By Greg Richards
Why did it take until 100 years after the Civil War, until 1964, to pass a Civil Rights Act? Because the Democratic Party would not take its boot off the neck of the black man until Martin Luther King made the black vote a political force. Dedicated to being in power above all else, the Democrats had to make a U-turn on their race policy in the 1960s and join the Republicans in passing the Civil Rights Act because they realized that after the black vote was counted, they were not going to win any more national elections without it.
But there was a problem. How was the Democratic Party going to overcome its deplorable record on race? It was the party of slavery, segregation, lynching, and the Klan.
What to do now? Get back in front of history with comprehensive rather than palliative welfare — the Great Society. The Democratic Party would become the friend of the black community by giving it things it wasn’t asking for, but were hard to resist.
But there is a big problem with comprehensive welfare: it destroys the role of men in the community and this was disproportionately true of the black community. There is nothing worse than taking away a person’s mission in life, making that person unnecessary and thus unwanted. That is evil. And today we see the results of that evil.
Single mothers can cope, but the family as a force in the community cannot flourish without men as a responsible presence. Without men, there is nobody to show boys how to behave, have someone to look up to and emulate, to set them straight when they go off the path, to show them how to be men. This has been true of every civilization in history.
But over the last 50 years, the Democratic Party wiped out the black family by wiping out the role of black men in order to stay in power. The black family had withstood 250 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow, but was destroyed by 50 years of Liberalism. In 1960, the illegitimacy rate in the black community was 30%. Now it is 78%. And as Star Parker has pointed out, there is nothing unique about blacks. Whites are now where blacks were in 1960 and are on the same path.
What is the result of this devastation? There are now two Americas — Welfare America and Enterprise America.
The Democratic Party is the party of Welfare America and the Republican Party is the part of Enterprise America. Enterprise America is that part of America that is hands-on in its affairs. That does not mean the top managers of big business, which either out of necessity or out of temperament, in many cases cozy up to Big Government. There is also the billionaire effect, where billionaires, unaware of the wellspring of their own success, do not preach what they practice and support Welfare America for reasons of social standing.
Let’s compare the cultural attributes of Enterprise America and Welfare America.
HARPERS FERRY- This Friday, the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan will be holding a public rally in the historic town of Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. This rally is to endorse Barack Hussein Obama and honor his contributions to the Democratic Party.
It irks me that so many Americans either never learned or have bought the rewritten version of American history concerning Jim Crowe, the KKK, and the Democrat Party. Of course, printing it here will not change many minds, I’d wager, but TRUTH is TRUTH! Martin Luther King, Jr was a REPUBLICAN – a lifelong Republican who lived a virtuous, conservative life as he sought to bring American life into line with Biblical principles of “love your neighbor!” If you check history, the REAL history, the most despicable crimes against Black Americans were perpetrated by the Democrats. The Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. is a great source of TRUTH about Americans of color throughout our nation’s history. – BBB
Scripture References – Contrary to current policy and political correctness, you see, WORK is a GOOD thing! It is rewarded, not only by financial gain, but also personal dignity and a sense of accomplishment which builds confidence and character.
Ecclesiates 3:13 And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.
Romans 5: 1-5 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have[a] peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
Confident they will suffer no condemnation by the liberal media, Democrats routinely engage in rank racism toward black Republicans, calling them “sellouts”, “House Negroes” and worse.
This racist name calling is the despicable tactic Democrats use to demean black Americans who do not toe the liberal agenda line and keep blacks corralled on the Democratic Party’s economic plantation.
Race-baiting to garner the black vote is a key component of the re-election campaign of President Barack Obama. He remained silent when his VP, Joe Biden, shamelessly played the race card while speaking to a largely black audience in Danville, Virginia, saying about the Republican candidates: “They’re going to put y’all back in chains”. READ MORE
1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
[ ] a. Democratic Party [ ] b. Republican Party 2. What is the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the Emancipation Proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
[ ] a. Democratic Party [ ] b. Republican Party 3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
[ ] a. Democratic Party [ ] b. Republican Party 4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
[ ] a. Democratic Party [ ] b. Republican Party 5. What is the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP?
[ ] a. Democratic Party [ ] b. Republican Party *NOTE: Mr Du Bois was actually a member of the Socialist Party and in the early 60’s, joined the Communist party of America. 6. What is the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
[ ] a. Democratic Party [ ] b. Republican Party 7. What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950’s and 1960’s?
