Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Friday, February 24, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Rev. Franklin Graham: Obama Helps Islamists, Ignores Christian Persecution
The Rev. Franklin Graham says President Barack Obama has “given Islam a pass,” including ignoring atrocities against Christians in the Muslim world — so much so that the evangelist says he cannot “categorically” say Obama is not a Muslim.
In a stunning interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday, the renowned Christian leader and son of the Rev. Billy Graham expressed shock that Obama was doing little to protect Christians across the Muslim world against a wave of persecution.
MSNBC’s liberal hosts were flummoxed by Graham’s strong rebuke of Obama, and they asked him whether he believes the president is a Christian.
“You have to ask that of President Obama,” Graham shot back. “You can ask me do I believe you’re a Christian. I think people have to ask Barack Obama. He's come out saying he's a Christian. So I think the question is, what is a Christian?”
Graham said he asked Obama about his faith when he was first running for president.
Graham related their conversation: “He said that he was working on the south side of Chicago in the community and they asked him what church he went to.
"He said I don’t go to church. Then they said if you are going to work in our community you have to join one of the churches. Then, of course, he joined Reverend Jeremiah's church. So that's what his answer to my question was.”
Again queried about Obama’s faith, Graham repeated: “You have to ask him. I cannot answer that question for anybody. All I know is I'm a sinner and that God has forgiven me of my sins because I put my faith and trust in Jesus Christ.”
Graham added that he accepts Obama’s claim he’s a Christian at face value, but said ultimately only God knows his heart.
He did note that Obama has shown strong empathy toward Muslims, and the president has an Islamic background.
“Under Islamic law, under Shariah law, Islam sees him as a son of Islam, because his father was a Muslim, his grandfather was a Muslim, his great-grandfather was a Muslim,” Graham said.
“So under Islamic law, the Muslim world sees President Obama as a Muslim, as a son of Islam. That's just the way it works. That's the way they see him.”
Asked whether he believes Obama is “categorically not a Muslim,” Graham said, “I can't say categorically because Islam has gotten a free a pass under Obama.”
Graham noted that Obama’s Middle East policies have helped Islamists while hurting Christian minorities throughout the region.
“We see the Arab Spring, and coming out of the Arab Spring, the Islamists are taking control of the Middle East. And people like [Hosni] Mubarak was a dictator, but he kept the peace with Israel and the Christian minorities in Egypt were protected.
“Now those Christian minorities throughout the entire Arab world are under attack. A Newsweek magazine cover story last week [was about] was the massacre of Christians in the Islamic world. From Europe all the way through the Middle East to Africa into East Asia, Muslims are killing Christians.
“The president can come out and make a statement demanding that if these countries do not protect their minorities, no more foreign aid from the United States. They are not protecting the minorities. The society in these Islamic countries is not protecting the Christians anymore."
Graham added: “And hopefully, the people that are in power are going to protect the minorities, and Christians in the Muslim world are the minority. Egypt is like 13 million in the minority. Nigeria is 80-some million, but they're still a minority.
“These Christians are having their churches burned. They're being raped. Women are being raped. They're being murdered. Because under Shariah law Muslims can take a Christian's property, take a Christian’s life, can take his daughter. And this is what is happening. The governments are not able to protect the minorities in the society. And they're unwilling to protect them. If a government is not going to protect the minorities, we should not give them one dollar of U.S. aid.”
Graham claimed Obama is doing little to nothing to help persecuted Christians.
“And he's got the power of the White House,” Graham complained. “He could be speaking to these countries right now, demanding that they protect the Christians in those countries. He’s been quiet about it.
“We have an aid station in Southern Sudan. The Sudanese dropped bombs on it right before Christmas. We have a Bible school. Just two weeks ago the Sudanese air force dropped eight bombs on that Bible school. Why doesn't the president come out and try to bring peace to the Sudan?”
In a stunning interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday, the renowned Christian leader and son of the Rev. Billy Graham expressed shock that Obama was doing little to protect Christians across the Muslim world against a wave of persecution.
MSNBC’s liberal hosts were flummoxed by Graham’s strong rebuke of Obama, and they asked him whether he believes the president is a Christian.
“You have to ask that of President Obama,” Graham shot back. “You can ask me do I believe you’re a Christian. I think people have to ask Barack Obama. He's come out saying he's a Christian. So I think the question is, what is a Christian?”
Graham said he asked Obama about his faith when he was first running for president.
