Mike Corthell

Mike Corthell
Editor & Publisher at Fryeburg Free Press MEDIA

Monday, February 28, 2011

Obambi at 3 am




San Fransicko


''...I waste my breath on the Jew-baiting fools behind such a misguided effort. San Fransicko is not America, after all. And maybe if the San Fransickos who live there keep this up, the sane, rational people who live there will move away and the city will implode of its own immoral dead weight.'' What a crazy, mixed-up world we live in.
The citywide mental institution we call San Francisco (I prefer Michael Savage's "San Fransicko" moniker) is now considering a ballot proposition that would ban doctors and mohels from performing infant circumcisions.
The self-proclaimed "civil rights activists" behind this move claim the procedure is too risky for infants, who can't give their consent. Parents and doctors are apparently untrustworthy to make such decisions, so it's up to the majority of San Fransickos to determine the one-size-fits-all approach regardless of medical advice and religious freedom.
Keep in mind, San Fransicko is a city that pioneered extending medical benefits to cover sex-change operations.
So this could become the first city to subsidize sex-change operations and ban circumcision.
How crazy is this?
Circumcision is a 5,000-year-old procedure that, to my knowledge, has very few medical downsides. Maybe that's because it was prescribed by the Great Physician Himself.
Needless to say, many spiritual and physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believe they are commanded to perform this procedure on their male children.
And many doctors believe there is more risk in not circumcising than in doing it.
By the way, I guarantee you the same people voting in favor of this ban are those in favor of abortion on demand.
In other words, it's perfectly appropriate to kill the infant a day or two prior to birth, but it's not OK to circumcise him eight days later.
Hello?
Who are these people?
From where do they derive their sense of right and wrong?
I thought these people were all about "choice"? Read more:
San Fransicko earns its name http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=268809#ixzz1FFdgp6X1

Breaking News!?


Sunday, February 27, 2011

The Nutcracker


This is the story of a young Austrian boy who dreams of a Nutcracker Prince and a fierce battle against a Mouse King with seven heads. The Austrian boy is long dead now.

Evils of Free-Enterprise Capitalism



'' How it works: The formula is simple. First, create a problem, whether real or imaginary—i.e., class struggle. In advertising that problem through the media and public education system, convince folks that something must be done about it. Next, propose and implement a solution to bring about change: One-world governance for a new, collectivist age of infinite (but undeliverable) promises.'' Curious, isn’t it? While America is portrayed globally as repugnant, several hundred thousand immigrants think enough about her to forfeit all they have to get here. Be sure those who have tasted the American pie groan in incredulity at the blame-America-first insults levied by those who hate her.
Former Secretary-general of the UN, Kofi Annan, blames America—not Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or the Darfur region of Sudan—for “an unjust world economy, world disorder, and widespread contempt for human rights and the rule of law.” I repeat: “Widespread contempt for human rights.” C’mon.
Pot-calling-the-kettle-black Syndrome
It’s been said that only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you—Jesus Christ and the American G.I. The former died for souls, the latter for freedom. Still, stone throwers from Germany, Japan, and maybe to a lesser degree Italy and Britain forget billions of U.S. dollars in aid and forgiven debt afforded them following World War 2. Now many openly rebuke “decadent, warmongering America” ignoring that, not long ago, the Marshall Plan and Truman Policy propped up their disheartened, war-torn countries. This begs the question, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”
All the while touting tolerance and inclusiveness, the United Nations likewise condemn America as “a nation of evil,” but with open arms host the real planetary bullies—to name two, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Forget that Americans lead the pack in rushing to the aid of earthquake-rattled and tsunami-ravaged victims in far-off lands. Chavez slams “the hegemonic pretensions of the American empire” that ostensibly place at risk “the very survival of the human species.” Say what?
The “roast” doesn’t end here. Through a “say-it-in-Spanish” campaign, Chavez’s government targets “U.S. cultural imperialism” ostensibly cloaked in disagreeable English words as “staff,” “marketing,” “password,” “mouse,” “meeting,” “sponsor.” Yet in speeches, Chavez routinely “breaks playfully into English.” In his world, what’s good for the gander isn’t necessarily good for the goose. http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra188.htm

Saturday, February 26, 2011

And then there was one




The Religious Left’s Silence on Qaddafi


''Once again, the Religious Left is largely concerned about human rights only if the U.S. or Israel can be demonized. And faulting America or Israel for Gaddafi’s thuggery will be hard, even for the Religious Left.''

The Religious Left was befuddled in 1989 and 1991 when the old Soviet bloc crumbled, having invested so much in urging accommodation of it, while having actively supported many of its client states and proxy revolutionaries around the world.
Though the situation is not wholly comparable, left-leaning church groups are somewhat similarly puzzled by the recent fall of Middle Eastern dictatorships. For 30 years, the Religious Left ignored human rights abuses everywhere in the Middle East except for Israel, while insisting Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, abetted by the U.S., was the centrifuge of all discontent.
Some Religious leftists, like Jim Wallis of Sojourners, were belatedly able to celebrate Hosni Mubarak’s overthrow in Egypt, since he was a U.S. ally and a semi-partner to Israel. Dealing with the revolution against Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, a rabid anti-American, will be more difficult. That Gaddafi is a cartoonishly stereotypical despot and rogue who’s brutalized and robbed his nation for 42 years is beside the point. http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/25/the-religious-lefts-silence-on-qaddafi%E2%80%99s-rampage/

