Joe the plumber says Alan Keyes ‘could probably fix this country in two years’
The unexpected hero of the 2008 election — “Joe the plumber” — recently talked about Alan Keyes in an interview with Associated Press.
In the interview, Joe Wurzelbacher of Holland, Ohio — who became an instant household name during the third presidential debate — told an AP film crew that “There’s a gentleman named Alan Keyes. . . . I have no doubt he’d probably fix this country in two years.”
Click here to see the video of Joe’s entire remarks. And be sure to visit AmericasRevival.com for any additional developments in the final days before the election
Friday, October 24, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Always More Info
Here is an interesting read found Make sure to share it with all of you family and friends.
on http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html
The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are "coming out" and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.
Many homosexuals' claim that...
They are made that way.
Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.
If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.
Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)
Made that way?
Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said...
"Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."1
In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.
Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument2—Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results".6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.
The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states 'that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity... This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.'7 The report affirms that 'the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin'.7
The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that 'male and female He created them' (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan—male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.
Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.
The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.
The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28—'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth'. This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms 'that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.'7
Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.
No harm?
Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8
Effect on others
Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.
'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22:6).
You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God's grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.
Nobody else's business?
Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.
'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination' (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).
Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority.
Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.
Equally valid?
Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.
'For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another...' (Romans 1:26-27).
The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means 'men who sleep with men'. It is the same Greek word used for 'homosexual offender' in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as 'abusers of themselves with mankind' (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).
Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behaviour. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and...
'Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them”' (Genesis 19:4-5).
"While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. ...It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having 'known' a man (19:8)."9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.
Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. "The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an "abomination". This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22."10
It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is 'sodomy'.
Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as 'Jonathan “loved” David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David's presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)'.11
However, 'David's “love” for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).'12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David's love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.
Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God's presence ('my temple'), but practising homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.
Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.
Punishment
The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).
Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.
"...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Hope
However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.
'Liberal' churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of 'love'. They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, 'because they can't help it'. They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.
Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the 'liberals' tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can't help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13
Conclusion
As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.
Tue, 2008-10-21 23:49 That's....
jheaton Says:
better. Just had to get the one tick out of the blood stream! Kinda tough though when The Bee is giving special treatment to such insects. Maybe The Hive's caretakers need to state why the appear to not regulate The Hive's comments and then with an e-mail and a false charge posts are removed.
Just make it easy on yourselves guys......remove the ability to post comments. Should have seen this coming after the Barry Hussein endorsement.
on http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html
The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are "coming out" and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.
Many homosexuals' claim that...
They are made that way.
Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.
If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.
Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)
Made that way?
Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said...
"Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."1
In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.
Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument2—Hamer's X-chromosome research,3 LeVay's study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results".6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.
The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states 'that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity... This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.'7 The report affirms that 'the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin'.7
The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that 'male and female He created them' (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan—male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.
Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.
The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.
The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28—'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth'. This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms 'that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.'7
Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.
No harm?
Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8
Effect on others
Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.
'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it' (Proverbs 22:6).
You cannot faithfully teach God's Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God's Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God's grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.
Nobody else's business?
Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.
'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination' (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).
Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority.
Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.
Equally valid?
Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.
'For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another...' (Romans 1:26-27).
The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means 'men who sleep with men'. It is the same Greek word used for 'homosexual offender' in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as 'abusers of themselves with mankind' (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).
Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behaviour. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and...
'Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them”' (Genesis 19:4-5).
"While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean 'to have sex with,' nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. ...It means 'to know sexually' in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having 'known' a man (19:8)."9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.
Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. "The very next verse of Ezekiel (v. 50) calls their sin an "abomination". This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22."10
It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is 'sodomy'.
Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as 'Jonathan “loved” David (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David's presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41)'.11
However, 'David's “love” for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).'12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David's love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.
Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God's presence ('my temple'), but practising homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.
Other scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.
Punishment
The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).
Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.
"...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Hope
However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God's grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.
'Liberal' churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of 'love'. They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, 'because they can't help it'. They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.
Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the 'liberals' tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can't help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.13
Conclusion
As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.
Tue, 2008-10-21 23:49 That's....
jheaton Says:
better. Just had to get the one tick out of the blood stream! Kinda tough though when The Bee is giving special treatment to such insects. Maybe The Hive's caretakers need to state why the appear to not regulate The Hive's comments and then with an e-mail and a false charge posts are removed.
