Only the Educated Should Be Allowed to Vote

Stupid people should not vote. How can one argue otherwise? In a nation where everyone has an equal chance to make something of their life provided they are determined to do so, I say it is fundamentally wrong to award

 the lazy or ignorant with the same rights as the hard worker and intellectual. That in of itself is a crime against democracy and a crime against intellect.

Read more:  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/44051/only_the_educated_should_be_allowed_pg2.html?cat=9

Is WikiLeaks a Terrorist Organization?

Would Restrict First Amendment Freedoms  Think Progress's Matthew Yglesias points out, "the rule is that it’s illegal to be the guy with legal access to classified information who passes it on to outsiders, but once you receive the leak you’re free to do what you want with it." Considering Assange a terrorist "would, it seems to me, necessarily entail challenging our current understanding of the First Amendment. ... King’s suggestion that we designate WikiLeaks as a foreign terrorist organization is in part grandstanding and in part an effort to devise a way to begin restricting freedom of the press."

Read more:  http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Is-WikiLeaks-a-Terrorist-Organization-5978

"The law is not what Hillary Clinton says it is." - Julian Assange, WikiLeaks

Asked what his "moral calculus" was to justify publishing the leaks and whether he considered what he was doing to be "civil disobedience," Assange said, "Not at all. This organization practices civil obedience, that is, we are an organization that tries to make the world more civil and act against abusive organizations that are pushing it in the opposite direction." As for whether WikiLeaks was breaking the law, he said, "We have now in our four-year history, and over 100 legal attacks of various kinds, been victorious in all of those matters." He added, "It's very important to remember the law is not what, not simply what, powerful people would want others to believe it is. The law is not what a general says it is. The law is not what Hillary Clinton says it is." - Julian Assange, WikiLeaks

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2033771,00.html#ixzz16s9spU3I

VID: SNL Skit on TSA Enhanced Security Procedures #tsa #tyner #grope #wontfly

Since the TSA molested my family, why doesn’t Obama volunteer to subject his family to the same security procedures?

Two weeks ago, my wife flew alone out to Colorado with our two young children. Unaware that the TSA had instituted new and incredibly invasive new security procedures, my wife called me distressed after getting frisked by the TSA. Or as my wife put it, “in some cultures I would be married to my screener by now.” She was joking, but make no mistake — my wife was incredibly disturbed by how intimate a security pat down she received.
So here’s my not-so-modest proposal: If the President’s Homeland Security department is so adamant that this is the absolute best way to prevent terrorism, I think the President and his family should voluntarily submit to one of the new invasive pat down procedures. I know the Obamas don’t fly commercial at all these days, so they should probably get a pretty good idea what the rest of us are putting up with.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/since-the-tsa-molested-my-family-why-doesnt-obama-volunteer-to-subject-his-family-to-the-same-security-procedures-108480699.html#ixzz15lR7CJO1

Does the TSA Ever Catch Terrorists? If they do, for some reason they won't admit it.

Writing in Slate on Thursday, political reporter David Weigel identified a "full-blown revolt against the TSA." On Saturday, would-be passenger John Tyner refused an airport security pat-down with the now-famous phrase "if you touch my junk I'm going to have you arrested"; Texas congressman Ron Paul introduced the American Traveler Dignity Act to establish "that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law"; and several groups have designated Wednesday, Nov. 24 (the day before Thanksgiving), National Opt-Out Day against invasive body scanners. According to the TSA's Web site, new security measures like full-body scanners are just part of its mission "to prevent any terrorist or criminal activity"—but have TSA screeners ever actually prevented a terrorist attack?

Read more at Slate

VID: Raw Foods Raid - The Fight For the Right To Eat What You Want

This summer armed government agents raided Rawesome Foods, a Venice, California health food co-op. What were the agents after? Unpasteurized milk, it turns out.

You Fix the Federal Budget

It takes about a minute.  Persuading your fellow citizens may take a bit longer.

VID: The other side of the White House white board

Recent videos of some Democrat retards before they were booted; care of Breitbart #teaparty

The following videos, which were all featured first here at Big Government, helped provide an insight into what makes the Democratic Leadership tick.  It allowed the American public to see how these upstanding representatives behave when the CSPAN cameras are off, and citizen journalists’ cameras are on.
As much as we appreciate the content they have provided us over the past year, we will be happy to see some of them go back to their civilian life.  And remember, even if you don’t live in their districts, you can still cast a vote against the party that gives these congressmen such influence over our lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness.

Watch videos here

Will it be like 1994 all over again?

Time to pull out the history file to see if the political wave Republicans are riding tonight will prove as powerful as that of 1994.

Or stronger.

Looking back, it appears the Grand Old Party picked up 54 seats in the House and nine in the Senate on Election Day 1994. The GOP got a 10th Senate seat a few months later when Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby swapped parties.

Washington state's delegation in the House wound up with 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats - Norm Dicks and Jim McDermott.

To see a historic division in the U.S. House, go here.

And for the U.S. Senate go here.

In the state Legislature, 1994 affected the two chambers differently. In the Senate, Democrats lost three seats but still wound up with 25 enough for a majority.

Democrats suffered huge losses in the House. By the time the dust settled - a couple Rs defected in early 1995 -- the Dems found themselves going from a majority of 65 to a minority of 32.

Letters: Progressive policies have led us to the brink of disaster

...

Through 2008, average unemployment rate averaged 5.5 percent, consistent GDP Growth was nearly 4 percent and income tax revenues increased from approximately $1.75 trillion to $2.5 trillion dollars.

