Coin Toss's Blog

Coin Toss's Blog has 835 entries and has been viewed 1,061,832 times.
Lottery Post members have made 2,736 comments in Coin Toss's Blog.
Coin Toss is a Standard member.

August 9, 2012
5:04 pm

Obama lies, it's OK, Romney tells the truth, not OK

Obama Lies – It’s Okay. Romney Tells Truth – It’s Not Okay

One thing I’ve noticed so far in the current presidential campaign is that the campaign to re-elect Barack Obama has no ethics whatsoever.

Obama campaign ads, including some with Obama speaking, have continued to lie and make false accusations aimed at Mitt Romney. Even after what they were saying was proven to be false and lies, they continued to run the commercials over and over and over again, obviously caring little about accuracy or truthfulness.

For example, they portray Romney as someone who outsources jobs overseas because of Bain Capital. But when you look at the facts, Romney was responsible for very few outsourced jobs and in fact was instrumental in saving American companies and creating hundreds of jobs. Look at how Romney was instrumental in saving Staples from financial ruin and turned the company around which in turn created hundreds of new jobs.

Then when you look at Obama’s track record on outsourcing jobs overseas, you will find that billions of bailout dollars went to jobs and companies overseas. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta doesn’t do anything without Obama’s approval. Panetta’s Department of Defense awarded a $345 million contract for a light attack aircraft to a company in Brazil rather than award the contract to a Kansas based company that could have provided a better aircraft and put Americans to work building it.

Additionally, look at how many illegal aliens Obama is allowing to stay in the U.S. and take jobs from American citizens. His latest move to save 800,000 illegals from deportation will only serve to keep unemployment levels higher for Americans.

Obama accuses Romney of wanting to increase taxes on the middle class while saving the rich from paying their fair share. He says that he will not raise taxes on the middle class and that he is their friend. Obamacare alone stands to increase taxes on the middle class by a substantial amount. It will also increase taxes on senior citizens. The insurance mandate penalty tax will hit more middle and poverty class families than it will the rich.

When Mitt Romney points out that Obama’s various programs to increase entitlements are making millions more Americans dependent on the government, the White House accuses him of lying and demands a retraction. Yet under Obama, millions of Americans that once were in the middle class are now finding themselves in the poverty class and relying on government assistance. Obamacare changed the qualifications for Medicaid, allowing millions more to qualify for state assistance. Obama’s welfare reform only serves to put more Americans on welfare and reliant on the government for their livelihood.

Mitt Romney was speaking the truth. The White House can’t handle the truth, so they accuse Romney of lying. Yet Obama and his campaign can repeatedly lie through their teeth and they believe that to be completely acceptable. What’s worse, the liberal media supports Obama’s lies and berates Romney for telling the truth. This behavior is indicative of the last three and half years of Obama’s reign as president and serves as another reason he cannot be trusted nor should such a liar be allowed to remain as President of the United States of America.

4 Comments

Entry #280

August 8, 2012
7:06 pm

Filmmaker reveals 'deeply disturbing' Obama ...

Filmmaker reveals 'deeply disturbing' Obama background

'Gap between his public narrative ... and reality'

Ever wonder why presidents before Barack Obama didn’t feel the need to publicly berate the U.S. Supreme Court during a State of the Union address, even when they disagreed with a decision, as Obama did over the campaign finance ruling?

Did you think why earlier presidents did not demand ranks of unaccountable “czars” in the White House, to address everything from water use to executive pay?

And did you notice the reams of orders emanating from the Obama White House regarding immigration policy, social welfare programs and terrorism policy, issues that logically should be addressed by Congress?

There’s one man who’s noticed it all: Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, who has directed the new “Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception,” about Obama and his past.

Gilbert purports in his production that Obama’s biological father was not the “Kenyan goat herder” Barack Obama Sr., who visited the United States as a student and later returned to Kenya.

Instead, his evidence suggests that Obama’s biological father was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA propagandist, and who has prevailing influence over White House actions even today.

