Coin Toss's Blog

Pelosi Making Millions From Off Shore Investments

Democratic Party continues to hammer away at Mitt Romney for some outsourcing of companies while at Bain Capital, their own leaders are raking in the dough from the very same thing.

To start with, Democratic Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one of those attacking Romney for his involvement in outsourcing companies overseas.  She lambasts him for doing any kind of business or making money outside the U.S. and even lies about it to make him look worse than he is.

Like so many other Democrats, Schultz is a not only a raving lunatic, but a hypocrite to boot.  Schultz was recently quoted as saying:

“Americans need to ask themselves, why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that?  Just something, a thought, that I’d like to leave folks with.”

What she failed to say at the same time was that she has investments in Swiss banks, the State Bank of India and in overseas drug companies.

But wait, there’s more!  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who has also been actively criticizing Romney’s business dealings has herself made millions from foreign investments.  For instance, her 2011 financial disclosures listed an income up to $5 million from an international capital group that specializes in Asian investments.

Even more hypocritical of Pelosi is the fact that she invested in Moduslink Global which just so happens to be one of the outsourcing companies linked to Bain Capital and Mitt Romney.  Oh, Nancy, can we say pot calling the kettle black?  Are you sure you want to start casting stones in your glass house?

It galls me the way Obama and other Democrats have twisted and smeared Romney’s business decisions while he was at Bain Capital.  They make it sound like all he did was either close down companies or send them overseas, all at the expense of American jobs.  It shows just how little moral ethics they have

It also demonstrates their complete lack of any business understanding, which is why they’ve driven the U.S. to verge of financial collapse.

If you were asked to take over a company that was financially failing and do what you could to save it from going under, what are your options?  In some cases, the company is financially unsalvageable and the only thing to do is close it down before it continues to create more debt that it could never repay.  For other companies, the cost of doing business in the U.S., especially when unions are involved, is so expensive that they cannot compete in the open market and make enough money to stay afloat.  The only two options are to close the company and eliminate all of the jobs or to move the company outside the U.S. where labor and tax costs are considerably less, allowing the company to remain in business.  Then there is a third option and that is to restructure the company in such a way as to turn it around and make it profitable and in the process save and even create jobs.

What the Democrats fail to say in their campaign attacks on Romney is that he used the third option to help save a number of companies, saving jobs here in America and even creating more jobs.  Companies that Bain invested in or purchased during Romney’s tenure, that proved to be successful and in some cases help save the company and jobs included: Staples, Gartner Group, Calumet Coach and everyone’s favorite Domino’s Pizza.  Since Romney’s departure, Bain has continued on under many of the policies he created and have been involved in the success of many more companies including: Burger King, Toy’s ? Us, Dunkin Donuts, Michaels and Burlington Coat Factory.

I strongly suggest that Democratic leadership start looking at their track record under Barack Obama and the loss of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted on failed green jobs starting with Solyndra.  What about Obama’s 2008 campaign promise of creating 5 million green jobs?

And if the Democrats want to start talking about outsourcing, let’s discuss the Democratic National Convention coming up soon in Charlotte, North Carolina.  The Democratic National Committee used extortion tactics and purposely outsourced numerous contracts for the convention to out-of-state companies even though local companies could have met those contracts for less money.  The jobs were outsourced because the local companies were not union.

I recall growing up hearing a statement that liars only heap coals upon themselves and if that is the case, Schultz, Pelosi and Obama have enough coals already heaped up to keep them burning for centuries, if not eternity.

 Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6111/pelosi-making-millions-from-off-shore-investments/#ixzz20RlKUZlf

Entry #220

If you can't say anything bad about your opponent, make it up

Ah, campaign season.

There’s mud in the air, the attack ads are blossoming and the liars have a spring in their step.

It goes without saying that it’s the Obama camp’s favorite season.

Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was having a good time on MSNBC (All Barack All the Time!), giggling with Alex Wagner about Mitt Romney’s overseas accounts and tax returns.

Asked if Romney had done anything illegal, Wasserman-Schultz said, “We don’t know because Mitt Romney has only released one year of tax returns and an estimate of another year, and that’s totally contrary to his own father when he ran for president, and who said that releasing only one year is unacceptable because it could be an anomaly. Mitt Romney needs to come clean.”

Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden, speaking to a meeting of La Raza (the Communist Party must have been booked), was reading from the same party memo, complaining about Romney’s investments and comparing him to his father. “He wants you to show your papers, but he won’t show us his,” Biden said to loud applause from the largely Latino audience.

