The Historical Truth vs. The Historical Narrative

On September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland. That is truth, not narrative. On December 7, 1941, Japanese planes attacked and destroyed the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. That is truth, not narrative.

Of course, there are also narratives. For example, the Germans had quite a few complaints against Poland. First, that in the 1919 Versailles Treaty, the victorious Western powers stripped Germany of territories with a large ethnic German population and annexed them to Poland (the "Polish corridor" ), while declaring Danzig, which had been a German city for generations, an international city. Moreover, Nazi Germany accused the Polish government of discriminating against ethnic Germans under its jurisdiction.

Not every claim in the German narrative is baseless, but the factual truth is clear: On September 1, 1939, it was Germany that attacked Poland, not Poland that attacked Germany.         

There is also a Japanese narrative: The United States, together with Britain and Holland, imposed an embargo on the export of iron, steel and oil to Japan after the Japanese invasion of China. Japan suggested negotiating over these issues, but the U.S. refused, and Japan considered the embargo an act of aggression that threatened to paralyze its economy.

These were weighty claims, and it's impossible to ignore the fact that the American and British attitude contained a whiff of white racism against the rising "yellow" power in East Asia. But the truth is that on December 7, 1941, it was Japan that attacked the U.S., not the U.S. that attacked Japan.

Why is this important?

In recent debates about the Palestinian "Nakba," the claim has been made that there are two "narratives," an Israeli one and a Palestinian one, and we should pay attention to both of them. That, of course, is true: Alongside the Israeli-Zionist claims regarding the Jewish people's connection to its historic homeland and the Jews' miserable situation, there are Palestinian claims that regard the Jews as a religious group only and Zionism as an imperialist movement.

But above and beyond these claims is the simple fact - and it is a fact, not a "narrative" - that in 1947, the Zionist movement accepted the United Nations partition plan, whereas the Arab side rejected it and went to war against it. A decision to go to war has consequences, just as it did in 1939 or 1941.

The importance of this distinction becomes clear upon perusing the op-ed that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently published in The New York Times. Abbas mentioned the partition decision in his article, but said not one single word about the facts - who accepted it and who rejected it. He merely wrote that "Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs."

That is like those Germans who talk about the horrors of the expulsion of 12 million ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe after 1945, but fail to mention the Nazi attack on Poland, or the Japanese who talk about Hiroshima, but fail to mention their attack on Pearl Harbor. That is not a "narrative," it is simply not telling the truth. Effects cannot be divorced from causes.
        
The pain of the other should be understood and respected, and attempts to prevent Palestinians from mentioning the Nakba are foolish and immoral: Nobody prevents the descendants of the German refugees from Eastern Europe from communing with their suffering.

But just as nobody, even in German schools, would dream of teaching the German "narrative" regarding World War II, the 1948 war should also not be taught as a battle between narratives.

In the final analysis, there is a historical truth. And without ignoring the suffering of the other, that is how such sensitive issues must be taught.

By Shlomo Avineri, June 17, 2011, at http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-truth-should-be-taught-about-the-1948-war-1.368167     

ThoughtsjustoffCenter comments: I truely wish people would do their research when attempting to address the issues. I believe Shlomo Avineri has done very well at doing his.

Newt Gingrich's 21st Century Contract with America

I haven't meet anyone that has studied the issues, say that Newt Gingrich isn't a smart and political wise man. Yes he does step on it now and then, yet he keeps plugging a long. BTW, who hasn't messed on or two things up in there lifetime. If you're not trying, then you won't make mistakes. Yes, there are people who haven't been married more than once, just as there are drug addicts and alcoholics that have reformed, it appears that Newt has straigtened up in that regard.

www.newt.org/contract

You should read it - lots of very good ideas. Some I will definity have to look at more and do some research (Just trying to stay informed).

BTW - I'm not even close to perfect - I might be on the minus side of that! Just ask my wife.

Last BTW - she's my partner and wife - I don't believe in the policital correctness of spouse.

An Old Herman Cain Video

I ran across this video, dated Febuary 1, 2011, while doing some web research. Is an interesting talk and anyone trying to try and find someone they can believe should view it. It's 9-minutes long.

Religion of Peace, Respect, and Religious Tolerance? NOT!

When President Obama came into office, we were assured that our relationship with Islamic nations would improve. Islam is really a religion of peace. He said the following in his remarks to the Muslim world, delivered on June 4, 2009 in Egypt.

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. . . . And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

So where is he as a Christian pastor is about to be executed in Iran because he is a Christian? Where are the media? When three American hikers were tried and imprisoned, they became causes célèbres in the media until they were just recently released.