Gilbert told WND that his background in Middle East and Islamic studies had him working in 2010 on “Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad’s Coming War and Obama’s Politics of Defeat.”

He reviewed hundreds of Obama speeches during that research and noted an “odd” pattern of behavior in Obama.

“When speaking of issues relating to the rich and the poor, Obama became very excited, speaking rapidly and louder, always in a higher pitch. On other subjects, he was quite calm. Why would Obama have an inner passion for class struggle? From my knowledge of his background, exclusive prep school, Ivy Leagues, Harvard Law – it didn’t seem to fit,” he said.

But for Gilbert, a film director, writer, and musician who creates documentaries through his Highway 61 Entertainment, the light clicked on when he read Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father.”

There were multiple references to Obama seeking out Marxist individuals, pursuing socialist events, and advocating for a “community” lifestyle.

His investigation then turned to Davis, whose name repeatedly was mentioned in Obama’s writing.

“His close physical resemblance to Obama was shocking, while Obama little resembled the Kenyan Obama. How could this be?” he wondered on his website about the new “Dreams” production.

“I unearthed two film archives of Frank Marshall Davis, one from 1973, the other from 1987, as well as Davis’ photo collection. I then acquired 500 copies of the Honolulu Record, the communist run newspaper where Davis wrote a weekly political column for eight years. I also obtained seven indecent photos of Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, taken at Frank Marshall Davis’ house, suggesting an intimate connection between Dunham and Davis.

“I concluded that to understand Obama’s plans for America, the question was ‘Who is the real father?’”

Gilbert, who previously challenged Hollywood’s comfort zone with “Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam,” said the bottom line is that Obama’s “story” of an inspiring childhood is just not real.

Gilbert told WND, “I felt I could build a case that Obama in fact had a very deeply disturbing family background.”

And Obama is, in fact, pursuing the “dreams” from his “father” – his real father, a “likely Soviet agent,” Gilbert said.

There is an ever-present set of themes about which Obama revolves, he said, including a “top 1 percent taking advantage” and “a proletariat being taken advantage of.”

There are “evil straw men preventing the working class from upward mobility,” he said. “This is classic Marxist ideology.”

Even Obama’s recent claims to small business owners that “You didn’t build that,” align with the ideology of Karl Marx.

“This is all the justification for taking over, redistributing wealth. It’s preliminary talk for telling people they are being oppressed by evil straw men,” he continued.

Gilbert felt he had to tell the story – especially as the primary major media outlets in the nation are isolating and ignoring the issues at hand regarding Obama – and he turned to film.

“My ‘Dreams’ provides the first cohesive understanding of Obama’s deep rooted life journey in socialism. It includes Obama’s indoctrination in Marxism by Frank Marshall Davis, his college years, his job as ‘organizer,’ his involvement with Project Vote and the subprime mortgage crisis, the Ayers family, Alinsky and Reverend Wright, all the way to his campaigns and presidency,” he said.

He said it is “shocking” how the long-independent media in the United States has decided to “support this false narrative” of Obama’s Kenyan father and typical childhood.

He said as part of his effort to get the message out, he’s working on delivery of copies of his DVD to members of the public.

Gilbert told WND his goal is based on the fact that Americans are a great people, and they “deserve to elect … a president on a truthful and honest depiction of both his political foundations, his background and his plans and what he will do.”

“We deserve and must have honesty from candidates as to what they intend to do,” he said. “Barack Obama has violated that trust to their votes.”

Gilbert said Obama needs to speak honestly about those issues.

“Obama must come clean and admit his real background, who is his real father,” he said, so that voters can vote based on who he really is and what he wants to do.

“Obama’s election was not a sudden political phenomenon. It was the culmination of an American socialist movement that Frank Marshall Davis nurtured in Chicago and Hawaii, and has been quietly infiltrating the U.S. economy, universities, and media for decades,” Gilbert warned.