All the while, the Democrat Party whined "where are the jobs" while voting for any and every spending bill put before them.

The "Tax cuts for the rich" cries from the left, while an effective slogan like "hope and change," are just empty rhetoric not supported by the facts. Tax rate cuts, and you will notice that the term "rate" is never used by anyone, increased tax revenues over 30 percent while the "rich" paid more of the tax burden than ever before. Economic growth is the key, not punishing the creation of wealth that benefits every citizen.

While I disagreed with many decisions the Bush administration made, starting with their Democrat-lite RINO Policies, the ridiculous complaints from Obama and his minions about the last eight years causing today's problems only proves the short attention span of the Voting public and the power of the liberal attack machine currently known as the mainstream press.

Look no further than the Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank caused Fannie/Freddie meltdown and the takeover of Congress by the Pelosi/Reid axis in January 2007 for the problems we face today. Unchecked and unsustainable liberal, or, should I say, progressive policies over the last 70 years have led us to the brink.

The failure of the Republican Party to counteract the welfare state mentality while letting the left frame the argument has done nothing but embolden the enemies of the Constitution while leading us down the road to serfdom. With every act of Congress, a little more of our freedom and liberty is eroded, while the ruling class solidifies its rule over every citizen.

In the meantime, enjoy the Obama/Biden "summer of recovery."

...

QE2 is risky and should be limited

QE1 Didn't Work, QE2 Won't Work, And QE 12 Won't Work Either

The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false

Joe G said...

In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

…

The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

…

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3



As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4


‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

...


1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

Do You “Believe” In “Evolution”?

Yet again, we have this utterly meaningless question asked of an electoral candidate during a debate, in an attempt to discredit her. My response, had I been asked this question, would have been as follows:

Does evolution mean that living things have changed over time? Does evolution mean universal common ancestry? Does evolution mean that random errors filtered by natural selection explain all of biology, including the origin of the functionally specified information encoded in the base-four digital code of the DNA molecule, along with the information-processing machinery that translates it, performs error detection and repair, and much more?

If your definition of “evolution” is the latter, can you supply us with adequate evidence that the probabilistic resources have existed to make this hypothesis a reasonable inference?

Had the debate host, who asked the question in the title of my post, been presented with such a challenge, I can guarantee what his answer would have been:

Huh?

ADVICE TO #GOP CANDIDATES: AVOID ADJECTIVES, NOUNS ARE GOOD ENOUGH

There is no need, this year, to load up negative ads with adjectives painting your opponents as evil, big spenders in the thrall of the DC establishment. The simple facts of your opponents’ voting records are enough to defeat them. Just the facts, ma’am.

Republican negative ad writers always delight in describing the Stimulus package as bloated, wasteful, government-growing, and useless. The adjectives get in the way. The polling we’ve done indicates that the simple words “stimulus package” convey all that and more.

There is no need to call Obama’s health care legislation “a government attempt to take over our health care” or a bill to “slash medical care for the elderly” or an “attempt to force rationing of care.” The simple word Obamacare conveys the same meanings.

Why describe cap and trade as “job killing” or “driving jobs overseas” when the words cap and trade say these same things to voters?

Ads are effective for the response they elicit from the viewers. The more they catalyze a response inside the mind of the voter, the more effective they are. Ads that are heavy on adjectives and have the look and feel of an attack ad run into credibility problems with the average voter. One rebels against a heavy handed attack and you find yourself fighting against the ad, even if you basically believe it to be true. The more even handed and credible the ad is, the more it will be believed.

Leftwing Media Bashing Each Other: Rick Sanchez Calls Jon Stewart “A Bigot”; Says CNN Is Run By Jews

I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah. - Rick Sanchez

Why CNN totally blew the Rick Sanchez Firing

But the focus of my ire is not on Rick Sanchez, all dopes ultimately do themselves in. I am really angry at CNN. Here is CNN's official statement about Rick departure. “Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company. We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well.“
NO! NO! NO! This is a classic example as to why CNN is failing and other media outlets are doing so much better. CNN, let me be crystal clear; Grab a sack, and take a stand. Here is what your statement should have said.
"In light of Rick Sanchez's radio interview, we have fired him. Sanchez's views, which in our view, are clearly anti-Semitic, demand an immediate response, and our response is this, we have asked him to leave CNN immediately. We object strongly to Sanchez's statement that Jon Stewart is a bigot. We also object to Sanchez's statement that the Jewish management at CNN would not advance his career. CNN's management is not characterized by race nor religion. The company that Rick Sanchez described is not our company. We believe in freedom of expression, and we do not care if opinions expressed on our airwaves are not politically correct. We do object when our own employees simply misstate the facts, and allow their own egos to cloud their thinking."
Additionally, CNN should air their own dirty laundry on CNN. This is the perfect topic for Larry King and Joy Behar and all the other talk show hosts. My guess, however, is that, huge mistake number two, CNN probably won't talk about this on the air at all.
Sometimes giant mistakes provide giant opportunities. CNN completely blew that chance here.

Link

VID: Jon Stewart a Bigot - Rick Sanchez

Even it up 9/11: Burn the Koran. U.S. military burned Bibles that were sent to Afghanistan

But Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis at the American Family Association (AFA), thinks it is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. government to condemn the church, considering the fact that the U.S. military incinerated Bibles that were sent to Afghanistan in May 2009.

Bryan Fischer (Amer. Family Assn.)"There's really a staggering level of hypocrisy and double standard here for the military to burn the Holy Bible and then complain when a pastor's going to do the same thing to the Quran," Fischer contends. "You know, if the military was going to be fair here and even-handed, they would count up the number of Holy Bibles that they incinerated in Afghanistan, and then they would allow Reverend Jones to burn the same number of Qurans."