It’s reminiscent of one of those summer camp storytelling sessions where people try to scare their audience by any means necessary: “… and ever since then, the ghost of Bobby Billy-Bob has haunted this campground … AND HE’S RIGHT BEHIND YOU!”

It would be more entertaining if the Democrats wouldn’t all read from the same script, though. Still, “E” for effort.

They’re playing to their core audience, of course: “… and ever since then, Mitt Romney’s had a foreign investment account … AND HE’S MADE MONEY WITH IT!” (Screams from startled audience members.)

And implying unnamed financial improprieties without any evidence, well that’s just the marshmallow on the stick.

The problem is that they think they’re playing to a broader audience. I suspect that after four years of King Obama, however, most American voters are able to see through the act.

Having Obama functionaries accusing Romney of not disclosing information is a little Twilight Zone to say the least. Especially when the storytellers are people like Wasserman-Schultz, who has had her own investments in Swiss bank accounts, the state bank of India and foreign drug companies.

“Deceive, inveigle, obfuscate” is the order of the day at Camp Obama, where the narcissist-in-chief has sealed all his records and uses a Social Security number that may have been issued to a dead person from a state Obama never lived in, and the White House issues a clearly manipulated birth certificate yet no one cares.

It’s understandable why the Obama campaign is tearing down Romney any way it can. King Obama can’t run on his record or anything resembling the truth, so he’s hoping that voters will once again be distracted enough by his campaign rhetoric to fall for his empty promises and non sequiturs a second time around.



Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6107/if-you-cant-say-anything-bad-about-your-opponent-make-it-up/#ixzz20MDgF13d
Entry #219

8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of obamacare

The Doctor Patient Medical Association conducted a survey of doctors across the country.  The survey took place from April 18 through May 22 of this year and was conducted on line and by fax.  Of the 30,000 fax numbers of doctors in active clinical practices, 16,227 doctors successfully received the faxed survey.  Of these, only 699 physicians completed the survey either by fax or going on line.

The results of those that responded indicated an overwhelming belief that Obamacare will be a complete disaster and that many of them are seriously considering leaving their medical practices because of it.  Here are some of the statistics gathered from the survey:

  • 90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK
  • 83% say they are thinking about QUITTING
  • 61% say the system challenges their ETHICS
  • 85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN
  • 65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems
  • 72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care
  • 49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients
  • 74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
  • 52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE
  • 57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them
  • 1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion
  • 2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially
  • 95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE
  • 80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things
  • 70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.

 

When you combine all of the responses from the doctors that took time to fill out the survey, it says that they want the government out of medical profession and that Obamacare will not work.  Therefore, 83% say that they are thinking about quitting their medical practices.  They don’t want to be told by the government how to treat their patients and they don’t want to have to wade through mountains of paperwork the government will require.

Three quarters of them say that they will stop taking Medicaid patients because of Obamacare.  The program, supported by the U.S. Supreme Court calls for extending the number of people that will fall under Medicaid coverage, but if 3 of every 4 doctors quit accepting Medicaid patients, it won’t matter how much the coverage is extended as there won’t be any doctors to treat them.

It also shows that the majority of doctors in private practices are barely surviving financially and that they feel that under all of the demands and restrictions of Obamacare that there is no way for them to avoid losing money.  This is the reason so many of them are considering the option of walking away from their practices.

If this survey is any indication of what is coming with the implementation of Obamacare, it spells out the complete collapse of the medical industry in America.  The only places where anyone will be able to receive treatment will be in corporate medical facilities, which means longer waiting to get in to see the doctor and longer waiting for any testing, surgeries and or other procedures.

Chances are you will never see the same doctor twice which means that none of them will be familiar with your health and any medical conditions.  This impersonal form of medicine increases the likelihood of missed diagnosis, wrong treatments, wrong prescriptions, and more malpractice issues.  We will no longer be patients with names and real lives as we’ll just be a number to the government run doctors.

The saddest and most discouraging aspect of this survey is that even if you shoved it in the face of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, it wouldn’t change their minds on anything.  With those two continually telling lies about what Obamacare really is, the truth won’t matter to them until it becomes history, and even then they’ll blame others and point their fingers at someone else.  Unless we can get a Republican president and Senate in November’s election, the medical world in America will collapse and take the nation down with it.



Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-doctors-thinking-of-quitting-because-of-obamacare/#ixzz20MC4TH5P
Entry #218

Is Obama intentionally destroying America?

Is Obama intentionally destroying America?

David Limbaugh addresses theories about BHO's true motives for 'transforming' nation

During my book “tour,” radio hosts are forever asking me whether I believe that Obama is intentionally attempting to destroy America. It’s a fair question, especially given the title of my book and because so many people legitimately believe he is.

