That the Republic of the United States of America is a Christian Country founded on Christian philosophy and ideals?
AND -
That as you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full
Frontal view ... It is Moses and he is holding "The Ten Commandments!"
Did you know - As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
Did You Know -
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court Judges sit, is a display of Moses holding the "Ten Commandments!"
Did You Know -
That in our Nations Capital there are bibles veres etched in stone all over the Federal buildings and the Federal Monuments in the city on the hill - named after our First President, General George Washington. Did you know -
James Madison, The fourth president, known as 'The Father of Our Constitution' Made the following statement:
"We have staked the whole of all our political Institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to "The Ten Commandments of God!"
Did you know -
Every Session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid minister, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established Orthodox churches in the colonies that became the Republic of the United States of America.
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an "Oligarchy" - the rule of few over many.
How then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
Lets put it around the world and let the world see and remember what this great country was built on The Holy Bible and belief in GOD!
I was asked to send this on if I agreed or to delete it. However, I decided to post this to my blog and share it with the world.
My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program called 'THE PRACTICE." In last nights episode, one of the lawyer's mothers decided she is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help her get a marriage license so she could marry her 'partner.' I sent the following letter to ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply, but I did get one.
My original Letter was:
ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. ' THE PRACTICE' can be a fairly good show, but last night's program was so typical of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was against the idea of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner because he had convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a 'gay basher.'
Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible); and see what the apostle Paul had to say about it..... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay bashers'. What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that an alternative life style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)
- Jim Neugent -
Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:
How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the declaration of independence (what our nation is built on), where it says 'All Men are Created equal,' and try treating them that way for a change!
Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in this country, and your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of statement.
Jim Neugent's second response to ABC:
Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I will be praying for you.
- Jim Neugent -
Final note from Jim Neugent:
Note: Wouldn't Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible for a crutch?
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Stolen from: Cowboys & Tea Parties. I don't watch much of the liberal media TV. As this letter(s) show, you now know the reason why. BTW, the Bible is not a crutch. How can anyone state that homosexuality is normal? There are no other male animals on the face of the earth that have anal intercourse as a way of pleasure. Lastly, if there were, then we know why they've become extinct.
The chart above is a new trick from the Department of Labor Politburo; expressing the employed as a “…Participation Rate.” Sounds like a new blame game, “…those who choose not to participate.” Are they choosing not to eat, pay rent, buy necessities or breathe? Who asked these folks when they "...opted out of the workforce?"
Let us examine this in DOL terms, but with empirical facts:
With 310 million people we have about four million of each year of age from 1 to 78. This gives us 180 million in the 18 to 65 year working age group. But, we have 72 million children in family units of 2.3 children per which could call for 31 million stay-at-home mothers. But, we are told that 40% of said mothers are working, or have worked, so that number approaches 13 million giving us 167 million employable persons.
The DOL says 63.7% are “participating,” thus 106 million people are working and 61 million are not! That is 37% unemployed! That is also one Hell of a long way from 8.3% and the 7.5% Mr. Obama will report on or about Labor Day! By our numbers, including underemployed, the net unemployment rate is 29% with 12% doing menial jobs just to stay alive. These include our 8,000 Ph.D. janitors.
A few more “bullets” for the “Jobs” picture:
- In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,565,000, but the labor force only by 1,145,000. Those not in the labor force increased by 2,420,000.
- In January, the Civilian Labor Force increased by 508,000.
- In January, those Not in Labor Force increased by 1,177,000. These people are not counted and no reason given.
- The “Participation Rate” fell .3 to 63.7%, exceeding the 1984 low.
- People are dropping out of the labor force at an unbelievable rate, but with math the old Soviets would envy the unemployment rate declined. Political? Pshaw!
Jobs Report at a Glance:
- US Unemployment Rate Declined .2% - “The DOL Household Survey" claims, but does not explain, justify or validate.
- US payrolls gained 243,000 according to Our Brave Leader.
- Average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls gained 0.1 hour to 34.4 hours. Full time is 40 hours. 14% off.
- The average workweek for production, nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged higher 0.1 hour to 33.7 hours in November. This is 15% less in hours and pay than normal.
- Average hourly earnings for all employees in the private sector rose by 4 cents to $23.24 while inflation was much higher.