Friday, February 25, 2011

BLOOD

BLOOD


The need for a natural born president


''Many Americans do not understand the importance of exposing Barack Obama for the impostor he is. The quest to dislodge this impostor is not based on a technicality; the quest is based on sound reasoning and preservation of our republic. Failure to act has already caused irreparable damage and has potential to destroy our nation. We must act now for posterity's sake.''
While many elected officials, pundits and newscasters have trivialized the quest for Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate, there has been adjunct failure to address the essence of the constitutional provision requiring a natural born chief executive.
Our Founding Fathers carefully considered every provision in the Constitution, including the clause requiring a natural born president. Why did our nation's founders require only one elected official throughout all of government to be natural born? Extraordinary powers and responsibilities granted by Article II to the chief executive demand unequivocal loyalty and allegiance to our Constitution and the United States. History has established that only a natural born citizen can be entrusted with such power. Therefore, the quest for an authentic birth certificate should be of paramount concern to all Americans. If Americans fail to consider the serious consequences of a foreigner as chief executive of our republic, we will most certainly lose our nation.
Sir William Blackstone addressed the nature of natural born citizenship in his work "Commentaries on the Laws of England." Blackstone spoke of natural allegiance being "perpetual" and "intrinsic." He states that natural allegiance involves absolute loyalty and trust. Ultimately, Blackstone noted, the "principle of personal attachment, and affectionate loyalty, induced our forefathers to hazard all that was dear to them, life, fortune, and family, in defence and support of their liege lord and sovereign." Sir Edmund Coke observed that natural allegiance was "written by the finger of the law in their hearts." Blackstone also commented that natural allegiance could not be altered: "Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude, which cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature."
Very little debate regarding the natural born clause took place during the Constitutional Convention because all the founders were aware of the importance of absolute loyalty by the chief executive. In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton discussed the precautions instituted to the selection of the chief executive:
"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention." Read more: Why a natural born president? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=267861#ixzz1Ey6AUgXE

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Liberalism's warm 'n' fuzzy turns ugly


''The angry mobs aren't there to give. They're there to take. Nothing that's been won over the years can ever be relinquished. Make somebody else pay; even if it's the minimum wage workers with no benefits. Even if its the next generation. Or the generation after. Or the one after that! Borrow the money. Get it from China! Pile on the debt. Sweep it under the rug. What does it matter? I've got mine, and I'm not giving back!''
Liberalism is made up of many, many little bits and pieces of the causes in daily life. For the most part, these intriguing little items are soft, warm, fuzzy and feel good to the touch. Pick them up, hold them in your hand, turn them over, run your fingers across the soft, warm fur. Isn't it cute?
Supporters can pick and choose from among so many causes; almost anyone can find something to believe in and support. And it feels so good! You matter; you're making a difference. Right on, brother! Let's save the world, sister!
Now we've seen the assembled face of liberalism, with all the pretty little bits and pieces pasted together into liberalism's warm, fuzzy whole. Isn't it cute?
What? You say the angry mobs in Madison, Wis., Indianapolis, Ind., and Columbus, Ohio, aren't warm and fuzzy? Death threats, made anonymously over Twitter, aren't cute? "Prayers" for the various governors' deaths somehow make you feel uncomfortable?
Whatever happened to the soft, fuzzy bits we all saw when liberalism was on the assent? What happened to the nuanced spokesmen and women with the indulgent smiles for the television anchors? Why isn't it pretty anymore? Why is it angry; and so very ugly?
One is struck with with the lawlessness the demonstrators show. Doctors handing out illness excuses to call-in-sick teachers so they can get paid for demonstrating. Most of us have always had to give up one or more workdays to make our voices heard. But if it was important, we did it.
Democratic legislators fleeing the state rather than voting against union cutbacks. But you were happy to vote an endless stream of raises and gold-plated benefits during the good times, weren't you? Let someone else pay the bill; I did my part! Read more: Liberalism's warm 'n' fuzzy turns ugly http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=267389#ixzz1EsCp8dIi

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Democracy? Are you kidding me?


''To highlight the offensiveness to liberty that democracy and majority rule is, just ask yourself how many decisions in your life would you like to be made democratically. How about what car you drive, where you live, whom you marry, whether you have turkey or ham for Thanksgiving dinner? If those decisions were made through a democratic process, the average person would see it as tyranny and not personal liberty.'' It is truly disgusting for me to hear politicians, national and international talking heads and pseudo-academics praising the Middle East stirrings as democracy movements. We also hear democracy as the description of our own political system. Like the founders of our nation, I find democracy and majority rule a contemptible form of government.
You say, "Whoa, Williams, you really have to explain yourself this time!"
I'll begin by quoting our founders on democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said that in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Virginia Gov. Edmund Randolph said, "... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the two most fundamental documents of our nation – the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Our Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." If you don't want to bother reading our founding documents, just ask yourself: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or to "the republic for which it stands"? Or, did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"? Should she have titled it "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?
What's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." That means Congress does not grant us rights; their job is to protect our natural or God-given rights. Read more: Democracy: An offense to liberty http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=266885#ixzz1EmivIU1n

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Deadly quake rocks New Zealand









'I am not a birther but...'


''In the other eligibility case, while the Obama Administration vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution condemning Israelis building homes for Jews in Jerusalem as illegal, they sought to appease Muslim Jew-haters. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice intoned the words “illegitimate” and “Israel” many times after the veto. This is an attack on Israel’s birthright that’s more powerful than any army Muslims have put together so far.''
I am not a birther. The thought of someone faking a child’s birthplace just so he could be president borders on lunacy. However, a case could be made for falsified birth information because one had a Kenyan father of British citizenship: Barack Sr. If baby Barack were born elsewhere than the USA, motive for faked documentation could be tied to citizenship on a lesser position than a hope one has sired a future president. Maybe the Obamas envisioned a career for little Barry as a community organizer rising to an ACORN manager. A grown up Obama with political aspirations could have continued the ruse. With the shield of the MSM and a lame vetting process, he may have gotten away with it. Besides, lefties like Chris Matthews have said, why not just deliver the actual birth certificate and be done with it? Hawaii’s Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie, possibly acting on Matthew’s simple request said he’d dig the hidden document out of the archives and end the controversy. He came up empty. I heard Obama called him up and said, “Governor…don’t help me!” According to World Net Daily, the Supreme Court will take up the Obama eligibility matter in conference after originally denying it. This could be without Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. A motion was made to recuse them and because the court did not respond, the motion should be passed. If Kagan and Sotomayor are off the case only three votes would be necessary to hear Obama’s eligibility case in the Supreme Court. http://www.therolladailynews.com/opinions/x449519408/President-Obama-Israel-has-a-birth-certificate