The AFA issues analysis director believes the whole incident illustrates the difference between Christianity and Islam. "When these Bibles were burned [in May 2009], the Christian community did not riot in the streets; we did not threaten violence against anyone," he points out. "[But] when even the threat of Qurans being burned takes place, it's like we're dealing with Armageddon [or] with World War III."

In a OneNewsNow poll conducted in May 2009, more than 60 percent of respondents said -- in reaction to the decision by the U.S. military to destroy the Bibles -- that "if it had been the Quran, this never would have happened."

Is Obama a Christian? Is Palin?

"We do have pretty good evidence that neither Obama nor Palin is a Muslim, however. Islam requires of its believers visible actions, such as praying four times a day and fasting during Ramadan. I think someone would have noticed."

Perhaps when Feisal Abdul Rauf tells him to he will bow down 4 times daily.

VID: Are tax cuts the right approach to fix the economy? Let's ask JFK.

Obama vs. JFK on taxes

Morgan Stanley Says US Government Defaults Inevitable

While the U.S. government’s debt is 53 percent of GDP, one of the lowest ratios among developed nations, its debt as a percentage of revenue is 358 percent, one of the highest, the report said. Italy has one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios, at 116 percent, yet has a debt-to-revenue ratio of 188, Mares said.

Read more:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-25/morgan-stanley-says-government-bond-default-is-question-of-how-not-if-.html

Stupid Lies Democrats Believe / Left's Culture of Hate

What About the Stupid Lies Democrats Believe?
By Larry Elder
… Liberals should be sympathetic. They are quite adept at willfully refusing to face facts, if necessary, to support wrongheaded views. Here are some examples:
“The rich don’t pay taxes.” False. For the 2007 tax year (the latest income tax data year released by the IRS), the top 1 percent of income earners, those making over $410,000 a year, paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent, those making about $160,000 a year or more, paid 60 percent of all federal income taxes. Yet according to a 2008 IBD/TIPP poll, only 12 percent of Americans knew what the rich, in fact, paid in taxes. And liberals are likelier to get it wrong.
“The rich exclusively benefited from the Bush tax cuts.” MSNBC’s insufferable lefty Ed Schultz said: “Ninety-eight percent of you, it (the Bush tax cuts) doesn’t even affect you.” False. In a recent New York Times editorial, the liberal paper said extending the cuts to the non-rich—a policy it favors—would “cost” about $140 billion next year. Extending the cuts to the rich—a policy it opposes—would “cost” about $40 billion next year. If the tax cuts only benefit the rich, why would the Treasury “lose” more money from the non-rich than it would “lose” from the rich?
“The Bush tax cuts caused the deficit.” CNN’s liberal host Fareed Zakaria said, “The Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit.” False. In 2002, tax revenues were $1.85 trillion. In 2007, revenues had grown to $2.57 trillion—a 39 percent increase. Unfortunately, outlays increased almost as much. In 2002, outlays were $2.01 trillion. In 2007—the last year before the recession and before TARP, the various “stimulus” programs, bailouts and ObamaCare—outlays were $2.73 trillion, a 36 percent increase.
“Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.” Thirty-five percent of Democrats, according to a 2007 Rasmussen poll, believe President Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, and 26 percent are “not sure.” False. This was investigated years earlier and refuted by the 2004 bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report.
“George W. Bush ‘stole’ the 2000 election.” False. In November 2001, The New York Times wrote: “A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore.” …

*      *     *      *      *

The Left’s Culture of Hate
By Dennis Prager
… In the left’s worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks — opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays. This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say “There are good people on both sides of the issue” because we actually believe it.
Almost any contentious issue would provide proof of the left’s need to attack motives, but the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero provides a particularly excellent example.
I have not come across a mainstream leftist description of opponents of the mosque/Islamic center being built near ground zero that has not ascribed hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, “Islamophobic” or xenophobic motives to those who oppose the mosque. Contrast this with how mainstream opponents of the mosque describe the proponents of the mosque and you will see an immense divide between right and left in the way they talk about each other. …
Why does the left attribute only nefarious motives to those who believe that the Islamic center does not belong near ground zero?
Because leftism holds these beliefs:
1. Those who hold leftist positions are, by definition, better people than their opponents.
2. Those who hold leftist positions have, by definition, pure motives; therefore, the motives of their opponents must be impure. …

Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

But there is much more to be said of this data and Hoven does an admirable job of summarizing the highlights of such an analysis:
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)
Just some handy facts to recall during coming weeks as Obama and his congressional Democratic buddies get more desperate to put the blame for their spending policies on Bush and the war in Iraq. For more from Hoven, go here.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Little-known-fact-Obamas-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-than-the-Iraq-war-101302919.html#ixzz0xaksfTx0

Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America

Links:
- signers of the Declaration of Independence
- signers of the Articles of Confederation
- Constitutional Convention delegates including signers of the U.S. Constitution
 
Ennumerating the Founding Fathers
The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)
There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.
There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers	# of Founding Fathers	% of Founding Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican	88	54.7%
Presbyterian	30	18.6%
Congregationalist	27	16.8%
Quaker	7	4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed	6	3.7%
Lutheran	5	3.1%
Catholic	3	1.9%
Huguenot	3	1.9%
Unitarian	3	1.9%
Methodist	2	1.2%
Calvinist	1	0.6%
TOTAL	204

The Religious Affiliation of Third U.S. President Thomas Jefferson

By some of the more narrowly-conceived definitions of the word "Christian" which are in use today, particularly among Evangelicals since the 1940s, it is entirely possible that Jefferson's beliefs would mark him as a "non-Christian." Defining Jefferson as a non-Christian must be done purely on contemporary theological grounds, because he was clearly a Christian with regards to his ethics, conduct, upbringing, and culture. Furthermore, to define Jefferson as a "non-Christian" requires using definitions retroactively to classify Jefferson counter to his own self-concept and the commonly understood meanings of words during his own time.

