Is There Any Difference, Now?

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."  Norman Thomas, 1944  
"I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform." Norman Thomas, 1948
Norman Thomas was a member of the American Socialist Party who ran for president of the United States six (6) times between 1928 and 1948. He stopped running when he recognized that the Democratic Party policies and agendas were identical to those of the Socialist Party. Why doesn't America see it? Socialist Party or Democratic Party. Is there any difference, now?

There was a rally held yesterday in Washington, DC; organized by a group calling themselves "One Nation Working Together". While I was looking around for pictures to accompany this post, I decided not to include any, but here's a link to Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs http://www.atlasshrugs.com/ where you can see arial photos of the "Restoring Honor" rally on 8/28 and yesterday's rally. It appears that only about 1/10 the number of people showed up yesterday, as compared to the earlier rally; even though SEIU bussed people in and Al Sharpton's organization paid people $65 a day to attend. There is also a 45 second video sweep of how those patriotic (not) Americans trashed the United States World War II Memorial yesterday. Also, to note, Jim Holt over at Gateway Pundit has the same pictures; but he also has a post about the take on yesterdays rally by the Iranian news. Iran is calling it a protest against Obama. Interesting.

The article I'm going to address is an Associated Press article picked up by this morning's Washington Times. The article calls the rally a coalition of progressive and civil rights groups. I'll mention who some of those groups are further on. The objective was for "workers" to stand up to the "corporations". Sounds kind of like Nazi Germany, doesn't it?  The "workers' ought to stop and remember that the "corporations" create and provide jobs for the "workers". They wanted to send a message about job creation. I saw an interview on Fox News (yes, I'm a Foxaholic and a proud citizen of Glennbeckistan) with a lady representing LaRaza; she said their goal is for more "investment from the government" in creating jobs? What, wasn't the failed Stimulus Bill and the failed Jobs Bill enough money down the rabbit hole for the Mexicans? America is broke and living on it's credit cards (held by China), with stories like Los Angeles "creating" 55 jobs with the $111 million in federal stimulus money they got; and yet the "workers" want more. Ever heard the old axiom, "you can't get blood out of a turnip"?

The Washington Times article mentioned that Van Jones was at the rally. I'd like to clear up one mis-statement from the article. It said that Van Jones lost his job as "environmental advisor" after Beck made public his disparaging remarks about Republicans. That's like saying the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, that almost burned the entire city down, was a backyard bonfire. Van Jones, who was Obama's "green jobs czar" with a $100 million budget, was asked to resign after several unsavory things about his background came out. In his own words, he was arrested in Los Angeles during the riots that followed the Rodney King beating by police and spent several months in jail. He said he came out of jail transformed into a radical communist. He founded a group called STORM, that calls for the revolutionary overthrow of the American government. He's a progressive who says that the wealth should be taken from the rich and given to the poor. Socialism? He's also on the board of the Apollo Alliance, which is credited with writing the great majority of the Stimulus Bill. What, did y'all really think that the same Congress that has had a year to create a budge for fiscal year 2001 actually wrote a 1,200 page bill and had it ready for Obama to sign 6 weeks after he took office. The Stimulus Bill was already written and ready to go when Obama was elected. But, I digress. Beck did not just "out" Van Jones for calling the Republicans a$$holes. Beck is a Libertarian, one of those who wants the minimum government involvement in our lives as possible; as opposed to the liberals, who want complete control of our lives handed over to the government. Beck's parents were both Democrats, as were his grandparents; he has said repeatedly this is not the same Democratic Party as in his parents time. Compare the Socialist Party and the Democratic Party. Is there any difference, now?