I have never been too receptive to conspiracy theories, and I’m not particularly enamored of ones circulating about Obama. But unlike many other such theories, this one is about a truly unprecedented assault on the American idea and on those first principles that have made America the unique experiment in constitutional governance it has been.

Ordinary people – not just a small fringe group of zealots – are really afraid today. They see the country they adore being attacked at all levels; they see their freedoms under assault, their life savings genuinely in jeopardy, an endlessly anemic economy, a longer period of sustained unemployment than we’ve experienced in a half-century and a national financial crisis, born of world-historic national debt, this president will not help avert.

These are extremely troubled times. The government is on course to gobble up our health-care system; businesses are afraid to hire because of the uncertainties caused by new taxes and regulations that will be unleashed with Obamacare – along with the largest tax increase in the nation’s history, which is already awaiting us in January. Small businesses see an administration that not only is at war with the private sector but also appears to be on a mission to punish and obliterate our domestic energy sources and waste billions more in borrowed federal dollars on green energy projects doomed to fail.

Why? How can anyone explain this insanity? Does Obama truly harbor a grudge against America? What did he mean when he said he wanted to fundamentally change America? What did his wife mean when she said she’d never been proud of America in her adult life before he rose to power? What possesses Obama to deride and apologize for America? What drives him to instinctively distrust business and the private sector and to believe that federal planners ought to have enormously more discretion in how our income and wealth are distributed? What drives him to reject the American concept of equal opportunity and promote the notion of equality of outcomes? Why is he determined to energize labor unions and encourage a permanently adversarial climate between labor and management? Why is he so adamant about the United States deferring to international bodies in the conduct of its foreign affairs? Why is he hellbent on downscaling our nuclear and conventional forces and dismantling our military space program and our missile defenses?

David Limbaugh’s brand new book chillingly documents the destructive “transformation” of the United States – get “The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic”

Are people not wholly rational in wondering just what in the world is going on?

My personal belief is that Obama, like so many leftist radicals, has a strong distaste for pre-Obama America and that he believes that the United States has been an imperialistic international bully, that we’ve consumed too much of the world’s resources, that we’ve been an environmental felon and that our capitalistic system unfairly and inequitably distributes income and wealth – and I think he means to effect wholesale change to rectify those sins.

Do I believe that he wants to “destroy” America, as such? No. In his mind, as warped and foreign as I think it is, he doubtlessly believes he is helping to create a better America – a utopia of sorts. That is, he is intentionally trying to fundamentally transform America into something that he believes would be better but that most Americans – and infinitely more if they understood the full scope of what he is up to – would consider horrific, an America we would barely recognize as the one bequeathed to us by our ancestors.

On the financial front alone, Obama is single-handedly preventing entitlement and discretionary-spending reform, without which – as I’ve said dozens of times – America will face financial catastrophe. There is less than zero question that he is doing that on purpose, regardless of whether you think he is otherwise intentionally damaging America. There is no question that he is acting as though he has a vendetta against the oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power industries. There is also little question that he is intentionally dividing Americans on the basis of race, economic class, gender, sexual orientation and, sometimes, religion.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the damage Obama is doing to the republic, and we haven’t even touched on his unconstitutional and lawless usurpations of authority. The question isn’t whether he is intentionally destroying America. The question is whether he is intentionally pursuing a set of policies that are definitely damaging America, irrespective of his motives.

The answer is – irrefutably, emphatically – “yes.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/is-obama-intentionally-destroying-america/

Entry #217

Barack Obama: A rights-denying machine

CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS

Barack Obama: A rights-denying machine

Exclusive: Mychal Massie asserts BHO has no authority to offer political giveaways

The constitutional role of government is not to give things away – nor is it the function of the president or Congress to use the promise of what amounts to gifts as a means of graft to have things their way, to ensure their re-election or to entrench a particular political party.

The constitutional role of the government is to establish a system of currency, defend our shores, deliver the mail and protect our individual rights. It is important to note that government is to protect our individual rights. It is not the constitutional role of government to give us rights. It is not the constitutional role of government to decide what those rights are, and it certainly is not government’s role to deny our individual rights.

Taken literally, the Constitution assumes us to have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – as cited in the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers understood that a government with the power to grant individual rights and freedoms would have even more power to arbitrarily deny them – and they had King George as a vivid and tangible reminder of same.

They understood that our Creator is God Almighty not government, and that it is God who endows us with our rights.

Our government violated the Constitution the moment it presumed to know what rights were best for us and what rights were not.

