did they think they were not following the law? When Margaret H. Marshall, chief judge of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court – nominated to the court by a Republican, Mitt Romney’s mentor, William Weld – found in the state’s Constitution a mandate for same-sex marriage, was she conscious of not following the law?
In 2006, when the Romney administration drove Catholic Charities of Boston out of providing adoption services because it held the organization must arrange same-sex adoptions, did it not think it was following the law? Of course it did – it just wasn’t willing to fight to do what was right. Two of Mr. Romney’s nominations for judgeships in Massachusetts, Stephen S. Abany and Marianne C. Hinkle, were well-known as advocates for special protections for homosexuals. What about the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion? What assurances did the governor receive that these nominees would “only follow the law”? Do their assurances still apply now that Mr. Romney is no longer in office?
The bottom line here is that it is not enough to nominate judges who say they will not legislate from the bench. Nearly all say that. The next Republican president must nominate and fight for unambiguously conservative jurists who will stand their ground. Mr. Romney has shown repeatedly that he is unwilling to do this. The left has no such inhibition.
If elected president, I will apply a three-part litmus test for jurists: They need to be well-qualified, ethical and constitutionalists. In addition, my nominees will have a clear record of supporting the principle that judges should in no way rely upon any foreign or international law for the purpose of interpreting the U.S. Constitution and laws.
When only judges of this kind are nominated, future generations will not look back on the coming four years and wonder, “Why did they fumble the best opportunity in a generation to return the federal courts and the third branch of government to their proper place in the constitutional order of government?” Numerous conservative leaders have said that I was the “go-to” guy in the Senate to push for conservative judges. This is a deeply felt cause for me – of both heart and head. We absolutely must get this right. Ambiguity and timidity won’t get it right, nor will it defeat the left’s judicial agenda. We need to uphold the Constitution with principles and conviction, not with moderation and vague hopes.
Rick Santorum, a former representative and senator from Pennsylvania, is a Republican candidate for president.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/20/greek-ruins-american-style/
Greek ruins, American-style
Obama’s overspending ensures Euro-debt will devastate U.S.
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times, Monday, February 20, 2012
Illustration by Greg Groesch for The Washington TimesPresident Obama’s budget puts America on the path toward Greece. It is a reckless document, a stunning betrayal of U.S. economic interests. By its own numbers, Obamanomics leads to national bankruptcy. Unless there is a dramatic course correction, we will share the bleak fate of the Greeks: riots, chaos and internationally imposed austerity measures. We, too, are committing fiscal suicide.
Mr. Obama’s 2013 federal budget is a political document. It is a blueprint for Democratic governance, as well as a liberal template for Mr. Obama’s re-election. The budget embodies the entitlement state on steroids. It lavishes spending on every special-interest group – environmentalists, public school teachers, unions, government workers, the unemployed, minorities, college students and the elderly. It is full of accounting gimmicks to obscure the true extent of Washington’s deficit crisis. For example, its future projections of high economic growth rates, soaring tax revenues and supposed government “savings” are fictional and provide the illusion of fiscal competence. Yet, what matters is the budget’s real numbers regarding the administration’s record on spending during its first term.
Mr. Obama has buried America under a mountain of debt. For fiscal 2012, the budget estimates that spending will rise by $193 billion to $3.8 trillion. Think about this: The U.S. budget now stands at nearly $4 trillion – the highest level in our history. The deficit for 2012 will be $1.3 trillion, an increase from 2011. This means that for four consecutive years, Mr. Obama has racked up deficits of more than $1.2 trillion. In one term, Mr. Obama has accumulated $5 trillion in debt. Mr. Obama has achieved a historic record. He has created the most indebted nation in history. If one includes the nearly $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities to entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the United States is on the verge of insolvency. Never mind the massive costs of Obamacare, which is another multitrillion-dollar entitlement.
Still, the president refuses to tackle entitlement reform or curb government spending – outside of savage defense cuts. Even Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner recently admitted that Mr. Obama’s budget is fiscally “unsustainable.” The president’s men know he is pushing the country off a financial cliff.
