White House Claims 'Stimulus' Saved/Created 650,000 Jobs (but it imported 1,125,000 foreign workers at same time) - A few minutes ago, the White House issued a new report claiming that the Stimulus Bill earlier this year has created or saved approximately 650,000 U.S. jobs. All of us need to point out to every local newspaper, every Member of Congress and every one of our co-workers and family that the federal government has imported more than a million working-age foreign citizens this year to negate every positive impact the stimulus could have had for U.S. workers.
Read More >>
Five Election Day Lessons for the GOP by Gary Bauer
1) Reaganism still wins .
2) Quit worrying about the megaphones
3) Be Bold
4) Dont underestimate the loss of credibility
5) Dont ignore values issues
Friday, November 6, 2009
Quick Quips 11/6/09
Monday, September 14, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Yet another BHO deflection tactic!!! Obama Administration: 9.4% Jobless Rate is a GOOD Sign?
Yet another BHO deflection tactic!!! Obama Administration: 9.4% Jobless Rate is a GOOD Sign? http://ow.ly/cYjk
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Disarming Sotomayor
President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, owes the American people an explanation on her view of the Second Amendment.
Most nominees come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refuse to answer questions about hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and the death penalty. The nominee usually says something about not wanting to prejudge future decisions that may come before the High Court.
But Sotomayor shouldn’t be allowed to skirt the Second Amendment issue, because she cosigned a decision in a case earlier this year that exhibited a dismissive and hostile view of the right to bear arms. If Sotomayor’s view becomes the view of the Supreme Court, your right to own the weapon of your choice in your home may be taken away.
Because of this decision, Sotomayor may have a problem getting confirmed by the Senate. If the Sotomayor nomination becomes a referendum on the Second Amendment, it’s unlikely she’ll be confirmed.
After all, during the past few months the Senate has voted three times on pro-gun legislation. Each of these legislative amendments passed with overwhelming bipartisan margins. Clearly, the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and carry a weapon is held by more Senators than the view that the Second Amendment is an empty phrase.
Back in January, the 2nd Circuit issued a decision in Maloney v. Cuomo that upheld New York’s complete ban on the possession of a chuka stick (or nunchukas). James Maloney had been arrested at his home in 2000 for possessing the weapon. He argued that his Second Amendment rights were violated by the state of New York, because he had arms in his home (the nunchukas) for the protection of his family.
The decision, coauthored by Sotomayor, was dismissive of Maloney’s 2nd Amendment claims. Sotomayor and two other justices held that the “statute neither interferes with a fundamental right or singles out a suspect classification.” They held that a state legislature has the right to pass a complete ban on weapons in the home, because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
David Kopel of the Cato Institute, a Second Amendment scholar, argues that the position supported by Sotomayor was “oddly evasive” and gave “short shrift to Maloney’s argument.” Kopel told Human Events, “The Sotomayor opinion does not even acknowledge the legally serious argument that was relevant to this case: that under modern Supreme Court doctrine, the Due Process clause of 14th Amendment has made most provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, and the Supreme Court’s standards for which portions of the Bill of Rights are ‘incorporated’ by the 14th Amendment strongly indicate that the Second Amendment is incorporated.” In short, Sotomayor doesn’t seem to have given any meaningful constitutional weight to the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, nor the natural right of people to protect themselves.
This nominee’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is of particular importance in the confirmation battle because of the Senate’s track record on gun issues. In February the Senate voted 62-36 for an Amendment offered by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) to restore the Second Amendment rights to District of Columbia residents. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s striking down the District of Columbia’s oppressive gun-control laws, D.C. v. Heller, and holding that the Second Amendment is an individual right, the Senate passed an Amendment to restore the gun rights of the residents of D.C.
The D.C. gun rights vote was a preview of two other Senate votes. The Senate voted on guns again in April by a 63-35 margin for an Amendment by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) to ensure that law-abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage. This Amendment was necessary to remove an Amtrak ban on guns in checked luggage.
The third Senate vote on gun rights was May 12th when the Senate voted 67-29 for an Amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). This Amendment, known as the “Guns in Parks” language, restored the gun rights of law abiding Americans -- subject to state law restrictions -- in our nation’s national parks.
Sixteen Democrats voted for all three gun amendments, including Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall of Colorado, Robert Casey and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanch Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Jim Webb of Virginia. All of these Democrats will be on the hot seat if the Sotomayor nomination becomes a referendum on whether the Second Amendment is a fundamental right of all Americans.
If Sonia Sotomayor refuses to explain her rational for holding that Maloney’s fundamental right to own a weapon for the protection of his family was not infringed by the state of New York, many Democrats who would usually give deference to the President’s choice of a Supreme Court nominee may instead be overcome by concerns about confirming a justice who seems prone to ignore a freedom that Americans hold dear."
Source....
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
An Armed population keeps its government honest
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
"Heaven Was Needing a Hero" by Jo Dee Messina
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Obama to Bibi: No Surprises on Iran
[ From John: This has to be one of BHO's major, major blunders. Who else will take out Iran's nukes when it's time. Fortunately, as usual, the Israeli's will surely do the safest and bravest thing to do when necessary. ]
It may be indicative just how low US-Israel relations have sunk that Barack Obama is warning Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu not to make any military moves against Iran without telling him.
Aluf Benn of Haaretz reports:
U.S. President Barack Obama has sent a message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding that Israel not surprise the U.S. with an Israeli military operation against Iran. The message was conveyed by a senior American official who met in Israel with Netanyahu, ministers and other senior officials. Earlier, Netanyahu's envoy visited Washington and met with National Security Adviser James Jones and with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and discussed the dialogue Obama has initiated with Tehran.