It is not the role of government to decide what we eat, drink, wear or drive. It is not the role of government to decide the educational curriculum for our children. It certainly is not the role of government to mandate what insurance we must have.

I refuse to support any candidate whose campaign message consists of what he or she is going to give us. I will only support candidates who tell us that they will work to bring government back in line with the authority of the Constitution.

Presidents and candidates have, with great efficiency, used the promises of what they will give us to ingratiate themselves to the people, which is in direct opposition to what the Constitution says they should be focused on.

Franklin D. Roosevelt promised retirement benefits as a right. As Walter Williams wrote: “The Social Security pamphlet of 1936 read, ‘Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States Government will set up a Social Security account for you. … The checks will come to you as a right.’ … Decades after Americans were duped into thinking that the money taken from them was theirs, the Social Security Administration belatedly and quietly…[explained], ‘Entitlement to Social Security is not (a) contractual right.’”

Now fast forward to Obama telling us health care is a right. Constraints of space do not permit me to list every fallacious statement Obama has told about health care. But by now most have seen, read and/or heard of his interview with George Stephanopoulos in which he categorically stated his health-care mandate was not a tax. Yet that is exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled that it is.

Now think about this. Take a look at the mess government has made out of Social Security. Take a look at the abysmal job Obama has done pursuant to promising jobs, etc. Government under Obama has done nothing to protect our shores from illegal-alien criminals and the Postal Service is by any measurable standard a monolith of ineffectiveness. Are we going to trust his government with health care, which is one-sixth of the nation’s economy? But I digress.

The Obama government promised “to give,” i.e., “create jobs.” But as CNSNews points out: “The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic stimulus funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 ‘direct’ jobs – meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those jobs. … At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 ‘indirect’ jobs … which means they cost about $1.9 million each.” Combine the two numbers and it means that 5,510 jobs cost, on average, $1.63 million each to produce.

My question to you (and to Obama) is: What “right” did the government have to deny us our “right” to say we refuse to contribute to such waste?

The Declaration of Independence provides us the Grantor of individual rights. It reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Nowhere in those rights does it say government, under fiat of Obama, shall force us to surrender those rights or we will be taxed and punished.

Government under Obama does not have the constitutional authority to force its will on the Catholic Church or any other church. Government under Obama does not have the constitutional authority to use the promise of what they will give and deny as a way to ensure re-election.

If you feel as I do, then the choice is clear. Not only must we elect only those who promise to work to restore the authority of the Constitution, but we cannot allow Obama a second term.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/barack-obama-a-rights-denying-machine/

Entry #216

Brad Pitt's mom in fear after slamming Obama

Brad Pitt, has been scared into silence by the hate-filled, vulgar and even violent reaction to her public assertion that Barack Obama is “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.”

Pitt has even been the subject of death threats following her letter to the editor of Missouri’s Springfield News-Leader in which she asserted failure to vote for Republican presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney constituted a vote for Obama.

WND spoke briefly with Pitt and asked about the media assault against her for her comments as a private citizen supporting Romney. With inflections in her voice that conveyed fear and despair, she quietly and politely said she was not interested in talking to anyone in the media about the incident.

When she was told WND supported her right to speak her mind and is appalled by the threats against her life, Pitt expressed gratitude to WND for being one of the few news agencies doing so. Even her thank you, however, was said in a subdued manner laden with heaviness of heart.

Pitt had every reason to be frightened. Following her letter to the editor in her local newspaper, the mainstream media have painted her comments in a vilifying light.

The Hollywood Reporter published a story headlined, “Brad Pitt’s mother pens anti-gay, anti-Obama letter to local newspaper.” The New York Daily News went further, penning an article originally titled, “Brad Pitt’s mom unleashes anti-gay, anti-Obama fury in letter.”

She Knows Entertainment reported that Pitt actually “hates Obama, ‘gay’ people.”

These slants on the story, however, are mild compared to comments posted on Twitter.

Editors of the Twitter-scouring news site Twitchy exclaimed sarcastically, “Time for the left’s self-proclaimed arbiters of tolerance to teach her a lesson with their hateful, misogynist slurs and death wishes.”

Twitchy then spotlighted some of the tweets it found.

“Brad Pitt’s mom, die,” wrote Twitter-poster Sandy Kownacka.

A tweet from “I Bleed Gaga” echoed similar sentiments, saying, “Brad Pitt’s mom wrote an anti-gay pro-Romney editorial. Kill the b—-.”