Our candidates should be hammering, "Lies, lies and more lies."
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Many thanks to Dr. Adrian Vance @ "The Two Minute Conservative" from where I took this article. Visit his site, you will find many interesting facts and other things to read. I think that the more lies they tell and the more often they tell them to us, that they think we will start to believe them sometime in the future if they can keep it up and continue to be back by the main stream media and the Bloggers on the left.
The U.S., lacking a plan to contain $1 trillion deficits, faces the prospect of another rating cut in six to 24 months depending on the outcome of November elections, according to John Chambers of Standard & Poor’s.
America has had an AA-plus rating with a negative outlook since Aug. 5 when the New York-based unit of McGraw-Hill Cos. stripped the nation of its AAA ranking for the first time, citing the government’s failure to agree on a path to reduce deficits.
The U.S. has a one-in-three chance of another downgrade, Chamber said during a recent S&P sponsored Webcast.
“What the U.S. needs is not so much a short-term fiscal tightening, but it has to have a credible medium-term fiscal plan,” said Chambers, managing director of sovereign ratings. “That is going to have to say something about entitlements, and that is probably going to have to say something about revenues.”
Bond investors ignored the downgrade, driving Treasury yields to the lowest levels in history, amid concern the U.S. economy was stalling and as Europe’s debt crisis intensified.
Treasurys have returned 3.9 percent since the rating cut and gained 9.8 percent last year, the debt’s best performance since 2008, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data.
“I don’t think anything is going to happen between now and the election in November,” Chambers said.
S&P said in August that political brinkmanship over increasing the government’s debt ceiling year showed the U.S. is becoming “less stable, less effective and less predictable” as the Treasury almost reached its borrowing limit before the government reached a compromise.
The “political brinkmanship hasn’t gone away,” Chambers said. “That simply doesn’t happen in other AAA economies.”
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: You have a budget, I have a budget, why doesn't congress think they need a budget? Yes, we break our weekly, monthly and sometimes yearly budgets from time-to-time, but we all know the money has to be paid/put back at some time or another. Otherwise we would all be bankrupt. Is this what we want our current or future to be - a nation in bankruptcy? I don't and I hope you don't. We have to live within our means - why can't the nation? Do you job Mr. President, Mr./Mrs,/Ms. Senators and Representatives.
Senator. congress
The Iranian government, through a website proxy, has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people.
The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.
Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a ‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”
The article, written by Alireza Forghani, a conservative analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned conservative sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.
Because Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is justified in launching a pre-emptive, cataclysmic attack against the Jewish state, the doctrine argues.
On Friday, in a major speech at prayers, Khamenei announced that Iran will support any nation or group that attacks the “cancerous tumor” of Israel. Though his statement was seen by some in the West as fluff, there is substance behind it.
Let me illustrate how the unemployment number is fabricated:
1) Let us assume an available work force of 150 million;
2) Let us then assume that 15 million workers are looking for work and, in the meantime, are drawing their unemploymen benefits; the other 135 million are working;
3) That would give us an unemployment figure of 15 divided by 150, or 10%;
4) Now let us assume that 5 million unemployed have exhausted their unemployment benefits, thus disappearing from the number of available workforce;
5) The available work force therefore is now only 145 million, with no change in new hiring; the same number of workers who are working is still 135 million;
6) Now calculated the new unemployment rate, as follows: 10 million divided by 145 million equal 6.9%.
And so – hokus/pokus – we end up with a totally manufactured unemployment number!
A criminal procedure that should be prosecuted by the Congress with impeachment in sight.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: A thank you to Marc Jeric who posted this above reply on February 08, 2012, 11:56 AM, on Conservativebyte.com, in reply to the article "A Closer Look at the Jan. Jobless Numbers: Are They ‘Being Made Up?" You can find the actual numbers at "Table A-15" in the report.
Here is the link : http:'//www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15htm, just click on it an view it for yourself.
By now, if Americans hear someone talking about that “kooky old guy with the bad foreign policy ideas” who is running for President, they immediately know that Republican candidate Ron Paul is the topic of discussion.
Though it is easy to write Paul off as a fringe candidate, given the establishment’s disdain for him and his zealous base of support, the philosophies he has abided by and encouraged for three decades are quickly and quietly becoming mainstream.