Just make it easy on yourselves guys......remove the ability to post comments. Should have seen this coming after the Barry Hussein endorsement.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Useful Idiots Of The Left
Just had to post this to my larger audience. Check out the Liberal/Bamabats scream and shout and attack the messenger instead of defending there beloved socialist message. Tex and the Mountain chick who love to attack; well, yourstruly just had to retun fire with a few well placed shots. Enjoy the exchange. I wonder if there is a cure for rabid liberalism. The hate is going to kill them!
So some think Barryhood's idea of taking money from the highly motivated working people and giving it some who are not quite as efficient in earning a living is going to make the US a better place. Not a chance. Here is a good peice on this topic.
http://liberalismisinsanity.blogspot.com/2008/10/spread-wealth-thinking-caused-economic.html
By John W. Lillpop
Those who applaud Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" communist blatherings ignore the fact that pity pot communists in Washington, D.C., caused the economic meltdown which has terrorized America and the entire world for several weeks....
Don't have good credit? Again, good credit is vastly overrated, especially when it comes to minorities and low-income folks. Good grief, if government would only force employers to pay more money, everyone could pay their bills on time.
Don't have stable employment? So what else is new? That is a given for minorities in racist America, especially in the disastrous Bush economy! We understand!
Don't have enough income to qualify for a loan? Again, racism takes a nasty toll. Once again, it is your Democrat Nanny who will force those evil lenders (mostly white Republicans!) to "expand" debt-to-income ratios, AND make your application a "stated income loan" so that all families can partake of the American Dream.
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:03 Didn't someone just write a begging letter
truthseekersTex Says:
to a Mortgage company saying"please reduce my payments they're going to be to high and I won't be able to pay them, I know I agreed to make them but..."? Would that be included in the bail out? But I guess thats completely different.
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:19 It's okay truth-
jerseygirl Says:
things that are of a completely different matter are where people who think like this blogger take comfort; it's all they have.
This blogger is a socialist and doesn't even know it... and therein lies the beautiful irony of it all. Every time he drives on public roads, every school he's ever attended, every police officer who patrols his streets, every fire fighter that would come to a screeching halt if he dialed "9-1-1..." it's all paid for by your taxes, my taxes- his taxes. This idea of taking a portion of earned income to provide for the better good, well, in America- it's called socialism. I guess he could choose not to participate, and then be a sessionist like Sarah Palin's husband, but somehow... I doubt that.
So he needs fear to write and fear to think and fear to retort; it's all he's got. I know I don't like paying taxes- who does? But then, how many people do you see walking on a dirt path to go to work because they'd rather do that than use the roads socialism has paved?
Socialism... ooh, evil! Now I know what to dress up for Halloween- my pay stub! Now that's scary!
"Man's capacity for evil makes democracy necessary and man's capacity for good makes democracy possible." -Reinhold Niebuhr
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:27 Another great post jerseygirl!
truthseekers Tex Says:
As some like to say...SPOT ON...you go girl!
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:33 Nice....
jheaton Says:
that the pack runs together. Yes Grandpa Truf, I negotiated without any help from the government a new loan agreement. No government nanny needed. It is called self reliance. And local fire and police service ain't "socialism." But people like you two don't care. You, grampa Tex from Modesto, enjoys reading Magaret Sanger bedtime stories to the wee ones; which is a generic term for the young and ignorant of mind. Guess you missed that dumas!
As for whatever you are writing about JG....who knows. You are so full of hate for Bush, and probably either all men and yourself, you do nothing but vomit the looney left's propaganda and play it off as if you are some sort of heroine with a pen. So you two should skip on back to you litter box and leave the heavy thinking to the qualified.
"I care not of what others think I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do. That is character!" Teddy Roosevelt
So some think Barryhood's idea of taking money from the highly motivated working people and giving it some who are not quite as efficient in earning a living is going to make the US a better place. Not a chance. Here is a good peice on this topic.
http://liberalismisinsanity.blogspot.com/2008/10/spread-wealth-thinking-caused-economic.html
By John W. Lillpop
Those who applaud Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" communist blatherings ignore the fact that pity pot communists in Washington, D.C., caused the economic meltdown which has terrorized America and the entire world for several weeks....
Don't have good credit? Again, good credit is vastly overrated, especially when it comes to minorities and low-income folks. Good grief, if government would only force employers to pay more money, everyone could pay their bills on time.