Other comments included, “F— you, brad pitt’s mom, the gay community made your kid a star, you whacko,” and, “Brad Pitt’s mom is a dumb c—.”

Many of the comments told her to commit vulgar sexual acts with the commenter.

These statements stand contrary to Pitt’s own statements about his mother. In January, Pitt told the Hollywood Reporter that his mother was a very loving person.

“She’s very, very loving – very open, genuine, and it’s hilarious because she always gets painted in the tabloids as a she-devil,” the actor said. “There’s not an ounce of malice in her. She wants everyone to be happy.”

Jane Pitt originally penned her letter to the editor responding to another reader, Richard Stoecker, who stated that Christians should not vote for Romney based on his Mormonism.

In her rebuttal letter, she acknowledged that there were doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Christianity, but she took issue with the rest of Stoecker’s reasoning.

Pitt wrote, “I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.”

Pitt went on to say, “Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama – a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.”

Her statements on Obama’s record, however, are not opinions, but established facts. Obama himself has come out and said he supports the rights of homosexuals to marry. He has repeatedly backed legalized abortion. While he was a state senator in Illinois, Obama opposed a bill that would have required medical care to be given to infants who survived an abortion.

Unlike his mother, Hollywood actor Brad Pitt has taken a strong stand for same-sex marriage and supports Obama.

Brad Pitt has a long history of support for homosexual causes. He once famously declared he would refuse to marry Angelina Jolie until same-sex marriages were made legal in America in every state.

Following New York’s legalization of same-sex marriage, Pitt said, “It is each American’s constitutional right to marry the person they love, no matter what state they inhabit. No state should decide who can marry and who cannot.”

In 2008, he donated $100,000 to help fight passage of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment in California that recognized marriage as being between one man and one woman. In March, he portrayed homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker in “8,” a play that re-enacted the trial where Walker overturned the amendment.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/brad-pitts-mom-bullied-into-silence/

Entry #215

Obama is not a real black president

Barack Obama is not a Real Black President

StarTrekBlackFaceWhiteFaceI didn’t say it. Morgan Freeman said it. In an interview with NPR to promote his latest film, The Magic of Belle Isle, the popular Oscar-winning actor said that people “conveniently forget that Barack had a mama, and she was white — very white American, Kansas, middle of America There was no argument about who he is or what he is. America’s first black president hasn’t arisen yet. He’s not America’s first black president — he’s America’s first mixed-race president.”

Freeman implied that it’s Obama’s white side that’s the problem. This clearly fits the definition of racism: an ideology of racial superiority and hierarchy.

Freeman wasn’t the first person to comment on the blackness of President Obama. A TIME magazine opinion piece from 2007 carried the title “Is Obama Black Enough?” The article cited comments similar to those of Freeman:

“‘Obama’s mother is of white U.S. stock. His father is a black Kenyan,’ Stanley Crouch recently sniffed in a New York Daily News column entitled ‘What Obama Isn’t: Black Like Me.’ ‘Black, in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves,’ wrote Debra Dickerson on the liberal website Salon.

Writers like TIME and New Republic columnist Peter Beinart have argued that Obama is seen as a ‘good black,’ and thus has less of [a] following among black people. Meanwhile, agitators like Al Sharpton are seen as the authentic ‘bad blacks.’ Obama’s trouble, asserted Beinart, is that he will have to prove his loyalty to The People in a way that ‘bad blacks’ never have to.”

Why would Freeman and others dismiss the blackness of President Obama? I suspect that he is blaming the president’s failures on his whiteness. If he were “authentically black,” as Al Sharpton claimed he wasn’t, there would be the type of changes that liberal blacks have been suggesting for a long time.

You see, President Obama has not been liberal enough. It’s his white side that keeps him from being the radical the Left was hoping for.

If Obama loses in November, liberals like Freeman can always say, “Well, if he had been authentically black, a phrase used to describe a real black person, we would have seen some real hope and change.”

Liberals can’t stop making race the issue of our day. Freeman is no different. While lamenting that race has become an issue, he can’t stop talking about it. “When Barack was elected president,” Freeman went on to say, “a good portion of the country broke into tears because it was proof that we are really Americans — that we are who we say we are. And I thought at the time, okay, we can pretty much stop talking about race here in this country, and concentrate on growth. Well, it didn’t turn out that way quite.”

Yeah, because guys like you keep bringing it up!Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6076/barack-obama-is-not-a-real-black-president/#ixzz20GD6FAT3

Entry #214

Obama, It's Not your Money

‘President Obama, It’s Not Your Money!’