Al Sharpton said yesterday, "I hope people look at the mall because this is what America looks like". Let me tell you some of the organizations involved in yesterdays rally. First, was the SEIU; you know, the "purple people beaters", the purple shirted thugs who put a smack-down on anybody that opposes Obama's policies, even black conservatives like Kenneth Gladney. The SEIU is bought and paid for. Andy Stern got enough of them to vote, not to mention the voter fraud they perpetrated, to sway the 2008 election. In return, SEIU got $800 million thru obamacare to replenish their retirement fund. From accounts I read, they came late to the rally and left early. So, Al, it was a slice of America, was it? I went to the One Nation website and printed off the list of organizations involved, all 26 pages. Some were ethnic organizations; representing blacks, latinos, siks, arabs, etc. There was even a group calling for the end of "Israeli occupation". I, too, think Palestine should stop occupying Israel; but I don't think that's what yesterdays group has in mind. There were religious groups involved; muslims, black liberationists, Christians, etc. Anybody want to try to explain how the United Methodist Church got mixed up in this mess? There were homosexual and transgender advocacy groups there also. But the most vocal and the most visible were the Communist Party and the Socialist Party groups.

Remember how this administration is using catch-phrases to try to camoflage the meaning of every-day terms? Like, the war on terror is now "overseas contingency operation", and illegal immigrants are now "undocumented asylum seekers"? Well, the new term for Socialism is "social justice". Sounds kind of benign doesn't it; like it should be something we all should strive for? Well, don't be fooled. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. Some of the groups behind yesterday's rally have pseudonyms that try to make themselves seem mild as lambs, while they strive for "social justice" (socialism) in America. I looked these up and read their descriptions under their own "about us" tabs; but you can look them up yourself if you don't want to take my word for it. Cloaking themselves under socially acceptable names while touting "social justice" (socialism), were: Sojourners (they also want black reparations), Americans for Democratic Action, Democracy for America, Demos, People's Organization for Progress, Working Families Party, and Ya Ya Network. Like I said, the list was 26 pages long; these are the ones that seemed the most obvious. I'm sure there are many more, that had even more deceptive names, that if you were to scratch the surface, you would find "social justice" (socialism) as their core objective. Isn't it telling that a lot of them have some form of the word "Democrat" in their pseudonym"? Socialist Party or Democratic Party. Is there any difference, now?

And lastly the groups that came right out and told the world what they were about; Chicago Democratic Socialists of America, Committee of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, Communication for Social Change Consortium, Communist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Detroit Democratic Socialist of America, International Socialist Organization, New York City Democratic Socialists of America, and Progressive Democrats of America.  So, "Reverend" Sharpton, is this really what you think America looks like?  I find it noteworthy that even these organizations that declare their communist or socialist intent still align themselves with the principles of, and connect their agenda with, the Democratic Party. Which leads right back to my question: Socialist Party or Democratic Party. Is there any difference, now?

Continuing Resolution

Imagine the CEO (chief executive officer) and CFO (chief financial officer) of any company not bothering to create a budget for their upcoming fiscal year. Imagine them saying, we don't know how we are going to pay our bills or meet our payroll, or how much we need to budget for on a monthly basis, or how much we will have for capital expenditures, how much we will be able to put back into the business, or how much profit we stand to make. Imagine them saying, even though we don't know where we stand financially, how much capital we have, how much we'll have to expend as operating expenses, or whether we have enough capital to meet those expenditures; we are going to resolve to continue doing business as usual. Continuing Resolution. That's what the United States Congress just passed; a Continuing Resolution. So they can all go home; and if Democrat, campaign to try to hold onto their Congressional seat in Novembers election.  As of midnight last night, the United States government has no operating budget for the fiscal year which began today. That's when last years budget expired and the books were closed on it. The House of Representatives is the branch of Congress that deals with financial and budgetary issues, and originates the spending bills. The House has a Democratic majority that means it could pass just about anything it wants to. Yet, the governmental budget has languished unfinished in the House for months. My 80 year old brother-in-law says it's because they (the Democrats) don't want us to know what they are spending. That's about as good an explanation as any. We've seen the massive 1,200 to 2,000 page bills that the Democrats have passed that nobody knows what is in them. The bank bailout, the stimulus bill, obamacare. Do they even know themselves, what they are doing? I kind of doubt it. But a government without an operating budget is like a ship without a rudder. We need to know which direction we're going in, other than the straight into the ground path we've been led down for 19 months. On the other hand, maybe we should wait until November's Republican electees get seated in January and let them do the budget. Either way, I have to wonder just why our Democrat majority Congress hasn't given us a fiscal year 2011 budget yet.