Graham related their conversation: “He said that he was working on the south side of Chicago in the community and they asked him what church he went to.
"He said I don’t go to church. Then they said if you are going to work in our community you have to join one of the churches. Then, of course, he joined Reverend Jeremiah's church. So that's what his answer to my question was.”
Again queried about Obama’s faith, Graham repeated: “You have to ask him. I cannot answer that question for anybody. All I know is I'm a sinner and that God has forgiven me of my sins because I put my faith and trust in Jesus Christ.”
Graham added that he accepts Obama’s claim he’s a Christian at face value, but said ultimately only God knows his heart.
He did note that Obama has shown strong empathy toward Muslims, and the president has an Islamic background.
“Under Islamic law, under Shariah law, Islam sees him as a son of Islam, because his father was a Muslim, his grandfather was a Muslim, his great-grandfather was a Muslim,” Graham said.
“So under Islamic law, the Muslim world sees President Obama as a Muslim, as a son of Islam. That's just the way it works. That's the way they see him.”
Asked whether he believes Obama is “categorically not a Muslim,” Graham said, “I can't say categorically because Islam has gotten a free a pass under Obama.”
Graham noted that Obama’s Middle East policies have helped Islamists while hurting Christian minorities throughout the region.
“We see the Arab Spring, and coming out of the Arab Spring, the Islamists are taking control of the Middle East. And people like [Hosni] Mubarak was a dictator, but he kept the peace with Israel and the Christian minorities in Egypt were protected.
“Now those Christian minorities throughout the entire Arab world are under attack. A Newsweek magazine cover story last week [was about] was the massacre of Christians in the Islamic world. From Europe all the way through the Middle East to Africa into East Asia, Muslims are killing Christians.
“The president can come out and make a statement demanding that if these countries do not protect their minorities, no more foreign aid from the United States. They are not protecting the minorities. The society in these Islamic countries is not protecting the Christians anymore."
Graham added: “And hopefully, the people that are in power are going to protect the minorities, and Christians in the Muslim world are the minority. Egypt is like 13 million in the minority. Nigeria is 80-some million, but they're still a minority.
“These Christians are having their churches burned. They're being raped. Women are being raped. They're being murdered. Because under Shariah law Muslims can take a Christian's property, take a Christian’s life, can take his daughter. And this is what is happening. The governments are not able to protect the minorities in the society. And they're unwilling to protect them. If a government is not going to protect the minorities, we should not give them one dollar of U.S. aid.”
Graham claimed Obama is doing little to nothing to help persecuted Christians.
“And he's got the power of the White House,” Graham complained. “He could be speaking to these countries right now, demanding that they protect the Christians in those countries. He’s been quiet about it.
“We have an aid station in Southern Sudan. The Sudanese dropped bombs on it right before Christmas. We have a Bible school. Just two weeks ago the Sudanese air force dropped eight bombs on that Bible school. Why doesn't the president come out and try to bring peace to the Sudan?”
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Stupid AND Arrogant
Earlier this week, Representative (and former Speaker) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) ventured out of her protective radical leftist cocoon and went on to The Daily Show to chat with Jon Stewart. She probably thought it would be safe, but she forgot that every now and then Stewart suddenly has these urges to show he’s not 100% in the tank for the left. This time, he asked Pelosi a very simple question that she should have expected: "why did the House, in her last two years of control, not even try to pass a federal budget?" Pelosi’s answer was so stunningly stupid and wrong, it needs to be scrutinized in depth. Her answer was “Because the Republicans would have filibustered.”
Six simple words. Two of them are four-syllable words, but still a very simple sentence. And just how is it wrong?
1) Pelosi was the Speaker of a House controlled by the Democrats, who also held the Senate. They were the solid majority. But here Pelosi says that she was checked because a potential threat from the minority kept her from even trying. There was no filibuster, because no budget was ever introduced. There was not even a threat to filibuster (see below), but because she believed that there would be, she neglected what is arguably the single most important Duty of the House — to craft and pass a budget for the federal government.
2) Remember how I said there was NO threat to filibuster? That’s because it can’t happen. Under House and Senate rules, budget bills can not be filibustered. They must be brought to a vote, and pass on a simple majority. That’s asimple fact.