President Obama has decreed that he is going to tax people who make over $250,000 at a higher rate than people making less, and millions of people are OK with it. How did we get to the place when elected officials can tax American citizens at disproportionate rates to pay for debt that was never constitutionally authorized and programs that have no constitutional validity?

Politicians – Democrats and Republicans alike– know that there are fewer high wage earners than lower and middle income earners. The same is true of employers and employees. An employer gets one vote but his or her employees can cancel his vote many times over. It’s no wonder that some of earliest our founders were fearful of an unbridled democracy. John Winthrop (1590–1657) declared democracy to be “the meanest and worst of all forms of government.”[1] John Cotton (1585–1652) wrote in 1636: “Democracy, I do not conceive that ever God did ordain as a fit government either for church or commonwealth. If the people be governors, who shall be governed?”[2] In the Federalist Papers (No. 10), James Madison (1751–1836) wrote that democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention.” Pure democracies are “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. . . . In general [they] have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”[3]

Democracy as it relates to taxing policy has been described as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.

The following is attributed to historian Alexander Fraser Tytler (or Tyler) (1747–1813). While I have not been able to find it in any of his writings, whoever wrote it understood where we are as a nation today:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

We are a nation where a majority of voters have discovered that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, that is, from productive tax payers by putting people in power that will do their bidding. Fifty percent of the voting population doesn’t pay a penny in federal income taxes. Why would they ever vote for a president, congressman, or senator who wants to cut taxes and spending?

Who benefits by the higher tax? The people who vote for the higher tax believe they will. Small business owners are the ones who will pay the higher tax. If they are taxed more, they can’t hire more people, invest in new equipment, and advertise for new business. The wolves end up devouring all the sheep like the countryman who killed the goose that laid golden eggs. “As he grew rich he grew greedy; and thinking to get all the gold the goose could give.



Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6089/president-obama-its-not-your-money/#ixzz20G9uCRdb
Entry #213

Democrat pushing to convert public schools to muslim madrassas

Democrat Pushing to Convert Public Schools to Muslim Madrassas

If you have had any doubts about Muslims trying to push their religion and ways upon the rest of America, you need to check out Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN).  And yes, this is the same Rep. Andre Carson who last August said that the Tea Party wanted to see blacks hanging on trees.  Now he admits that he and his wife are pushing Muslim educational practices in the public schools.

Carson represents Indiana’s 7th Congressional District which encompasses most of Marion County including the state capitol of Indianapolis.  Carson, who was born and raised in Indianapolis, is a devout Muslim who took office in March 2008 after a special election.  His predecessor in the House just happened to be his grandmother, Julia Carson who died in office in 2007.  Julia Carson was a Baptist, not a Muslim.

On May 26, 2012, Rep. Carson was in Hartford, Connecticut speaking at the 37th Annual Islamic Circle of North America-Muslim American Society Convention.  During his address to the audience, Carson said:

“America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged, where the foundation is the Quran.  And that model that we are pushing in some of our schools meets the multiple needs of students.”

A ‘madrassas’ is defined as a Muslim school, college or university, often associated with a Mosque that teaches everything in relation to the Quran.  Carson’s wife, Mariama Shaheed, is a principal in the public school system in Indianapolis and from the video of her husband’s speech, she is pushing the Muslim madrassas form of education in the public school where she works.

 

If a Christian said anything about pushing Christian education based upon the Bible, the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and States would both be rushing to the nearest courthouse to files all kinds of lawsuits.  But it seems that no one is raising an eyebrow when a U.S. Congressman openly admits that he and his wife are pushing Muslim based education into the public schools in Indianapolis.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see Muslim prayers allowed in the same schools where Mariama Shaheed works.  There can be no doubt that their ultimate goal is to Islamize America and make it One Nation Under Allah.



Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6023/democrat-pushing-to-convert-public-schools-to-muslim-madrassas/#ixzz1zsl09EL8

 

Entry #212

The koran is coming to a public school near you

Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana, is a Muslim. He wants government (public) schools to follow Islamic teachings and methods:

“America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged, where the foundation is the Quran. And that model that we are pushing in some of our schools meets the multiple needs of students.”

Carson is the second Muslim serving in Congress. Keith Ellison (D. Minn.) is the first Muslim elected to Congress. The goal of Muslims is to take over America, one congressional seat at a time. “There are over 7 million Muslims in this country,” Carson said. “And while we are under attack, we cannot retreat.”