Another major issue that Congress skipped town without addressing is whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts which expire December 31st. That's because they don't want to extend them, but they don't want their constituents to know that for sure before next months election. So, therefore, they just didn't get around to voting on it. Not only that, they voted to not vote on them. According to the Washington Times, House Minority Leader John Boehner, (R) Ohio, called for a motion to stay and vote on extending the Bush tax cuts. That motion was defeated by only 1 vote; three dozen Democrats were brave enough to vote to stay and address the tax cut issue. The bone of contention between the Democrats and Republicans on the Bush tax cuts is that the Republicans want to extend them across the board and the Democrats want to extend them only for people making $200,000 or couples making under $250,000. The Democrats want to take away a tax incentive for businesses, or as they like to refer to them "the rich"; an incentive that made it possible for businesses to grow, put more people to work and be more productive during the Bush years. It was only after Obama "stimulated" the economy into a nose dive and crashed it into the ground that the economy failed. If the tax cuts to businesses made sense when they were implemented, they make even more sense now; when unemployment has risen so drastically under Obama and many millions of Americans need jobs desperately. However, the Democrats want to increase taxes on the wealthy to try to cya on all that unfunded spending they've done, with no way to pay for it. It won't work. History has shown that when tax rates go up, it affects economic expansion negatively, and taxes collected actually go down.

Businesses, large and small, are the job creators in America; not the government, although this administration has grown the government and damaged the private sector to the extent that 30% of the people in America who are fortunate enough to have jobs, work for the government in one capacity or another. Between the uncertainty over how that obscenity thrust upon us known as obamacare will affect their businesses, and the uncertainty over what exactly their tax structure will be January 1, 2011 depending on whether or not the Bush tax cuts will be extended for businesses, companies have stopped hiring for empty positions, have stopped expanding to create new jobs, and have stopped manufacturing and producing goods. A financial publication, The Street, on 9/22/10, listed 9 companies that are sitting on $1.89 trillion in unspent money. I heard last week on Fox that there is about $4 trillion in money that businesses are just sitting on. I don't doubt it, since Fox News Network has a 99% accuracy rate; and adding all other businesses to those 9 named by The Street probably does equal $4 trillion, if not more. As for those left-wing liberals who keep saying the "rich" and "big business" need to pay "their fair share"; just what do you consider "fair"? Back during tax prep season, the Orange County Register reported on 4/10/10 that the top 5% of earners (individuals and businesses) in America pay 60% of all taxes collected; and the top 10% of earners pay 75% of all taxes collected. I think that's fair, and I think the tax cut incentives that has allowed them to be successful to the point that they can support 75% of America's financial needs, ought to be extended. Any person that says these individuals and businesses need to have their tax base increased to up to 65% of what they earn, because they need to pass around what they've made to those that have less, are what is know as a socialist. America is not a socialist country, no matter how hard some are trying. If you want to live in a socialist country, be non-productive, and live off the productive people, then move to Cuba or Venezuela.

Hurricane Congress Fleeing DC Yesterday

Sovereign, no more?

The fifty-six (56) men who signed the Declaration of Independence pledged each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. They formed their rag-tag militias into a poorly organized army, and went up against what was the most formidible military might in the world at that time. Their bravery, their spirit, their desire for sovereignty, led them to prevail over the British Empire; and so they established the Republic (not a Democracy, I can't say that often enough) of the United States of America. I look around at the millions of Americans today, who are willing to follow their Chosen One like sheeple, unquestioningly, as our sovereignty is being stripped away and given over to the United Nations. And I have to wonder, what the hell is wrong with you people? Where is your American thirst for independence, your undauntable spirit?