3) OK, now I feel like I’m just piling on, but I have to. Here’s another reason why I can so authoritatively state that there was no threat to filibuster the budget in the House. That’s because filibusters are forbidden in the House. Debate can be cut off at any time by a simple majority vote, and any bill — including budgets — are passed by the same simple majority vote. And, Pelosi had a solid majority during her entire tenure so there was absolutely no excuse for her not having the House pass a budget.
The question posed here is about Pelosi: Is she so stupid that she actually believes what she said to Stewart, or is she so arrogant that she thinks that if she simply pronounces something, no one will question her? In Pelosi’s case, I find it incredibly easy to answer: BOTH.
Remember, this is the woman who was, for two years, in charge of one half of an entire branch of the federal government and was second in line for the presidency. Further, she fully expects to resume that position should the House return to the Democrats. Keep that in mind folks. Remember that every vote for a Democratic Representative is a vote to put Nancy Pelosi back in as Speaker of the House &
If you think we’re in trouble now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Edited to Add: This was an e-mail I received yesterday. A Google check indicates the last time Nancy Pelosi was on The Daily Show was in November, 2011. I haven't the inclination to view said interview to verify whether the above was said or not, so take this with a huge grain of salt.
Six simple words. Two of them are four-syllable words, but still a very simple sentence. And just how is it wrong?
1) Pelosi was the Speaker of a House controlled by the Democrats, who also held the Senate. They were the solid majority. But here Pelosi says that she was checked because a potential threat from the minority kept her from even trying. There was no filibuster, because no budget was ever introduced. There was not even a threat to filibuster (see below), but because she believed that there would be, she neglected what is arguably the single most important Duty of the House — to craft and pass a budget for the federal government.
2) Remember how I said there was NO threat to filibuster? That’s because it can’t happen. Under House and Senate rules, budget bills can not be filibustered. They must be brought to a vote, and pass on a simple majority. That’s asimple fact.
3) OK, now I feel like I’m just piling on, but I have to. Here’s another reason why I can so authoritatively state that there was no threat to filibuster the budget in the House. That’s because filibusters are forbidden in the House. Debate can be cut off at any time by a simple majority vote, and any bill — including budgets — are passed by the same simple majority vote. And, Pelosi had a solid majority during her entire tenure so there was absolutely no excuse for her not having the House pass a budget.
The question posed here is about Pelosi: Is she so stupid that she actually believes what she said to Stewart, or is she so arrogant that she thinks that if she simply pronounces something, no one will question her? In Pelosi’s case, I find it incredibly easy to answer: BOTH.
Remember, this is the woman who was, for two years, in charge of one half of an entire branch of the federal government and was second in line for the presidency. Further, she fully expects to resume that position should the House return to the Democrats. Keep that in mind folks. Remember that every vote for a Democratic Representative is a vote to put Nancy Pelosi back in as Speaker of the House &
If you think we’re in trouble now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Edited to Add: This was an e-mail I received yesterday. A Google check indicates the last time Nancy Pelosi was on The Daily Show was in November, 2011. I haven't the inclination to view said interview to verify whether the above was said or not, so take this with a huge grain of salt.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Too Tired to Verify or Correct Punctuation (maybe later)
This is just a History lesson. I am sending it to all regardless of party.
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 2nd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled 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 Mae AND Freddie Mac? - 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, while 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, though belatedly, got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running and to increase government spending 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."
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 2nd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled 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 Mae AND Freddie Mac? - 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, while 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, though belatedly, got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running and to increase government spending 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."
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Another Dire e-mail
Interesting story. Can't prove its veracity but the concept is clear.
*Here's something to think about.*
I remember asking dad about Castro when I was about 9 years old. I asked, "Is Castro a good guy or bad?"
Dad said...he couldn't tell!! This was about 1955. We were living in Louisiana ...at the time. Dad was in the Army there.
Cuba was fairly close and in the news a lot. The Cubans were asking the same question!
Ike was president.
This past July, we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a refugee from Cuba. Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.
This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960's. His family was more fortunate than most, as they were able to bring a suitcase...and $100 when they fled Castro's newly formed revolutionary paradise.
Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers, potato salad, watermelon and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu shared with family and friends nationwide...while celebrating the birth of our beloved America ...on the Fourth of July.
We began with a simple discussion about our country, and the direction it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating from the rulers in Washington.
But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train. "You know when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist".
We sat stunned. He continued, "Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a nationalist. Before the revolution he didn't sound like a radical."
The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected, "You mean just like Barack Obama?"
He responded; "Yes, just like Barack Obama."