The message from the American envoy to the prime minister reveals U.S. concern that Israel could lose patience and act against Iran. It is important to the Americans that they not be caught off guard and find themselves facing facts on the ground at the last minute.
Obama did not wait for his White House meeting with Netanyahu, scheduled for next Monday, to deliver his message, but rather sent it ahead of time with his envoy.
The likelihood of an Israeli strike without US knowledge just became a dead certainty.
No doubt if the Israelis informed the Obama White House in advance, news of the attack would leak. And Netanyahu must have figured out by now that Obama is more concerned with pursuing his "Grand Bargain" with Iran that with the security of Israel.
What's worrisome about this is that it calls into question just what steps an Obama administration would take to "punish" Israel if they attacked Iran. Given the hostility towards the Jewish state exhibited by several of his advisors, nothing would be unthinkable as a reaction by Obama.
Wouldn't you love to be in that room next week when Bibi sits down with our naive president?
Winter Soldier fables: Anti-war “Marine” was lying mental patient
You remember Jessie MacBeth, don’t you? He was the fake “Army Ranger” thug who lied about serving in Iraq and was promoted by the Iraq Veterans Against the War until milbloggers exposed him as a total fraud.
Well, meet a guy who makes Jessie MacBeth look like a choir boy.
And add this story to the ever-growing file of bogus Winter Soldier Syndrome tales from MacBeth and Micah Wright to Josh Lansdale and Amorita Randall.
“Rick Duncan” of Colorado Springs was a prominent anti-war activist who claimed to have served in Iraq on three tours of duty AND survived the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. He has now been unmasked as a lying mental patient (via Colorado Springs Gazette with a big hat tip to This Ain’t Hell):
The leader of a statewide veterans group who fought for homeless veterans in Colorado Springs was in the Denver County jail on Wednesday, unmasked as a former psychiatric patient who posed as a wounded Marine officer and 9/11 survivor.
Federal authorities are looking into whether Rick Duncan, whose real name is Richard Glen Strandlof, could have pilfered money he raised in the name of Colorado veterans, said Daniel Warvi of the Colorado Veterans Alliance (CVA), the group that Duncan founded.
“We were all taken aback,” Warvi said.
Strandlof, 31, who invented the name Duncan and claimed he was a former Marine captain and 1997 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, never served in the military and falsely claimed that he was in the Pentagon during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the group said.
Two members of CVA said the group became suspicious of the man they knew as Duncan after discovering inconsistencies in his personal story…The group said it found that Strandlof had been a patient in a mental hospital in Washoe County, Nev., at the time of the roadside bombing in Fallujah, Iraq, that he claimed left him severely wounded. CVA members contacted the FBI field office in Denver, which opened an investigation in early May and arrested him Tuesday night in downtown Denver on a traffic warrant originating in El Paso County.
According to Warvi, when an FBI agent asked whether he was Strandlof or Duncan, he responded “both,” then requested an attorney.
Duncan was quoted extensively by Colorado newspapers and TV stations whose b.s. detectors were apparently in the repair shop:
Under his invented identity, Strandlof proved to be a popular spokesman on veterans’ issues. He is quoted in stories as recently as March, when he was interviewed by The Denver Post about a measure before the state General Assembly to cut tuition for veterans.
He often spoke vividly of being in the Pentagon on Sept. 11 when a hijacked airliner was crashed into the building.
“The duality of that day, the good and the bad that I saw that day, are forever etched in my mind and in my memory,” he told KOAA television in an interview last year marking the anniversary of the attacks.
The Gazette quoted Strandlof on issues concerning homeless veterans. The Colorado Springs Independent wrote about him in articles about veterans struggling to deal with their experiences in war and PTSD.
On YouTube, Strandlof appears in desert camouflage talking about his “wounds.”
“I was involved in an IED explosion that killed four Marines,” he said. “I have a plate roughly the size of a, like, cup and saucer on this portion of my skull.” In the video, Strandlof also claims to have had a hip replacement and to have “had a finger blown off.”
(See the following videos here.)
Get a load of some of Duncan’s other performances. Here he is using his Absolute Moral Authority to condemn torture in December 2008:
Here he is reading the 91st Psalm after recounting how he was “heavily injured” on his third tour in Iraq:
This Ain’t Hell follows the rest of the Internet and YouTube trails. This faker wrote a piece published at VoteVets.org, the same anti-war group promoted by Gen. Wesley Clark which fell for anti-war hoax “soldier” Josh Lansdale.
Duncan/Strandlof is going to need a lot more than prayers and poetry therapy in dealing with the feds.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
http://ping.fm/Xk8Hf #tcot
Monday, May 11, 2009
"Thank You" by Lexxi Saal
"Thank You" Lexxi Saal
On Gun Control and Climate, The Elites Are Out of Touch
By Michael Barone at Townhall
Many years ago, political scientists came up with a theory that elites lead public opinion. And on some issues, they clearly do. But on some issues, they don't. Two examples of the latter phenomenon are conspicuous at a time when Barack Obama enjoys the approval of more than 60 percent of Americans and Democrats have won thumping majorities in two elections in a row. One is global warming. The other is gun control. On both issues, the elites of academe, the media and big business have been solidly on one side for years. But on both, the American public has been moving in the other direction.
Over the past decade, the Gallup organization has been asking Americans whether the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated or generally correct. From 1998 to 2007, except for the run-up to the 2004 election, they said it was generally serious by roughly a 2-1 margin -- 66 to 30 percent in 2006, for example. But in March 2009, that margin slipped to only 57 to 41 percent, with two-thirds of Republicans and nearly half of independents saying concern is exaggerated.