Monday, February 21, 2011

Grim Jinn

Palin & Rove Want 'Birthers' to Clam Up


The U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land, or it isn’t. And if Americans still hold the Constitution to be the highest law of the land, then its integrity must be safe-guarded, respected, and protected.
So what is it with the elites of the Republican Party? Why are they so hellbent on not just avoiding, but denying and suppressing the Obama eligibility issue, which pertains to nothing less than the very integrity of the Constitution?
One after another, GOP and so-called conservative elites refuse to address this matter. New Speaker of the House
John Boehner won’t. FoxNews’ Bill O’Reilly wasted a perfect opportunity to confront Obama about it. His fellow firebrand talking head Glenn Beck not just avoids it but went out of his way to mock “birthers.”
Among conservative national talk radio hosts, only
Rush Limbaugh and to a lesser extent Sean Hannity talk about it, which is most strange because, as WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah points out, the Obama eligibility issue is not just all-important, it is a winning issue.
The latest GOP elites to dodge this issue are Karl Rove and none other than Her Preciousness, Sarah Palin.
Yesterday, in an interview with O’Reilly, Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s former consigliere, urged conservatives to focus on “real issues” and said Republicans should speak out against those in the party who question whether Obama is a citizen of the United States. Rove said whatever percentage of Republicans are so-called “birthers,” it “ought to be less.”
Alas, her kiss is not for "birthers" 'cause Sarah finds you "annoying"
On Thursday, in a rare public appearance in Woodbury, NY, in which reporters were allowed,
Sarah Palin had the appalling arrogance as to chide some of her supporters for sustaining the “annoying” claims that Obama is foreign-born and Muslim.
As reported by Beth Fouhy and Frank Eltman of the Associated Press, February 17, 2011, when asked whether she intends to run for the presidency in 2012, Palin touted herself by saying “No one is more qualified, really, to multitasking and the things you need to do as president, than a woman, a mom.” She then ”distance[d] herself from the so-called birthers, who believe Obama was not born in the United States, and others who contend he is not Christian, as he insists, but Muslim. She said she does not question the president’s faith or citizenship and added, ‘It’s distracting. It gets annoying. Let’s stick with what really matters.’”
GOP elites are hellbent on avoiding, suppressing, and mocking the issue, but ordinary rank-and-file Republicans aren’t. Like the little boy who cried out “The Emperor has no clothes!” because he had not yet been corrupted and intimidated by his “elders” and so, spoke the truth that everyone could see but were afraid to say, a recent poll found that “birthers” make up a majority of those voters who say they’re likely to participate in a Republican primary next year. They are not just a majority; “birthers” are a majority that is increasing!
Tom Jensen of the left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) reports on Feb 15, 2011 that:
51% say they don’t think Barack Obama was born in the United States to just 28% who firmly believe that he was and 21% who are unsure. The GOP birther majority is a new development. The last time PPP tested this question nationally, in August of 2009, only 44% of Republicans said they thought Obama was born outside the country while 36% said that he definitely was born in the United States. If anything birtherism is on the rise.
More than rank-and-file Republicans, the legislatures of
eleven of America’s constituent states have introduced or are considering eligibility bills – legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution. They are Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and the most recent one, Tennessee.
So when GOP elites such as Karl Rove and Sarah Palin deride eligibility as “not a real issue” and ”birthers” as “annoying,” they are mocking their fellow Republicans in at least 11 state legislatures as well as a majority of thsoe who will be voting in 2012′s GOP primary elections. What a winning formula! – Not.

Abortion, Birth Control and Common Sense


''...these children grow into illiteracy, poverty, misery, drugs, ghettoes and welfare—you pay the bills. We’re losing the ‘quality’ of our citizens. Every human being wants and deserves to be successful. We need their positive impact on our country, not the other way around. Wouldn’t it be better for the House of Representatives to vote in $140 million for birth control for the whole year rather that $12 billion for killing people every 30 days in Iraq and Afghanistan? Discrepancy: $144 billion for war versus $140 million for birth control. What’s your choice? When will you speak up?''

Human beings perform 46 million abortions annually around the planet. Year in and year out! That’s 46 million women requesting and accepting an abortion of their fetus. According to the World Health Organization, 96 percent of those abortions represent a secondary form of birth control. That means they did not have access to birth control on the front end. It means they either couldn’t feed a child, shelter it or provide for it—or they already had birthed too many children they couldn’t feed or care for.
At the same time, eight million adults and 10 million children under the age of 12 die of starvation and related diseases annually around this planet—18 million human beings. Year in and year out! In my world bicycle travels, I witnessed such massive human die-offs personally. I also witnessed living conditions that would turn the stomach of an average Canadian, European, American. (Sources: Time Magazine, World Health Organization)
Two billion human beings live on less than $2.00 per day and over 1.5 billion human beings cannot procure a clean glass of drinking water. Over 2.1 billion humans do not have access to or use of flush toilets with water sewage treatment plants. In India, 1,000 children under the age of 12 die of dysentery, diarrhea and other water borne diseases every day of the year. (Source:
www.populationmedia.org) Yet, without birth control, India grows by an added 12 million annually, net gain, on their way from 1.2 billion to 1.6 billion in 39 years. The Ganges River, which I witnessed, flows into the ocean loaded with raw sewage, chemicals and cremated human bodies. It forms a 10,000 mile dead zone at its mouth—where few marine creatures can survive the polluted waters. Today! http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty638.htm

Sunday, February 20, 2011

America's Christmas Tree toppled


''The spruce had been in its current location for 33 years. It came from the Myers family farm outside of York, Pennsylvania, the Park Service said.''

The nation's most energy-efficient National Christmas Treedoesn't appear to be the nation's most energy-resistant one. The 42-foot tall Colorado blue spruce snapped at its base during high winds Saturday morning in Washington.
Sustained winds at 25 miles per hour and wind gusts up to 50 miles per hour swept through the area and snapped the tree 4 feet above the ground, the National Park Service said in a statement.By 5:30 p.m., less than seven hours later, the tree was reduced to mulch by work crews.
The tree was trimmed over the holidays with green-hued LED lights and snowflake ornaments in an area called "The Ellipse" directly between the south lawn of the White House and the Washington Monument.
The first family lighted the tree, a tradition going back 87 years, on December 9, 2010, as blues legend BB King, Maroon 5, and others performed at the ceremony. It stayed lit each evening until New Year's Day.
According to the National Park Service, decorations are provided by sponsoring organizations in from every state and are placed in a "protective plastic globe" to protect them from bad weather.
The Park Service has identified a successor tree and will announce this spring when it will be brought to the Ellipse, the statement said.
The spruce had been in its current location for more than 32 years. It came from the Myers family farm outside of York, Pennsylvania, the Park Service said.
"The tree had been planted and watered by the Myers' grandchildren. When the tree was 6 years old it had been planted in the Myers' front yard as a Mother's Day gift for Mrs. Myers. After discussions with the NPS horticulturists, the Myers agreed to let the tree go to become the nation's Christmas tree."