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani remains behind bars in Rasht, a province in north western Iran, awaiting what is called a re-examination. “The courts determined that he was a national apostate,” Jason DeMars of Present Truth Ministries, reports. “So even though he never practiced Islam during his life, he was born to two parents who practiced Islam, and therefore, he has to recant.”

According to law, an apostate is to be given three chances to renounce before he is executed. Meanwhile, the debacle has placed Nadarkhani’s attorney in danger, partly for doing a good job for his client. DeMars is convinced that only prayer and fasting will save either of the men. “At this point in time, we’re looking to God. Everything humanly has been exhausted.” Something human can be done. President Obama could intervene and appeal to what he said in Egypt to his Muslim audience: “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

Read more: Where is Obama on Christian Pastor About to be Executed? | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1188/where-is-obama-on-christian-pastor-about-to-be-executed/#ixzz1ZGkT0MjC

ThoughtsjustoffCenter comments: I guess the key word here is "possibilities."

Internet Emails

I've seen this quite a few times, and I think it's good food for thought, so I'm sharing.

Referencing the three American hikers that are currently in the news. (Let's not forget that their families paid a ransom of a half-a-million dollars, each, to get them released.)

If you cross the North Korean Border Illegally - You get 12-years Hard Labor.

If you cross the Irainina border illegally - You are detained indefinitely (until your families make the required pay offs.) ((See Ref.)

If you cross the Afgan border illegally - You are shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally - You are jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally - You will probably never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally - You will be jailed, treated as a spy, and hung.

If you cross the Cuban border illegally - You will be thrown into a prison to rot.

If you cross the United States of America border illegally - You get:

     a job, a drivers license, a Social Security Card,
     Welfare, Food Stamps, Credit Cards, Subsidized Rent
     or a Federally backed loan to buy a house, free education,
     free health care, a lobbyist in Washington D.C. to have
     millions of dollars worth of public documents printed in
     your native language, and

     The right to carry your country flag to protest the U.S.A. politicies
     and the lack of respect you receive because you're an illiegal
     immigrant.

    AND - in lots of instances, you can VOTE.

Is the United States of America a great country - or what?

I just wanted to make sure that I had a firm grasp of the "situation!"

Atheist & Their Bent on Distroying America's Ideals

Rob Sherman is an atheist. Any time he sees a reference to religion, mostly the Christian religion, he springs into action. This time his action is directed against the city of Zion, Ill., for using a banned version of the city seal that displays the design Zion’s evangelical founder selected, a banner with the words “God Reigns” surrounded by images of a dove, a cross, a sword, and a crown. You can read a history of the city and the meaning of the seal here.

“In 1991, a U.S. appellate court held that the city seal violated the principle of separation of church and state and that the Christian symbols must be removed. The ruling concerned a 1987 lawsuit against the seal by the Illinois chapter of American Atheists, which was then led by Sherman, a Buffalo Grove resident.”

The ruling is nonsense. There is no violation of the First Amendment since Congress had nothing to do with the establishment of the city or the design of the seal. The First Amendment is clear: “Congress shall make no law . . . .” Since Congress didn’t make any law, there is no violation. The First Amendment was implemented by the states to protect them from federal intrusion on state issues related to religion. Furthermore, states have a constitutional right to ignore decisions that are unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment gives them this right: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It’s time that states stand up to federal intrusion on what are purely state concerns.

Similar atheist and court actions have been going on for some time rid our nation, in the devilish spirit of 1984, the memory of America’s rich Christian heritage.

• The city seal of Los Angeles was changed because it contained a small cross in one of its seven panels.
• The town of Oak Park, Illinois, blocked a private Catholic hospital from erecting a cross on its own smokestack because, city councilors say, some local residents would be offended.
• In Idaho, the ACLU sued to remove religious references from public monuments and memorials.

“Three Christian crosses that stood on state property next to a scenic overlook in north San Diego County for decades were removed by California Department of Transportation workers. . . .” Do you see the irony? The county of San Diego? When translated into English San Diego would read Saint James.

The official emblem of the city of Las Cruces, New Mexico, is adorned with three crosses. A few years ago, a federal lawsuit alleged the crosses, which are religious symbols, are unconstitutional because they appear on public property. “The crosses serve no governmental purpose other than to disenfranchise and discredit non-Christian citizens,” said the lawsuit filed by Paul F. Weinbaum, a member of the recently formed local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who lives in the Las Cruces area, and Martin J. Boyd of Las Cruces. For those not familiar with Spanish, “Las Cruces” means “the crosses.” So it seems rather appropriate that crosses would appear on an emblem that describes the city’s name. In his book Las Cruces New Mexico, 1849–1999: Multicultural Crossroads, author Gordon Owen cited several stories about travelers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who were attacked and killed near the Rio Grande. The crosses marking their graves led city founders to adopt the name.