“‘Problem solving’ and ‘fair play’ are the new code words that socialists employ in a determined strategy to move the Democratic party to the far left, and embrace socialism as their natural ideology. Obama’s anti-democratic behavior, including consolidation of power through Czars, going around Congress, intimidating the Supreme Court, and class polarization tactics can be better understood after viewing ‘Dreams from My Real Father.’”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/filmmaker-reveals-deeply-disturbing-obama-background/

6 Comments

Entry #279

August 8, 2012
3:51 pm

Obamacare to Push Pizza Prices Higher

Obamacare to Push Pizza Prices Higher

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been blamed for a lot of things—higher taxes, potential insurance rate hikes, and now, higher pizza prices. According to Papa John’s Founder, Chairman and CEO John H. Schnatter, health-care reform will cost the company an additional 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza.

“We’re not supportive of Obamacare like most businesses in our industry,” Schnatter said in a call to analysts. “But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare.”

Schnatter added that on a corporate basis, the reform would increase Papa John’s price per pizza by 15 to 20 cents.

Post Continues on www.foxbusiness.com

http://bighealthreport.com/4341/obamacare-to-push-pizza-prices-higher/

4 Comments

Entry #278

August 8, 2012
12:20 am

Obama campaign sues to restrict military voting.

Obama Campaign Sues to Restrict Military Voting

While Barack Obama and the Democrats like to give lip service to our men and women in uniform, it’s what they do that betrays their rhetoric. He likes to get his picture with troops even though behind closed doors they are giving him the finger and sleeping during his speeches. This all makes things quite interesting when both the Obama campaign and the Democrat party are suing to restrict the military’s ability to vote in the upcoming election.

Breitbart.com reports,

On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis.”

Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis”, I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.

The National Defense Committee reports:

[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote.

So now we see the Democrat playbook come out again. We see the praise of the lips while they drive the knife into the back of our service men and women that they are using abroad in unconsitutional wars. While I disagree with Mike Flynn that they “have more right to vote than the rest of us,” I emphatically agree that they have the right to vote and that right should be defended by those of us at home.

While Republicans have been battling for Voter ID laws, maybe they should include in that battle protection of the military’s vote.

We all know what is coming in November. The race will probably be close and this is the Chicago style thuggery of applying pressure where the Democrats can in order to cheat in the elections. Make no mistake about it, attempts to restrict the military’s vote is an attempt at voter fraud.

12 Comments

Entry #277

August 7, 2012
7:40 pm

White House confirms Obama wants to ban guns

During the White House Press Conference on Monday, not only did Press Secretary Jay Carney put distance from Harry Reid’s comments concerning Mitt Romney’s failure to pay taxes for ten years, yet not disavow the remarks, but he also affirmed the fact that Barack Obama is also out to ban guns, something we’ve known all along. He affirmed Obama’s position to re-institute the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Of course I warned about such calls for more gun control on Monday.

When asked whether Obama supported renewing the 1994-2004 federal ban of semi-automatic weapons for civilians, Carney responded,

“He does support renewing the assault weapons ban,” and he added that “there has been reluctance by Congress to pass that renewal.”

I will interject to say there is good reason that Congress doesn’t act. Banning supposed “assault weapons” does nothing to stop criminals from acquiring them. The Obama administration should know this best seeing that they delivered some 2,500 semi-automatic weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, which were responsible for at least two U.S. federal agent deaths and the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans. As I’ve said before we need more politician control legislation rather than gun control legislation.

While Carney said that the administration intends to push for gun safety “under existing law” and “not infringe upon Second Amendment rights of citizens” the fact is that is the exact opposite of what such measures do. The issue is not “gun safety.” That is merely the marketing of the Obama administration. Gun safety is what an individual does, not what government does. The Obama administration is not interested in gun safety. They are interested in gun banning.

Understand something here. The call for the ban of semi-automatic weapons is a call for most modern guns on the market. According to Reuters, the shooter at the Sikh temple was using a simple Springfield 9mm semiautomatic handgun.