Similarly, last month, pollster Scott Rasmussen found that only 34 percent believes that global warming is caused by human activity, while 48 percent said it is caused by long-term planetary trends. That's almost exactly the opposite of what he found 12 months before -- 47 to 34 percent the other way around. However, 48 percent of the group Rasmussen calls the "Political Class" -- in other words, the elite -- continues to believe global warming is man-made.
On guns, Gallup has been testing opinion for many years on one extreme proposal that is the goal, usually unstated, of many gun-control advocates: banning the possession of handguns. Support was 60 percent in 1960 and 49 percent in 1965. It was as high as 43 percent in the early 1990s, before the Clinton Congress passed the so-called assault weapons ban. In March 2007, it had fallen to 29 percent -- a minority, almost a fringe position. In the early 1990s, Gallup found that Americans, by a 2-1 margin, favored stricter gun sale laws over less strict ones or keeping them the same. By fall 2008, they were evenly split.
Some of these shifts in opinion may be responses to events that liberal elites have not deigned to notice. Forty of the 50 states now have concealed weapons laws that allow law-abiding citizens to get permits to carry guns. Gun controllers predicted these would result in traffic shootouts and general mayhem. They haven't. It turns out that criminals are deterred from attacks less by gun-control laws than by the possibility that their intended victims may be armed. As for global warming, many Americans may have noticed that temperatures actually haven't been rising over the past decade, as global warming alarmists predicted. The elites are able to hire armed security guards and jet off on private jets, so they are less likely to notice these things.
I think there's something else at work here. For liberal elites, belief in gun control and global warming has taken on the character of religious faith. We have sinned (by hoarding guns or driving SUVs); we must atone (by turning in our guns or recycling); we must repent (by supporting gun control or cap and trade schemes). You may notice that the "we" in question is usually the great mass of ordinary American citizens.
The liberal elite is less interested in giving up its luxuries (Al Gore purchases carbon offsets to compensate for his huge mansion and private jet travel) than in changing the lifestyle of the masses, who selfishly insist on living in suburbs and keeping guns for recreation or protection. Ordinary Americans are seen not as responsible fellow citizens building stable communities but as greedy masses, who must be disciplined to live according to the elite's religious dogmas.
It should not be completely surprising that over time, these views have become less congenial to the masses, who are the object of such condescension. Democratic officeholders, who must live by the discipline of the ballot, have noticed. Party leaders did not press to re-enact the assault weapons ban when it expired and currently are flummoxed by the backbenchers who are resisting a cap and trade bill that would impose huge costs on those who use electricity. Elites may lead, but Americans do not always follow.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Obama to Cut Slain Officer’s Benefits in Half
So much for the more loving, more caring president “we’ve been waiting for.” So, wouldn’t you think the Old Media would be braying at the hypocrisy here? Wouldn’t you rather think that the Old Media would be up in arms about this one? Isn’t this typically the type of story that would get them motivated to get their high dudgeon on? Guess not because it is nearly invisible in the media today.
Of the very few reporting on this, the Associated Press reported on May 7 that the president’s proposed budget calls for cuts in the Public Safety Officer’s Death Benefits Program. Obama wants to cut $50 million from the program, the budget to fall from $110 million to $60 million.
Apparently Obama imagines that his ascension to the White House will heal the tortured minds those criminal miscreants and cop-killers that might be lurking around out there because according to the reasoning offered to cut program funds, Obama claims that the number of on-the-job police killings is supposed to drop.
Justice Department budget documents say the reduction is being made because “claims are anticipated to decrease” because the number of officers killed in the line of duty has been decreasing.
The director of a police survivors group begs to differ, however. They have found that police officers killed on duty have gone up 21 percent over last year’s numbers already.
But, let’s consider how this story would be reported if it were Bush proposing to cut survivor’s benefits like this. Who cannot imagine that the media would be falling all over itself to scold Bush if he should have been the one to propose such steep cuts to benefits for the families of our fallen police officers?
It would have been ginned up into a firestorm of outrage against a president Bush, wouldn’t it?
Yet, for Obama, mums the word.
Imagine that?"
Friday, May 8, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
"Remember me...." cries a soldier......
Remember Me
Obama Slashes Union Enforcement Budget
| Phillip Klein, American Spectator |
| President Obama today unveiled a paltry $17 billion in cuts to the $3.4 trillion federal budget, about half of which will come out of defense spending. But buried in the budget documents released by the White House today is a 9 percent cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that is in charge of regulating unions. Under the leadership of Elaine Chao during the Bush administration, the Labor Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards took its job of policing unions seriously. Its actions led to 929 convictions of corrupt union officials and to the recovery of more than $93 million on behalf of union members. Yet the Obama administration has proposed slashing its budget from $45 million in 2009 to $41 million in 2010, citing an insufficient "workload" for the office. |
| Read the Rest of the Story: |
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Islam Doesn't Need Jihad - Just Immigration
Muslim Demographics: The Islamic Tidal Wave
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of one of the Columbine Shooting Victims
"On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.
"I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. "I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:
Your laws ignore our deepest needs, Your words are empty air. You've stripped away our heritage, You've outlawed simple prayer. Now gunshots fill our classrooms, And precious children die. You seek for answers everywhere, And ask the question "Why?" You regulate restrictive laws, Through legislative creed. And yet you fail to understand, That God is what we need!
"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs - politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. "Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not be squelched! We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored. We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgment that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!
"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes-He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA - I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
Friday, April 24, 2009
Flashback! Barney Frank Busted on Housing Collapse
Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
George Jones - 50,000 Names Carved In The Wall
Fifty Thousand Names Carved In The Wall ~ George Jones
Monday, April 20, 2009
Avalon - Orphans of God Military Tribute
Avalon - Orphans of God Military Tribute
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The Best Guitarist In The World A Christian ...