We've heard so many things the past 19 months that have been handed by this administration over to the United Nations. One is the Small Arms Treaty that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, under the direction of this administration, signed the United States up for. That effectively gives the United Nations authority over EVERY small arm (personally owned weapons) in America. The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves. Another move toward giving up our sovereignty was reported in the Washington Examiner, among other publications, 12/30/09: on December 17, 2009 Obama quietly signed Executive Order 12425. That gave the international police organization, Interpol, complete authority to operate within the United States without constraints. Interpol no longer has to liaison, work with, or even notify, any local, state, or federal law enforcement agency. Interpol no longer has the constraints of our search-and-seizure laws, the need for search warrants, or the requirement of the Miranda Act. Interpol now has the right, given them by Obama, to enter any building in America, arrest any American it deems as criminal under international law, and remove any person from the United States for transport to the International Court in Belgium. And because Interpol is now exempt from our Freedom of Information Act, it can do all that without the knowledge, much less the authorization, of anybody in the United States. And they do it from the offices provided to Interpol by our government within the Department of Justice building. Where's the justice in that?

All those brave colonists that gave their lives during the American Revolution did so that no American, from the poorest peasant (I believed they were still called peasants back then, could be wrong) to the President,  would NEVER AGAIN have to bow to a monarch. Yet, the entire world has seen Obama bow to every monarch he has met; except for, of course, our allies. The bow to the King of  Saudi Arabia and the bow to the Emperor of Japan come to mind. But the biggest bow he has made has been to the United Nations. In an article from the London Telegraph on 8/31/10: "Obama has kowtowed to the U.N. There can be few sights more humiliating for the American people than that of a U.S. president kowtowing to a foreign leader or to supranational institutions . . . most Americans fiercely defend their national sovereignty, and find the idea of giving international organisations a say over their laws and lives completely unacceptable". What I find completely unacceptable is that we have an entire strata of Americans who are willingly allowing this administration to give away our sovereignty. American sheeple.

People, we are the UNITED States, because although each state is sovereign in itself thru rights given to the states by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, we are all Americans. This has been an administrations of "firsts"; things I never thought to see in America. Avowed, self-described communists and socialists holding high offices in the administration, for one thing. Another is the administration, hand-in-hand with a foreign country (yes, Mexico is a co-complainant in the lawsuit against Arizona) filing a lawsuit against one of it's own states for trying to enforce an immigration law that is verbatim of the same law that is already on the federal statues. Now, another "first"; for the first time ever, this administration has filed a report on civil rights violations against one of it's own states, with the UN Commissioner on Human Rights, a South African judge. The London Telegraph sees this move as a hope (there's that word again) to stir up international condemnation of Arizona, and calls it a cynical move that speaks volumes about Obama's willingness to undercut American sovereignty on the world stage. The report went before the UN Human Rights Council in September; a council which includes some of the most brutal regimes in the world, in a forum that includes many of the world's worst tyrants.

The next step, according to a report yesterday on Yahoo news, but probably not report many other places; the issue will go before the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which will have an international conference on migration in Mexico, on November 8 - 11. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, South African judge Navi Pillay, said yesterday that while states can regulate movement across their borders, they must do so in accordance with INTERNATIONAL LAW. That is just outrageous. What we do in American needs to be in accordance with our laws. But then, Obama has sold us out to the UN. An organization that has Ahmahnutjob of Iran sitting on the Women's Rights Council, is now judging how one of our individual states treats illegal immigrants, who by being in the United States without authorization is in itself a crime. I want to point out, that while left-wing liberals in America see no distinction such as "illegal" and see it only as "immigration"; the UN sees it as a matter of  "global migration"; as if there are already no national borders and everybody has the right to "migrate" where ever they wish, without constraint of sovereignty.