Flag of Islam over America


'''I think the American people’s hearts and minds are open to receive Islam as an alternative way of life. We expect thousands to come out and support us.'''

A hardline Muslim cleric who sparked anger across the U.S. with his anti-American comments in a television interview this month is to hold a protest outside the White House.
British extremist Anjem Choudary - who once said 'the flag of Islam will fly over the White House' - has announced he will lead a demonstration calling on Muslims to establish the Sharia law across America.
The rally, planned for March 3, is to take place just weeks after his on-screen row with Fox News presenter Sean Hannity.
Mr Choudary, 43, called Americans 'the biggest criminals in the world today.'
The former leader of outlawed group Islam4UK told the Daily Star 'we expect thousands to come out and support us.'
Mr Choudary said the March rally was organised by the Islamic Thinkers society, an extremist group based in New York.
Two other British extremists, Abu Izzadeen and Sayful Islam, have also been asked to speak at the demonstration.
Izzadeen is the hate preacher who caused fury last year when he called British soldiers 'murderers' the day he was released from jail after a three-and-a-half year sentence for inciting terrorism.
Mr Choudary told the newspaper: 'The event is a rally, a call for the Sharia, a call for the Muslims to rise up and ­establish the Islamic state in America.'Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358792/Extremist-cleric-lead-White-House-protest-calling-Muslims-rise-establish-Islamic-state-America.html#ixzz1EVIJDWNt

From God to Newton to You


''The only way to maintain progress without chaos within a society is to have changeable social values that are tied to unchanging principles.''
That may sound pretty boring, but if you’ve ever wondered where America went wrong and why, keep reading. This rather dull sounding concept holds the answer to a lot of questions. First, some definitional clarity so we’re all singing the same song.
What is the definition of “values”?
Values are laws based on social ideals created by humans to ensure a logical social order that encourages progress without chaos and helps achieve societal objectiveS. Also called “ethics” or “social rules.”
What is the definition of “principles”?
Principles are laws of nature created by God – if you don’t believe in God, the laws of nature were put here when the Big Bang happened. Few intelligent people deny the laws of nature exist. Principles are also embodied in the Ten Commandments (which are not, as some people seem to think, ten suggestions). Sir William Blackstone had it precisely right when he said: “When God created man… he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature.”
Whether the reader believes in Creationism, if it happens in nature, we can be sure of it. What goes up must come down. For every action, there is an equal reaction. For every cause, there is an effect. All living things grow to maturity, level off and die. The line of least resistance creates crooked rivers (and so it probably creates crooked people, too). Those are but a few of nature’s principles. They do not change from day-to-day as human values do. They are immutable. The line of least resistance will always create crooked rivers. What goes up will always come down. The sun will always rise in the east.
Values must change for progress to occur. If social values are not allowed to change, cultures remain in a rut. Human beings, however, have a penchant for thinking they are God. Perhaps that’s why He put into place unchanging principles which cannot be ignored if humans want to survive. http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn155.htm

Friday, February 18, 2011

Step back Jack


All presidential candidates are liars


''I'm getting sick and tired of mediocrity and indecision in politics. I'm sad to see that the intestinal fortitude of America is going down the drain of political correctness even at the hands of conservatives. It would just be great to have a real man or woman who doesn't care what anyone thinks but just lives his or her convictions – win or lose. Now that is a candidate I could get behind.''
Why is it so difficult for politicians to be honest with us, especially those running for the office of president of the United States?
I am simply saying that if you know you are going to run for president, or if you have made your mind up that you're running, why is it so hard to let us know? You say it is the aspect of timing and not wanting to get in too early and the wisdom of when to announce. Even with those reasons, I still have a problem with you. If you know you're going to run but say you are going to wait and see, then that is really an outright lie. On the other hand, if you truly don't know if you're going to run for president of the United States by now, what makes you think you are a good candidate anyway? It certainly looks like indecision to me.
Are you candidates waiting to see some kind of poll rather than having the conviction of your heart? Are you waiting to see if it makes sense to run for the highest office in the land? What is the true meaning behind statements like I am going to see, I am going to put together an exploratory committee? What are you going to learn from an exploratory committee that your heart hasn't already told you? Some of you say you need to discuss with your family the option of running. That might be the only legitimate excuse you have.
Does the question about the amount of money you can raise dictate your decision, or are you guided by a commitment that you are the best person for the job? What conclusions did you come to in deciding you are the best person? Are you willing to try and even lose simply because you know you are the best person to run the country?
In the last several months, I have looked and listened and seen countless numbers of names thrown about and heard the speculation about whether or not they will run. The ifs, the ands, the buts and the maybes are frustrating. There is no time for indecision in America today. If you decide to run and raise money and find out you are losing, what are you planning on doing with the money you have raised aside from putting it in your own coffers and saving it for a rainy day? Read more: Are all presidential candidates liars? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264921#ixzz1EJNudmND

