Do We Have a Moral Obligation to Bankrupt America?

We can debate Obamacare until we're blue in the face, but in reality, the truth is fairly obvious.

We are currently facing the bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security, 2 government programs that as is usual with government programs, became impossible to adequately fund. So what is the solution put forward by the liberals in Congress? Let's make a LARGER government program to fix the previous two. This is their solution to everything! More money, more taxes, and inevitably, more government control. Forget about reforming the last 2 programs, let's just throw them away and make an even bigger one! The timing of the bill is pretty idiotic as well. Our economy isn't exactly booming right now, and we are continuing to field massive deficits every year. However, that doesn't seem to stop the liberals from trying to pass a bill that will add trillions of dollars of added debt onto our already struggling economy, not to mention putting many in the medical field out of work.

Of course, liberals try to defend this by citing how we have a "moral obligation" to pay for other people's health insurance. Do we also have a moral obligation to destroy the America we know and love?? That, is what all this will lead to. If this bill passes, we will have lost a huge chunk of our freedom and individual liberty, and no amount of "free healthcare" will be able to make up for it.

God bless you and God bless America

Jimmy Carter Strikes Again!

In an epic stroke of brilliance, yesterday the infallible Jimmy Carter accused Rep. Joe Wilson of racism. He arrived at this earth-shattering conclusion despite the fact that Joe Wilson essentially only said two words, "You lie" to President Obama.
What are we to assume from Carter's words? That calling Obama a liar equals racism against black people? Is he saying black people are all liars? That is in essence what he is implying. If calling a black man a liar is racist, it obviously implies that lying is associated with his ethnic background.
I'm sure Carter didn't think about that before he made his outrageous claims, which is a problem with most politicians these days.
They don't think about what they say, and worse, many, including our President often don't do what they said they would.
In other words, they lied.


God bless you, and God bless America

NY Times Cites Hitler's stimulus as support for Obama's.

The New York Times isn't known for posting many tasteful articles, but they've taken their knack for bad journalism to a new low. Back in April, David Leonhart, who writes for the New York Times business column, had this to say about Hitler and Nazism:

In the summer of 1933, just as they will do on Thursday, heads of government and their finance ministers met in London to talk about a global economic crisis. They accomplished little and went home to battle the crisis in their own ways.

More than any other country, Germany--Nazi Germany--then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.

The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn't look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn't become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.

He then went on make this brilliant statement:

"Here in the United States, many people are understandably wondering whether the $800 billion stimulus program will make much of a difference. They want to know: Does stimulus work? Fortunately, this is one economic question that’s been answered pretty clearly in the last century. Yes, stimulus works. "

In essence, the NYT essentially cited the so-called success of Hitler's stimulus plan as support for that of Obama's . What's ironic is that its the liberals who have falsely accused those on the right of racism, anti-semitism, (Ann Coulter ring a bell?) and now we find them turning to the Third Reich for support of their plans.

Nice double-standard Mr. Leonhart. What will you think of next?

Sources

http://tinyurl.com/kr7k8h

http://tinyurl.com/oy82ez

Obama and the Cambridge Police Have Met Before

Some may wonder why Barrack Obama, who by his own admission didn't have "all the facts", decided to say that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly" in their arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. I stumbled across this on Twitter, and simply put...its fascinating. I won't judge the man, but it seems our president has had past dealings with this very same Cambridge police department.

This is from World Net Daily:

President Obama, who targeted the Cambridge, Mass., police department with his comment that one of its officers acted "stupidly" in the arrest of a black man, has a history with the department dating from his college years to as recently as the launch of his presidential campaign.

According to the Somerville Times in 2007, as a Harvard Law School student, Obama got parking tickets during 1989-1991 from the Cambridge Police Department that he left unpaid until just weeks before he announced his bid for the presidency.

"In other words, as a practicing lawyer in Chicago, he allowed these tickets and penalties to remain unpaid; as an Illinois state senator he allowed these tickets and fines to remain unpaid; and as a United States senator he allowed these almost-two-decade-old signs of his disdain for the law to remain unpaid," commented John LeBoutillier on Newsmax.com.

The Washington Post said two years ago that the tickets included parking without a proper permit and parking in a bus stop.

The Associated Press reported in 2007 that Obama's "healthy stack" of parking tickets was finally paid, including late fees, "two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign."

Said Jen Psaki, spokeswoman for Obama's campaign during his race to the White House, "He didn't owe that much and what he did owe, he paid. … Many people have parking tickets and late fees."

The White House press office did not respond to a request for a comment

WND


Interesting...to say the least.




Source
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104935
Thanks also goes out to @patriotroom for tweeting this.

Abortion Vrs. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

The media and also the Democrat party(though really, what's the difference) are blathering about the so-called "torture" of Guantanamo detainees, but they really miss the point.

The Democrat party is in essence arguing that terrorists should not be forcibly interrogated, or have any harm to them, even if it jeopardizes American lives. The liberals are defaming the professionals in the CIA who have dedicated their lives to keeping this country safe. Even worse than that, a blatant double-standard that has existed in liberalism for a long time has been pushed to the forefront.

As I watch Democrats ranging from Pelosi to Obama furiously talk about our responsibilities and the importance of sticking to our morals, I think, what of the babies? What about their rights? The liberals are willing to give terrorists rights, but not babies! Such is the morality of the Democrat party and liberals in general, and to me, the word to describe it is "sickening".

Conservatives think differently. We consider the lives of the innocent unborn to be precious, certainly far more important than the inconveniencing of a few terrorists. Unlike liberals, we truly live up to our morals, by saving the innocent, and at the same time, respecting the lives of enemy combatants.

That is one of the things that has made our country the bastion of freedom and morality that it is. May we never lose it!

Obama's Bow...Gaffe or not?

The main-stream media considers President Barrack Hussein Obama's bow to the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia a gaffe. The question is: Was it?

Do we want Obama to fail?

The media went nuts when Rush Limbaugh said this. On his radio program, and in an interview with Shawn Hannity, the talk-show host said, "I want Obama to fail". While some were saying that Rush wanted the president personally to fail, if you'd actually take the time to read the context of Rush's words you would realize what he was saying. What he meant was Obama's policies, and I think that's a question we need to ask ourselves, "Do we want Obama to fail?
The economy is tanking even I speak. The DOW has plunged 3000 points since Obama's inauguration, and despite media assurances that it will improve, it has continued its downward spiral. Nothing has been done to inspire confidence anywhere, and the new solution appears to be tax hikes! The stimulus is having little effect, especially where it matters-on Wallstreet. Actually the stimulus is having an effect, but its not improving the economy. What the stimulus, and the various government takeovers of corporations begun last year are doing, is drastically increasing the power and oversight of government. If Obama's plan succeeds, America will be little more than a massive socialist democracy. So do we want this to succeed? Can we actually get behind the man and say I want his plans to succeed? Do we want him to succeed in the agenda of turning the United States into a socialist democracy? Will we violate our principles just to supposedly "get behind" the president?
I for one, cannot. So yes, I want Obama to fail. Not the man personally, but his policies and his socialist agenda that threatens the greatness of America.
I for one will not be a party in "remaking America"...



God bless you and God bless America



JediMaster_OPS