[ ] a. Democratic Party [ ] b. Republican Party 8. What is the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables, a plan crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher?
[ ] a. Democratic Party [ ] b. Republican Party 9. What is the Party of President George W. Bush who appointed more blacks to high-level positions than any president in history and who spent record money on education, job training and health care to help black Americans prosper?
[ ] a. Democratic Party [ ] b. Republican Party 10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
[ ] a. Republican Party [ ] b. Democratic Party 11. What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks civil rights?
[ ] a. Republican Party [ ] b. Democratic Party 12. What is the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
[ ] a. Republican Party [ ] b. Democratic Party 13. What is the Party of President Lyndon Johnson, who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “that [N-word] preacher” because he opposed the Viet Nam War; and President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then as president opposed Dr. King’s 1963 March on Washington and had Dr. King investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a communist?
[ ] a. Republican Party [ ] b. Democratic Party 14. What is the Party of the late Senators Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, former Governor Ernest “Fritz” Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina , and the late Senator Ted Kennedy who called black judicial “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
[ ] a. Republican Party [ ] b. Democratic Party 15. What is the Party of President Bill Clinton who refused to send troops to Rwanda to save 800,000 blacks from being killed in 1994, vetoed the welfare reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies stop discriminating against blacks and develop an Affirmative Action Plan?
[ ] a. Republican Party [ ] b. Democratic Party 16. What Party is against school choice opportunity scholarships that would help poor blacks get out of failing schools and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?
[ ] a. Republican Party [ ] b. Democratic Party
Character assassination. That’s the tactic used by Democrats in the 1960’s to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a Republican who was fighting the Democrats and trying to stop them from denying civil rights to blacks.
The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King’s home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.
BLOGGER’S NOTE:Sadly, there are still great numbers of African Americans supporting President Obama for no other reason than his skin color. Seriously! When asked why they support him, they, generally, have nothing to say.
PLEASE, friends, if you truly support what he stands for and the personal vision he has for America – to become equal partners in a One World Government with the other nations of the earth, by all means, vote for him.
If, however, you love America, but believe we can do better, help one another better by becoming more productive from bottom to top, I urge you to support LIFE, support the Equality birthed by God and written about in our Constitution, support Godly principles (regardless of personal religion or lack of it) that build character and strong families. Vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on November 6th! Please!
The choice we, as Americans, have before us is really this simple. It is the age old choice between LIFE and DEATH. It is much bigger than abortion rights, but is contained in the issue of abortion just like it is contained in how the US faces Islam, or how the US deals with its current debt & deficit crises.
An individual who consistently supports LIFE, by a genuine respect and wonder for LIFE, will seek out opportunities to build life, to improve the overall long-term quality of life, and see each and every life as valuable as the next and display this in every facet of personal life.
On the contrary, an individual who has no genuine respect for LIFE, who believes some people deserve to live while others do not, who believes certain mental or physical deficiencies may disqualify an individual from the right to life will make specific distinctions between people, between groups of people usually for no reason other than to promote self.
I put before you the imperfect choice in this election contain this very choice:
LIFE vs DEATH.
On January 22, 2011, the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion on demand, President Obama issued an official statement heralding Roe as an affirmation of “reproductive freedom,” and pledging, “I am committed to protecting this constitutional right.”
Mitt Romney’s conversion to the pro-life position should be something celebrated, not something viewed with scorn or skepticism among pro-life advocates. The goal of the pro-life movement is to get all elected officials to support protective laws for unborn children. In the future, what politician would want to come to our side if we’re going to constantly question their authenticity? President Reagan never faced the same scrutiny.
But if you think about how each of these men deals with and talks about LIFE, their views on the other major issues facing our nation become painfully clear.
Because President Obama does not value LIFE as the ultimate gift of God, even in its most basic choice, he does not comprehend human dignity and the correlation between WORK and HUMAN VALUE. This is how he can freely take from the productive half of the population and give it to the non-productive half with no strings, no work element, no pay-backs.
On the contrary, Mitt Romney, because of his innate respect for the value of life, made a career of rescuing failing businesses. In spite of the ads to the contrary, Romney chose FAILING endeavors, like the 2002 Olympics – sinking ships – and called into play all of her resources, both public and private, in his attempts to rescue them. He was not always successful, but more often than not, he was able to turn the sinking ships around and make of them profitable organizations. And, yes, he reaped a profit.