European-style socialism leads to European-style taxation. Mr. Obama’s big deficits inevitably will result in huge tax increases – and not just for “the rich.” Everyone will get soaked. His plan raises taxes for anyone making more than $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for families. These rates also apply to business owners. He wants to increase investment taxes on the wealthy. His plan also calls for massive tax hikes on capital gains and dividends on all Americans. Moreover, the administration is calling for a “global minimum tax,” hoping to punish companies that relocate overseas. Yet, businesses and investment capital are fleeing to escape America’s burdensome tax and regulatory policies. A minimum tax will only compound the problem, not fix it.
Mr. Obama’s redistributionist, class-warfare liberalism is shackling the private sector, punishing job creators and investors. President Calvin Coolidge said “the business of America is business.” Under Mr. Obama, the business of America is to destroy business.
The result is anemic growth, economic stagnation and permanently high deficits. By Mr. Obama’s own estimates, the budget deficit for fiscal 2013 will be $901 billion and never will fall below $575 billion in any year for the next decade. Trillions more will be added to the debt. This is a guaranteed prescription for national default.
Yet, as Mr. Obama unveiled his budget, another major fiscal event was taking place.
The Greek parliament voted to pass severe austerity measures. Desperate to receive another government bailout from the European Union – or else default on its debt obligations – Athens agreed to slash pension benefits, substantially shrink public spending, scale back the minimum wage and fire more than 150,000 government workers by 2015. Tens of thousands of angry protesters, including senior citizens, took to the streets. Riots erupted. Shops and businesses were torched. Government buildings were defaced and damaged. Downtown Athens was reduced to a hollowed-out wasteland. Greece – the cradle of Western democracy – is being torn apart, slowly descending into social anarchy.
This is America’s future.
For years, the Greeks indulged in generous entitlements and high social spending, ignoring their country’s runaway deficits and ballooning debt. Government interventionism suppressed the private economy. Tax revenue dried up. Corruption spread. Cronyism became a feature of life. Greece was transformed into a sclerotic, bloated welfare state. The bill has now come due, and present and future generations must pay for money that was borrowed – and squandered – yesterday.
This is why big-government liberalism is unsustainable and immoral. It robs our children and grandchildren to finance our reckless lifestyle.
Greeks feel cheated and betrayed. Their political leaders lied to them, selling them the false promise of economic self-indulgence and cradle-to-grave social security. The sad reality is that Greece is broke. It has become a Balkan basket case – essentially a ward of the international community. The Greeks have lost their national sovereignty, prosperity and – above all – their dignity.
Mr. Obama is applying the Greek model to America. In three to four years, if current trends continue, Americans will find themselves in the exact same position as the Greeks – bankrupt, betrayed and bewildered. Global creditors will demand that severe and swift austerity measures be imposed upon us. Riots and civil upheaval will ensue. Mr. Obama’s real legacy is to ensure that America’s fate will be just like that of Greece: Two budgets, two disastrous courses leading to national upheaval.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.
Amen Rick! Keep on telling the truth and enough will listen
—
“This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?”
“He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.”
Then-Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA), for instance, kept his support for Dodd-Frank quiet. His website never posted a press release announcing his “yes” vote on the bill. It did, however, tout two federal grants totaling $3.6 million for businesses in his district two days before the Dodd-Frank vote.
Then-Rep. Zach Space (D-OH) hailed from a district reliant on the coal industry, which would have been hit particularly hard by cap and trade. He voted for the measure, but neglected to publicize the vote on his website. He did, however, announce eight federal grants totaling roughly $1.8 million all made during the month before the House passed cap and trade.
At least 32 vulnerable House Democrats received significant federal grant money in the periods leading up to or directly after their votes on at least one of these three pieces of legislation (see charts below), suggesting those grants were used either to encourage or reward votes in favor of the administration’s position.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/21/morning-bell-buying-house-votes-for-unpopular-legislation/
| the Truth hurts (only if you’re a Dem Obamamite)
Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
|
Iran’s oil minister Rostam Qassemi had warned earlier this month that Tehran could cut off oil exports to “hostile” European nations. The 27-nation EU accounts for about 18% of Iran’s oil exports.