Fiat Money And The Federal Reserve
In 2009, End The Fed made its debut at No. 6 on The New York Times Bestseller List. Though Paul had been discussing the problems of fiat money and the Federal Reserve’s reckless economic policies for decades, his book brought the average American to the roundtable. In simple terms, Paul had broken down what the Fed does and why it is wrong. After the book was published, many people began to ask questions about the Federal Reserve; the political pressure has led to much progress in the way of increasing Fed transparency.
Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was able to carry out the first-ever audit of the Federal Reserve due to an amendment added to the Dodd-Frank bill by Paul and Representative Alan Grayson (R-Fla.).
The audit was vehemently opposed by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and the other banksters at the central bank. They lied and said that Fed transparency would devastate financial markets. Americans soon found out why Bernanke and his Fed counterparts so opposed the transparency: They had issued $16 trillion in secret bailouts since 2008 as the dollar continued to lose buying power.
Those who have followed Paul in recent years have undoubtedly seen videos of his harsh exchanges with Bernanke during House Financial Services Committee meetings. Paul was, it seems, the only Fed critic in the room back then. Bernanke, often schooled by Paul, usually sat, nodded, sometimes agreed and never seemed very worried.
But now, Paul is no longer the sole critic. Many other lawmakers are asking questions. Last week, Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, took Bernanke to task over the central bank’s failure to do anything but hurt the American people.
Support for a House bill calling for a more comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve (HR 459) has drummed up 199 co-sponsors, according to Campaign For Liberty.
Foreign Paul-icy
In a Nation of people desensitized by the fact that their Nobel Peace Prize-winning President repeatedly used drones to kill targets (sometimes American citizens) in foreign lands where the country is not at war, converted the once-covert SEAL Team Six into his own lethal public relations firm and declared his homeland a warzone by authorizing the detention of American citizens, it is no surprise that Paul’s foreign policy seems unorthodox. At some point, the idea that the President’s first and foremost foreign policy duty was diplomacy was lost (i.e., “Speak softly and carry a big stick”). It seems that for the past several decades the United States has taken to shouting while hurling twigs and stones at enemies abroad.
Paul’s foreign policy plan embodies a new (old) way of thinking: Work with countries until it becomes evident beyond the shadow of a doubt that they pose a real military threat to the United States, and then work with Congress and military officials to create the most effective plan of action.
An article by Pat Buchannan in The American Conservativesums up why any foreign policy plan but Paul’s may lead to the undoing of the United States:
....Begin with South Korea. At last report, the United States had 28,000 troops on the peninsula. But why, when South Korea has twice the population of the North, an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons, the most effective in the world, should any U.S. troops be on the DMZ? Or in South Korea?
....U.S. forces there are too few to mount an invasion of the North, as Gen. MacArthur did in the 1950s. And any such invasion might be the one thing to convince Pyongyang to fire its nuclear weapons to save the hermit kingdom.
....But if not needed to defend the South, and a U.S. invasion could risk nuclear reprisal, what are U.S. troops still doing there?
When top brass military officials announced the new “military model” for the United States last month, they emphasized the need to ensure that the country is capable of fighting two wars at once. Recent developments, as Iran continues to kick sand and North Korea adjusts to its new leadership, do not look good for a nuclear superpower like the United States intent on hurling twigs and stones while shouting, even as other nuclear superpowers like China and Russia warn of implications.
The Supporters
Paul’s supporters are generally Americans worried about the future of their country. The candidate’s supporters are young, old, wealthy, poor, left, right or sideways.
The “Paulbots” who scan the Internet for stories about the candidate and liberty-threatening issues, commenting on forums and leading discussions about the dire state of the Nation are one type, probably those most responsible for the 76-year-old’s massive Internet presence.
Another group of supporters are the Constitutionalists, the group that can be taken as a whole or broken into subsets. Some of these people are vehement defenders of the 2nd Amendment, some are States’ rights activists and some just want to live in peace, knowing that the Federal government does not have the authority to tell them how to behave or how to care for themselves.
And still, there are some Paul supporters who are just coming around, possibly out of self-preservation. Speaking on CNBC, Pacific Investment Management (PIMCO) co-founder Bill Gross said that Federal Reserve policy has affected his thinking in a peculiar way: He has become “a little Ron Paulish.”