Personal freedom, as our Founders decreed in all of the Founding documents, issues from Providence, from God. Romney and Ryan both whole-heartedly believe this.
President Obama and the Democratic leadership believe freedom is a collective goal, rather than personal, and is obtained by government control of all relevant variables.
“Under Obamacare, an even playing field doesn’t exist for businesses. And President Obama must have recognized that, because he ordered his Health and Human Services Secretary to provide waivers from the healthcare overhaul. Unions, universities and restaurants in Nancy Pelosi?s district received waivers so that they didn?t have to comply with the law.”
Mitt Romney‘s view of the Constitution is straightforward: its words have meaning. The founding generation adopted a written constitution for a reason. They intended to limit the powers of government according to enduring principles.
President Obama believes in the Socialist platform of “fair distribution.” The central tenet of his platform is to raise taxes on the “rich” – a purposely ambiguous term – to give to the “poor” – an equally ambiguous term, effectually mandating what he wants to call “charitable giving” as a government task. This not only negates the personal responsibility element of giving, but it also, frankly, removes the CHOICE! Government monies go to an extremely wide variety of organizations and entities, many of which – like Planned Parenthood – are NOT my personal choice to receive MY donation. Perhaps the most telling deed of Obama was his dismantling of Clinton’s welfare reform by removing the work requirement.
Mitt Romney, like most people of faith, understands the personal mandate of faith for believers to help the poor. Last January, the personal numbers were released for both President Obama and Romney concerning their personal charitable donations.
In the current Presidential election, President Obama is running as Democrat, but operating very closely to a monarch or king, ruling over a people and believing he knows best how to take care of us.
On the other side is Mitt Romney. While not a true Conservative (as defined below,) he is seriously more conservative than President Obama, and supports the individual’s right to choose how to live and solve problems.
There are other issues concerning America and the American people, but i’ll leave your application to you. The bottom line remains, the choice before us is LIFE vs DEATH. What will be the future of America?
LIBERALS – believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.
Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.
CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.
Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
A former Ohio University student paid to canvass for Voters First Ohio petition signatures was arrested August 14 by the Cincinnati Police Department. Timothy Noel Zureick was booked on 22 counts of signing false signatures and one count of election falsification, both fifth-degree felonies.
As reported by the Athens News, Zureick, age 21, was arrested for crimes allegedly committed while working in Athens for Working America, a campaign arm of the AFL-CIO in Washington, DC. Zureick’s August 14 arrest is the first known prosecution to stem from the numerous allegations of fraud during the union-driven Voters First campaign.
According to authorities, on or around June 12 Zureick forged the signatures of a number of prominent Athens County Democratic Party figures. Athens County Board of Elections employees who had not signed Voters First petitions alerted the county prosecutor’s office after finding their signatures on petitions Zureick submitted.
The White Collar Crimes unit of the Athens County Prosecutor’s Office investigated the case and found that Zureick was living in Cincinnati. Zureick, who has two addresses in Cincinnati, was located by authorities at his father’s residence thanks to assistance from a neighbor.
Zureick reportedly attempted to hide from the officers serving a warrant for his arrest.
“His father first denied he was at the home,” Athens County Prosecutor Keller Blackburn told Athens Newsreporter Jim Phillips. However, Zureick’s car parked outside and movement detected inside the home led police to suspect otherwise.
Barack Obama’s opposition as an Illinois State Senator to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act has been making the rounds, with a lot of people overstating their case on both sides. Some conservatives are taking this as a sign that Obama thinks infanticide is morally ok, and some liberals are acting as if his approach is what any supporter of keeping abortion legal before viability should say. I’m not sure either is true, but I’m also not sure this reflects well on Obama.
Here is the law. It says that if a baby is born alive, whether by intended delivery or by failed abortion, it is legally a person, a human being, a child, and an individual. It counts as born alive only if it is completely removed from the mother (ignoring an umbilical cord connection, which does not count as a sufficient connection according to this law). Partial-birth abortion is thus not ruled out, because a partial birth is not a complete removal of the fetus. As long as the birth has not fully taken place, this law threatens no actual abortion rights.