 

If the presence of three crosses on a city seal is constitutionally prohibited, then the city’s name should be changed as well. And let’s not stop with Las Cruces. Santa Fe, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Bethel (“house of God”), Corpus Christi (“body of Christ”), St. Louis, Providence, Bethlehem, PA (“house of bread,” the city where Jesus was born), and so many others should have to change. Parishes of Louisiana have names like Assumption, Ascension, and St. John the Baptist. A county in Illinois is named Christian.

 

American towns, cities, and counties commonly incorporate the subject matter of their name into their seals and flags. For example, the seal of Columbus, Ohio, predictably depicts one of Christopher Columbus’s vessels (the otherwise nondescript sailing vessel is identified as such by a red Latin cross on the mainsail.[1]

Then there are all fifty state constitutions that make reference to God or providence in their preambles. Let’s not forget the Declaration of Independence and its insistence that rights are an endowment of the Creator. The Constitution itself references Jesus Christ in its closing statement: “DONE in the year of our Lord. . . .”

The day may come when America, as an officially atheistic nation, decides to be consistent with its anti-God dogmatism perpetrated by dishonest lawyers in the name of the mythical “separation of church and state” dogma. If this ever happens, the restraining moral worldview of Christianity will no longer be around to stop tyrants who seek power for power’s sake. Not even atheists will be safe from immoral marauders.

ThoughtsjustoffCenter comments: I beginning to believe that being Atheist is a religion. The additional problem we have, is not electing or appointing Judges to the bench that have any morals or ethics.

Read more: Atheist Takes City to Court Over Seal with Cross | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1130/atheist-takes-city-to-court-over-seal-with-cross/#ixzz1ZABOkBCZ

Rick Perry Getting Nailed to the Fence for His No Border Fence Philosophy

More Union Theft!

Thanks to an unnoticed provision legislators slipped into state law 20 years ago, almost two dozen union leaders in Chicago stand to walk off with a cool $56 million in pension money, the Chicago Tribune reported last week.
But only if the Illinois legislature does not repeal the provision, detailed in a lengthy report the Tribune conducted with WGN-TV. Three of the union leaders may earn as much as $5 million.

Legalized Theft

No one seems to know, the Tribune reported, who tweaked state pension law to permit the looting. Or at least no one will accept responsibility.

The change in the law was a small one. It permits the pensions of city employees to be based upon salaries earned after they retired from the city and went to work for unions, rather than basing those pensions on their much lower wages from the city.

According to the Tribune, the arrangement is a little unusual: “Pension experts from around the country say they’ve never heard of such a perk for union leaders.”

The story continues on: thenewamerican.com

ThoughtsjustoffCenter comments: Now you know why I do not believe in public sector unions.

Humm - - More to Think About

Comments by Guy Benson, September 26, 2011, @ www.Townhall.com

Out of the hundreds of out-of-work employees, vendors, investors and other creditors in the bankruptcy of government-backed solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, one name stands out: the California Democratic Party. 

Why California Democrats would be creditor to a company that received more than a half-billion dollars in federal loans to build a solar-panel plant isn’t clear. Even party officials say they’re not sure. The California Democratic Party’s communications director, Tenoch Flores, said the organization was not owed “any funds in any form” by the California-based company. He said he was unclear why the party would be listed as a creditor in Solyndra’s bankruptcy filing.

According to campaign-finance records, Solyndra donated $7,500 to the California Democratic Party in October 2010. It’s legal in California for corporations to make donations. But that doesn’t explain why the company would identify the Democratic Party as a creditor in its bankruptcy filing a year later. A Solyndra spokesman did not respond to messages seeking more details about the filing.

ThoughtsjustoffCenter comments: A half-a-billion ($500,000,000) dollars in federal monies lost, do to an investment that the accountants/bean counters, behind the scenes, in both the Bush and Obama administrations, said was a very bad idea!

We Need DADS!

Exactly what Bill Cosby has been saying for years "Black children (all children) don't need more "fathers," - THEY NEED MORE DADS!

Just Saying

American - I can
Republican - I can
Democrats - RATS

The last 4-letters of each word.

Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich

Having read Newt's book, listed on the right - I have to agree with the following statement on "Cowboy Bytes" about the debates - a comment from Silverscribler:

"... I like Bachmann, but I’m afraid the media is deliberately stacking the field against her because they don’t want a conservative woman in office, no matter how good she might be. I think we need to begin taking a real serious look at Gingrich. yeah, I know they talk about him having “baggage,” but I think that can be overcome. Some may say he is another rino, but we need to reconsider that sentiment. He didn’t get a chance to make much of a performance in either debates because the groups pretty much turned boh of them into a Perry–Romney show. The rules say that if another person is named, that person gets a rebuttal. Well, notice Perry and Romney consistently named each other and very seldom named any of the other candidates–so the other folks had very little opportunity to express themselves.

As for Gingrich, he is one of the most knowledgeable persons in the country on American history–real American history, not the watered down, politically correct crap our kids are getting. Check out his “City on a Hill, which is the story of American exceptionalism.

In the debates, he has been consistently poised and in control of whatever question they put to him, even putting the moderators in place on behalf of other candidates when they deliver the “gotcha” questions. He doesn’t act like he thinks he needs to show off (as Perry does), or like he feels the need to be constantly proving something (as Romney does.) He doesn’t endlessly come back to his “pet issue”, no matter what the question is, as do Bachman and Ron Paul–especially Ron Paul. I think he would secure the American border and do what’s right in our defense but without feeling the need to keep fighting endless unwinnable wars–as Santorum seems to feel.

He has been in business himself and has his own record of balancing the budget during the Clinton years to stand behind him. Since he was speaker of the house, he understands the procedures and the crappy way things work in DC (or don’t work) and he knows what it will take to turn the country around. I like his idea of using lean six sigma to clean up Washington. If he can get a congress to buy into that, a whole lot of political, money grubbing, regulation cranking organizations—like the dept of Education and the EPA–would have their doors closed. Most importantly, Gingrich believes that the Constitution is the rule of law and that the government needs to abide by it.

I’m not saying everyone needs to just categorically jump on board with him. What I am saying, is we may have a gold mine in our midst and we need to take the cap off and give him a chance to show us the real stuff so we can see for ourselves if he could be the real deal or if it is just fools’ gold.

ThoughtsjustoffCenter comment: I would absolutly love to see a "Bachmann - Cain" ticket; yet, I don't believe anyone is really giving them a chance because the media keeps trying to focus everyone on Perry or Romney. I've always liked Gingrch, though I'm not sure he can make it past his baggage. Although, why should the left care about it - they are all for the distruction of the family unit. But, Newt seems to have changed his ways in that respect.

Thought For Everyone

My brother sent me this picture. I'm believe this is vol. 1 of the United States of America Tax Code. My brother thinks it's a manual on Understanding Women (also vol. 1). Either way we're screwed.

Thanks Keith!

On the Deficit, the Rich, and the Tea Party

(Sorry the Picture won't transfer)
by Dr. Paul Kengor, taken from Town Hall Daily, September 17, 2011

I’ve only recently come to realize the nature of the hurdle this country faces in trying to turn around a stalled economy and horrendous deficit. Here it is: liberal Democrat politicians have fully convinced huge numbers of people that our economic/fiscal mess is the result of two principal demons: 1) “the rich” and 2) the Tea Party. The former, of course, has been a longtime liberal scapegoat; the latter is a new one.

I’ve realized this painfully in the last few weeks as a result of several commentaries I’ve done (USA Today, FoxNews, among others), viewed by a large portion of Americans from across the political spectrum. In these commentaries, I tried to stick to statistics and facts. I naively thought my approach would be convincing. It was not, as evidenced by the many people I continue to argue with in emails.

Here today, I’ll reiterate the one fact that I thought was irrefutable:

As I noted in an article titled, " It's the spending, stupid," the federal government, from 1965-2009, never cut spending one single year. That’s right, not one time—nope, nada, nothing. To repeat: from 1965-2009, the federal government never decreased annual spending. To see the figures on a chart is eye-opening. The annual rise in spending has been a steady, non-stop, unbroken, upward climb for over 40 years. To the contrary, revenues to the federal government have gone up and down, the result—not of tax rates on “the rich,” but—of the status of the economy from year-to-year, especially during recessions. It’s both amazing and depressing to see that the federal government, unlike you and your family and your household and your business and your anything and everything else, is apparently incapable of adjusting (i.e., decreasing) its spending based on available revenues. It used to do so, under both Democrat and Republican presidents, but that changed in 1965, when the federal government, starting with the Great Society, began an outright spending addiction.