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Solar Flare


Obama eligibility resolution nears



''...But let not your heart be troubled over Obama magically surviving this controversy by getting re-elected. That is just not in the cards.''
If anyone has a right to be frustrated and demoralized about the eligibility issue, it is me.
For nearly three years, I have stuck my neck out on it, devoting massive news-gathering resources to unwrapping Barack Obama's real-life narrative, endured abuse as a "conspiracy theorist" and "wacko" only to see my news organization still standing virtually alone.
Ironically, I'm not discouraged at all about getting resolution to this controversy. In fact, I believe it is right around the corner.
I can understand the reason for the discouragement of others. They've watched court case after court case dismissed. They've watch an officer and a gentleman by the name of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin go to prison for trying to get at the truth. They've witnessed their majority views of skepticism about Obama ridiculed and marginalized. They've seen a near blackout of media coverage of the real issues of constitutional eligibility.
But what most people have not yet noticed is that judgment day is near.
Nearly a year ago, I spelled out how this issue would be resolved no later than 2012.
Today, I can honestly and enthusiastically say, "See, I told you so."
Back then, Americans were still just beginning to become aware of the many contradictions in Obama's life narrative and the fact that there was no meaningful evidence of his constitutional eligibility.
Today, at least 58 percent of Americans don't believe his story – and want to see real proof.
That is a crisis for Obama. That's not a fact that will change should winds of economic recovery blow in his direction over the next two years.
But there's an even bigger crisis he's facing in 2012 if he plans to stand for re-election.
Again, as I predicted last year, states are approving strict eligibility tests to get on their ballots as presidential candidates. Back then, I was hopeful four or five states might make such moves, virtually ensuring no candidate of questionable eligibility could ever again run for the presidency, let alone assume office.
My prediction, it turns out, was too conservative.
So far, 11 states have introduced such legislation this year alone, with some of them sure to pass into law.
So be of good cheer, all you crazy "birthers"!
We're winning.
The system is correcting itself. Read more: Eligibility resolution nears http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264341#ixzz1EDIhiQa0

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

I Ran, I Run


Zero tolerance to 'Zero tolerance'


''And wouldn't you think that the president of this great republic, who lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago years ago, would have something to say about the baleful effect of zero tolerance on so many of this burgeoning generation of Americans? Man up, Obama!''
In 1994, Congress passed the Gun-Free Schools Act, mandating a one-year expulsion for any student bringing a firearm to school. Since then, many school districts around the nation have instituted rigid "zero tolerance" policies, providing inflexible one-size-fits-all punishments for widely diverse "offenses" even beyond the scope of the Gun-Free Schools Act
In a recent case, at Spotsylvania High School in Virginia, 14-year-old Andrew Mikel, an honor student, active in the ROTC as well as in his church, has been expelled for the rest of the school year for violent criminal conduct and possession of a weapon.
Following the lead of the school officials, the Spotsylvania County School Board referred the ninth-grader to local law enforcement, resulting in his now being involved in juvenile criminal proceedings for assault.
Already, one result of Andrew's introduction to the criminal law system is that, having hoped to attend the U.S. Naval Academy (his father is a former Navy Seabee and Marine officer), Andrew – so far – can no longer qualify as an applicant.
Coming to his defense is the nation's most ceaseless, across-the-board civil libertarian, John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute in Charlottesville, Va. At a no charge, a Rutherford attorney has brought Andrew's case to the Spotsylvania Country District Court. I will report the results when issued.
And what was Andrew Mikel's alleged, heinous crime?
On Dec. 10, in the school hallway during lunch period, kidding around, he was using the body of a pen to blow "spit wads" at some of his fellow students. I remember kids doing that when I attended a Boston public school.
Finding his son being charged with violent criminal conduct, Andrew Mikel Sr., the boy's father, said: "I fought for my country and the rights of people here, and my family sacrificed right along with me. The actions of the school system completely are inconsistent with what I fought for. To come home after fighting for so long and seeing my own child being abused, I'm outraged" (Rutherford.org, Jan. 31). Read more: 'Zero tolerance' criminalizing kids http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264257#ixzz1E7T9lQpL

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Tool Size Matters




Muslim immigrants have already sunk Europe


''Devout Muslims do not believe all religions are equal. They believe there is one God, Allah, and submission to his law is the path to paradise. They do not believe in freedom of speech and the press if it means mocking the Prophet. They do not believe in Western dress codes or mixing men and women in schools and sports. They do not believe all lifestyles are equal. Some think adulterers should be stoned and honor killings are justified for girls who disgrace the family.''

Multiculturalism has "totally failed," says German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"State multiculturalism has had disastrous results," says Britain's David Cameron.
Is multiculturalism a failure in France? "My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," says President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Ex-Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has declared multiculturalism a failure in Spain, saying it divides and debilitates Western societies.
Only in Canada and the U.S., it seems, is the issue still in dispute.
Yet these European leaders are not leading anyone. They are far behind the people, and their belated appreciation of the idea of national identity is but a product of political panic. Take Merkel in Germany.
Last summer, Thilo Sarrazin published a book the title of which may be translated as "Germany Abolishes Itself."
Sarrazin argued that Germany's gastarbeiters, guest workers – Turks, Kurds, Arabs – are dumbing down the nation. While Germany's birth rate fell below replacement levels decades ago, these foreigners with less intelligence and much higher dropout, welfare and crime rates are rapidly replacing the declining German population.
"It is a matter of culture," said Sarrazin, and "Islam is the culture." This is why Muslim immigrants are "socially, culturally and intellectually inferior to most everyone else." Yet Sarrazin did use the phrase a "genetic minus" to describe migrants from the Middle East.
Were these the ravings of a neo-fascist intellectual and closet admirer of the late Fuhrer? Not at all. Sarrazin was a proud member of the Social Democratic Party of Willy Brandt and a board member of the Bundesbank.
With Merkel and the German establishment howling for his head, Thilo resigned, unrepentant. Two-thirds of Germans said he had a right to speak his mind, a third said they agreed with him, and "Germany Abolishes Itself" has sold over a million copies.
It was in response to the firestorm of the Sarrazin affair that Merkel discovered that multiculturalism was a failure. Her EU colleagues have since been falling all over one another to agree.
Another factor has contributed to the sudden awakening of the EU's elite – an explosion of anti-immigrant parties that are siphoning off working-class voters from socialist parties and nationalist voters from conservative parties. Read more: Will multiculturalism end Europe? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=263793#ixzz1E1ayOyMY

Monday, February 14, 2011

The faceofchange


A 'long-form birth certificate'


''Once we citizens demand that Obama and Congress enforce our laws, or we replace them with candidates that will—the sooner we prrove our creative abilities to maintain our civilization. In essence, each of us becomes the United States Constitution.''