Josh Sugarmann, , executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates to reduce gun violence, said,

“There is no valid reason for civilians to have assault rifles, semiautomatic handguns and high-capacity magazines. We have to start ratcheting down the firepower in civilian hands in the United States.”

You see, this is just an echo of the Obama administration. There are plenty of valid reasons for law-abiding citizens to posses “assault” rifles, semiautomatic handguns and high-capacity magazines. If we are to believe Mr. Sugarmann, then if those semi-automatic guns are out of the hands of the population, then there is absolutely no need for any government official to have a body guard armed with a semi-automatic handgun. Furthermore, there is no need for police to be armed with them either.

If there is a cry from these people who want more gun control and gun bans, then they need to follow their “illogic” to its logical conclusion and that would mean there would be no need for any semi-automatic guns at all. That is not the case though and they know it. Their is no Utopia like liberals assume in our future simply because men are fallen and because they are fallen they need means of protection against those men who lack self-control.

I never know how I will have to defend myself in public or in my own home. This is why there needs to continue to be high capacity magazines as well as a variety of weapons to choose from. Against military it is small for sure, but against common criminals law abiding citizens should be able to purchase a weapon of choice without government cutting those options off.

Carney finished the section regarding the assault weapons ban with the following:

“The president’s approach is that we should work with Congress where possible — and administratively where allowed — to advance common-sense measures that enhance our security, that keep deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have them, under existing law, but that protects Second Amendment rights, which the president thinks is an important goal as well.”

You see, we hear the “where possible” type of comment on things such as the cybersecurity bill, which Obama is considering using executive order to implement, which would be a clear violation of the powers he has under the Constitution. Not only that but Carney uses the phrase “deadly weapons.” Isn’t that interesting? Well now, according to TSA box cutters are deadly weapons and so are plastic knives, nail files, fingernail clippers. I mean if we are going to use the term “deadly weapon,” that really is in the eye of the beholder. Everything in our lives can be a deadly weapon, including some very well trained people!

Personally, I don’t care if people say, “Well other presidents have issued Executive Orders like that.” That doesn’t make it right. Law is to be made in the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. don’t think if it came down to it that Barack Obama would not seek to implement such an EO, if he so desired. The question is, how would our elected representatives respond to such a measure?

For readers of this article who want a great “assault” weapon at a steal and you just want to voice your support for the Second Amendment, I’ve got a great deal for you. You really should consider owning an AK-47 and here’s a super deal to get one plus some goodies!

3 Comments

Entry #276

August 7, 2012
7:32 pm

Obama admin. set to stage sharia law in America

One of the most terrifying things that Americans could expect from a second term of Barack Obama is not the economic downturn that we are already experiencing. It’s not another ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal. Rather it appears that more and more the Obama administration, specifically the Department of Justice, is turning a blind eye to attempts to introduce aspects of sharia law into the legal system. Last week Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), a member of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution questioned Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez on the First Amendment and specifically he was asking in regards to criminalizing those who speak out against any religion.

Franks’ questions were prompted by a Daily Caller article from late last year in which Perez was quoted as warmly embracing the proposals of Islamist advocates in a meeting at George Washington University, among them a request for “a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.”

Perez reportedly ended the meeting with an enthusiastic closing speech and was quoted as saying, “I sat here the entire time, taking notes…I have some very concrete thoughts … in the aftermath of this.”

Rep. Franks asked,

“Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”

Mr. Perez would not answer with a simple yes or no. In fact, though he was asked four times he still would not answer the question posed to him.

So why the targeting of Perez by Franks? William Bigelow writes,

Last October, at George Washington University, there was a meeting between DOJ officials, including Perez, and Islamist advocates against free speech. Representatives from the Islamist side included Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The ISNA was an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding trial in 2008, as well as functioning as a Muslim Brotherhood Front. The leader of the Islamist attack was Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-born American lawyer and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a Muslim advocacy group based in Michigan. At the meeting, the Islamists lobbied for:

Cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training
Limits on the power of terrorism investigators
Changes in agent training manuals
A legal declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be considered racial discrimination

Aziz said that the word “Muslim” has become “racialized” and, once American criticism of Islam was silenced, the effect would be to “take [federal] money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.”