As I noted in the article, seeing this for yourself is as easy as Googling “historical tables deficit,” where one can view two sources: CBO & OMB historical tables (located at Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget). These are the official sources for data on federal budgets. At OMB, look at Table 1.1, titled, “Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789-2016.”

In my articles and emails, I even included hyperlinks to these tables, imploring people to look for themselves rather than accept my word. And yet, I can’t begin to recount the angry emails I got from people insisting that the reasons for our deficits/debt is not over-spending by the federal government but greed by wealthy people who don’t pay “their fair share” of income taxes and by dastardly “racist” “terrorists” in the Tea Party. And, yes, I actually got emails (many of them) from people insisting that Teas Party members are "terrorist." To observe an American public, only a decade removed from September 11, somehow equating Tea Party members with “terrorists” leaves me almost speechless and hopeless.

Thoughtsfromoffcenter comments: So that's why TSA has always shaken down the little ol' ladies and ol' men at the airports - sheesh, I didn't know! AARP get out of here!

I will not bother responding to that particular smear, but I would like to address the charge that the rich are not paying “their fair share.” Again, I will stick to data.

If you Google the words “Who pays income tax?” you will find a chart from the National Taxpayers Union. It includes these telling statistics:

The top 1 percent of income earners pay 38 percent of all federal tax revenue. The top 5 percent pay 59 percent. The top 10 percent pay 70 percent. The top 25 percent pay 86 percent. The top 50 percent pay 97.3 percent. Conversely, the bottom 50 percent pay merely 2.7 percent of all federal tax revenue.

As the data shows, the rich are certainly paying their fair share. In fact, they pay the vast share. The poorest Americans, conversely, pay literally nothing in income taxes.

If anything, the system is disproportionately titled against the wealthy. Our “rich” are paying for the reckless behavior of politicians addicted to spending; they are subsidizing spending addicts. And to watch those addicts blame their mess on the rich for not paying enough? It’s downright obscene.

But the folks who have emailed me have the complete opposite opinion. It is an incorrect opinion.

Let me repeat: America’s deficit/debt problem is a spending problem. It is not the fault of rich people who pay too little income tax or Tea Party members guilty of “terrorism.” Don’t take my word for it. Look at the data.

My fear, however, is that the data just doesn’t matter to a huge number of followers of the party line. And that’s a very serious problem for this country, a giant propaganda hurdle that may be insurmountable.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include the newly released "Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century."

Todays Humor

Finally the details of Obama's Jobs Bill -

(actually this cartoon is from the 16th - but, I put it here today)

Howard Dean Didn't Say That Did He?

Another Executive Order by the President that bi-passes what the U.S. Congress refused to agree to/pass.

Howard Dean (was) speaking during a panel put together by Cornel West and Tavis Smiley:  Smiley & West celebrate Interdependence Day with an esteemed panel at the New York Public Library in Lincoln Center.

HOWARD DEAN: “Despite his recent decision on the ozone pollution I think he had actually have quite a terrific environmental record. Most people don’t know that. But the fact is I actually for the first time in July of 2009 read an entire presidential executive order which is over 50 pages of legally gobbledygook which requires the government of the United States to comply with Kyoto. Luckily the Republicans never – I guess most of them can’t read that far anyway. And it’s an extraordinary thing. …”

He said much more than that. Go to www.storyballon.org to hear what he said or just use this link:

http://storyballoon.org/blog/2011/09/17/howard-dean-executive-order-obama-america-kyoto-agreement/

Panelists:

Howard Dean - Former Vermont governor, DNC chairman, and 2004 presidential candidate (That went off the hook.)

Benjamin Barber - Distinguished Senior Fellow, Dēmos, president, CivWorld

Carol Gilligan - NYU professor, author, “In a Different Voice."

Khalil Gibran Muhammad - Director, Schomburg Center For Research in Black Culture

Tiffany Shlain - Director, "Connected"

Thoughtsjustoffcenter comments: It's time that the House of Representatives investigated the Exectutive Orders that have been signed by the President. If it is true, and we know it is, then they need to start impeachment proceedings. There is no reason to wait until the elections when he will be voted out - he should be thrown out!

Three Things You Do Not Know About Islam

Something everyone should see and then read the Quran or Koran. However, you want to spell it.

More Unethical Behavior

Yesterday morning, while eating breakfast with my grandson at Denny’s, I overheard a conversation between three home builders discussing unethical ways of receiving payment for their work. I was taken back that they would be so brazen to discuss their illegal activities in such a public area.