For the past week, Denver, Colorado radio talk show host Peter Boyles, and his crack producer Greg Hollenback, www.khow.com, interviewed top journalists and historians on the ramifications of Barack Obama investing $2.5 million to conceal his long-form birth certificate and other records.
A 'long-form birth certificate' constitutes the only valid form of an American's birth and foundation for citizenship. Yet, Obama and his cadre of lawyers will not allow it to be presented in order to silence all Americans concerned about his qualifications to remain president of the United States. Additionally, his lawyers conceal his high school, college, social security and draft registration records. Anything else?
Additionally, Boyles discovered that Obama's mother never married his father and never lived with him contrary to his books, Dreams From My Father and Audacity of Hope. Obama congers a story proven to be fictitious by historians on Boyles' show. Nonetheless, true to form, your Main Stream Media will not touch the issue. In fact, squashes it at every juncture!
If any president will not willingly offer proof of U.S. citizenship, what does this convey about withholding truth. If authorities ask for your birth certificate to run for any political office, will you produce it? Congratulations! You're an American and proud of it! You validate the U.S. Constitution that allows all citizens the 'right' to run for public office and serve our nation. We call this rule-of-law, which maintains the bedrock of our civilization.
Does citizenship as a president matter to you? Who was Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia? What solid aspects of citizenship does he lack from not being an All-American boy? Does he maintain his Islamic upbringing that may concern us? U.S. citizens may want to know...
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty636.htm

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Joel Osteen: Happy talk preacher


''Joel Osteen and other so-called "prosperity preachers" are directly contradicting God's Word on the fundamental tenets of the faith, opting instead to preach a message of worldly riches and continual temporal blessings. They have forsaken the one true gospel to proclaim a false message, a "different gospel which is really no gospel at all" (Galatians 1:6). This "other" gospel won't save you, but it does make preachers filthy rich, tickles the ears of their followers and fills football stadiums with people willing to give until it hurts (so they, too, can cash in, you see).'' Are we all born basically good, children of God by birth?
If you listen to the hugely popular happy-talk preacher Joel Osteen, the answer is yes. But if you read the Bible, it's a definitive "No!"
During a recent interview on CNN with Piers Morgan (he's the new Larry King), Osteen assured a worldwide audience that we're all born children of God, so we're all basically good in our nature.
This includes Adolf Hitler, by the way, a man personally responsible for the Holocaust where millions were systematically murdered and World War II where tens of millions more perished.
Osteen told Piers that he couldn't explain Hitler's monstrous evil, but he's sure he wasn't born that way. And if Hitler was born good, then so too were Stalin, Mao and all of history's other mass murderers, ethnic cleansers, serial killers, child rapists … well, everyone.
Yet the Word of God tells us the exact opposite is true. The Bible declares that all of us have sinned throughout our past and continue falling short of God's standard of righteousness in our present (Romans 3:23). Isaiah 53 reveals that we have all gone astray like wayward sheep and have "turned, every one, to his own way."
Therefore, Psalm 53 says God looks at all mankind and declares: "Every one of them has turned aside; they have all together become corrupt. There is none who does good; no, not even one" (emphasis mine).
Indeed, when the rich young ruler called Jesus "good," He responded: "No one is good but God" (Luke 18:19). The young man didn't have the spiritual insight to understand that Jesus is God, so the exchange ended there. Still, Jesus made it clear that only God is good, and no human being meets that lofty standard.
Jesus told us that we must be perfect, even as God is (Matthew 5:48). This is God's standard of goodness – absolute perfection. This has been called Plan A for salvation. As someone once remarked: "Thank God for Plan B," which is salvation by God's grace through faith alone in Christ's finished redemptive work on the cross for us (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, etc.).
We consider ourselves good because we compare ourselves to other people, and we can always find someone worse than we are. Scripture describes those who "commend themselves" (for their goodness, good works, etc.) as being the ones who "measuring themselves by themselves are not wise" (2 Corinthians 10:12).
That's because Charles Manson is not the standard by which we're measured. Neither is the guy down the street who gets drunk and beats his wife. Nor any other person. The One we're being measured by is Christ Himself, who is good because He lived a perfectly sinless life – in His actions, words and thoughts. Anything less than that is unacceptable to a perfectly holy, perfectly just God who cannot tolerate sin (Habakkuk 1:13). He can only punish sin. Read more: Joel Osteen's other gospel http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=262469#ixzz1DpXiPPmA

Elvis, Bigfoot and ...


Saturday, February 12, 2011

The Reason for Power is Power


The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Abraham Lincoln and His Son, Thomas Lincoln


Abraham Lincoln and His Son, Thomas Lincoln




The media distraction machine



''On a more modest national level, the monstrous drama includes the trivialization of Sarah Palin who has become a comic-book character, a book-end to the hologram through which the oligarchy speaks. A similar process is underway with Representative Bachman: “in this, our age of infamy” increase of ‘stature’ is portends a decrease in human faculties as the virtual drives out the genuine and the image devours life.''
Financial power applies the media as a form of “mind-training” turning “freedom of thought” into a habit of “thinking to order.”[1] In the age of mass media those with access (refusal of access or a gift for critical access may be the most potent form of dissent) are subjected to this continually. The media immerses ‘the public’ (the target audience) in highly intense, non-sequential narratives of dubious authenticity that dazzle and disorganize the mind. These effects are the purpose of the media distraction machine.
Every couple of weeks a new wave of over-stimulated coverage breaks into living rooms and car seats everywhere, occupying personal space and colonizing minds: creating a reality which tends to have a binary focus: the questions are pre-set to funnel the mind toward the correct answer-and-approved-alternative. It would be instructive to track these waves for a year, examine the sequence and see what categories or dialectics inhere in it. During the last three months individuals were herded into a ‘group mind’ around the question of whether the President was a pragmatist or an ideologue. Fortune tellers told ‘the mind’ how this would shape the new congress. Then there were weeks of obsession with the shootings in Tucson that drove the economy (the life-experience of 350 million people) to the margins of the universe. Then the main event, the “Chaos in Cairo” arrived to rivet the mind’s attention on “the twitter revolution” and the ‘wave of democracy sweeping the Islamic world’ from Morocco to Afghanistan. To keep and command the attention of ‘the mind,’ the Chaos in Cairo morphed into “Turmoil in Egypt,” “Turmoil in Cairo” and “Chaos in Egypt” with stupefying rapidity and the lack of depth typical of the distraction machine’s method: the shimmering strobe-lit surface, like a Super-Bowl halftime show that not only captures but stuns attention and intimidates by its hyper-expense and degree of management, -- an epitome of the news.
Battered by the chaff of intensely contradictory statements from the highest levels of Oceanic diplomacy, President Mubarak spent weeks (probably months) seeking an exit strategy that would not involve stepping quickly into his grave. At his level, one must beware of allies (“thank you and goodbye”). While pundits noted ad nauseam the bonds between the Egyptian and American armed forces there was little if any mention that typically the protests would have been ended soon after they began by machine gun fire and tear gas. Buried still more was the major Oceanic offensive stretching from Algeria to Afghanistan, binding together “the inner crescent” and “Pivot area” of the World Island.
[2] Aside from the depopulation potential of the various crises, NATO will not yield Persia, much less Mesopotamia to the Eurasian powers. The British will-to-power with its inimitable conceit, love of hypocrisy and genius in deploying an ‘objective’ media is even greater than Chinese or Russian xenophobia and hardness. The best defense is a good offense and the British are into their tenth decade of using Islam, whose incendiary aspects are intrinsic, as the instant crisis-starter and perpetuator: one doesn’t even need to add water. http://www.newswithviews.com/Narrett/eugene160.htm