Obama has turned the sovereign American state of Arizona over to the United Nations tribunal for judgement. A vision of Pontius Pilate turning Jesus over to be crucified, then washing his hands of the whole matter, comes to mind. Since the UN has an International Court set up in Belgium, what will be the next step after the November "trial" of Arizona, in Mexico? Will Interpol then arrest the Arizona state officials and bring them before the "court" for punishment? Interpol now has the Obama-given right to do just that. America, wake up.

USE IT OR LOSE IT

U.N. Alien Ambassador

We should rename the United Nations to Universal Nutcases. I learned the other day that the U.N. had named an Alien Ambassador to greet extraterrestrials when (if) they visit planet earth. The identity of the recipient of this dubious designation wasn't something I was inclined to uncover. However, thanks to this mornings Washington Post, we can all rest easier to know that brave person who will be the first to encounter E.T. will be an astrophysicist from Malaysia by the name of Mazlan Othman. He is head of the Universal Nutcases Office for Outer Space Affairs. Yes, the U. N. actually does have such an office and such an official. Evidently not satisfied with raping the riches of every developed country on Planet Earth, the U.N. has put itself in place to be ready to start acquiring the wealth and resources of any extraterrestrial that may be unwise or naive enough to make itself known. I didn't see the movie Avatar, don't really care to from what I've read about it; it's purported to show the United States as being the villian victimizing a peaceful people. The reality is, it's the United Nations that is making developed, resourceful countries pay thru the nose. I wonder what will happen if the visitors from outer space arrive anywhere except Malaysia? I can just see them setting their spacecraft down in Washington DC and saying "Take us to your Reader".
Aliens, beware.

Take Us to Your Reader

A Tale of Two Countries

There's a lot of coverage today about last weeks' election in Venezuela. As I read an article about it in this mornings'  Washington Times, I was struck by similarities between Venezuela and the United States. For anybody who might not know a lot about the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, here's a brief recap:
he is a former military officer who attempted a coup against the Venezuela government in 1992. It failed and he was imprisoned, then in 1998 he managed to get elected President of Venezuela, survived a coup against him in 2002 that de-throned him for a while, and in 2007 almost succeeded in getting a referendum passed to do away with presidential term limits so that he could continue to get "re-elected" president. Articles in the London Telegraph in 2007 and the Huffington Post in 2008 described Chavez as wanting to make himself  "president for life". The London Times on Line reported on 2/16/09 that Chavez was successful in getting the Venezuelan law changed to eliminate term limits. So, he had cleared the way to keep himself in power.

The Chavez administration lost enough seats in the National Assembly last week to take away the majority it has held since 2005 which let him govern virtually unopposed. An opposition leader said Chavez had turned the election into a plebiscite (direct vote by an electorate on a single issue or proposal) on himself. Our 2008 election seems to me to have been a plebiscite on Obama. Most voters didn't care about the issues or party platforms, they just voted for Obama regardless of what he was or was not going to do. It appears that both men think it's all about them and what they want. Chavez had a "supermajority"; Obama came into office with a Democratic majority left over from the Bush presidency, and that majority was increased even more by the Democratic wins in the 2008 Congressional elections. The Venezuelan election last week is taken as a sign that they don't want an authoritarian, militarized or centralized government. Think about our upcoming election in November and the signal the American people intend to send to the present administration.

The loss of a majority by Chavez and his cronies came as somewhat of a surprise, since most Venezuelans figured that "electoral machinations" would have assured Chavez retained his majority rule. That brings to mind all the voter fraud and "electoral machinations" perpetrated in America's 2008 election by ACORN, et al, on behalf of the Democratic candidates, that insured their win, whether it was accurate or not. And it was most likely not accurate. We have no way of knowing or guaranteeing that our upcoming election will be honest or accurate.  The wins by opponents of Hugo Chavez was notable in light of Chavez spending massively on giveaways, ads and public works. Reminds me of the pay-backs and pay-offs here in America since our own 2008 election. In Venezuela, the opposition to Chavez was aided by the defection of members of his own constituency who were disenchanted with his institutional control, his manipulations, and the deterioration of the economy. Brings to mind the Democrats distancing themselves from Obama. A related article today in the London Globe and Mail says that Venezuelans displayed voter discontent over Chavez's handling of the economy, his marathon television speeches, and his clamp down on opposition media. Doesn't that sound familiar?