Niether the DOJ nor Perez had any response. It tells us very clearly that the Obama DOJ doesn’t care at all for real free speech. The implementation of Sharia law would completely undermine the U.S. Constitution.

The Obama administration obviously care that homosexuals can spout off about Christianity. They must believe that Muslims are OK to mock, openly ridicule and attack Christians, but look out if it should come to speech against Islam and pointing out its errors or false prophet!

3 Comments

Entry #275

August 4, 2012
5:44 pm

Romney's free market vs Obama's socialism

Romney's Bain Capital invested private money in:

AMC Entertainment

Burger King

Burlington Coat Factory

Clear Channel communications

Domino's Pizza

Dunkin Donuts

The Sports Authority

Staples

Toys 'R' Us

Warner Music Group

__________________________________________________

Obama invested taxpayer money in:

Solyndra - Bankrupt

Ener 1 - Bankrupt

Beacon Power - Bankrupt

Abound Solar - Bankrupt

Amonix Solar - Bankrupt

Spectra Watt - Bankrupt

Eastern Energy - Bankrupt

All of these companies were Obama campaign contributors

The choice is clear,

Do you want a businessman who generated billions

A president who wasted trillions.

3 Comments

Entry #274

August 4, 2012
5:36 pm

Cash for clunkers 'success'

Cash for Clunkers.

The person who calculated this bit of information is now, and has been a
professor at the University of West Virginia in Morgantown for the last
forty some years.

He says that:

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of
gas a year.

A new vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons
of gas a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction reduced gasoline
consumption by 320 gallons per year.

The government claims 700,000 clunkers have been replaced so that is 224
million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about
$350 million dollars.

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350
million.

They spent $8.57 for every $1.00 they saved.

They will do a much better job with our health care though.

1 Comment

Entry #273

August 4, 2012
11:00 am

Democrats push special deal for gay illegals

Associated Press - 8/4/2012 6:05:00 AM

SAN FRANCISCO - Amid pressure from Democratic lawmakers, Homeland Security officials reiterated Friday that a foreigner's longstanding homosexual relationship with a U.S. citizen could help stave off the threat of deportation.

Friday's statement, which builds on comments Homeland Security officials made last summer, came three days after 84 lawmakers demanded the agency put its position in writing to help protect same-sex couples from deportation.

"It is significant to me because it is expressly inclusive of LGBT families," said Lavi Soloway, an immigration attorney who represents a number of same-sex couples in deportation proceedings.

However, "as long as it's not in writing it doesn't mean that much for an individual in deportation," Soloway said.

Continues:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1646234

3 Comments

Entry #272

August 3, 2012
6:43 pm

Homeland Security: Forget the border...