Early in its history, America experienced Islamic fascism. The Barbary pirates habitually preyed on ships from “Christian nations,” enslaving “Christian” seamen. “Barbary was Christendom’s Gulag Archipelago.”[1] Thomas Jefferson, embroiled in a war with Islamic terrorists in his day, commented, “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”[2]

Little has changed since the eighteenth century. In Joseph Wheelan’s well researched book on America’s first war on terror with Islam, he writes that “Jefferson’s war pitted a modern republic with a free-trade, entrepreneurial creed against a medieval autocracy whose credo was piracy and terror. It matched an ostensibly Christian nation against an avowed Islamic one that professed to despise Christians.”[3]

The Koran’s peace initiatives are Orwellian: “War is peace.” Peace is the absence of any religious or political opposition. This is the indisputable history of Islam as Paul Johnson writes:

Koranic teaching that the faith or “submission” can be, and in suitable circumstances must be, imposed by force, has never been ignored. On the contrary, the history of Islam from Arabia was followed by the rapid conquest of North Africa, the invasion and virtual conquest of Spain, and a thrust into France that carried the crescent to the gates of Paris. It took half a millennium or reconquest to expel the Moslems from Western Europe. The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the “occupied territories” of the Holy Land.[4]

 Islamists are using our constitutional freedoms and good that will eventually deny us our freedoms.

Notes:
  1. Stephen Clissold, The Barbary Slaves (New York: Barnes & Noble, [1977] 1992), 4. [?]
  2. Thomas Jefferson, congratulatory letter to Lt. Andrew Sterett (1760–1807). Quoted in Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801–1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), 102. [?]
  3. Wheelan, Jefferson’s War, xxiii. [?]
  4. Paul Johnson, “‘Relentlessly and Thoroughly’: The Only Way to Respond,” National Review (October 15, 2001). [?]


Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6033/the-koran-is-coming-to-a-public-school-near-you/#ixzz1zseuoaPd
7 Comments (Locked)
Entry #211

FBI Agent: I saw angels at 9/11 crash site

A former police officer and FBI official who retired due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder claims she saw angels when she first responded to the Pennsylvania crash of hijacked Flight 93 during the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“The angels started appearing on the perimeter of the crash site,” Lillie Leonardi said in an interview with Pittsburgh television station WTAE.

“They were dressed as if they were in warrior garb like a Roman centurion, and there were so many of them, you couldn’t see their faces.”

Leonardi has just published a book about her account, titled, “In the Shadow of a Badge: A Spiritual Memoir.”

In a video on her own website, she gives more details of what she saw at the crash site, explaining, “All of a sudden, I kept seeing this flicker of light. You saw all these angels manifest. One in particular, in front, that I knew, it was Michael. He knew I was there to do something. I just didn’t know what it was at that moment. He’s the conduit to God as far as I’m concerned. I’m then the conduit for other people to listen to what has to be said. And then it’s their choice to decide what to do.”

At the time of the disaster, Leonardi was the community-affairs coordinator for the FBI in its Pittsburgh division.

When she initially arrived at the crash site, she told the Associated Press that “the biggest thing for me is that that there were no bodies.”

“I’m used to crime scenes but this one blew me out of the water. It just looked like the ground had swallowed up” the plane, she noted.

“That’s when I started seeing like shimmery lights … and it was kind of misty and that’s when I first saw, like, the angels there,” Leonardi said. “And I didn’t say anything to the guys because you can imagine if I would have said, ‘I just saw angels on the crash site,’ they’d have called the office and they’d have said, ‘She lost her mind and tell her to go home.’”

Leonardi kept what she saw to herself for nearly two years, but as emotional and physical ailments surfaced that she would later learn were PTSD-related, she told others, including her former FBI supervisor Kenneth McCabe.

“I believe her. I read the whole book,” McCabe told AP. “I know she believes 100 percent that’s what she saw. I know she’s a sane person so I’m not going to discount what she says she saw.”

Lillie Leonardi believes she saw Michael the archangel at the Pennsylvania crash site of Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001.

Rev. Ron Lengwin, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, is a personal friend of Leonardi, and he interviewed her on his weekly radio show, Amplify.

“I have no reason to believe that she did not see angels,” Lengwin told AP. “I think it’s not surprising to me that God could choose to say that he was present there to give comfort to people, and to give comfort to the people who were there to give comfort to other people.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/fbi-agent-i-saw-angels-at-flight-93-crash-site/

Entry #210

Why does obama censor God from the Declaration?

Schalfly: Why does Obama censor God from the Declaration?

by Joel McDurmon on Jul 4, 2012

Phyllis Schlafly writes,

Who does President Barack Obama think he is that he can change the wording of the Declaration of Independence? Again and again he presumes to quote the great Declaration while making a significant change: he omits the word “Creator.”