Don't have stable employment? So what else is new? That is a given for minorities in racist America, especially in the disastrous Bush economy! We understand!
Don't have enough income to qualify for a loan? Again, racism takes a nasty toll. Once again, it is your Democrat Nanny who will force those evil lenders (mostly white Republicans!) to "expand" debt-to-income ratios, AND make your application a "stated income loan" so that all families can partake of the American Dream.
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:03 Didn't someone just write a begging letter
truthseekersTex Says:
to a Mortgage company saying"please reduce my payments they're going to be to high and I won't be able to pay them, I know I agreed to make them but..."? Would that be included in the bail out? But I guess thats completely different.
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:19 It's okay truth-
jerseygirl Says:
things that are of a completely different matter are where people who think like this blogger take comfort; it's all they have.
This blogger is a socialist and doesn't even know it... and therein lies the beautiful irony of it all. Every time he drives on public roads, every school he's ever attended, every police officer who patrols his streets, every fire fighter that would come to a screeching halt if he dialed "9-1-1..." it's all paid for by your taxes, my taxes- his taxes. This idea of taking a portion of earned income to provide for the better good, well, in America- it's called socialism. I guess he could choose not to participate, and then be a sessionist like Sarah Palin's husband, but somehow... I doubt that.
So he needs fear to write and fear to think and fear to retort; it's all he's got. I know I don't like paying taxes- who does? But then, how many people do you see walking on a dirt path to go to work because they'd rather do that than use the roads socialism has paved?
Socialism... ooh, evil! Now I know what to dress up for Halloween- my pay stub! Now that's scary!
"Man's capacity for evil makes democracy necessary and man's capacity for good makes democracy possible." -Reinhold Niebuhr
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:27 Another great post jerseygirl!
truthseekers Tex Says:
As some like to say...SPOT ON...you go girl!
reply »
Mon, 2008-10-20 20:33 Nice....
jheaton Says:
that the pack runs together. Yes Grandpa Truf, I negotiated without any help from the government a new loan agreement. No government nanny needed. It is called self reliance. And local fire and police service ain't "socialism." But people like you two don't care. You, grampa Tex from Modesto, enjoys reading Magaret Sanger bedtime stories to the wee ones; which is a generic term for the young and ignorant of mind. Guess you missed that dumas!
As for whatever you are writing about JG....who knows. You are so full of hate for Bush, and probably either all men and yourself, you do nothing but vomit the looney left's propaganda and play it off as if you are some sort of heroine with a pen. So you two should skip on back to you litter box and leave the heavy thinking to the qualified.
"I care not of what others think I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do. That is character!" Teddy Roosevelt
Monday, October 13, 2008
Barry Had A Ghost Writer
Good ol' Barry may not be the aurthor behind his books. This article at World Net Daily is quite convincing. But of course,one is racist by merely asking such questions!
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815
Posted: October 13, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
The emergence of a previously unseen writing sample proves all but conclusively that Barack Obama did not in any meaningful way write "Dreams from My Father," the book Time Magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."
The emergence of a second writing sample, this one by a legitimate author, provides convincing evidence as to who did.
In 1990, the University of Illinois at Springfield published a collection of essays called "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois." Obama contributed a chapter, titled: "Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City."
The year 1990, by the way, was when Obama, the newly elected president of the Harvard Law Review, received a six-figure advance from Simon & Schuster to write what would become "Dreams from My Father."
The publishers must not have read "Why Organize?" Although the essay covers many of the issues raised in "Dreams" and uses some of the memoir's techniques, it does so without a hint of style, sophistication or promise.
Indeed, the essay is clunky, pedestrian and wonkish – a B- paper in a freshman comp class. The following two excerpts capture Obama's range, or lack thereof:
Moreover, such approaches can and have become thinly veiled excuses for cutting back on social programs, which are anathema to a conservative agenda.
But organizing the black community faces enormous problems as well … and the urban landscape is littered with the skeletons of previous efforts.
These cliché-choked sentences go beyond the merely unpromising to the fully ungrammatical. "Organizing" does not "face." "Efforts" do not leave "skeletons." "Agendas" do not have "anathemas."
In "Why Organize?" Obama makes use of the fully recreated conversation, a technique used to somewhat better effect in "Dreams." Here, his ungainly conjuring of black speech makes one cringe:
"I just cannot understand why a bright young man like you would go to college, get that degree and become a community organizer."