“Both parties basically have followed a policy that hasn’t promoted long-term investment in the United States and I think ultimately we need to produce things as opposed to paper,” he said, before continuing that policy change is very important no matter who is elected.
Paul may have no chance of winning the nomination, but for his supporters it may be enough to know that the debate has changed around his ideas. And it’s possible Paul will find himself in or near the White House even if he does not secure the nomination. A recent report by The Washington Postindicates that he and favored-candidate Mitt Romney may be willing to work together if either of them secures the Nation’s highest office. Only time will tell what long-term impact Paul’s ideas, or the absence of his ideas, in American politics will mean for the Nation.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Ron Paul, the Personal Liberty Digest's hope for the next President of the United States. I figured that since I've covered the other candidates, I should at least give a supporter of Ron Paul a shot. I do like Ron Paul's domestic policy, yet I fear his foriegn policy will hurt us more. Maybe it would be good to have him as a VP, but I'll let that play out through the primaries and on to the convention.
Representatives of the Gulf Power Co. say that the EPA’s new global warming mercury emissions rules could result in the shuttering of three of its current coal-fired power plants and bring higher energy prices to consumers. According to Gulf Power official Jeff Rogers:
“We won’t know what the impact will be until the new rules come out and we can actually evaluate them. But our feeling is that coal-fired plants would be at risk."
The new rules could cost Gulf Power up to $2.5 billion and other divisions of the company as much as $18 billion to comply. The 400,000 customers of Gulf Power would see their electricity rates go up.
Gulf Power recently spent $500 million to build a scrubber plant in Pensacola that removes 80% of oxidized mercury. The new EPA standard could be 90%. The new scrubber plant wasn’t built to remove 90%.
If the EPA is so concerned about mercury emissions, why not ban mercury filled CFL bulbs? These bulbs will end up in landfills where the mercury will leach into rivers, underground aquifers, and eventually into the food chain. Nope instead, they're making us by them and not providing any place that will except the used ones for recycling.
It appears that the EPA is more concerned about pushing cap and trade restrictions than protecting the environment.
In Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland six coal-fueled power plants are being shut down by first Energy because the retrofitting the power plants will have to undergo to satisfy the EPA’s draconian rules is just too expensive to justify.
These shutdowns will cause the loss of over 500 jobs initially.
Douglas Gotham, director of the State Utility Forecasting Group, for instance, says that rate hikes are on the way in Indiana, as well, and all because of Obama’s onerous new EPA regulations.
This is exactly what Obama wants. In 2007, he sat down with the San Francisco Chronicle and said that he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry and that our rates would “necessarily skyrocket?"
This does not bode well for hybrid cars which rely on electricity, especially since 45% of U.S. power plants use coal.
Last September, EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution rule cost 500 jobs in Texas.
In his testimony, EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus admitted last April that jobs are not part of their determinations.
The EPA has declared carbon dioxide as a “pollutant."
If carbon dioxide is a “pollutant”, then each time we exhale, we are “polluting“ the environment. If the “pollutant”, carbon dioxide, is removed from the atmosphere, then photosynthesis will cease and plants will die. Without plants to produce oxygen, animals (including humans) will also die.
Ironically, global warming will still continue every 1500 years due to cyclic variations in the radiation emitted from the sun. (See “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years,” by Fred singer and Dennis Avery.)
President O’Bama and global warming zealots are destroying the U.S. economy while not impacting global warming.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: While the "global warming" idiots are trying to get everyone to go to some type of electric transportation mode. Hasn't anyone figured out the current electrical infrastructure will not handle all the electricity needed to keep the damn little cars charged up. It will cost billions to upgrade the US infrastructure and that money will come out of your, and my, pocket book. These little cars will only work in a city environment with lots of plug-in parking, to be made, available. How’s that going to work in the cities that all ready have “Brown Outs” and parking problems. I’m keeping my truck to pull/haul your little electric cars out of the ditches after a snow storm. Lastly, for those of your that didn't learn the sciences in Jr./Sr. High School, I suggest that you all read the articles found at "The Two Minute Conservative" blog site. Just do a search on the subject of "global warming" or CO2 as a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., says he’s “disappointed” that though he was very willing to engage in a nationally televised debate on global warming, the man who challenged him to the debate has now backed out.