After listening for awhile, I cautioned them that they should discuss such activity in a public environment. One of them replied: “Well, you didn’t hear that.”

What surprised me more, was that after he told the other two what I said, they continued their discussion.

After paying our bill we left.

I am thoroughly puzzled and thought about whether or not to report them.

After my grandson asked why I was upset, I explained to him (in 8-year old terms) what happened. He just said: “That’s wrong Pops’.”

If an 8-year old can understand ethical behavior, then so should those contractors.

I reported them!

To my grandson: “I’m extremely proud of you for already knowing the difference in ethical and unethical behavior!”

Eloquent Words and Food For Thought!

 

Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.

Dr. David Barton - on Obama Respect the Office?  Yes.

Respect the Man in the Office?  No, I am sorry to say.

I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.

Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama!

I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.

I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!

Why am I doing this?

It is because:

- I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America;

- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;

- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;

- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $200,000;

- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;

- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;

- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;

- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;

- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;

- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;

- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);

- I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America;

- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East; and

- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran.

Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!

For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!

They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!

They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!

They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years!

They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!

They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!

They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!

They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!

Unite behind Obama?  NEVER!

I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!

PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him.  However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!

Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his "goals for America  ..."

I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!

I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!

"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson

GOD blesses you and GOD bless our Country!

Thanks Keith!

Paying for Obama's New Jobs Ideas

Hum -

"You've got to pass this now!" Don't worry about looking at it until it gets passed. You find out the results after it's signed into law. DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

He's going to cut the pay roll tax in half. Isn't that how Social Security and Medicaid are paid for. He's cutting them in half when they are already at a deficit. Just how in the heck did this man graduate for High School, College, and lastly Harvard? He has no sense of economics or how to balance a check book.

He's going to increase taxes on those that make more than $200,000 a year. Didn't congress already flush that idea down the toilet?

He's going to take away or diminish the exemptions for housing and charity contributions.

Think of the others that he has hidden in his proposal?

Are any of them going to be new or different from the past?

As far as jobs, he's buying of the unions again in the type of jobs he is talking about.

Duh, I think we already have enough plumbers!

5 Reasons Black Americans Should Give Up On The Democratic Party

By John Hawkins, September 13, 2011, @ Townhall.com

I grew up in the deep South and once, when I was going to high school, I went to a friend's party. A couple dozen of us were hanging around downstairs, enjoying ourselves, when we found out that the father of the girl who was throwing the party wouldn't let a kid into his house because he was black. You may be wondering if there was any other motive. Maybe the kid mouthed off, he was dressed like a thug, the two of the them had some kind of run-in before...none of that was true. The father was just a racist who didn't want a black kid in his house.

To me, the interesting part was what happened AFTER he did that. The black kid who came to the party had rolled up with 15 white, country boys from school. The girl's father told them that they could come in if they wanted. They politely refused and said if their friend wasn't welcome, then they weren't going to go in either. Then, they all left together. When the word spread downstairs, the girl who was throwing the party was horrified and incredibly embarrassed that her father had done that and the party broke up and ended within a few minutes time.

As someone who was born in the seventies in North Carolina and grew up admiring people like Muhammad Ali, Satchel Paige, and even Malcolm X (Yes, really) that was a pretty good example of the world I grew up in. Sure, there were a few diehard racists around, but amongst people of my generation, they were few and far between. We didn't grow up with separate water fountains, segregation, or Jim Crow laws. The KKK was considered a joke, even back then, and few people ever dropped the N-bomb in conversation unless they were reciting rap lyrics.

All this is worth noting because I do know what real "Black people ain't no d@mn good" racism looks like. If you listened to the Democratic Party, you'd think most conservatives are that way. However, I've never personally seen anyone behave that way at a Tea Party, at a blogger convention, or at any Republican event I've ever attended. Moreover, I don't personally know a single blogger, Tea Partier, or conservative politico who makes racist remarks behind the scenes. That's not to say that racists don't exist. They certainly do, but, by any sort of reasonable standard, there's no more racism in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. The only real difference is that if a Republican says something like, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man," that's presented as concrete evidence of racism in the Republican Party. On the other hand, if someone like Joe Biden says it, it's treated as if it signifies nothing just because he's a Democrat. However, that's how Democrats HAVE to play the game because the reality is that black Americans should have given up on the Democratic Party a long time ago.

1) Black Americans have been voting for the Democrats en masse for almost 40 years. What do they have to show for it economically? Here's what they have to show for it: In 2009, the average net worth for white households was $113,149 and $5,700 for black households. Great job, Democratic Party!