"One of the best, if not the best guitarist around. Even Jimmy Hendrix Said, when asked How does it feel to be the best guitarist in the world. Hendrix said, "I don't know you have to ask Phil Keaggy". Keaggy been playing for the LORD 30 yrs. or more now. Still amazing to hear."
Friday, April 3, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Extortion by the U.S. Government!
The Federal government committed extortion and they're not being held accountable. What's next? Listen to this: I recently met with the Chair and CEO of one of the country's top 10 bank holding companies. His bank is worth in excess of $250 billion, has no bad debt, no credit default swaps, no liquidity problems, and no subprime loans. He told me that he and others were forced by Treasury and FDIC threats to take TARP funds, even though he did not want or need them.
The FDIC with Treasury backing, threatened to conduct public audits of his bank unless his board created and issued a class of stock for the feds to buy. The audit, which he is confident his bank would survive, would cost it millions in employee time, bad press, and consequent lost business. He pleaded with the feds to leave his successful bank alone. He begged his board to let him tell the feds to take a hike. But they gave in. The feds are now just a tiny shareholder, but want to begin asserting more and more control. This is a classic extortion: Controlling someone's free will by threatening to perform a lawful act. (Blackmail is the threat is to perform an unlawful act in order to control someone else's free will.) There are no exceptions in the statutes prohibiting extortion for government persons
This happened in September 2008, but the demands for more control are more recent. It sounds to me like Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, and Sheila Blair have all read a biography of Benito Mussolini. I guess they skipped the last chapter.
There is simply no authority in the U.S. Constitution for Congress to exercise the level of control it now seeks over private industry. In fact, this level of control will cost businesses that took TARP (voluntarily or involuntarily) money since they will lose key employees who will go to work elsewhere, the reporting requirements will take time and time is money; and the Constitution basically says that if the government wants to take time or freedom or money from someone or something, it must sue for it. It cannot just give itself the authority to do so via legislation.
Our liberties are slipping away right before our eyes.
A great monologue on our founding fathers' documents
Judge Napolitano monologue from Freedom Watch 03/18/2009 - a great monologue on our founding fathers' documents. Thanks to Dennis Thompson for pointing the way to this.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
What is greed?
Milton Friedman - Greed
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Second American Revolution
>
The Second American Revolution
Faith and Medicine - The Interpretation of Evidence
"... it could be that correlation is causation. The evidence continues to mount that that is the case.
In other words, despite the mounting evidence that faith does improve health, some people still say there is nothing supernatural about it. So, Time tells us, many researchers and scientists resist the clinical implications of these studies.
For example, they point to studies that show how parts of the brain light up like a Christmas tree during prayer and meditation. We believers believe that it’s God who designed the brain that way, but they say it is nothing more than evolutionary biology and neuro-chemistry. They try to explain away the sense of peace we experience in prayer or worship in purely material terms. So, they reason, why compromise the practice of medicine with so-called “metaphysical mumbo-jumbo”?
Paradoxically, this skepticism helps us to understand what faith truly is. As I wrote in my book The Faith, faith is a complete view of the world and humankind’s place in it. It’s a way of knowing. It is not a feeling. Christians should and do pray even if their brains don’t light up. We entrust our lives to God even if it makes no difference in medical outcomes.
Why? Because of what we know about God—that He Is and that He loves us and rewards those who seek Him.
Likewise, for those who proceed from the assumption that everything in the universe can and must be explained in purely material terms, when it comes to faith and medicine, no amount of “scientific evidence”—powerful though it is—will suffice.
They just can’t get their brains around it."
From John:
Many of you know that I am stage 3A survivor 2.5 years into recovery from lung cancer and a pneumonectomy. Less of you know that I have seven "metabolic diseases" to include lung cancer, diabetes, coronary artery disease (2 stents), hypertension, gout and chemo and diabetic neuropathies. I know that faith and prayer have kept me going and that He never gives us more than we can handle. If there is any way I can help any of you with your health worries, please add a comment to this post and I'll happily come back to you.
Read more of Mr. Colson's article here.
The government cannot order GM to fire anyone and it knows that .....
GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner is forced out of his job by the government. Here's what I think - The government cannot order GM to fire anyone and it knows that. The Constitution prohibits all government from "impairing the obligation of contract". Since GM and Waggoner obviously have a contract, the Constitution prevents the government from impairing in.
Thus, the government "bribes" GM, by saying that if GM fires Waggoner, the government will give GM government loans. If a private person approached GM and said words to the effect that if you fire Waggoner I'll buy your bonds, that person would be arrested for blackmail or harassment or attempted commercial bribery. The same clause that prohibits the government from impairing contracts also prohibits the government from imposing conditions on loans that interfere with the basic freedoms that the recipient of the loan possesses and which are guaranteed by the Constitution. One such basic freedom that GM, and all persons and entities enjoy, is freedom of contract. If persons and businesses cannot rely on contracts, if the government can violate the Constitution at will and impair any contract it hates or fears, then the free market as we have known it for 230 years will disappear. No one will enter into any contract without the government's prior approval.
The statute under which the government told GM to fire Waggoner is the TARP statute. That statute authorizes the government to purchase toxic assts from banks. The very name of the statute connotes that activity: Troubled Asset Relief Program. There is simply not only no authority under the Constitution to fire CEOs, there is no authority to do so under TARP.