Adherents of other religious groups, including atheists and agnostics, also point to various writings of Jefferson which are in harmony with their positions. The difficulty in classifying Jefferson using a single word for religious affiliation does not stem from a lack of information, but rather a wealth of writing -- which can be interpreted differently depending on a person's perspective. Jefferson left a considerable amount of writing on political and philosophical issues, as well as writing about religion, including the "Jefferson Bible."

In a practical sense, classifying Jefferson as a "Deist" with regards to religious affiliation is misleading and meaningless. Jefferson was never affiliated with any organized Deist movement. This is a word that describes a theological position more than an actual religious affiliation, and as such it is of limited use from a sociological perspective. If one defines the term "Deist" broadly enough, then the writing of nearly every U.S. president or prominent historical figure could be used to classify them as a "Deist," so classifying people as such without at least some evidence of nominal self-identification is not very useful.

Thomas Jefferson: Deist or Christian? Debunking Both Sides

It's interesting that in these absurd culture wars the truth is ignored. On the side of the Religious Right Dr. Kennedy will try to define Jefferson/others as like himself, believing that gives him legitimacy. Same for the radical atheist/socialist left. The fact is both are pathological liars with a political agenda. As a traditional Deist, I'm at odds with both of these groups and so would Jefferson if alive today. Their only real goal is to see who gets the gun they will point at everyone else's head.

Thomas Jefferson: Deist or Christian?

So what about the Jefferson Bible, that miracles-free version of the Scriptures? That, too, is a myth. It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians. Jefferson's "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians" was a tool to evangelize and educate American Indians. There is no evidence that it was an expression of his skepticism.

Jefferson, who gave his money to assist missionary work among the Indians, believed his "abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians" would help civilize and educate America's aboriginal inhabitants. Nor did Jefferson cut all miracles from his work, as Beliles points out. While the original manuscript no longer exists, the Table of Texts that survives includes several accounts of Christ's healings.

But didn't Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? After all, Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in which he cited the First Amendment's creation of a "wall of separation" between church and state, is an ACLU proof-text for its claim that the First Amendment makes the public square a religion-free zone. But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?

VID: The Democrat JetBlue Flight

Religious Founders? Read Their Writings

What makes revisionism so effective is that few citizens actually take time to confrm revisionists' claims or to proclaim to the public the real facts.

Speaking for Themselves
Since the goal of Morris and others like him is to “prove” that people of faith have no precedent for being involved in politics, he characterizes the Founders' general religious beliefs with the same false summary that most revisionists — both in academia and media — often proclaim:

The early presidents and patriots were generally deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the relevance of the Bible.

Yet, the Founders' own declarations in their last wills and testaments [5] disprove those assertions and speak loud and clear that the great majority of our Founders were indeed believers in Jesus Christ. For example:

• First of all, I . . . rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins. Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration
  
  
• To my Creator I resign myself, humbly confding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity. John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution
  
  
• I resign my soul into the hands of the Almighty who gave it in humble hopes of his mercy through our Savior Jesus Christ. Gabriel Duvall, U.S. Supreme Court Justice; selected as delegate to Constitutional Convention
  
  
• This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed. Patrick Henry
  
  
• I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son. . . . Blessed be his holy name. John Jay, Original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court
  
  
• I am constrained to express my adoration of . . . the Author of my existence . . . [for] His forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state. Robert Treat Paine, Signer of the Declaration
  
  
• I think it proper here not only to subscribe to . . . doctrines of the Christian religion . . . but also, in the bowels of a father's affection, to exhort and charge them [my children] that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness. Richard Stockton, Signer of the Declaration

These wills represent only a few examples from many with the identical tone. Furthermore, the personal writings of numerous other Founders contain equally strong declarations. Notice:

• My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God. [6] John Quincy Adams
  
  
• Now to the triune God, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore ­p; Amen.[7] Gunning Bedford, Signer of the Constitution
  
  
• You have been instructed from your childhood in the knowledge of your lost state by nature — the absolute necessity of a change of heart, and an entire renovation of soul to the image of Jesus Christ ­p; of salvation thro' His meritorious righteousness only — and the indispensable necessity of personal holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. [8] Elias Boudinot, Revolutionary Officer and President of the Continental Congress (to his daughter)
  
  
• You do well to learn . . . above all the religion of Jesus Christ. [9] George Washington
  
  
• [D]on't forget to be a Christian. I have said much to you on this head and I hope an indelible impression is made. [10] Jacob Broom, Signer of the Constitution (to his son)
  
  
• On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts. [11] Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration
  
  
• I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ. [12] Thomas Jefferson
  
  
• I think the Christian religion is a Divine institution; and I pray to God that I may never forget the precepts of His religion or suffer the appearance of an inconsistency in my principles and practice. [13] James Iredell, U.S. Supreme Court Justice under President George Washington
  
  
• My only hope of salvation is in the infnite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly! [14] Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration
  
  
• I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him. [15] Roger Sherman, Signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution
  
  
• I shall now entreat . . . you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for "there is no salvation in any other" [Acts 4:12]. . . . [I]f you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish. [16] John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

There are many other examples.