It's truly bizarre to hear Maxine Waters, Andre Carson, Jesse Jackson and other assorted Democratic "leaders" blaming Republicans or even more improbably, Tea Partiers, because black Americans are having a tough time. In every single place in the country where black Americans are a decisive factor in selecting the politicians in charge, Democrats are running the show. How do you look at decimated cities where Democrats have had control of every lever of power for 40 years and conclude, "Republicans are the problem?"

2) As long as black Americans vote monolithically for the Democratic Party, they will always be treated like dirt. There's never any question which party black Americans are voting for. The only real question is turnout. This leads to the Democratic Party treating black voters as an afterthought. Yes, politicians show up to a black church on the Sunday before an election or toss a little largesse towards Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, but they could give a damn about the average black American because there's no reason for them to care. The only thing any Democrat has to do is claim that his opponent is a racist and he's got 90 percent of the black vote locked up. On the other hand, Republicans have absolutely no reason to pursue black voters because no matter what they do, they believe they're going to be branded as racist, and their opponents will collect 90% of the black vote. Until black Americans start giving some indications that their votes are up for grabs, they will continue to be ignored by both parties.

3) Black Americans are thriving in today's Republican Party. Whatever you may think of the job that Barack Obama has done as President, it is still unquestionably a big deal for America to have its first black President. That being said, the GOP hasn't been standing still in that department either. Michael Steele was the first black Republican National Committee chairman. Tim Scott and Allen West were both elected to Congress, in majority white districts, last year. West is so popular that he was the keynote speaker at CPAC, the biggest conservative conference of the year. Their election came on the heels of George W. Bush appointing the first AND second black Secretary of State, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Walter Williams is a fill-in host for the most popular conservative talk radio host in America, Rush Limbaugh. Thomas Sowell was voted the single most liked conservative in America in 2010 AND 2011 by conservative bloggers. Incidentally, second place in 2011 was Allen West. If the question is, "Can black Americans get the respect they deserve in the Republican Party today?" the significant number of black conservatives making an impact seems to suggest the answer is, "Yes, they can!"

4) Black Americans are not as liberal as their voting records seem to show. Many black Americans actually see eye-to-eye with Republicans on many social issues including abortion, gay marriage, and being friendly to Christianity. Many black Americans also agree with the conservative stance on illegal immigration, school choice, being tough on crime, and supporting entrepreneurs -- and no wonder. For a lot of black Americans, a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote to lose their job to an illegal alien, trap their kids in a lousy school, and get criminals released back into their neighborhood.

Even someone like Louis Farrakhan, who has campaigned for numerous Democrats over the years, is in favor of corporal punishment, building small businesses, and he believes that welfare is a trap that keeps black Americans mired in poverty. Incidentally -- it is.

When black Americans stop buying the phony baloney "He's a racist" line that Democrats peddle in every election and start genuinely considering Republican candidates on the issues, suddenly both parties will start giving black Americans the attention they deserve.

5) What has the Democratic Party's "help" over the last 40 years achieved for black Americans? The Democratic Party's line is that black Americans need their "help" to get by in a racist world. Here's an alternate theory: Buying into the Democratic Party's philosophy and accepting "help" has been one of the biggest reasons that black Americans lag behind white Americans. Black males are 6 times as likely to be in prison as white males and black Americans make up 49% of the homicide victims in America. 71.6% of all black Americans are born out of wedlock and black Americans are almost twice as likely to drop out of high school as white Americans, both of which help explain why the black poverty rate is almost 2 1/2 times the white poverty rate.

Would voting for the Republican Party make all of those problems go away overnight? No. But, not only has the Democratic Party failed to deal with those issues in a meaningful way, it has exacerbated the problems with its policies. After 40 years of disastrous Democratic Party "help," maybe it's time for black Americans to start looking seriously at the Republican Party for themselves and stop taking the liberal medias word for it. The Republications are not perfect, by any means, but they at least give you a chance. BTW, look at who has favored all the legislation for minorities. (Check the voting records please!) (added by me - wlc)

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, Viral Footage, & Trending Right. You can read more from John Hawkins on Facebook,Twitter, G+, You Tube, and at Raising Red.

Back to the Future?

By Thomas Sowell, September 14, 2011 @ Townhall.com

Those who are impressed by words seem to think that President Barack Obama made a great speech to Congress last week. But, when you look beyond the rhetoric, what did he say that was fundamentally different from what he has been saying and doing all along?

Are we to continue doing the same kinds of things that have failed again and again, just because Obama delivers clever words with style and energy?