Late last year, political activist and former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader challenged Inhofe, the ranking Republican of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a leading skeptic of allegedly man-made global warming, to debate the topic with climate-change champion Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
“For the past decade, I have been reading about your description of the global warming assertions by scientists as ‘one of the greatest hoaxes’ ever perpetrated,” Nader wrote in a Dec. 12 letter to Inhofe. “Clearly you are a man of your convictions on this subject. Just as clearly, Rep. Ed Markey is a man of his convictions on this topic.
“So, what about your first real public debate with a fellow member of Congress on this topic?” Nader suggested. “People I know in Oklahoma say that you do not run away from challenges and challengers to your beliefs.”
Indeed, Inhofe did not run away from the debate challenge, but accepted it almost immediately, offering dates that might fit into his schedule.
Thoughtjustoffcenter: You can find lots more information on the hoax of "Global Warming" at the "The Two Minute Conservative". Lots of other various articles too. One of my many stopping points on my daily web surfing.
In an appearance on CNN today (02/02/2012), Mitt Romney said the following: “I’m in this race cause I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich. They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling. And I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”
When questioned further, he added, “I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them. The challenge right now—we will hear from the Democrat Party ‘the plight of the poor.’ And there’s no question, it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans … You can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus.”
“My focus is on middle-income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready to go to college. These are the people who’ve been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor. But the middle-income Americans, they are the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”
Can I ask you a question? How easy would it have been for Romney to instead say “I’m focused on restoring this country for all Americans”? How easy would it have been to not hand the left-wing media and the 2012 Obama machine a quote of “I’m not concerned about the very poor” on a silver platter?
Very easy.
Do the GOP candidates somehow live in a bubble where they don’t understand just how ready the mainstream media is to pounce on their every word and run with an unfavorable headline? Now sure, that will sometimes happen no matter what you say.
So many in media are waiting with bated breath to twist just about anything that comes out of a Republican’s mouth.
But candidates, why would you make their job easier—and more enjoyable—by not taking a minute to think before you speak?
The unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of the mainstream media will be working overtime to demonize GOP candidates and distort their records while glorifying everything Obama has said and done. That’s unavoidable. We can’t control that.
What candidates can control is what comes out of their mouths. You don’t want the media elite to be able to paint you as anti-poor? Well then make it really hard for them to do so. And certainly don’t hand them a sound byte that makes Chris Matthews’ leg tingle and has the Obama machine and the DNC already chopping up a video montage.
GOP candidates, you guys are smart. You’re smart enough to know what the agenda of most media folks is. You’re also smart enough to know that, like it or not, many Americans still tune in to media outlets whose bias is thicker than mud.
So do us a favor and stop helping them out. Think before you speak. The future of the country depends upon it.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: I have seen the video and read his actual comments in the print media. Yet, true to form, the left has already edited everything to show that the right doesn't care about the downtrodden. Speaking the truth will only get your words twisted into a lie that can be published by the left, whom are having problems publishing in the print media because the downtrodden have trouble reading the English Language, that they have butcher with slang. So everything is turned into video (digitized) which is so easy to edit and smooth out that you can make anything or anyone look and sound like they were the one (s) that murdered/shot Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy.
This is just a history lesson. It is history and nothing can change it. Both parties need to cut expenses, both parties have some blame, but this is truly what happened and Americans need to wake up and take our country back in 2012!!
REMEMBER JAN. 3, 2007
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party gained a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault,” think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember that day…
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5% GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie AND Freddie? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!
So when someone tries to blame Bush…
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. Bush should have vetoed every bill that came in front of his desk!
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, “I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th, 2009.”
TJOC: Let me start by saying to the Judge - GO FOR IT! PLEASE! I want to see the results of your labor.
A Georgia resident contending Barack Obama is ineligible for the state’s 2012 presidential election ballot is asking that a court cite him with contempt.
In a motion filed in the case pending before Georgia Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi, attorney Van Irion, representing David P. Weldon, urged the court not to overlook the fact that Obama had been subpoenaed for last week’s hearing. Obama’s attorney, he pointed out, acknowledged the subpoena by asking that it be quashed. But when the judge refused his request, he but told a state elections official he would not participate.
“Plaintiff Weldon moves this court to refer an order for contempt to the Superior Court for confirmation that defendant Obama is in contempt of court,” the motion says. “Grounds for this motion are that defendant Obama willfully defied this court’s order to appear and testify during this court’s hearing of January 26.”