I can see the similarities continuing in several ways after we have our own election in November. Venezuela's National Assembly still has a lame-duck session  where hard-line measure could still be passed, maybe even stripping the legislature of some power. We don't know what the lame-duck Democrats might try to ram thru Congress once the Republicans pick up some more seats in November. The loss of his majority means that Chavez can no long pass laws by decreee, place appointees in his administration or take other actions without the input of the National Assembly. We could only hope that our November election could curtail dictating by Executive Order, appointing Cabinet level "advisors" and "assistants" without Congressional confirmation, and generally rendering Congress irrelevant. We know that won't happen. However, there is still hope. The Venezuelan opposition to Chavez now has to develop policy ideas to deal with the problems facing the country and find a leader who can effectively  put forth a vision for a post-Chavez Venezuela; and use them so it will be well-positioned for their 1012 elections. We need the Republican party, once it makes the great strides we are sure it will in November, to develop the ideas it set forth in it's Pledge to America, coalesce on an effective leader, and position itself for victory in 2012 so that we can fulfill a vision for a post-Obama America. Yep, hope and change from this administration is what we need. Venezuela did it. We can do it, too. Yes, we can.

U.N. Circus Came to Town

When you are living the nightmare that is life in America under the current regime, sometimes it gets overwhelming. I am one of the many that has been financially devastated by the actions of THIS administration, not the previous one that they like to throw blame at. Between January 20, 2009 and November 2009, my income, which is business-based commission, dropped 90%.  The small town I live in, which had grown from 1,400 residents to over 2,200 residents in the 5 years that I've lived here prior to 2009, has become stagnant. Not only are there no new businesses, there has been a decline in the number of businesses. There are no jobs available without commuting up to an hour each way, and even fewer open to a person of my age. I had a small 401K, which was growing steadily; it was enough to cover my yearly property taxes and property insurance and any maintanence on my property until I was ready to sell and move; and there would have been enough still in it to leave untouched to continue growing. When the stock market reacted to obamanomics, 40% of it went up in smoke. Because of the loss of income directly due to obamanomics, I've had to drain my 401K to live on; to the point there is nothing left. And let's not forget the culpability of the Democratic Congressional majority for the last 6 years, who drove the housing market into the ground. Under the last Presidential term of George Bush, the Democratically controlled Congress ignored 16 out of 17 times the pleas of the Republicans, to rein in and get control over Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, and to stabilize the housing market. Yes, George Bush signed the TARP Bill, but it was a final desperate act to save the housing market, when the Democrats in Congress would finally, at the 11th hour, allow action to be taken. So thanks to the Democrats reckless abandon with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, my property, which prior to 2009 had a 50% increase in investment, now has a 50% decrease in investment. If I could even sell now, it would have to be at a loss of half of what I've got invested in it. I know this is the story of millions that have had their lives ruined by the actions of Obama and his cronies, who are trying to bring America down to the level of the poorest countries in the world and "level the playing field". Knowing that doesn't make it any easier to accept. Sometimes it just gets overwhelming. So I spent the weekend reading a good book and listening to the rain, ignoring the news and the internet.