The government knows nothing about running businesses. It ran the Post Office at a $6 billion deficit in 2008 and it has not fired that CEO. It ran Amtrak at a $2 billion deficit in 2008 and it has not fired that CEO. It bought 77.9% of AIG and it (a) attempted to confiscate property from it, and (b) at least in the House voted to "condemn" it, and (c) has publicly trashed it. Instead of driving its value up, so AIG earn enough money to pay back the $200 billion the government has invested in it, the government hates it own creation and has devalued it. This will happen to GM as well: The government will make decisions about its fate based on a political model, not a business one.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Won't Carry a Firearm? Consider a Stun Gun
What is a stun gun?
A stun gun is a hand-held, battery-powered device designed to deliver an electric shock to an attacker. They are not guns in the traditional sense, because they don’t shoot anything or anybody. A stun gun has two prongs at the end of the device. Touching an attacker with the prongs and pulling the trigger will cause an electrical current to go from the prongs through the attacker’s clothes into his body.
The pulsed current causes muscles to work super fast, depleting them of needed blood sugars. It also interrupts the tiny neurological impulses that control muscle movement. The results are disorientation and loss of balance. The entire process takes only a few seconds and is very painful. It can disable a person for up to 30 minutes.
Although the voltage can be as high as 1,000,000, the amperage is low, so it will not cause any permanent damage to the person who receives the shock. A stun gun is a great protection device.
What are the sizes and styles of stun guns?
Stun guns come in different sizes and shapes. They are designed to be held in an average size hand. Z-force stun guns are intended for those with smaller hands. In most cases, the more volts a stun gun is capable of producing, the longer and heavier it will be.
The 'mini' stun gun is usually 3.25 inches long. The stopping power of these compact units is surprisingly good. Runt 950,000 volts Mini, Streetwise million volts rechargeable, and Stun Master Hot shot are excellent examples.
Most stun guns are about six inches long, with voltages ranging from 100,000 to 2,900,000 volts.
Stun Master stun guns are available in straight and curved models. While the straight model is the most common, some people prefer the curved model, feeling that the curved design makes it easier to make contact with the attacker.
Stun batons are about 16 to 20 inches long. They allow you to maintain more distance from an attacker, and they also deliver a shock when touched six inches from the tip. This prevents an attacker from grabbing it and taking it away. They are a favorite among security guards.
The element of surprise usually makes stun guns more effective. Some stun guns are disguised as cell phones, flashlights or other ordinary objects so you can catch an attacker off guard.
How does a stun gun work?
The stun gun works on the muscular and neural system. It does not rely on high amperage or pain for results. The stun gun dumps its energy into the muscles at a high pulse frequency. This makes the muscles work very rapidly which results in energy loss. It also interrupts the tiny neurological impulses that travel through the whole body to control and direct voluntary muscle movement. This causes disorientation and loss of balance and leaves the attacker in a passive and confused condition for several minutes.
Generally speaking, a one second contact with the device will repel, startle and cause muscle contraction. One to two seconds will cause muscle spasms and a dazed state. Three or more seconds will cause loss of balance and muscle control, mental confusion and severe disorientation. The attacker will be unable to recover for several minutes and effects may last for up to fifteen minutes
Will I be shocked if the attacker touches me when the device is applied?
No! The electrical current is absorbed in the muscles and will not pass through to the user, regardless of the conditions. Even if the assailant is holding you, there is no way the current will pass to you.
Are stun guns safe?
Stun guns have been proven safe. They cause no permanent damage to an attacker. There is no evidence that the electrical charge of the stun gun has adverse psychological or neurological effects. The effects on the heart or other major organs are very insignificant.
Stun guns will not permanently injure or kill anyone because of the voltage. One amp will kill a person. Most stun guns deliver only 3 milliamps. That is far below the amperage that could do any lasting damage to an individual.
Do stun guns have safety switches to prevent accidental activation?
Most models we carry include a safety switch to prevent accidental activation. The unit cannot produce a shock unless the safety switch is activated AND the On/Off switch is turned ON.
What is the power source for stun guns?|
Stun guns are normally powered by 9-volt Energizer alkaline batteries. Lower voltage units require only one, and the higher voltage units will use two or more. Newer models use Lithium Batteries, and the rechargeable stun guns do not need batteries, they include a charge cord.
How do I carry a stun gun?
Most models are small enough to fit easily inside a pocket or purse, and include a belt clip so the unit can be conveniently worn on the waist. Leather and nylon holsters are also available. A holster can keep a stun gun securely in place. Some design allows quick access.
How do I use a stun gun?
To use a stun gun, hold the electrodes firmly against an attacker. Target an area that is harder and slower to move like the upper shoulder or the upper hip. The arms or hands are not good attack points because they can be moved away too quickly. To completely subdue the attacker, the stun gun must be continuously applied for a few seconds. More time is required if the person is large, or you are using a low voltage model.
Will a stun gun work on those under the influence?
Yes. Stun guns work on those under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, but effects on a person under the influence can vary.
What difference does the voltage make?
Generally, the higher the voltage, the quicker the full effect of the stun gun, thus more effective. Besides voltage, the delivery method and the amperage of the charge are also important. A lower voltage stun gun with a better method of delivery may be more effective then the stun gun with higher voltage.
Can a stun gun be fired multiple times?
Yes. A stun gun can be used many times to ward off attackers before the battery needs recharging or replacement.|
Are stun guns legal in my area?
Stun devices are restricted in some areas. HI, MA, MI, NY, NJ, RI and WI are known states where stun devices are restricted. A few cities and counties also have laws restrict its use and ownership. Before buying a stun device, please make sure they are legal where you live. You may check stun gun laws and restrictions for some general guideline. If in doubt, contact your local police department.
Can I travel with a stun gun?