Obama’s reason for not supporting this ban is not because he thinks it’s ok to kill a born fetus. As far as he’s said, he does not actually support infanticide (and he didn’t vote against the law; he just voted present, although that in itself was part of a strategy devised by Planned Parenthood of Illinois to protect pro-choice politicians from voters seeing how pro-choice they are). For his actual words, see comment 9 here. What he says is that he worries about the logic. Here is what seems to me to be his argument:
1. The Supreme Court has declared laws banning abortion before viability to be unconstitutional.
2. There is no difference between the moral status of a fetus inside its mother before viability and the moral status of a born baby at the same developmental stage.
3. Therefore, banning the killing of a born baby at this stage is morally tantamount to banning abortion at a pre-viability stage. (from 2)
4. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional. (from 1 and 3)
This argument does not amount to supporting infanticide morally. It is merely an argument based on the constitutional issue. According to Supreme Court precedent, this law is unconstitutional, and thus it’s pointless to pass it. He gives no moral argument against the ban, just a pragmatic one. So from this speech alone it’s impossible to get any clear support for infanticide.
Nevertheless, I think this is a terrible argument. The first premise is clearly true. I would argue that the second is also true. I see no difference in the intrinsic moral status of the fetus merely because it is contained within someone or is separate. However, I don’t think 1 and 3 guarantee 4. There’s no legal reason why morally inconsistent laws can’t occur. You can ban something that’s morally equivalent to something else that’s unconstitutional to ban, as long as the first thing isn’t unconstitutional to ban. But the real problem I have with the argument is his inference from 2 to 3.
The standard pro-choice argument is not that a mother has a right to kill a fetus growing within her. Only the most extreme abortion-choice proponents hold such a view. The standard view is that a woman’s right to control her body is morally more important than whatever rights a fetus might have. That argument allows for a fetus to have some sort of moral status such that killing it would be prima facie wrong, even if the bodily rights of the mother outweigh that. What this means is that the standard pro-choice argument does not accord a mother the right to the death of the fetus. If it survives removal, her rights have been satisfied. That means the moral status of the fetus is what kicks in to determine what you should do in such a case, and this law settles that question. It does not threaten the woman’s bodily rights, at least not according to the standard justification of abortion rights.
What this tells us about Obama is that he probably doesn’t hold to the standard justification for abortion rights. If he thinks 3 follows from 2, then he must think a mother actually has a right to the death of the fetus growing within her, even if it’s born. If he thinks the moral status of the fetus is what justifies keeping abortion legal, then he must think the pre-viable fetus has no moral status and thus a born pre-viable fetus has no moral status. So the right to expulsion isn’t what gives the right to abortion. What gives that right, on Obama’s view, is the utter lack of moral status of a human organism halfway through its uterine development.
Now this is a view that some people have. Mary Anne Warren has a paper defending the view that infants born at full term have no intrinsic moral status. She gives other reasons to oppose infanticide, but she doesn’t base those on moral status of the fetus. Peter Singer and Michael Tooley actually defend infanticide as morally permissible. But these views are extremely radical. Obama’s view (as far as we see here) may not be as radical as Warren’s, never mind Tooley and Singer’s, but I think it’s still far more radical than the view of the majority that supports pre-viability abortion rights.
The U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a law virtually identical to this one (with the only exception being a clause that makes it explicit that this law doesn’t change any legal status of pre-born fetuses). Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) gave a floor speech explaining why no pro-choice Democrat should worry about such a bill undermining or conflicting with the Supreme Court’s guarantee of abortion rights. Hillary Clinton was among the 98 Senators who voted yes. No senators voted no. Yet Barack Obama refused several times to sign on to what a unanimous U.S. Senate was willing to pass. So I think this is a very good example of how far to the left Obama really is despite the unfounded sense that so many people have of his being a moderate. > > > READ MORE
NOTE: If this were the ONLY issue, it’s still more than enough reason to vote Obama OUT November 6th, 2012! Don’t be late!
NOTE: Naturally, the Progressive left has totally perverted both the definition and the truth of this issue. Any of us who have worked legally in this country have deposited into both Social Security and Medicare. They are legitimate entitlements. Medicaid , food stamps & welfare are social assistance programs, unfairly lumped together with the real entitlements. The pathetic part is our government has spent it! That is the crisis we and future generations face today. Without changes, there will soon be NO help for our Seniors. We must get this message out and speak it clearly for all to hear and understand. ~ BBB
On the USS Wisconsin in Norfolk harbor, a coatless Mitt Romney named a tieless Paul Ryan as his vice presidential nominee.