Americans know that the Declaration of Independence proclaims as a matter of fact that they “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But when Obama recites this line, he omits the word “Creator.”

Listen carefully to how Obama censors that famous line. Here are his own words: “all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights.” He doesn’t say who endowed us.

Obama has done this so often that it can’t be a slip of the tongue or a glitch of the teleprompter. Changing the words of the Declaration of Independence is part of Obama’s determination to remove everything religious and every mention of God from every aspect of our public life in order to fundamentally transform us from “one nation under God” into one nation under the Federal Government, especially the executive branch, with no higher power recognized.

http://americanvisionnews.com/4000/schalfly-why-does-obama-censor-god-from-the-declaration

Entry #209

Feds label liberty lovers 'terrorists' ... again!

Feds label liberty lovers 'terrorists' ... again!

Warns of right-wingers 'suspicious of centralized federal authority'

The study and related data were recently produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START, at the University of Maryland. START was launched with a $12 million grant from DHS and is recognized by the organization as one of its “Centers for Excellence.” In December, DHS announced it was renewing START’s funding with another $3.6 million.

START recently released a study titled, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008.”

The report noted that nearly one-third of all terrorist attacks from 1970 to 2008 occurred in five metropolitan counties run by Democrats.

The counties were Manhattan, New York, Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, San Francisco County and Washington, D.C. The report went on to list groups by ideology such as right-wing, left-wing, religious and single issue.

Interestingly, the report appears to have key data missing when it comes to Islamic terrorism.

On Page 22, Table 4 lists “hot spots” for religious terrorism by decade. For the 1990s, it shows there was no religious terrorism in New York or Los Angeles and only two terrorist attacks during the 2000s.

Patrick Poole, writing in PJ Media, noted that the report apparently does not consider the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to be terrorism. Also omitted was a 1994 shooting by Rashid Baz, who killed 16-year-old Jewish student Ari Halberstam and attempted to murder dozens more in a van on the Brooklyn Bridge.

The report also ignores the 2002 shooting at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. Following the attack, which killed two and wounded four others, the FBI and Justice Department concluded that the shooter, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, was an Egyptian terrorist who wanted to be a Muslim martyr.

Also, by cutting the report off at 2007, it was able to omit events such as the Fort Hood massacre by Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people and wounded 29 others, and the Little Rock Army recruiting center, where a Muslim convert shot soldiers in front of a recruiting office.

When defining “left-wing,” START said it wanted “to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish ‘a dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists).”

This description would appear to apply to members of Occupy Wall Street, who have called for violence to achieve their ends. A speaker at a Los Angeles OWS rally said in order to achieve its goals, the organization would need to engage in violence similar to what was done in the French Revolution with mass beheadings. The groups have also received the endorsements of the Nazi and communist parties.

In a video, the speaker said, “One of the speakers said the solution is nonviolent movement. No, my friend. I’ll give you two examples: French Revolution and Indian so-called Revolution. Gandhi today is, with respect to all of you, Gandhi today is a tumor that the ruling class is using constantly to mislead us,” he said. “The French Revolution made fundamental transformation, but it was bloody. India, the result of Gandhi, is 600 million people living in maximum poverty. So, ultimately, the bourgeoisie won’t go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class. Long live revolution! Long live socialism!”

The report appears to be at odds with the Southern Poverty Law Center – which, while listing WND as a hate-group, ignores the Occupy Wall Street movement’s violence.

However, examples of what START considers to be “right-wing” include “groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent.” The report also goes on to describe right-wing “terrorists” as those who are reverent of individual liberty and suspicious of centralized federal authority.

Under such a definition, the Founding Fathers might have been considered right-wing terrorists.

WND contacted START about the designations and was told that, unlike previous reports by other government entities claiming that members of groups such as the tea party are terrorists, the START study was intended to refer only to those who actually committed terrorist acts.

The report also defines as potential terrorists those who want to “forcibly insert religion into the political sphere” and are opposed to abortion.

This is not the first time a government report has listed conservative groups such as evangelical Christians and tea-party members as potential terrorists.

WND has reported on how the DHS had previously issued another report listing returning veterans and Christians who believed in end-time prophesies as potentially dangerous right-wing extremists.

A report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center warned law enforcement agencies to watch for individuals with bumper stickers for third-party political candidates including Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. It also identified those opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes as possibly harboring radical ideologies.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/feds-label-liberty-lovers-terrorists-again/

Entry #207

Definition of Irony

Definition of Irony

The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to 
be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, 
asks us to "please do not feed the animals," because the animals may grow 
dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

Entry #206