Friday, February 11, 2011

A real Croc


Soros' Capstone


''....Aaron Klein has broken the news that the Soros-led International Crisis Group (ICG) issued a 2008 report urging Egyptian government acceptance of the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.''

In attempting to explain how lobbyists get U.S. foreign aid for Egypt, journalist Pratap Chatterjee of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress writes that Tony Podesta, “the brother of a former White House chief of staff,” joined with Toby Moffett, a former Democratic Congressman, and Bob Livingston, a former Republican Congressman, to create a lobbying organization, the PLM Group, to represent Egypt in Washington.
He wrote, “The Livingston Group made the largest number of contacts with the U.S. government for the Egyptians to make sure that this money continued to flow, but they were not the only ones. Tony Podesta, the brother of a former White House chief of staff, and Toby Moffett, a former Democratic Congressman, joined forces with Livingston to create the PLM Group to represent Egypt in Washington, according to foreign-agent records at the Justice Department.”
The reference to that “former White House chief of staff” was meant to suggest that Tony Podesta has real clout and influence, especially in Democratic Party circles. But who is that “former White House chief of staff?” And why wasn’t he named?
What Chatterjee did not want to openly acknowledge, for obvious reasons, is that this unnamed brother of lobbyist Tony Podesta is none other than John Podesta, his boss at the Center for American Progress (CAP). John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff, is the President and CEO of CAP.
Politico reported that Tony and John Podesta started Podesta Associates in the late 1980s and that it was later renamed the Podesta Group. So John Podesta was in on this money-making scheme from the start. Soros subsequently asked John Podesta to run the Center for American Progress, whose foreign policy expert,
Brian Katulis, has been arguing on MSNBC that the U.S. ought to pull the plug on the Hosni Mubarak government in Egypt and deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff491.htm

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Swabby


Ban all Muslim immigration


''...imposing a ban on Muslim immigration is very likely to have an impact that goes far beyond mere symbolism. It is certain to discourage many Muslims from applying even if they are inclined to falsify their applications. And even though a ban is certain to exacerbate tensions with the Islamic world, it could well be the catalyst that triggers the Reformation within Islam that many observers think is essential if there is ever to be peaceful coexistence between Islam and the West.''

With the growing Muslim threat throughout the United States and world, it’s time for rational Western countries to enact an all-out ban on Muslim immigration. It’s proved disastrous in all of Europe where Muslims migrated. Why? Muslims fail to assimilate or acculturate into host countries. Rather, they become antagonistic, regressive and violent.
You may take any number of examples from the Madrid, Spain train bombings to Great Britain’s subway bombings, to accelerating rapes in Norway and Sweden to snipers like Muhammed Melvo in the USA, Denver bomb maker Najibullah Zazi to the Times Square car bomber a few months ago. What’s next? Who’s next? Fact: it’s going to happen again! Why should we continue importing endless and angry Muslims into our country?
In a new piece by K.C. McAlpin, president of U.S. Inc., “A reply to critics of
The Social Contract's call for a ban on Muslim Immigration to the U.S.”, he gives full measure why Muslim immigration must be stopped within the USA. February 2, 2011.
“Thoughtful observers have criticized our
fall, 2010 edition of The Social Contract for its call for a ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S., on national security grounds,” said McAlpin. “By "thoughtful observers" we mean to exclude our adversaries on the far left who get a case of the vapors whenever limits on mass immigration are proposed. Rather this commentary is to respond to concerns expressed by those on the political left and right who generally agree with us on the need for common sense immigration reform, and whose minds are open to rational argument and debate. http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty635.htm

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

American Democracy?


Sarah Palin and CPAC


''Sarah Palin has been the conservative wingers on the left fear the most, which is why they have been relentlessly and mindlessly trying to destroy her. If she continues to send such uncertain signals on moral issues, they just might start leaving her alone.''

Sarah Palin will not attend this year's CPAC, but it will not be because CPAC now supports the radical homosexual agenda.In fact, quite the reverse. A number of pro-family groups, the American Family Association among them, are staying home this year because of CPAC's inclusion of GOProud, a pseudo-conservative group that lobbies for special rights on the basis of deviant sexual behavior.With regard to CPAC, Ms. Palin told David Brody of CBN that having representatives of the deviancy cabal sitting at the table and helping to choose speakers is just fine. She said it's an example of "conservatives...reach(ing) out to others" and that GOProud's participation is needed to "provide good information and balance, and...allow for healthy debate."But unfortunately, GOProud isn't being invited to participate in a panel discussion over whether homosexual behavior is benign or a menace to human and social health. That would be one thing. They (GOProuders) instead are official participants, and thus granted license by organizers to use CPAC as a venue to promote their dangerous sexual agenda.Ms. Palin's statement on the subject was a bit meandering but left no doubt that she has no reservations about advocates of sexual abnormality being given a prominent place at a so-called conservative event.Perhaps Ms. Palin doesn't understand GOProud's role at CPAC. If so, she can walk these comments back when she finds out. Of greater concern is that she may well understand GOProud's agenda, and its mission of destroying the institution of marriage through redefinition, and may still think it's a wonderful idea to give them an honored place. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110208