The EU sanctions along with other punitive measures imposed by the US are part of Western efforts to derail Iran’s disputed nuclear program, which the West fears is aimed at developing atomic weapons. Iran denies the charges, and says its programme is for peaceful purposes.
Oil prices were also boosted by China’s decision to boost money supply in a bid to spur lending and economic growth. China’s central bank said on Saturday it would lower the ratio of funds that banks must hold as reserves, a move that frees tens of billions of dollars.
Oil has jumped from 96 dollars earlier this month amid optimism the global economy may grow more this year than previously expected. JP Morgan raised its Brent crude price forecast to as high as 135 from 120 dollars.
2 A person may think their own ways are right,
but the LORD weighs the heart.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+21&version=NIV
mcLame is a clown & he reeeaaally needs to go away…. HE should know an awful lot about handing the election to obamacon as this genius refused to go after the conman on his vulnerable past and wussed out on America in 08! he’s also a hypocrite as he criticizes Newts pac while he endorses mitt the master pacman himself! wow off the charts sleaze & cowardice… no thx JohnnyBGood – we’ll pound your boy mitten and see what falls out – then we’ll do the heavy lifting you refused to do on obamabully!
|
mcLame is a clown & he reeeaaally needs to go away…. HE should know an awful lot about handing the election to obamacon as this genius refused to go after the conman on his vulnerable past and wussed out on America in 08! he’s also a hypocrite as he criticizes Newts pac while he endorses mitt the master pacman himself! wow off the charts sleaze & cowardice… no thx JohnnyBGood – we’ll pound your boy mitten and see what falls out – then we’ll do the heavy lifting you refused to do on obamabully!
|
Yes, we would like to know who the donors are and what their strategic plan is in light of IRS rules and potential violations.
—
This past week, The Daily Caller revealed that Media Matters accepted a $50,000 grant from the social equity and justice group The Arca Foundation to “monitor and attack” religious news outlets like the Christian Broadcasting Network and Focus on the Family.
Parshall’s husband, NRB Senior Vice President and General Council Craig Parshall, said he was very “disturbed” by the news.
“We are firm believers in the freedom of the press and the First Amendment. That means every press on the left side of the political spectrum, on the right, the middle and everyone in between. It also means that we got to be legitimate journalists, which means we cover stories rather than trying to destroy other media outlets.”
A spokesperson for The Arca Foundation said that grant recipients largely have the right to decide how to use its funds and denied lobbying Media Matters. However The Daily Caller revealed that Arca would sometimes specify how funds should be used.
IRS guidelines require that 501(c)(3) non-profit groups refrain from adopting political stances.
3 It is to one’s honor to avoid strife,
but every fool is quick to quarrel.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+20&version=NIV
Stand Up America Now-We will be at the University of Florida on February 23rd. We will be protesting Islam Awareness Month. This is another example of appeasing Islam, an example of a violation of our First amendment. The First Amendment talks about not favoring a religion. Islam Awareness Month is definitely favoring a religion.
This is put on by the Muslim Student Association. The MSA is a national task force. Their goal is to institute Islamic foods, muslim foot baths, special provision for prayer rooms and prayer times. These actions are the appeasing of a particular group which is unconstitutional.
The MSA is well-known as an “incubator” of Islamic radicalism and has deep roots in the Muslim Brotherhood whose goal is to establish Islamic Sharia worldwide. The Muslim community in America is trying to push their agenda upon us with the help of organizations such as The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and MSA, with the help of political correctness, with the help of people who are unwilling to actually take a stand. As Islam continues to push its agenda using threats, parts of America are beginning to give in.
(read more)
http://www.standupamericanow.org/
Jobs jobs jobs. Though not clear if the 4,000 jobs will be to replace fired/quit employees or add to the number of total full-timers
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/02/17/macys-to-hire-4000-full-time-employees-this-year/
| Millions of jobless Americans are reportedly filing for disability after their unemployment benefits end. |
Publius Prime 