When traveling, stun guns should be packed in CHECKED luggage only. They are not allowed in terminal areas of any airport, or in any carry-on luggage. Never attempt to enter a courthouse, government building, public meeting, or sporting event area with a stun device.
Should I choose stun gun or pepper spray?
Stun guns and pepper spray both have advantages and disadvantages. A stun gun can only be used at close contact with an attacker, while pepper spray can put a safe distance between you and an attacker (5-10 feet depending on model). Pepper spray must be sprayed in the eyes or inhaled directly to be effective, while stun gun works anywhere on the body. The effectiveness of pepper spray may be affected by wind and rain, and stun gun effectiveness depends on how long you keep the gun on the attacker.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Please don't miss this ......
Louis Armstrong - What a Wonderful World
Americans are TEAd
Americans are used to April 15th being the day you’re told to pay up.
This year, Tax Day is the day to say you’re TEA’d -- Taxed Enough Already.
As you read this, liberals in Congress are beginning the process of forcing passage of the $3.6 trillion, high-spending, high-borrowing and high-taxing Obama budget.
President Obama is even mobilizing teams of his presidential campaign supporters, now a political organization called Organizing for America, who are going door-to-door campaign style to pitch his irresponsibly massive government expansion program that will raise taxes on every single American.
And what could they possibly be saying about a budget that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted last week will lead to deficits $2.3 trillion larger than the Obama White House is telling us?
Once again, we see Washington promoting irresponsible spending and expecting responsible taxpayers to foot the bill.
Here’s what you can do to fight back: On April 15, join your fellow Americans at Tax Day Tea Parties across the nation to say no to the Obama budget. I want to tell you about two groups that are helping to organize the Tea Parties. Why these two groups? I will tell you in a minute and explain how you can participate.
Get Involved in a Tax Day Tea Party on April 15
You won’t read about it in the elite media, but tens of thousands of Americans in hundreds of American communities are organizing Tax Day Tea Parties for this April 15th.
Some communities have already held Tea Parties to fight back against Wall Street and Washington insiders who’d rather taxpayers ask fewer questions and write more checks.
Over 4,000 turned out in Orlando this past weekend.
More came out in Cincinnati than at anytime since the Vietnam War protests.
But all of this has been a warm-up act for April 15.
The Reagan Coalition is Reassembling itself to Fight the Obama Budget
Some Tea Party participants call themselves “God-fearing patriots,” and it’s a good description for the movement that is gaining strength.
In outrage against the billions of our dollars being used to pay for the irresponsible behavior of others -- and the trillions more in the Obama budget that will be used to expand government even further into our lives -- the Reagan coalition of the faithful and the fiscally conservative is reassembling.
There’s no super-rich sugar daddy like George Soros pulling the strings.
There’s no special interest group like Moveon.org creating the illusion of a grassroots movement.
And it’s not a taxpayer-funded “protest” group like ACORN.
It’s just ordinary Americans who believe in preserving American values and principles like faith, freedom and smaller government.
That’s why I want to tell you about two groups. Each group is focusing on bringing like-minded people together at the same events.
The first group is ,a href="http://www.TaxDayTeaParty.com" target="_blank">TaxDayTeaParty.com, a broad coalition of grassroots groups which has already organized many of the Tea Parties that you probably heard about. They have already confirmed more than 250 locations in all 50 states for the April 15 Tea Parties.
The second group is TeaPartyDay.com which is a joint effort by Renewing American Leadership and the American Family Association. They are committed to bringing people of faith and their families to the Tea Parties. Over 10,000 are already signed up.
Get Your Tea Party Tool Kit at www.AmericanSolutions.com
American Solutions has created a Tea Party Tool Kit that you can download and pass out at your local Tea Party. The Tool Kit is designed to communicate, not just that we’re angry, but that we have a bold agenda with better solutions that will actually get our economy growing again. It’s available here.
The Tea Party Tool Kit’s key component is 12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity, a pro-growth, pro-freedom alternative to the irresponsible policies of the Obama budget.
April 15 is just 20 days away. Go to www.americansolutions.com/teaparty now to find a Tax Day Tea Party near you and get involved.
Secretary Geithner Has Lost the Confidence of the American People -- If He Ever Had It to Begin With
Another reason to come out to a Tax Day Tea Party is to let President Obama know that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has lost the confidence of the American people and needs to resign.
The Geithner nomination for Treasury Secretary was tainted from the outset. In the midst of a crisis of trust in our financial institutions and our government institutions, the last person we needed for a Treasury Secretary was a public official who had deliberately failed to pay his taxes.
And since then, the news has only gotten worse. As I wrote last week, from the beginning of the crisis last fall, Geithner has been central to the Bush-Obama policy of corporate bailouts that has enriched Wall Street firms with the taxpayers’ money.
The Joke’s On Us: Goldman Sachs Never Needed a Bailout
The latest revelation is perhaps the worst yet.
Remember how the Paulson-Geithner-Bernanke bailout of AIG was initially sold to the American people? We were told that failing to prop up the firm with taxpayer dollars would let loose a cascading failure of the entire banking system.
It turns out that this was never exactly true.
That’s right. Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar announced last week that his firm never needed the taxpayers’ help after all. Goldman Sachs, it turns out, wouldn’t have failed if AIG had been allowed to fail.
The reason Viniar made the announcement was to divert the public’s attention from allegations that Goldman profited handsomely from the bailout of AIG.
But in trying to tamp down one scandal, Viniar has revealed another: The ground on which Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke sold the $170 billion AIG bailout was -- at least partially -- a lie.