Summary
The evidence is clear; the revisionists are wrong. Although there was some anti-organized-religion sentiment among the Founders (e.g., Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Charles Lee, Henry Dearborn), those with such views were a small minority and, in fact, often were strongly criticized by others for those beliefs.

It is time that Christians retake the academic high ground. When historically false editorials or letters-to-the-editor are written, or when call-in programs make reckless charges, we need to stand up and confront those errors. This will provide an opportunity for those who are undecided on the issue of public religious expressions to formulate their opinions from accurate information rather than from revisionist trash. The most effective defense against revisionism is aggressive truth — and lots of it! If we will faithfully present the truth, the Scriptures assure us that it will eventually prevail.

The Bible mandates free market capitalism. It is anti-socialist. The proof is here.

The essence of democratic socialism is this re-written version of God's commandment: "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote."

"Economic democracy" is the system whereby two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner.
Christian socialists and defenders of economic planning by state bureaucrats deeply resent this interpretation of their ethical position. They resent it because it's accurate.
When Christianity adheres to the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces free market capitalism.
On the other hand, when Christianity rejects the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces socialism or some politically run hybrid "middle way" between capitalism and socialism, where politicians and bureaucrats make the big decisions about how people's wealth will be allocated. Economic growth then slows or is reversed. Always.
Free market capitalism produces long-term economic growth. Socialism and middle-way economic interventionism by the state produce poverty and bureaucracy. If your goal is to keep poor people poor, generation after generation, you should promote socialism. But be sure to call it economic democracy in order to fool the voters.
The Bible is an anti-socialist document. Socialist propagandists for over four centuries have claimed that the Bible teaches socialism, but we have yet to see a single Bible commentary written by a socialist. If the Bible teaches socialism, where is the expository evidence?
When I say that the Bible mandates a moral and legal social order that inevitably produces free market capitalism, I have the evidence to back up my position. My critics -- critics of capitalism -- do not.
The next time you hear someone say that the Bible teaches anything but free market capitalism, ask him or her which Bible commentary demonstrates this. You will get a blank stare followed by a lot of verbal tap-dancing about "the ultimate ethic of the Bible" or "the upholding of the poor in the Bible." You will be given a lot of blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah is not a valid substitute for biblical exposition.

2017: 'The Year America Dissolved'...

As society broke down, the police became warlords. The state police broke apart, and the officers were subsumed into the local forces of their communities. The newly formed tribes expanded to encompass the relatives and friends of the police.

The dollar had collapsed as world reserve currency in 2012 when the worsening economic depression made it clear to Washington’s creditors that the federal budget deficit was too large to be financed except by the printing of money.

With the dollar’s demise, import prices skyrocketed. As Americans were unable to afford foreign-made goods, the transnational corporations that were producing offshore for US markets were bankrupted, further eroding the government’s revenue base.

The government was forced to print money in order to pay its bills, causing domestic prices to rise rapidly. Faced with hyperinflation, Washington took recourse in terminating Social Security and Medicare and followed up by confiscating the remnants of private pensions. This provided a one-year respite, but with no more resources to confiscate, money creation and hyperinflation resumed.

Organized food deliveries broke down when the government fought hyperinflation with fixed prices and the mandate that all purchases and sales had to be in US paper currency. Unwilling to trade appreciating goods for depreciating paper, goods disappeared from stores.

Washington responded as Lenin had done during the “war communism” period of Soviet history. The government sent troops to confiscate goods for distribution in kind to the population. This was a temporary stop-gap until existing stocks were depleted, as future production was discouraged. Much of the confiscated stocks became the property of the troops who seized the goods.

Read more:   http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

From August 31, 2009: [Obama] Another Failed Presidency

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. 

In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

George Bush Jr didn't fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School.  Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate -- thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big.  Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal  put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us.  He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course.  It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

[editor's note: The author is not the not the same person as Geoffrey P Hunt, who works at the Institute for Scientific Analysis as a senior research scientist.]

Read more:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/another_failed_presidency.html

Eric Holder Puts The Lie to the “Post-Racial” President

Ever since Obama won election, the NAACP has been trying to prove that they are still relevant and should still exist. It seems that they have chosen to gin-up charges of racism against whomever is prominent on the right, to wit Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

Why is it that people on the left seem hell-bent to destroy Martin Luther King’s dream of people being judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin? Why is it that people on the left are so quick to ignore or overlook things done by blacks which, if done by whites, would be immediately chastised? Why are blacks getting a free pass when they engage in racism by liberals and the press? These, my friends, is the $64,000.00 questions.

THE END OF THE POST RACIAL PRESIDENCY

Whenever race is mentioned, it hurts Barack Obama’s presidency. The very basis of his presidency is that he is the post racial president. Now he finds himself knee-deep into racial politics.
Some is of his own doing. In suing Arizona over immigration reform, he takes a step that alienates the three-quarters of Anglo voters who back the law. In refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers for their blatant intimidation of white voters in 2008, he alienates fair thinking people of both races. But in firing Shirley Sherrod, he showed African-Americans that he was caving in to pressure from FOX News and the conservatives. Then, by reversing field and reinstating her, the president and his Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack show whites and Republicans-Independent voters that he is caving in to pressure from the African-American community.