The United Nations circus was in New York City last week and at the edge of the funk I was in, I was aware of some of the goings on. It seemed like a case of school-yard one-up-man-ship. Drawing from CNN, Newsmax and the U.K. Mail; here's a synopsis of how it went: Obama gave his speech to the U.N., once again the appeasor-in-chief offered an olive branch to Ahmahnutjob. Then Ahmahnutjob gave his speech, asserting that the U.S. carried out the attack on 9-11-01 itself to bolster support for Israel. This is the same Ahmahnutjob who says the Holocaust killing of Jews in Europe never happened, who is now on the U.N. Womens' Rights Council, and from the text of his speech (Winds of Jihad has it) thinks Iran should sit on the U.N. Security Council, and wants the entire world to embrace "monotheism" in the form of Islam and thinks it's his place in history to begin Armageddon by destroying Israel. So after Ahmahnutjob's speech, Obama's response was that it was offensive and hateful.  Then Ahmahnutjob retorted to Obama's criticism as being amateurish and insulting. See what I mean, school-yard: take that. No, you take that. No, I'm going to take my ball and go home. Good Grief. Don't we have an adult in the White House?

A couple of interesting things of note did happen at the U.N. last week. According to U.K. Mail, Obama, who gave his speech on a day that the Israeli delegation didn't attend due to a Jewish holiday, called for the establishment of a Palestinian State within one year, and not once mentioned Palestinian Hamas which refuses to accept Israel's right to exist. So Israel is to acknowledge Palestine, which they do; but Palestine doesn't have to accept Israel. The other thing of interest I have to thank Bobby for bringing to my attention. From Reuters News Agency; the Swiss president of the General Assembly opened the U.N. meeting by calling on the world leaders at the U.N. to fulfill it's global governance role. To which, the Czech President said that the U.N. should leave global governance alone and let the national governments take care of their own. He said they would destroy the markets and the chance for economic growth and prosperity; and also that the U.N. should stay out of science, including global warming. That seems like a more worthwhile exchange than the juvenile mud-slinging between Obama and Ahmahnutjob.

I awoke to the news this morning that while he was in New York City, Ahmahnutjob met with Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam and Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panthers Party. So I looked it up on the internet, and sure enough, they had a "secret" (did they really expect to keep it secret?) meeting behind closed doors in a conference room at the Warwick Hotel. Ahmahnutjob stayed at the Hilton Manhattan East while in town. Nobody knows (yet) what was discussed in this not-so-secret meeting, but with those three getting their heads together, it sure can't bode well. You can be sure if I find out more, I'll let everybody know. I also got an interesting email outlining how often the Arab Countries vote against the U.S. at the U.N., and how much we still send them in aid. I looked it up on Snopes. The letter originated in 2003, and didn't specify if the figures included the entire history of the U.N., so Snopes took an 18 month period between 2003 and 2004 and checked it out. While the email said that most of the Arab Countries voted against the U.S. on U.N. measures about 70% to 80% of the time, Snopes found it was even worse; Snopes came up with an average of 88% that Arab (muslim) Countries didn't support the U.S. position at the U.N. That was 6 years ago; I can't imagine it has gotten any better; and yet, we are still sending them billions of dollars in aid each year.  Also interesting is what Snopes discovered about how our allies vote in relation to the U.S. stance on U.N. measures. Our allies, Britain, Australia, Canada, China, etc., withheld their support between 40% and 60% of the time. Our staunchest ally, drum roll please, is that much-maligned thorn in Obama's side, ISRAEL. Israel had only opposed the U.S. in 11% of the U.N. measures in the Snopes study.

And to keep this particular blog post from being dry and completely uninteresting, one last thing on the U.N: I was watching Meghan Kelley on Fox News while eating lunch today and a report by Trace Gallagher caught my attention. Some high ranking Air Force officers in the U.S. and Britain have reported that on several occasions unknown craft have hovered over our nuclear missile sites, disabled and disarmed them, then disappeared. They are calling upon the U.S. and British governments to make public the classified material they have on extraterrestrial crafts and beings. What does that have to do with the U.N.? This: the U.N. has named an official "Alien Ambassador" to greet any aliens from outer space, when and if they ever make themselves known. And these are the people who want to govern the globe. The official U.N. Alien Ambassador wasn't named in the report and I'm not sure I care enough to dig into who it is. If it's not Obama, they probably made the wrong choice. Sorry this isn't up to par, but it's all I've got in me today.
Until next time, Happy Trails.