He continued, "We were all shocked as the government just continued to grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn in your guns. We all complied."
I remember my uncle saying after it started; “Castro will only nationalize some of the big industries. He will never come and take our family hardware store!!” But that is exactly what happened. Castro started with the sugar mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for generations. They said we now own the hardware store, you work for us. And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own...it is now our property also, and...you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of the house, because others are moving in with you."
The lesson learned from this discussion, is a lesson most Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office...they can take totally unexpected turns.
If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it.. We could never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building block of a justice society...would be evaporating, just like it did in Castro's Cuba in the early 1960's.
But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not charged with wrong doing by the U.S. Department of Justice...because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets...without due process by the government! Governmental leaders are bribed in full daylight...only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled...by the Attorney General.
The U.S. borders are over run with crime and illegal activity, and the leaders in D.C. act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers....while the innocent are killed and over run. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed...andthreatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration...entrusted with enforcing the law.
Without the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution is a sham!! Without the rule of law, our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book...a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.
The only way this problem will be fixed, is by massive citizen action. All honest citizens that want to be treated equally, must come together...and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law...end now!! And yes, it can happen here.
PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!! And...may God save the United States of America!
*...the least you can do is forward this email. 6 million plus Jews didn't believe it would happen in Germany either!!! If you're a Christian in these United States of America, you're next on the list. The real problem here is, the boy from Cuba did manage to make it to the U.S. We will not have any place to escape to...except death! And, for the most part...even though I'm forwarding this to recipients, probably only 5 or 10 will even read it.
*Here's something to think about.*
I remember asking dad about Castro when I was about 9 years old. I asked, "Is Castro a good guy or bad?"
Dad said...he couldn't tell!! This was about 1955. We were living in Louisiana ...at the time. Dad was in the Army there.
Cuba was fairly close and in the news a lot. The Cubans were asking the same question!
Ike was president.
This past July, we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a refugee from Cuba. Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.
This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960's. His family was more fortunate than most, as they were able to bring a suitcase...and $100 when they fled Castro's newly formed revolutionary paradise.
Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers, potato salad, watermelon and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu shared with family and friends nationwide...while celebrating the birth of our beloved America ...on the Fourth of July.
We began with a simple discussion about our country, and the direction it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating from the rulers in Washington.
But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train. "You know when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist".
We sat stunned. He continued, "Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a nationalist. Before the revolution he didn't sound like a radical."
The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected, "You mean just like Barack Obama?"
He responded; "Yes, just like Barack Obama."
He continued, "We were all shocked as the government just continued to grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn in your guns. We all complied."
I remember my uncle saying after it started; “Castro will only nationalize some of the big industries. He will never come and take our family hardware store!!” But that is exactly what happened. Castro started with the sugar mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for generations. They said we now own the hardware store, you work for us. And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own...it is now our property also, and...you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of the house, because others are moving in with you."
The lesson learned from this discussion, is a lesson most Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office...they can take totally unexpected turns.
If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it.. We could never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building block of a justice society...would be evaporating, just like it did in Castro's Cuba in the early 1960's.
But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not charged with wrong doing by the U.S. Department of Justice...because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets...without due process by the government! Governmental leaders are bribed in full daylight...only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled...by the Attorney General.
The U.S. borders are over run with crime and illegal activity, and the leaders in D.C. act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers....while the innocent are killed and over run. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed...andthreatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration...entrusted with enforcing the law.
Without the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution is a sham!! Without the rule of law, our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book...a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.
The only way this problem will be fixed, is by massive citizen action. All honest citizens that want to be treated equally, must come together...and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law...end now!! And yes, it can happen here.
PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!! And...may God save the United States of America!
*...the least you can do is forward this email. 6 million plus Jews didn't believe it would happen in Germany either!!! If you're a Christian in these United States of America, you're next on the list. The real problem here is, the boy from Cuba did manage to make it to the U.S. We will not have any place to escape to...except death! And, for the most part...even though I'm forwarding this to recipients, probably only 5 or 10 will even read it.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Where Are They Now?
So where are the "Occupy" kids?
The three who brought down Wall Street.
Here's a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines - was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.
Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
*****************************************************************************************
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor.
TIM HOWARD? Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines.
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.
The three who brought down Wall Street.
Here's a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines - was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.
Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
*****************************************************************************************
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor.
TIM HOWARD? Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines.
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)