There are two common denominators to this equation: race and weakness. Any involvement in racial politics has to hurt Obama at his core. It goes to his fundamental selling point: That he is post racial. By dealing with race repeatedly, he is vulnerable just as Bill Clinton was when he had always to deal with sexual scandal. It is not his strength but can ultimately destroy his credibility.
And then there is weakness. By caving in first to the right and then to the left, Obama acts and looks indecisive and weak. He comes across as out of control and projects the same image of incapacity and chaos that he so amply demonstrated when the oil was gushing in the Gulf. He reminds one of the opening days of the Clinton Administration when it tied itself in knots over the issue of gays in the military. It looks like amateur hour at the White House.
Obama has two conflicting goals: He wants to expand his base among whites and heighten enthusiasm of blacks. Good goals, both. But if he uses racial issues to accomplish either objective — as he appears to do in the Sherrod controversy — he alienates one group in order to win the other. Not a good strategy.

RACIAL POLITICS BLOWS UP IN OBAMA’S FACE

Whenever race is mentioned, it hurts Barack Obama’s presidency. The very basis of his presidency is that he is the post racial president. Now he finds himself knee-deep into racial politics.
Some is of his own doing. In suing Arizona over immigration reform, he takes a step that alienates the three-quarters of Anglo voters who back the law. In refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers for their blatant intimidation of white voters in 2008, he alienates fair thinking people of both races. But in firing Shirley Sherrod, he showed African-Americans that he was caving in to pressure from FOX News and the conservatives. Then, by reversing field and reinstating her, the president and his Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack show whites and Republicans-Independent voters that he is caving in to pressure from the African-American community.

There are two common denominators to this equation: race and weakness. Any involvement in racial politics has to hurt Obama at his core. It goes to his fundamental selling point: That he is post racial. By dealing with race repeatedly, he is vulnerable just as Bill Clinton was when he had always to deal with sexual scandal. It is not his strength but can ultimately destroy his credibility.
And then there is weakness. By caving in first to the right and then to the left, Obama acts and looks indecisive and weak. He comes across as out of control and projects the same image of incapacity and chaos that he so amply demonstrated when the oil was gushing in the Gulf. He reminds one of the opening days of the Clinton Administration when it tied itself in knots over the issue of gays in the military. It looks like amateur hour at the White House.
Obama has two conflicting goals: He wants to expand his base among whites and heighten enthusiasm of blacks. Good goals, both. But if he uses racial issues to accomplish either objective — as he appears to do in the Sherrod controversy — he alienates one group in order to win the other. Not a good strategy.

Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds

The six-month election recount that turned former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota's Twin Cities. 

That's the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman.

Federal Government Helped Pay Home Air-Conditioning Bills for Federal Employees, Prisoners and More Than 11,000 Dead People

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government helped pay the home air conditioning bills for more than 11,000 dead people, 1,100 federal employees, and 725 convicts in fiscal year 2009.

Read more at:  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69005

Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools

The Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

$20 MILLION SPENT ON STIMULUS SIGNS? #obamafail

Obama OKs offshore drilling for Atlantic, Gulf...despite the "gutting" of MMS

The latest liberal ploy is to claim Cheney 'gutting' the Minerals Management Service.

If that is the case then why did Obama OK more offshore drilling before the BP oil spill?

The Libertarian View of Gay Rights, Marriage, and Government Intervention

Most importantly, and I think this is the key point, all of this is only an issue not because of our lack of “separation of church and state” (though I certainly want the government out of the church, it’s far too corrupt) but because we have a state in the first place that constantly infringes upon our civil liberties. Power to regulate personal relationships in any way, including marriage, should never be given to the state. The beauty of the free society is that we can still live at peace with each other even if we do not agree with certain lifestyle choices that others make. What I am proposing in the above paragraphs is simply that restoring civil liberties involves getting the government out entirely.

Thus, there are differing levels to how Christian libertarians must handle this “rights” issue with the state we encounter today:

1. As it pertains to the United States, we should never condone the Federal government handling any kind of marriage issue. Such legislation would not be Constitutional. Instead, we should promote the elevation of individual rights always superseding the government.
2. At the state level, Christian libertarians should not support further government intrusion into marriage in general. This is unacceptable power given to the government. For example, I do not think it right for state governments to pass marriage amendments that either legalize ormake illegal the practice of “gay marriage.”
3. Christian libertarians should, in general, support the recognition of all consensual contracts, including those of the “civil union” type. This is especially reasonable considering that any money the government does not steal is a good thing.

 Read more at:   http://libertarianchristians.com/2010/07/05/gay-rights-marriage-and-government-intervention/

You do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. #atheist

"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else." - Douglas Wilson

VID: BP Spills Coffee

Nobody wishes to underestimate this disaster, or thinks that BP should not be made to pay, but that payment should be proportionate to its culpability.

Nobody wishes to underestimate this disaster, or thinks that BP should not be made to pay, but that payment should be proportionate to its culpability. BP is not a demonic figure in a morality play, it is the sort of organization on which the wealth of the West is built. Unfortunately, politicians — and leftist/authoritarian politicians in particular — like to portray corporations as dangerous exploiters that must constantly be brought to heel. Perhaps the real reason is that they realize that it is only through such entities that jobs and wealth are created. Politicians resent that fact, which makes them all the more eager to press boots to corporate necks, kick ass, or manipulate the mechanism of ducking stools.

Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/25/peter-foster-oil-statism-obama-style/#ixzz0s6LkvZUk

Unions tell Obama what to do and both of them make the BP Oil spill worse #obamafail

The Americans, overwhelmed by the catastrophic consequences of the BP spill, finally relented and took the Dutch up on their offer — but only partly. Because the U.S. didn’t want Dutch ships working the Gulf, the U.S. airlifted the Dutch equipment to the Gulf and then retrofitted it to U.S. vessels. And rather than have experienced Dutch crews immediately operate the oil-skimming equipment, to appease labour unions the U.S. postponed the clean-up operation to allow U.S. crews to be trained.

Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/25/lawrence-solomon-avertible-catastrophe/#ixzz0s6KrrSql

FYI | Why Are We Turning Down Foreign Ships to Clean Up the Gulf?

The Belgian dredging group DEME says it has offered the U.S. specialized vessels and technology that can help clean up the spill in three to four months compared to the estimated nine months that the U.S. will need. There are only a handful of these vessels in the world, and most of them belong to Dutch and Belgian companies. So why aren’t we calling on them?

Blame it on the protectionist Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also called the Jones Act, that requires ships working in U.S. waters to be built, operated and owned by Americans… Presidents can suspend the Jones Act in emergencies, as George W. Bush did after Hurricane Katrina. But the Obama Administration continues to maintain that this isn’t necessary and that there are “no pending requests” for waivers.

Full article on why Obama has turned down foreign aid in the oil clean-up.

What Is Wrong With Immanuel Kant's Philosophy?

A Final Word on Kant

In offering and defending his low estimate of pure reason as incapable of achieving certitude (apart from the mysterious judgments which are synthetic a priori) Kant appeals to his so-called "antinomies" or "contradictions." He holds that when pure reason tries to apply the categories in the abstract realm of logical inference (whereas its business is to pour findings through fixed molds) it gets beyond itself and comes a cropper. It finds that it can prove, with equal facility, things directly opposed. Thus, he says, it can prove that space is finite, and also infinite; it can prove matter divisible and indivisible; it can prove human freedom existent and nonexistent; it can prove that God is necessary and also non-necessary.

In all this, and in the examples offered in proof of it, Kant is entirely gratuitous and sophistical. Besides, he stands self-condemned in using logical reasoning to establish the fact that logical reasoning is useless.

We merely mention the "antinomies" because we discern in them an element of materialism in the heart of an idealistic theory. This materialism was to appear in full form in later philosophies which took inspiration, at least in part, from the doctrines of Immanuel Kant.

Kant's philosophy is fundamentally wrong and is one of the major contributors to the intellectual insanity which we see today.

5 things that can’t be proven or accounted for by science but are still rational to have beliefs about #atheism

1. Logic and Mathematics
2. Metaphysical truths
3. Ethical beliefs
4. Aesthetic judgments
5. Science itself

BP: BARACK PETROLEUM

A government panel of scientists determined that the well is leaking even more oil than previously thought, as much as 2.52 million gallons a day — or enough to fill the Oval Office where Obama sat more than 22 times. The total spilled so far could be as much as 116 million gallons.

BP was founding member of 'cap-and-trade' lobby...

As Democrats fight to advance climate change policies, they are resorting to the misleading tactics they used in their health care and finance efforts: posing as the scourges of the special interests and tarring “reform” opponents as the stooges of big business.

Expect BP to be public enemy No. 1 in the climate debate.

There’s a problem: BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas.

In February, BP quit USCAP without giving much of a reason beyond saying the company could lobby more effectively on its own than in a coalition that is increasingly dominated by power companies. Theymade out particularly well in the House’s climate bill, while natural gas producers suffered.

But two months later, BP signed off on Kerry’s Senate climate bill, which was hardly a capitalist concoction. One provision BP explicitly backed, according to Congressional Quarterly and other media reports: a higher gas tax. The money would be earmarked for building more highways, thus inducing more driving and more gasoline consumption.

Elsewhere in the green arena, BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels and solar energy, two products that cannot break even without government support. Lobbying records show the company backing solar subsidies including federal funding for solar research. The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal agency, is currently financing a BP solar energy project in Argentina.

Ex-Im has also put up taxpayer cash to finance construction of the 1,094-mile Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline carrying oil from the Caspian Sea to Ceyhan, Turkey—again, profiting BP.

Lobbying records also show BP lobbying on Obama’s stimulus bill and Bush’s Wall Street bailout. You can guess the oil giant wasn’t in league with the Cato Institute or Ron Paul on those.

BP has more Democratic lobbyists than Republicans. It employs the Podesta Group, co-founded by John Podesta, Obama’s transition director and confidant. Other BP troops on K Street include Michael Berman, a former top aide to Vice President Walter Mondale; Steven Champlin, former executive director of the House Democratic Caucus; and Matthew LaRocco, who worked in Bill Clinton’s Interior Department and whose father was a Democratic congressman. Former Republican staffers, such as Reagan alumnus Ken Duberstein, also lobby for BP, but there’s no truth to Democratic portrayals of the oil company as
an arm of the GOP.

Two patterns have emerged during Obama’s presidency: 1) Big business increasingly seeks profits through more government, and 2) Obama nonetheless paints opponents of his intervention as industry shills. BP is just the latest example of this tawdry sleight of hand.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Once-a-government-pet-BP-now-a-capitalist-tool-95942659.html#ixzz0r1doJL4z

MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command" ~ Matthews

MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command

Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama's Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:

Olbermann: "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: "Nothing specific at all was said."

Matthews: "No direction."

Howard Fineman: "He wasn't specific enough."

Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a "commander-in-chief."

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."

Matthews: "A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk."

Matthews: "I don't sense executive command."