Homeland Security: Forget the border.... we have Americans to bust

It’s a rough life being an ICE agent, especially these days.
Ever since President Obama decided he was a king and used an executive order to grant amnesty by unilaterally enacting the congressionally rejected Dream Act, ICE agents have been in a sort of limbo.
No longer able to do their jobs rounding up young illegal immigrants, they have also been ordered to ignore calls from law enforcement in Arizona since the Supreme Court upheld that state’s law allowing officers to inquire into detainees’ immigration status.
And with the closing of nine Border Patrol stations, the ICE folks must be spending a lot of time playing Pac-Man.
Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, told Fox News, “Morale is in the toilet right now. Most of the guys out in the field are just in an uproar.”
Obama’s executive order calls for officials to use prosecutorial discretion to let young illegal immigrants stay in the country.
Cox said that’s no discretion at all and ICE superiors are ordering officers to release suspects that don’t meet the Department of Homeland Security’s own criteria for release. In at least one case, an officer who refused what he believed to be an improper order was suspended.
The agents have apparently adopted a seige mentality and feel they are in a no-win situation.
“They’ve got their heads down,” Crane told Fox. “We feel like the administration is against us and not the people who are violating our laws.”
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is revving up its plans to use drones to keep an eye on American citizens.
In fact, the first American arrested with the assistance of a Predator drone had his appeal denied by a judge Wednesday.
Rodney Brossart, who probably would have landed in jail anyway, was arrested last year after a day-long standoff with law enforcement over his refusal to return six cows that wandered onto his North Dakota ranch.
At some point during the standoff, the DHS offered law enforcement the use of its drone, which let police determine Brossart’s and his family members’ locations on the ranch and whether they were armed.
The court on Wednesday ruled that use of the drone was proper and did not require a warrant.
Back on the border, Border Patrol agents are reporting a surge in border crossings by immigrants who claim to be “Dreamers,” eligible to be in the United States under Obama’s Dream Act order.
Among the immigrants is what’s being called an unprecedented surge of children. The strain on social support services has been so great that some of the children are being housed at military facilities in Texas and elsewhere.
In a recent press conference, Crane said that Border Patrol agents no longer have any criteria for turning people away from the border: “Our orders are: if an alien said they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go. Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything.”
Since the executive order, there have also been reports of suspects in criminal cases being summarily released because “they’re Dreamers.”
With no controls on the border and increasing surveillance of Americans at home, the administration seems to be using an invading army in fighting a war against its own people.

Read more: http://godfatherpoli.../#ixzz22Wcjg8YM

2 Comments

Entry #271

August 1, 2012
6:06 pm

Rationing begins: States limiting drugs...

Rationing Begins: States Limiting Drug Prescriptions for Medicaid Patients

Sixteen states have set a limit on the number of prescription drugs they will cover for Medicaid patients, according to Kaiser Health News.

Seven of those states, according to Kaiser Health News, have enacted or tightened those limits in just the last two years.

Medicaid is a federal program that is carried out in partnership with state governments. It forms an important element of President Barack Obama’s health-care plan because under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act–AKA Obamcare–a larger number of people will be covered by Medicaid, as the income cap is raised for the program.

With both the expanded Medicaid program and the federal subsidy for health-care premiums that will be available to people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level, a larger percentage of the population will be wholly or partially dependent on the government for their health care under Obamacare than are now.

In Alabama, Medicaid patients are now limited to one brand-name drug, and HIV and psychiatric drugs are excluded.

Illinois has limited Medicaid patients to just four prescription drugs as a cost-cutting move, and patients who need more than four must get permission from the state.

Post Continues on cnsnews.com

http://bighealthreport.com/4235/rationing-begins-states-limiting-drug-prescriptions-for-medicaid-patients/

4 Comments

Entry #270

August 1, 2012
5:35 pm

And when you can't win an election on merit...

Attacks on christianity are desinged to silence Christians and keep them at home on election day.

Rush Limbaugh said that the attack on a business like Chick-fil-A is tactical. It’s “a direct assault on Christianity — a direct assault on Christians — with economic punishment thrown in, including threats from government officials that are in direct violation of the Constitution.”From its earliest days, Christianity has been attacked because Christians viewed the State as a “minister of God” (Rom 13:4) and not a god. In some circumstances they “must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), including Caesar. Dictatorial governments that believe they are god don’t like competition. That’s why in the French and Russian revolutions, God was persona non grata. The same was true in North Korea, Cuba, and Communist China.It’s been said that “we owe the moral force which won our Independence” on the puritan pulpit.[1]

The annual Election Sermon bears witness that our founders “began their civil year and its responsibilities with an appeal to Heaven, and recognized Christian morality as the only basis of good laws.” In addition, the clergy were often consulted by the civil authorities in the colonies, “and not infrequently the suggestions from the pulpit, on election days and other special occasions, were enacted into laws. The statute-book, the reflex of the age, shows this influence. The State was developed out of the Church.”