PULPIT FREEDOM SUNDAY

This Sunday, September 26, 2010, is Pulpit Freedom Sunday. It's a movement that started in 2008 with less than 36 pastors participating, continued in 2009 with 84 pastors participating; and this year there will be at least 100, perhaps several hundred, pastors involved. These brave men and women will speak out from their pulpits on the political candidates and issues for the upcoming November 2nd elections, in direct violation of federal tax regulations; and they will record, videotape and print manuscripts which will then be sent to the Internal Revenue Service. I looked up the tax regulations at Pew Forum; it says that clergy cannot speak about a political candidate from the pulpit; they can speak about a political candidate outside the pulpit, but not so that any member of their congregation can impute (discern) their preference. They can have a political candidate speak to their church, as long as they have the opposing candidate speak also, and as long as the church does not give any money to the candidates. Prior to 1954, clergy were not thusly restricted. They could, and did, speak about any candidate or issue they wished. Texas, at that time, had a Senator in Washington DC, Lyndon Johnson, who was the target of critical comments from Christian leaders about his conduct in Washington. Senator Johnson proposed, and got passed thru Congress, a law that prohibits any speech from a church pulpit for or against any political candidate. The penalty is loss of tax-exempt status and/or a fine.

World Net Daily reports about Pastor Mark Holick of Wichita, KS, who was targeted by the IRS for "engaging in political activities". He received a warning from the IRS to not put his Christian beliefs on the sign at his church. Can you believe that? A church is told not to put their beliefs on their sign. What were the dastardly messages? One was a notice that Kathleen Sebelius (then Governor of Kansas, now Secretary of Health and Human Services) had accepted $100,000 from abortion doctor George Tiller. The other sign quoted Obama saying he didn't want his daughters punished with a baby. Nothing more insidious than that. And nothing but the truth. Another pastor, H.Wayne Wiliams of South Dakota was targeted for voicing his preference for a gubernatoral candidate. A Minnesota pastor was investigated by the IRS for addressing the moral qualifications of the political candidates in 2008. Pastor Gus Booth preached on moral issues with regard to both the primary election and the general election that year. The IRS began an audit of his church; then closed the investigation, citing a "procedural issue" but left the case open for future inquiry. I can just hear the Terminator: "I'll be baaack".

What I found disturbing in the tax codes, which I read, is that while clergy are prohibited from endorsing a political candidate, or speaking against a political candidate, from the pulpit; they are in no way restricted from speaking on issues or actions being considered by Congress. So while politicians and elected officials are lowering the boom on Christians about such things as praying in public, scripture in public buildings, Bibles in schools, and speaking out against homosexuality, promiscuity, or abortion; they have no qualms about asking churches to help them get their pet legislations passed. According to America's Watchtower on 5/10/10, Nancy Pelosi talked to Catholic leaders about supporting amnesty, and told them "But I want you to speak about it from the pulpit".  According to First Read, an on-line publication of MSN 8/19/09, Obama had a conference call with faith leaders where he asked them to help pass obamacare and speak out to those "bearing false witness" about it. And now that obamacare has passed, and America still doesn't want it, Obama had another conference call last Tuesday, September 21, 2010 which was reported by The Blaze 9/22/10, where he asked thousands of religious leaders to "spread the word" from their "perches of power" and to help him convince America that obamacare is good for them. Such hypocrisy. Clergy members are not to have any say about who may or may not be elected, but then they can be exhorted by any politician in office to push their agenda.

The tax codes against churches, that were put into place by a man who didn't want to be called out on his behaviour, need to be changed. Maybe the wonderful members of the clergy who are putting their necks on the line and standing up to the IRS, will be able to make that happen. By the way, did y'all know that there is nothing, no law, nowhere in the Constitution that calls for, or even uses the words "separation of church and state"? That's merely a phrase coined by anti-Christian politicians, activists, and groups. America, stand up.