The motion explains that when Malihi refused to quash the subpoena, Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, “requested that the Secretary of State [Brian Kemp] halt the proceedings. … The letter ended with a statement that the defendant and his attorney would suspend all further participation in the proceedings of this court pending response.”
But after Kemp confirmed later that day that the hearing would continue and said that failing to participate “would be at the defendant’s peril,” Obama and his lawyer still refused to attend.
The letter from Obama’s lawyer to the state official, “coupled with the defendant’s willful refusal to comply with an order of this court, represent a direct threat to the rule of law,” the motion says. “The … actions represent a direct threat to the entire judicial branch and the separation of powers.”
Willfully ignoring a court subpoena is “unprecedented,” Irion writes. “While past presidents have litigated against subpoenas, in every case those presidents acknowledged and respected the authority of the judicial branch. … In the instant case the defendant did not appeal to a higher court, and instead instructed the Secretary of State that he would not participate. … When the Secretary of State refused to act in an unlawful manner the defendant ignored the Secretary of State, violated an order of this court, and apparently instructed his attorney to act in a manner that violates the professional rules of conduct of this state.”
Obama’s action, he says, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”
Irion, representing Weldon, and several other attorneys argued before Malihi last week to have Obama’s name stricken from the Georgia state ballot.
The hearing was held on concerns raised by citizens of Georgia under a state law that allows voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates on the state’s ballot. It is the states that run elections in the U.S., and national elections are just a compilation of the results of the 50 state elections.
The state law requires “every candidate for federal office" who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: This is a very long article. The case will work its way into the Federal Judicial System, abet very SLOWLY. Yet, hopefully it will get there before I pass on. I truly want to see that system still works. If it doesn't, the United States of America is doomed. The Islamists are here (have been for years) and they won't care about bashing in your head because you won't follow what they want - and in the process they'll be found guilty by our system and use their guilty person as foughter-(sp) for more of their followers to bash heads and burn the system down.
With many apologies-TJOC: (sp) – Sometimes the computer, just like me, refuses to spell words correctly. With no dictionary available please excuse my spelling, dyslexic fingers, and brain.
Political animosity has been crazy lately. The Tea Party really dislikes debt. The Occupy Wall Street hippies scream about how they hate greed or something. President Obama says he can’t work with those unreasonable Republicans, and the Republicans are all like, “We can’t work with the president because he’s a socialist dummy.” And you know it’s only going to get worse this year as the presidential election heats up.
I mean, the Republicans are already attacking each other over who is being a moderate or being pro-amnesty or being Mitt Romney. And when the field is down to one Republican, the left is going to scream that he’s a racist, right-wing lunatic, and then the right will point at the state of the country and yell at Obama, “You did that! You did that! No! Bad president!”
No matter who wins the presidential election, there will still be more arguing and yelling and, with Occupy Wall Street, maybe some biting. Politics is just one big noisy headache. Why can’t everyone get along and work for the betterment of our country?
What is the solution here?
So far the only attempted solution has been to ask out loud over and over, “Why can’t everyone just stop arguing and get along?” Despite a whole organization being formed to ask this question, no labels, this has not worked and has actually just become further noise in the political cacophony. So how do we stop all this angry arguing?
I think I know how. The solution has been in front of us this whole time, and it’s really simple. What America needs is more apathy.
It’s a foolproof solution. Many people already embody this idea. They don’t get worked up by what the president is doing, because they don’t care. They never get mad at what the speaker of the House says, because they have no idea what that is. And when they see a debate on TV, they never get angry about what anyone says and instead just say: "I thought Dancing with the Stars or The Batchorette was on.”
I know what some of you are thinking: “I don’t know that this apathy idea will work for me.” Well, that’s your problem — you’re thinking about it. Thinking leads to opinions, and opinions eradicate apathy. Instead, you just need to shrug your shoulders and say, “Eh.” Then — BOOM! — the argument is over.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: I know plenty of apathetic poeple that could care less. Yet, they want to reserve the right to bitch and complain. Then there are others, that don't care to try and find out the truth of what is happening, they just follow what the liberal media tells them. They also want to reserve the right to bitch and complain. Of the many there's also the ones that want you to do all the research and tell them what you found. Then they get to bitch and complain that they don't want to hear what you got to say.