Enemies of freedom understood the impact that Christians and Christianity had on America. Alexis de Tocqueville observed long ago:

“On the eve of the revolution, in his last-ditch attempt to stave off impending catastrophe, Edmund Burke reminded the House of Commons of the inseparable alliance between liberty and religion among Englishmen in America.”[2]

Many Christian pastors today are unaware of this history with the result that they avoid the topic of politics. Politics is said to be dirty. Isn’t the pulpit the place where dirt (sin) is to be exposed and washed away through a redemptive process?

Paul told the Ephesian elders that he did not shrink from declaring to them the “whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27). When confronted by the Roman government, he declared his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25–30) and later appealed to Caesar for justice (25:7–12). In time the Roman Empire fell and Christianity marched on.

Paul repeats the commandments prohibiting adultery, murder, and theft (Rom. 13:9), and sums up his specific exhortation on the law with the general command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (13:9). These instructions came after he informed his fellow-Christians that the civil magistrate is a “minister of God” (13:4) who is to make a determination between good and evil behavior (13:3). It’s these truths that secularists despise. That’s why they are on the attack and have silent pulpits as their unwitting allies.

These commandments have multiple social applications. The civil magistrate is to love his neighbor by not burdening him with excessive taxation and bureaucratic entanglements to frustrate his God-endowed freedoms to earn a living and provide for his family.

No doubt the magistrate is to work for a civil order that results in a “tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Tim. 2:2).

In the first-century, all that these Christians could do was to appeal to God with “entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings” since they had no freedom to petition the Roman Empire with their political wishes (1 Tim. 2:1).

We have that freedom and right. We can “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It’s written right in the Constitution. God through His mercy has established the United States as a civil society in which we can through our voice and vote make changes for the betterment of all. To remain silent in the face of evil is a grave sin.

Notes:

John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution or, The Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 with a Historical Introduction, Notes, and Illustrations(New York: Burt Franklin, [1860] 1970), xxxviii. [?]
Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding (Indianapolis: LibertyPress, 1991), xiv. [?]