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Solar


"Iranium"


''While there are cracks in the Islamic regime's foundation – its own citizens are protesting and being arrested and killed by police – the film explainsWesterners and Americans have the choice either to allow Iran's violence to continue, or assist those in Iran who are trying to change the regime.'' Iranium, the new movie premiering this week, is offering the world, especially those in the West and even more directly those in the United States, a warning about the deadly intentions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That nation, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, publicly has declared a goal of seeing Israel wiped off the map, has been the target of United Nations sanctions over its pursuit of nuclear power, which it claims is for peaceful purposes.
But the possibility, suspected by many outside of Iran, that its goal is a nuclear arsenal is just a component of the problem, explains the movie, which it explains is a dedicated and unadulterated hatred of all things involving the West and freedom.
The project,
assembled by The Clarion Fund, features a long list of experts revealing what has gone on in Iran. The report includes graphic video evidence of the Islamic violence there.
It confirms the hatred and violence exhibited by Iran's brutal leadership and documents the regime's abusive treatment of their "once proud citizenry."
Further, it "chronicles the regime's use of terror proxies abroad to inflict deadly messages on their self-described enemies for over 30 years."
Watch a portion of the movie, which for the next week can be seen online: Read more: What if 9/11 had been nuclear? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=260957#ixzz1DM7J3LD3

Monday, February 7, 2011

Clarity by Barry


Who's behind the Middle East meltdown?


''International Marxists behind the Obama Administration are also behind the Middle East meltdown. Clinton and Obama claim that these protests are nothing more than democracy seeking youths tired of economic strife and ready for “change.” If this is true, then why is every nation being taken over by radical Islamic terror regimes, which have more than a thousand years of tyrannical history of being the most brutally undemocratic leaders on earth? Aside from the systemic government waste of private resources the world over, why is the entire free world in economic collapse while the entire Middle East is in total meltdown, promising to place the most dangerous region of the globe under radical Islamic rule?''
And with every western nation on economic suicide watch, is it a coincidence that the Middle East is imploding at just the moment in history when it could force every free nation to live under the boot of international Marxists?
Such massive seismic shifts in world power structure are never a coincidence. If you keep digging, sooner or later, you will find those responsible. In this case, it is Barack Obama – Bill and Hillary Clinton – their old friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn and their friendly economic wrecking ball George Soros. http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams129.htm

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Ronald Regan

Ronald Reagan
February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004
40th President of the United States


Born: 6 February 1911
Birthplace: Tampico, Illinois
Died: 5 June 2004 (natural causes)
Best Known As: 40th President of the United States, 1981-89

2012 Doom? - It doesn't have to be


''Man needs government. But the kind of man you are will determine the kind of government you get. The slothful shall be under tribute.[4] The covetous shall be made merchandise.[5] The proud shall lose their liberty to men who promises them freedom from their responsibilities to one another.[6] William Penn said “Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by Tyrants.”''

There are some don'ts. Don't imagine that suddenly the majority of people are going to start doing the right thing or that democracy works.[8] Don't ever think they will build it so you can come. Building it is just the beginning of taking that responsibility back. You build it with anyone else who will work building it too.You are looking for humble, hardworking, brave, selfless people full of virtue. People who are patient, not brawlers, not covetous, wise as serpents, and harmless as doves, the forgiving and the giving. You need to actually seek out those people. Yes! I know they may be a little hard to find these days, but that is what makes them such a treasure. Instead of coveting their neighbor's goods through the power of those men who call themselves benefactors, which most people of the world like to elect, they choose to be wittingly, willingly, and wisely charitable with one another.
What does that charity look like? In Christ's “woe” to the Pharisees speech he faulted those hypocrites because as a society they failed to diligently attend to “the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.”
[9] They had established a system of social welfare[10] for the needy of their society, but that was not charity. They had an extensive system of courts to guarantee that everyone paid their share, but that was not charity. They elected a congress in the form of a Sanhedrin to pass laws and regulate what was contributed and how it was distributed but those were the men who called themselves benefactors but exercised authority which we were told not to depend upon which is certainly not charity either. Their government was a contradiction to what Moses and Christ taught.[11] They had become covetous and coercive.[12]
Those people had rejected God though they professed him with their mouth. They had accepted the new deal offered by Herod.[13] They had a new father upon the earth to apply to for benefits.[14] By their own desire to force their neighbor to contribute to their welfare they were snared[15] by the promises of men who were not true benefactors.[16] http://www.newswithviews.com/Gregory/williams120.htm

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Time's Up





Our Folly, Our Madness


''Realize, finally, that when enough foreign entanglement has occurred, perception is altered. That's the real trap. Perception then tells us that things cannot be any other way. It would be absurd to consider it. Our need and our dependence are forever.''
These days, we argue about equally insane foreign policy choices. It's as if we're walking through a cave wired to explode, and there are dragons hanging from the ceiling and the ground is melting around our feet—and we're supposed to come up with a triumphant escape route.
No one wonders how we got into the cave in the first place, or what would happen if we simply retraced our steps and forgot about the whole expedition.
No. We're saviors of the whole world. It's our duty as a nation to rescue and reform every group and government on the planet. We must democratize people whose idea of democracy is tribal war and sadism.
And with every step we take along this perilous path, the alternatives become narrower and more wretched.
When will it occur to people that US foreign policy, for a very long time, has been engineered to ruin us?
Those who design operations from a high perch know full well that, to destroy a country, you entangle it in foreign problems. You put it in that meat grinder.
The misplaced goal of messianic aid gets you the booby prize, no matter how noble your intentions seem. And what is the corollary to this manic desire to save everyone everywhere? “We are responsible for every bad thing that happens, for every injustice, for every molecule of pain suffered on the face of Earth.”
Imagine you live in a town where the executives of the bank have been committing theft for a long time. They have been skimming money, making loans off the books, cutting back-door deals with cronies, and blackmailing each other. Finally, the slimy details emerge. The years of outrageous behavior are exposed.
Now, as if in a dream, someone walks up to you on the street and says, “You know, you're to blame for this whole mess.”
That's foreign policy. http://www.newswithviews.com/Rappoport/jon137.htm