"Why's that?"
"'Cause the pay is low, the hours is long, and don't nobody appreciate you."
Obama asks us to believe that five years later, without any additional training, he was capable of writing passages like the following from "Dreams":
Winter came and the city turned monochrome-black trees against gray sky above white earth. Night now fell in midafternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairie storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds.
To read "Why Organize?" in its entirety is to understand the fraud that is Obama, the literary genius. As the reader will see, one does not need forensic software to sense the limits of Obama's skills.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815
Posted: October 13, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
The emergence of a previously unseen writing sample proves all but conclusively that Barack Obama did not in any meaningful way write "Dreams from My Father," the book Time Magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."
The emergence of a second writing sample, this one by a legitimate author, provides convincing evidence as to who did.
In 1990, the University of Illinois at Springfield published a collection of essays called "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois." Obama contributed a chapter, titled: "Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City."
The year 1990, by the way, was when Obama, the newly elected president of the Harvard Law Review, received a six-figure advance from Simon & Schuster to write what would become "Dreams from My Father."
The publishers must not have read "Why Organize?" Although the essay covers many of the issues raised in "Dreams" and uses some of the memoir's techniques, it does so without a hint of style, sophistication or promise.
Indeed, the essay is clunky, pedestrian and wonkish – a B- paper in a freshman comp class. The following two excerpts capture Obama's range, or lack thereof:
Moreover, such approaches can and have become thinly veiled excuses for cutting back on social programs, which are anathema to a conservative agenda.
But organizing the black community faces enormous problems as well … and the urban landscape is littered with the skeletons of previous efforts.
These cliché-choked sentences go beyond the merely unpromising to the fully ungrammatical. "Organizing" does not "face." "Efforts" do not leave "skeletons." "Agendas" do not have "anathemas."
In "Why Organize?" Obama makes use of the fully recreated conversation, a technique used to somewhat better effect in "Dreams." Here, his ungainly conjuring of black speech makes one cringe:
"I just cannot understand why a bright young man like you would go to college, get that degree and become a community organizer."
"Why's that?"
"'Cause the pay is low, the hours is long, and don't nobody appreciate you."
Obama asks us to believe that five years later, without any additional training, he was capable of writing passages like the following from "Dreams":
Winter came and the city turned monochrome-black trees against gray sky above white earth. Night now fell in midafternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairie storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds.
To read "Why Organize?" in its entirety is to understand the fraud that is Obama, the literary genius. As the reader will see, one does not need forensic software to sense the limits of Obama's skills.
The Useful Idiots
That are what many an Obamanut have become. Blindly following the "golden calf" over the cliff and smillin' all the way. This article by Thomas Sewell is a good one on this subject. If you want to see a few of these idjits at work just click on my The Hive link.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- LENIN is supposed to have referred to blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in the Western democracies as "useful idiots." Yet even Lenin might have been surprised at how far these useful idiots would carry their partisanship in later years -- including our own times.
Stalin's man-made famine in the Soviet Union during the 1930s killed more millions of people than Hitler killed in the Holocaust -- and Mao's man-made famine in China killed more millions than died in the USSR. Yet we not only hear little or nothing about either of these staggering catastrophes in the Communist world today, very little was said about them in the Western democracies while they were going on. Indeed, many useful idiots denied that there were famines in the Soviet Union or in Communist China.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- LENIN is supposed to have referred to blind defenders and apologists for the Soviet Union in the Western democracies as "useful idiots." Yet even Lenin might have been surprised at how far these useful idiots would carry their partisanship in later years -- including our own times.
Stalin's man-made famine in the Soviet Union during the 1930s killed more millions of people than Hitler killed in the Holocaust -- and Mao's man-made famine in China killed more millions than died in the USSR. Yet we not only hear little or nothing about either of these staggering catastrophes in the Communist world today, very little was said about them in the Western democracies while they were going on. Indeed, many useful idiots denied that there were famines in the Soviet Union or in Communist China.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Poor Tex From Modesto
Tex from Modesto who blogs under the name of truthseekers is anything but. The telling part of this poor man's lack of morals and mental skills is revealed when he refers to children as zygotes. I wonder if he signs the grandchildren's birthday cards.."Tom my loving zygote, someday you can support infanticide like grandpa."
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
10 minutes and 51 seconds of truth that should change the minds of most people who are still ignorant enough to vote for Barry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)