1 Comment

Entry #269

August 1, 2012
5:22 pm

Hillary compares islamic violence to Christianity

Hillary compares islamic violence to Christianity

You can’t help but wonder if Hillary Clinton was always blind to the nature of radical Islam or if she’s been influenced by her aide Huma Abedin.
Clinton defended her aide during a speech on religious freedom Monday in Washington, D.C.
Abedin has been in the news lately because the Left is shocked — shocked, they say — that a group of Congress members asked questions about her family ties to the Muslim extremist group the Muslim Brotherhood, which has come to power in Egypt and been the power behind the scenes in some of the “Arab Spring” uprisings.
When Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other Republicans authored a letter to officials in the State Department asking about several issues regarding infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood in our government, Sen. John McCain and Rep. Keith Ellison jumped to attack Bachmann and try to portray the letter as an unwarranted attack on Abedin.
What the Republicans actually did was not attack Abedin, but merely ask questions about whether her family’s ties to the Brotherhood, which no one seems to have denied, had been examined when she was interviewed for her security clearance. It wasn’t even the major issue of the letter, which also asked about federal agents’ terrorism training, the Brotherhood’s political influence and other issues.
Clinton continued to divert attention from the issue of a Brotherhood-connected aide having easy access to the Secretary of State of an administration that seems to have linked its fortunes to the Brotherhood in the Middle East.
No, in Clinton’s and the Left’s minds, it’s all about protecting diversity:
“I don’t see enough of that. I want to see more of it. We did see some of that in our own country. We saw Republicans stepping up and standing up against the kind of assaults that really have no place in our politics. So we have to set an example, there is no doubt about that. And we have to continue doing so.”
Clinton and the rest of the Left thrive in a climate of moral relativism, so it’s no surprise that Clinton’s speech turned into a dismissal of Islam’s record of violence and an attempt to justify it by comparing Muslim terrorism to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, which always had as much or more to do with nationalist and unionist politics than religion.
Here’s the quote:
“Religions against one another, it is even within religions, within Christianity, within Judaism within, oh, Islam, within Hinduism there are people who believe their version of that religion is the only right way to believe. And so in some of the countries that we are concerned about that are majority Muslim countries it’s the intimidation and violence against Muslims who are in minority sects that we most worry about. We watched for many years the conflict in Northern Ireland against Catholics on the one side, Protestants on the other, so I think you’re right that there always are issues about terrorism, about separatism, but those should be dealt with under the law without infringing on the rights of people whose religious beliefs are different from the majority.”
She is right that Muslims love to fight each other. The Shiites and Sunnis have been at it for centuries.
But in regards to countries involved in the Arab Spring, it’s interesting that Clinton expresses worry about Muslim groups but says nothing about the Christian groups that are seeing churches burned, homes destroyed, and families tortured and killed.
Since last week, Muslim villagers in Dahshour, Egypt, have been hurling fire bombs at each other and burning Christians out of their homes after a Christian laundry operator accidentally burned a Muslim customer’s shirt. At least one person has been killed.
In Syria, Christians have been targeted by both government forces and rebels, who are reportedly led by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that President Obama has helped fund the Syrian rebels. At least two prominent members of the Christian community have been killed in recent days, according to OneNewsNow.com, although names have not been released.
In just one incident in October 2011, the new Egyptian government’s security forces killed 25 demonstrators and injured 300 more, most of them Coptic Christians. The Egyptian government has also been turning a blind eye toward murders of Christians and destruction of churches, according to the federal government’s updated International Religious Freedom Report.
In a March letter, Bachmann and Sen. Rand Paul urged Clinton to suspend $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt because of the atrocities being committed against Christians. The aid was supposed to be contingent upon the State Department certifying that the new Egyptian government was protecting freedom of speech and religion.
“A decision to waive the conditions on military aid would send the wrong message to the Egyptian government that U.S. taxpayers will subsidize the Egyptian military while it continues to oversee the crackdown on civil society and to commit human rights abuses,” the letter read.
Later that same month, Clinton waived the certification requirements and resumed aid to Egypt.
Presenting the report Monday to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Clinton even acknowledged that incidents of human rights abuses seem to have increased since Egypt’s transition to “democracy.”
What she hasn’t done is answer the question of whether her aide was properly vetted and whether she or the president may have been influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Americans deserve answers to those questions.

Read more: http://politicaloutc.../#ixzz22KT3G5IR

3 Comments

Entry #268

August 1, 2012
5:13 pm

Lesson on Social Security

A History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
1934 - 1980

With the elections just a little over 3 months away you'll soon be hearing some Democrats running for political office, warning how the Republicans want to take away the old people's Social Security.

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this it's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. You need to know the truth!

Here are the cold facts:
Social Security Cards, issued in 1934, and up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and that card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.

When Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary!

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.

Under Johnson, another Democrat, the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore, Democrats, Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' for us -- you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party!!!

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, because so many have been misled!
But it's worth a try!

How many people do you know that need to be educated about

their Social Security?!

(Locked)

Entry #267

August 1, 2012
2:17 am

Corzine won't be charged - Holder connection.

Read the following story. How anyone can support such a
corrupt administration is beyond beliefs of what is right.

Former Democratic Senator Jon Corzine was the CEO of the now bankrupt M
F Global Fund which lost 1.6 Billion dollars of clients money. The
money just vaporized, they couldn't figure out where it went until they
recieved a 275 page investigation report that showed they had used
clients money onj the other side of their business to cover option
trading calls. Which as you can believe is illegal.

Jon Corzine has not and will not be charged with any wrong doing. What
! you've got to be kidding me. Nope. Attorney General Eric Holder and
Asst. Attorney General Lanny Breuer had worked for the law firm of
Covington & Burling which happens to represent M F Global. Anyone else find this curious?

When addressed on 10-28-2011 M F Global told regulators that the
clients funds had a balance of $200 million more than deposited. Which
was not correct unless you can lose $1 billion over the weekend on 10-30-2011
they then reported that the clients fund actually was minus $952 million.

3 Comments

Entry #266