VIDEO: Obama: Oil Disaster "Most Painful And Powerful Reminder" That We Need Clean Energy

VIDEO: Krauthammer: Obama Gave It A Shot, But The Story Will Not Be His Speech

VIDEO: Frank Luntz Focus Group On Obama's Address: "Negative"

A Mandate to Have Healthcare 'Liability' Insurance would be something like this

This is Robert Brook (RAND), describing his vision for the next phase of health reform [gated], in JAMA:

• What if to obtain and keep health insurance, individuals had to pass something like a driver’s license test?…What skills should be demonstrated?
• Should insurance be more costly, or even withdrawn, not because individuals become sick but because they do not use preventive services or evidence-based care in a manner that both protects their health and reduces health care costs for others?
• Consider a health system in which individuals who have health insurance and are competent to care for themselves would be required to take medications and have procedures known to be necessary and would do so; and a severe penalty would be imposed if they do not.

What if individuals were required to receive vaccines for which they were eligible, as soon as the vaccines became available — and were penalized if they contracted an illness the vaccination could have prevented?

• What if individuals with hypertension or hyperlipidemia who did not take their medications became responsible for some of the costs of future cardiac care?
• Should parents be expected to maintain their young children’s weight-to-height index at the 50^th percentile or less? Should sedentary workers be expected to participate in an exercise program provided at the workplace?

The Progressive 'Democrat' Jihad Against Israel

One of the mainstream Progressive organizations that has pledged its support to this anti-Israel movement is the Progressive Democrats of America, a group organized by Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Barbara Lee, Rep. John Conyers, Rep. Donna Edwards, Tom Hayden (founder of SDS), and Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans of Global Exchange/CodePink.
The Progressive Democrats of America are but one in a slew of mainstream American Progressive groups taking part in these actions against Israel on behalf of Hamas.

Another Progressive organization whose board members are helping Hamas with this program of actions is the Movement for a Democratic Society, or (MDS). Their members include a who’s who of 1960s domestic radicalism.
The full list of the November 2006 MDS board members is available here, but some names jump right off the page:
Bernardine Dohrn – Domestic Terrorist, Northwestern University Professor.
Rashid Khalidi – Very close friend of President Obama, (details at the link). Sits on the Advisory Board of the US Campaign To End The Israeli Occupation.
Carl Davidson – Former SDS. Co-organized the anti-war protest where Barack Obama came out against the Bush Administration.
Tom Hayden – Former leader of SDS, member of Progressive Democrats of America.
Alan Haber – First President of SDS

Below is a diagram of major Progressive groups responsible for the Free Gaza marches and flotillas (Click to view full size image):

These groups have attracted a great deal of public support from some very interesting people and organizations.

Link

Obama and economics: Intellectually clueless

While in high school, I was standing at a bus stop next to a gas station. A kid tossed a candy wrapper on the station lot. Somebody yelled, "Hey, pick that up." The kid, with a straight face, defended himself. He said, "I just created a job." Someone would be hired, he explained, to pick up the trash, and this would be good for the economy.

Don't laugh. The kid probably works for the Obama administration.



Congress is now considering yet another "stimulus" package. But did the administration's previous one work? Of the $787 billion stimulus package, President Obama said it would "save or create" 3.5 million new jobs. Has it?

The National Association for Business Economics polled 68 private-sector members. Seventy-three percent said the employment at their companies was neither higher nor lower as a result of the stimulus package.

Link

VID: Republicans nail Obama in new video: The Finger-Pointing President

Transcript:

The Finger Pointing President-
He started off sounding like a post-partisan candidate that inspired millions…
“On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.” (President Obama’s Inaugural Speech)

That lasted three whole days…

When the Republicans offered a stimulus plan to add twice the jobs at half the cost, the president refused to even discuss it.

Politico: “I won,’ Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.” (1/23/09)
And from there, it only got worse…
“On top of that the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion dollar hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.” (President Obama: 1/27/10)
“We understand exactly who and what got us into this mess. Now, we don’t mind cleaning it up!” (President Obama: 10/20/09)

“The auto interventions weren’t started by me. They were started by a conservative Republican administration.” (President Obama: 8/20/09)

“After they drove the car into the ditch, they made it as difficult as possible for us to pull it back. Now they want the keys back… No.” (President Obama: 5/13/10)
“Now some of you may have noticed, that we have been building this foundation without much help from our friends in the other party.” (President Obama: 6/2/10)
But wait! A presidential moment of clarity?

“I ultimately take responsibility for solving this crisis. I’m the President and the buck stops with me.” (President Obama: 5/28/10)

Nope! More finger pointing
“Much of the last ten years we’ve tried it their way. They gave us tax cuts that weren’t paid for to millionaires that didn’t need them. They gutted regulations and put industry insiders in charge of industry oversight.” (President Obama: 6/2/10)

The finger pointing president: What is lacking in leadership, Is made up for in blame.

Ayers, Dohrn, Code Pink founder Evans helped organize pro Hamas Turkisk flotilla group

 Former Weather Underground leaders William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, as well as Code Pink founder Jodie Evans, helped organize the Free Gaza Movement, which launched the six-ship flotilla from Turkey to Israel that ended in a violent clash with Israeli Defense Forces, BigGovernment.com reported.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/ayers-dohrn-helped-organize-flotilla-group-95435639.html#ixzz0qSWvtL60

Is there a White House-Hamas link?

Israel has eased its Gaza blockade, allowing some food items through for the first time in almost four years. But a recent deadly confrontation in that part of the world has given rise to new information that organizers of the convoy have ties to the Obama administration.

It is believed that John Brennan, a top adviser to President Obama, is the contact person within the White House for communications with the group Free Gaza Movement -- a coalition of leftist organizations with ties to terrorists and to a Turkish Islamist group. This group seeks to challenge Israel's blockade on the terrorist Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, according to a source close to Israel's Netanyahu administration. Acquaintances of Obama -- people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn -- are also key players in this relationship.