Once we get past the glowing rhetoric, what is the president proposing? More spending! Only the words have changed -- from "stimulus" to "jobs" and from "shovel-ready projects" to "jobs for construction workers."

If government spending were the answer, we would by now have a booming economy with plenty of jobs, after all the record trillions of dollars that have been poured down a bottomless pit. Are we to keep on doing the same things, just because those things have been repackaged in different words?

Or just because Obama now assures us that "everything in this bill will be paid for"? This is the same man who told us that he could provide health insurance to millions more people without increasing the cost.

When it comes to specific proposals, President Obama repeats the same kinds of things that have marked his past policies -- more government spending for the benefit of his political allies, the construction unions and the teachers' unions, and "thousands of transportation projects."

The fundamental fallacy in all of this is the notion that politicians can "grow the economy" by taking money out of the private sector and spending it wherever it is politically expedient to spend it -- so long as they call spending "investment."

Has Obama ever grown even a potted plant, much less a business, a bank, a hospital or any of the numerous other institutions whose decisions he wants to control and override? But he can talk glibly about growing the economy.

Arrogance is no substitute for experience. That is why the country is in the mess it is in now.

Obama says he wants "federal housing agencies" to "help more people refinance their mortgages." What does that amount to in practice, except having the taxpayers be forced to bail out people who bought homes they could not afford?

No doubt that is good politics, but it is lousy economics. When people pay the price of their own mistakes, that is when there is the greatest pressure to correct those mistakes. But when taxpayers who had nothing to do with those mistakes are forced to pay the costs, that is when those and other mistakes can continue to flourish -- and to mess up the economy.

Whatever his deficiencies in economics, Barack Obama is a master of politics -- including the great political game of "Heads I win and tails you lose."

Any policy that shows any sign of achieving its goals will of course be trumpeted across the land as a success. But, in the far more frequent cases where the policy fails or turns out to be counterproductive, the political response is: "Things would have been even worse without this policy."

It's heads I win and tails you lose.

Thus, when unemployment went up after the massive spending that was supposed to bring it down, we were told that unemployment would have been far worse if it had not been for that spending.

Are we really supposed to fall for ploys like this? The answer is clearly "yes," as far as Obama and his allies in the media are concerned.

Our intelligence was insulted even further in President Obama's speech to Congress, when he set up this straw man as what his critics believe -- that "the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody's money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they're on their own."

Have you heard anybody in any part of the political spectrum advocate that? If not, then why was the President of the United States saying such things, unless he thought we were fools enough to buy it -- and that the media would never call him on it?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.

This is part one of a three part document. I will post the others as I receive them. As always, Thomas Sowell's thought process takes you to areas that youv'e never pondered before. I would like to meet him and ask him lots of questions.

Thank You Soldiers

From the third graders of Tussing Elementay School, Colonial Heights, Virginia -

Although done in 2009 - this video should be passed along at every chance we get!

Ron Paul's Extensive Support Network

See Cowboys & Tea Parties post of the day for September 14, 2011 at:

http://cowboys-and-tea-parties.blogspot.com/2011/09/ron-pauls-extensive-support-network.html?showComment=1316023088841#c6704885654613917392

This is NOT Ethical Leadership Being Taught

I just had a short conversation with my son concerning a Leadership Seminar in October being held at the university that he attends.

The instructor informed all of the leadership students that if they attended the seminar that he would give them time towards their community service hours. The instructor stated that he could do this because he was in a position to do so. Anyone attending from the leadership program would help him fill the class and make him look good towards his bosses (I take that as the university).

I told my son that that I would love to be able to attend the seminar, as the subject matter sounds very interesting. However, I would have to ask the question or questions concerning ethical leadership and has he truly lead anyone or organization other than in academics?

Considering he has offered a bribe for any of the leadership students to attend, I sure that none of them (the bribed students) could ask any questions that would cause him to stop and think about what he has just taught them.

Yup, these are the people with compromised morals that are teaching our children that it’s O.K. to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get ahead in society.

No one needs to wonder why our society and nation is on the downward track. That track will soon be irreversible if people don’t start standing up to this type of behavior.

Currently, the media continues to drive the quest for socialism and no one seems to care. Those that do care are being cast as racists and any other slur the media can attach to them.

Wake up America!

Do your homework and research what is being fed to your brain. Look at both sides of the issues.

By the way, listening to ABC then CBS, then CNN, and then NBC, is not listening/looking at both sides of an issue - yet it is a start on your part. Now start doing some research on the internet and at your local library.