Then there's me. I do the research and find that both sides twist the truth to what pleases them. I find, more or less, that the truth is buried somewhere and you've really got to be persitant to find it. By this time, I'm bitching and complaining, because I either can't find the truth, or I've found the truth, and I can't believe we are that stupid to put up with the same politicians every election cycle.
Almost everything you read about the “increasing tension” between Iran and the United States revolves around the rhetorical question, “will there be a war?” Whether it’s our own pundits or the Europeans who watch us, “war” seems closer every day. Look at the Guardian’s Simon Tisdall, for example:
This is how wars start, through a process of hostile rhetoric, mutual ignorance and chronic miscalculation. Anybody in Tehran following the impassioned US debate on Iran will be aware that an influential Washington constituency, aided and abetted by leading Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, favours military action sooner rather than later. For these American hardliners, it is no longer merely a question of destroying Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities. Regime change is the name of the game because, it is argued, that is the only way to ensure Iran never gets the bomb.
If Mr. Tisdall knew as much about American politics as he should, he wouldn’t have credited Romney and Gingrich with the notion that “regime change is the only way to ensure Iran never gets the bomb.” That actually comes from the editorialists at the WashingtonPost. And if he knew as much about the origins of war as he should, he’d pay more attention to the Iranians’ messianic vision of global power — the quest for power being the central element in a nation’s decision to go to war, as the great historian Donald Kagan writes in his magisterial On the Origins of War.
But no matter, Tisdall is certainly right to say that war talk is abundant nowadays, in Washington and Tehran. And it often includes Israel, as well. It’s a depressing spectacle, because the pundits have systematically blinded themselves to the real context in which current events are unfolding, and this deflects otherwise serious people from thinking about the real world, which in turn means we do not have a serious strategy.
Serious thinking, and a serious strategy, must begin with the fact that the war is on. To repeat: the war is on. It’s been on for three decades. Ayatollah Khomeini declared war on the United States in February 1979, and the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been killing Americans ever since.
When they demonstrate in the streets and chant “Death to America!” what do you think they mean?
((TJOC)) Prior to 09/11/2001. for the most part, we ignored them - because it's only happening "over there." We should have woken up when they started bombing our embassies, but we didn't. We took each bombing as a criminal act and let law enforcement handle the issues of terrorism.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Yes, we are at "war," out of stupidity, America just decided to ignore it for 40 plus years until the Iranian tentacles have reached the shores of North, Central, and South America. Who am I talking about – HEZBOLLAH (think Lebonon). HAMAS, Iran’s other segregate has managed to stay in the Middle East screwing up Israelis’ economy and teaching hate to the Palestinian children. For those of you that have had your “nose to the grindstone” for the last 42-years, it’s time that you all woke the heck up. CAIR is in our home towns twisting their words to confuse you. They are a segregate of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) here in the USA. The MB was created, and later outlawed by Egypt, after the founder was caught planning the over throw of the Egyptian government, among other things. Study some history and you’ll find the MB really started with an individual that met with Adolf Hitler in 1939, (who was the “founders of MB” teacher and spiritual leader). The purpose of that visit/conference was for establishment of a German style prison camp (think Auschwitz style concentration camp) in Tunisia, in the attempt to help get rid of the Jews and establish the beginnings of a Caliphate in Northern Africa. The reason it didn’t happen, was the Tunisian government kept the Islamist Jihadist at bay and the entrance of the United States into WWII.
I wish I could remember all the Islamic names, but I put the study and research of Islam, and in particular, Islamic Jihadists, away 30-plus months ago and gave away all my books and research material. Anyway, read "Muslim Mafia" by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry - Author of "Infiltration." I'm sure you'll get the idea of the problem we are facing here at home. Then do a search of the internet for the movie named "Obsession," there's a short intro for it there to. Just do the short one, then look for Steven Emerson. A very good friend and brother, analyst, and co-worker, (whom passed away with cancer) started me out with initially reveiwing the movie and reading some articles by Mr. Emerson.
Mike, wherever your spirit is, I hope your looking upon all the people that truely appreciated and admired you, and upon the others that tried to keep you from telling everyone about the "Islamist Threat" to America. Rest in peace, even though I retired, the work goes on!