The Top Four Beneficiaries of the AIG Bailout? Goldman Sachs and Three Foreign Banks
So if we didn’t avert a banking crisis with the AIG bailout, what exactly have the taxpayers gotten for their $170 billion? Well, nothing so far. But here’s the list of the top four beneficiaries of the AIG bailout:
1. Goldman Sachs: $12.9 billion
2. Société Générale (France) $11.9 billion
3. Deutsche Bank (Germany) $11.8 billion
4. Barclays (United Kingdom) $7.9 billion
This is the real scandal of the AIG bailout.
Add the other TARP funds Goldman Sachs received to the AIG pass-through money and you get an astounding total of $23 billion from the taxpayers.
All for a company that now says it never needed help to begin with.
If that’s not a reason to come to a Tax Day Tea Party on April 15, I don’t know what is.
See you there.
Your friend,
P.S. Today, I will testify in front of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Alongside former Justice of the Supreme Court Sandra Day O’Connor and former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey, I will discuss the recommendations in the Alzheimer’s Study Group’s National Strategic Plan to overcome the mounting Alzheimer's crisis. Earlier this month, I appeared on the “Today Show” discussing Alzheimer’s and will be on “Nightline” this evening. In my next newsletter, I’ll provide more details on the recommendations. I want to thank our members of the ASG.
P.P.S. Those of you who follow my “tweets” on Twitter have already heard my call for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to resign. I’m having a lot of fun with this new technology. If you’d like to correspond with me and follow my “tweets” on Twitter, just go to http://www.twitter.com/newtgingrich. Oh, and you can also follow me on facebook as well.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Live as an all-out sell-out for Christ!
Live as an all-out sell-out for Christ!
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Whitehouse Misfires on Limbaugh
by Karl Rove in The Wall Street Journal
Presidents throughout history have kept lists of political foes. But the Obama White House is the first I am aware of to pick targets based on polls. Even Richard Nixon didn't focus-group his enemies list.
Team Obama -- aided by Clintonistas Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg -- decided to attack Rush Limbaugh after poring over opinion research. White House senior adviser David Axelrod explicitly authorized the assault. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assigned a White House official to coordinate the push. And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gleefully punched the launch button at his podium, suckering the White House press corps into dropping what they were doing to get Mr. Limbaugh.
Was it smart politics and good policy? No. For one thing, it gave the lie to Barack Obama's talk about ending "the political strategy that's been all about division" and "the score-keeping and the name-calling." The West Wing looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him look like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, unifying figure. The upward spike in ratings for Rush and other conservative radio commentators shows how the White House's attempt at a smackdown instead energized the opposition.
Did it do any good with voters not strongly tied to either party? I suspect not. With stock markets down, unemployment growing, banks tottering, consumers anxious, business leaders nervous, and the economy shrinking, the Obama administration's attacks on a radio talk show host made it seem concerned with the trivial.
Why did the White House do it? It was a diversionary tactic. Clues might be found in the revelation that senior White House staff meet for two hours each Wednesday evening to digest their latest polling and focus-group research. I would bet a steak dinner at Morton's in Chicago these Wednesday Night Meetings discussed growing public opposition to spending, omnibus pork, more bailout money for banks and car companies, and new taxes on energy, work and capital.
What better way to divert public attention from these more consequential if problematic issues than to start a fight with a celebrity conservative? Cable TV, newspapers and newsweeklies would find the conflict irresistible. Something has to be set aside to provide more space and time to the War on Rush; why not the bad economic news?
Here's the problem: Misdirection never lasts long. Team Obama can at best only temporarily distract the public; within days, attention will return to issues that clearly should worry the White House.
Not even Team Obama can forestall unpleasant reality. And among those America now faces is Mr. Obama adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, eclipsing the $2.9 trillion added during the Bush presidency's entire eight years.
Another reality is that Mr. Obama's fiscal house is built on gimmicks. For example, it assumes the cost of the surge in Iraq will extend for a decade. This brazenly dishonest trick was done to create phony savings down the line.
Mr. Obama's budget downplays some programs' true cost. For example, his vaunted new college access program is funded for five years and then disappears (on paper); the children's health insurance program drops (on paper) from $12.4 billion in 2013 to $700 million the next year. Neither will happen; the costs of both will be much higher and so will the deficits.
Mr. Obama's budget also assumes the economy declines 41% less this year and grows 52% more next year and 38% more the year after than is estimated by the Blue Chip consensus (a collection of estimates by leading economists traditionally used by federal budget crunchers). If Mr. Obama used the consensus forecasts for growth rather than his own rosy scenarios, his budget would be $758 billion more in the red over the next five years.
Then there's discretionary domestic spending, which grows over the next two years by $238 billion, the fastest increase ever recorded. Mr. Obama pledges it will then be cut in real terms for the next nine years. That's simply not credible.
Then there's his omnibus spending bill to fund the government for the next six months, laden with 8,500 earmarks and tens of billions in additional spending above the current budget. What happened to pledges for earmark reform and making "meaningful cuts?"
In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg. This is a political luxury the country cannot afford, and which Mr. Obama would be wise to forbid. Or did he not mean it when he ran promising to "turn the page" on the "old" politics?
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Waiting Game - He’s telling the poor he’s only soaking the rich, when he’s in fact soaking everyone.
‘We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” Barack Obama proclaimed many times during the campaign. He and his throngs of supporters preened in the glow of their own righteousness like cats in a puddle of sunlight. They were for “shared sacrifice” and a “new era of responsibility.” They wanted to put aside the “old politics” and the “tired arguments” of the past.
Well, where are those people now?
Obama brags — albeit dishonestly — that he’s only raising taxes on rich people. Ninety-five percent of the American people will get a tax cut, the president insists.
Well, which is it? Do the times demand shared sacrifice from us all, or from just 5 percent of Americans?