Romney’s choice was not much of a surprise after he told NBC’s Chuck Todd on Thursday that he wanted someone with a “vision for the country, that adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country. I mean, I happen to believe this is a defining election for America, that we’re going to be voting for what kind of America we’re going to have.” [AGREED!]
This arguably describes some of the others mentioned as possible nominees, but it clearly fits Ryan.
He doesn’t fit some of the standard criteria for vice president. He hasn’t won a statewide election, held an executive position or become well-known nationally or even in much of Wisconsin.
But more than anyone else, more even (as impolite as it is to say) than the putative presidential nominee, Ryan has set the course for the Republican Party for the past three years, both on policy and in politics. From his post as chairman of the House Budget Committee, he has made himself not just a plausible national nominee but a formidable one by advancing and arguing for major changes in entitlement policy.
He has argued consistently that entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — are on an unsustainable trajectory. Left alone, they threaten to crowd out necessary government spending and throttle the private sector.
Few public policy experts, on the center-left as well as the right, disagree. But many politicians, certainly those in the Obama White House, shy away from confronting the entitlement crisis. Better to demagogue your way through one more election cycle and kick the can down the road.
What’s astonishing is that Ryan has persuaded his fellow Republicans to follow his lead. Almost all House and Senate Republicans have voted for his budget resolutions. And they have included his proposal to change Medicare, for those currently younger than 55, from the current fee-for-service system to premium support, in which recipients would choose from an array of insurers, with subsidies to low earners.
Republicans rallied to the Ryan plan during the nomination contest. Newt Gingrich was lambasted for calling Ryan’s budget right-wing social engineering, while Romney over time moved to embrace the basic elements of Ryan’s budget and Medicare reforms.
Ryan campaigned enthusiastically for Romney in the Wisconsin primary, and there was clearly a rapport between these two number crunchers. Romney would defer to Ryan to answer and has made a point of staying in touch with him after clinching the nomination.
As a number cruncher, Romney surely recognizes that Ryan knows federal budget policy about as well as anyone. And the sometimes politically tone-deaf Romney must admire Ryan’s ability, honed in hundreds of town meetings in his marginal congressional district, to explain his stances in a way that wins over ordinary voters.
The WINNING TEAM!
Naturally, Democrats have attacked the Ryan plan as gutting Medicare and have produced an ad showing Ryan shoving a wheelchair-bound granny down a hill. They’re licking their chops at the prospect of running a Mediscare campaign against the Romney-Ryan ticket.
But it’s not clear that the Mediscare tactic will work when the issue gains great visibility, as it will from Ryan’s selection.
For Ryan and Romney can make the point — lost in the shuffle when this is a low-visibility issue — that their plan would leave the current Medicare system in place for current recipients and those who are 55 or older. Those who have made plans based on the present program could continue to rely on it. > > > READ MORE
PEOPLE of FAITH, brothers and sisters, for decades we’ve been herded into our churches and told to keep our faith to ourselves. We’ve learned how to live our faith quietly, unobtrusively. But today, there are millions of Americans waiting to see the LIFE of Jesus – the relevance of Jesus in our lives. The Lost are seeking and not finding … because we are hidden away, keeping our faith to ourselves, locked behind closed church doors. It’s way past time we step OUT … Jesus didn’t got to the Temple to minister, he went to the streets. He went where the people are and he didn’t tell they were sinners going to hell! He LOVED them.
Our nation is at a monumental crossroads. President Obama is an Communist/Socialist. If you are familiar with Marx’s Communist Manifesto, you know it sounds good on paper. Every person’s needs are met by the government. There is no want. There is also no room for God in Communism because government is god. There is no morality in Communism because every one is the same – equality. The government decides just about everything for you: where you will live, where you will work, how much you will be paid. Do you remember the Berlin Wall and the numbers of people who died trying to escape communist rule? Communism fails because human nature needs purpose and communism takes that away. You don’t get paid more for doing a better job. Yo don’t get a bigger home for working longer hours. You get paid what the gov’t decides the job is worth. Each year, the comfort level of the “PEOPLE” is reduced because revenues decline because production declines because there is no incentive to produce more.
Our nation needs men and women of character who are paying attention, educating themselves, and thinking clearly about the issues and the consequences. Our choice in this election is not a perfect choice. Jesus isn’t here running for office – and if he did, I doubt he’d be elected in this nation at the moment. Corruption runs deep, but sadly, it runs nearly as deep in our churches and homes. We live in this world, and are polluted by it, no matter how hard we try or how aware we are. We are feeble. So are our leaders. We have failed over the past decades to pay much attention, as believers, to what has been happening to pull society to the left.
Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt started “socialist” programs intended to FOOL the public into believing the Depression was over, but if you check the facts, “With freer markets, balanced budgets, and lower taxes, Wood [Sears, Roebuck and Company Chairman Robert E. Wood] was right. Unemployment was only 3.9 percent in 1946, and it remained at roughly that level during most of the next decade. The Great Depression was over.” All we, as Americans, need to do is look at history – accurately written history for the answers.
This election of 2012 is not about party, not about left or right, but about ideology. It’s about what direction we, as believers, want our nation to go. Some think compassion is the same as government programs, but again, if you check the facts, the programs designed to help the needy actually HELP them remain needy. They are NOT a hand up. The current programs offer no incentive to find work or got to school, so why should they? There are legitimate needs, but I ask you this, my friends. Did Jesus tell the sick to go apply for aid from the government, or did he take care of their need himself. He gave us the illistration of the “Good Samaritan.” In this parable, did the Good Samaritan call the Dept of Social justice to take care of the injured man, or did he take care if him himself? When did Jesus EVER send a sick or needy person to the government programs to take care of their need? NEVER! He did it himself or told his disciples to do it themselves. If we abdicate this responsibility, we are abdicating our responsibility to obey Christ’s commands to help the needy, the poor, and the widows.
James 1: 26-27 (The Message) “Anyone who sets himself up as “religious” by talking a good game is self-deceived. This kind of religion is hot air and only hot air. Real religion, the kind that passes muster before God the Father, is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world.”
Jesus tells US, not the government, to take care of the needs of the poor. US – you and me with OUR money, OUR time & talents because it is giving out the mercy & grace we have received. It is sharing the Love of God. The Government is not responsible for the poor. You and I are. The government cannot afford to take care of the poor, as we are seeing clearly today. It is time for the CHURCH – Catholic, Protestant, Jewish – whatever faith motivates us – to rise up and take this challenge upon ourselves. “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” (Js 1:22 NKJV) The rest, is up to God!
Hamas-linked CAIR tries to strong-arm Romney, demands he explain private meeting with pro-freedom General
This will be a test for Romney: will he kowtow to the Islamic supremacists and allow them to dictate with whom he can speak and consult? Will they succeed in intimidating him into distancing himself from General Boykin and downplaying the nature and magnitude of the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism? Or will he tell them that he is not going to take orders from a Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood front group?
CAIR Asks Romney to Explain Meeting with Infamous ‘Islamophobe.’ Muslim rights group questions why candidate willing to hold private meeting with anti-Muslim extremist
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 8/9/12) — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to clarify his decision to meet privately with a key figure in the ‘Islamophobia’ movement, retired Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin.
Boykin asserts that “[Islam] should not be protected under the First Amendment,” that there should be “no mosques in America” and that there can be no interfaith dialogue or cooperation between Muslims and Christians. In 2003, President Bush rebuked Boykin for his anti-Muslim stance.
Earlier this year, Boykin’s extreme viewpoints resulted in him withdrawing from a prayer breakfast at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. CAIR and VoteVets.org, a coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, had both asked the academy to retract the invitation because of Boykin’s Islamophobic views….
Hamas-linked CAIR’s propaganda screeds against freedom fighters cannot be trusted. Boykin was speaking about not extending First Amendment protection to Islam as a political system that is authoritarian, supremacist, and at variance in numerous ways with the rights and freedoms acknowledged by the U.S. Constitution. Hamas-linked CAIR obfuscates and dissembles about those elements of Islam, and would have you believe that Boykin simply wants to deny individual Muslims — good, pious, hardworking people! — First Amendment protection out of “bigotry” and “racism.” But just today on Jihad Watch we have seen an amputation for theft and the jailing of people for gambling and for proselytizing for Christianity — all in accord with Islamic law.
Hamas-linked CAIR reps will never discuss these aspects of Islam, or explain how they fit in with our freedoms and rights in the U.S. But these stories were the kinds of things that General Boykin was talking about. So we shall see: will Romney fold and submit? Or stand firm and maybe even declare his intentions to protect Constitutional freedoms from Sharia encroachment? That is probably too much to expect, but we can hope at least that he doesn’t throw Boykin under the bus.