If I say to ten co-workers, “We all need to chip in together to get this done,” and then say, “So, Todd, open your wallet and give five bucks to everyone else in the room,” it would sound ridiculous. But when Obama says the same thing to 300 million Americans it’s called “leadership.”
“The problem with socialism,” Margaret Thatcher once said, “is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” What Obama is proposing isn’t socialism — yet — but it runs into the same problem. You could take all of the money made by the richest one percent in this country and it wouldn’t come close to covering government’s expenses — even if those rich people for some reason kept working.
Our income-tax system is already extremely progressive, and it provides roughly half of all government revenue (add corporate income taxes, and it covers nearly three-fifths of all government revenue). The top five percent of earners pay more than 60 percent of income taxes. The top ten percent of earners pay more than 70 percent. And the top half of earners pay just shy of 100 percent of income taxes. Estate and gift taxes are even more progressive.
Now, it’s true that the low-wage earners who pay no income taxes do contribute in other ways. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, and other hidden taxes take a mighty bite out of the working poor and lower-middle class.
And, thanks to Obama, the poor will pay even more. President Obama’s proposed carbon tax will raise the price of energy. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in early 2008, candidate Obama admitted as much: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
Liberals will defend Obama’s carbon tax by saying it’s vitally necessary to combat climate change, end our dependence on foreign oil, and boost our embryonic green industries like wind and solar. Fine, fine. We can have that argument, as weak as I think it may be.
But why isn’t Obama honest about the fact that he’s asking the working poor and middle class to pay even more? He’s the guy who talks such a big game about shared sacrifice. He’s the one talking about a “new era of responsibility.” Heck, that’s the title of his proposed budget — you know, the one that will irresponsibly explode the deficit?
Instead, Obama sticks to his promise that everyone who isn’t rich will get a “tax cut.” That tax cut, by the way, amounts to $13 dollars more a week for the typical worker, according to the Associated Press. In 2010, that cut will be worth $7.70 a week. Will that cover “skyrocketing” electricity rates? Or higher gas prices? How about higher prices for things that use energy to get manufactured, i.e. everything?
I don’t know the answer myself. Maybe $1.85 a day in 2009 and $1.10 in 2010 will cover that. But I doubt it, particularly when your job is outsourced to carbon-tax-free China or India. The point is that Obama’s rhetoric about shared sacrifice is bogus on every level.
He tells people they are the upright ones for supporting his policies when what he’s actually saying is that he’s taking from the rich and giving it to them. “Shared sacrifice” really means taking other people’s money, while “greed” is not wanting to give it up and “responsibility” is when the government takes it anyway.
In reality, he’s giving with one hand and taking with the other. He’s telling the poor he’s only soaking the rich, when he’s in fact soaking everyone. The amazing thing is that his supporters, rich and poor alike, buy it. No wonder they’re the ones they’ve been waiting for.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Things Got Ya Down? Well Then, Consider These . . .
Still Having a Bad Day????
The average cost of rehabilitating a seal after the Exxon Valdez Oil spill in Alaska was $80,000.00. At a special ceremony, two of the most expensively saved animals were being released back into the wild amid cheers and applause from onlookers. A minute later, in full view, a killer whale ate them both.
Still think you are having a Bad Day????
A woman came home to find her husband in the kitchen shaking frantically, almost in a dancing frenzy, with some kind of wire running from his waist towards the electric kettle. Intending to jolt him away from the deadly current, she whacked him with a handy plank of wood, breaking his arm in two places. Up to that moment, he had been happily listening to his Walkman.
Are Ya OK Now? - No?
Two animal rights defenders were protesting the cruelty of sending pigs to a slaughterhouse in Bonn , Germany . Suddenly, all two thousand pigs broke loose and escaped through a broken fence, stampeding madly. The two helpless protesters were trampled to death.
What?!? STILL having a Bad Day????
Iraqi terrorist Khay Rahnajet didn't pay enough postage on a letter bomb. It came back with 'Return to Sender' stamped on it. Forgetting it was the bomb, he opened it and was blown to bits.
There now, Feel Better?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Harris Poll Puts President At #1 Above Jesus Christ
Can you imagine what it would be like if you are in the most powerful position in the U.S., if not the entire world - the President of the United States of America - and now it is being splashed across all the newspapers and shouted out from every major television network that you have been named as THE HERO, beating out the all-time #1 favorite, Jesus Christ Himself!!!
I have been saddened as I have heard this "news"! I am not at all concerned that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of lords and the King of kings, has "lost" His position - how utterly absurd! But I am concerned for President Obama, that he will actually begin to believe the headlines, and move so far away from the still, small voice of God that he will be unreachable. Is that possible, that he could become so caught up in the praise of man that he cannot hear the voice of the God he claims to know? Is it possible that he will come to view himself as the "savior" of America?
Oh, how we need to pray for the president and his family. Even the most steadfast, righteous man would have a hard time standing true to God in the face of such adulation and worship. I am not implying that President Obama is not a good man - God alone is the Judge of his true heart. But I do not believe that he, nor any other man or woman, is strong enough in his convictions and commitment to the God he professes to know to be able to withstand the heady sense of power that accompanies his position.
I was thinking about the president and all that's going on in the government these days, and was reminded of Psalm 2: "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 'Let us burst Their bonds apart and cast away Their cords from us.' He Who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and terrify them in His furry, saying, 'As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill.' "
God has set His Son as King above all the nations, and He is on His throne, no matter what happens in Washington or any other nation of the world! We need to pray fervently for our leaders, for the decisions they are making that put them in the position of opposing God, and that somehow they will come to their senses before it's too late!
"I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." I Tim. 2:1-2
Read Jacque's blog here!
