From Fox News: The investigative panel of bipartisan lawmakers looking at alleged violations of House rules by New York Rep. Charlie Rangel recommended a "reprimand" for the longtime lawmaker, Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, a member of the panel, said Friday.
Well there you have it. The man is charged with THIRTEEN violations of House rules, and the best the 'Drain the Swamp' House of Retards can do is give him a reprimand?
"There there Charlie, its alright. Try to do your taxes correctly next time, okay son?"
Never mind that there were "28 instances in which he(Rangel) failed to report acquiring, owning, or disposing assets".
Never mind the reports that Rangel "exchanged official favors – a tax loophole for oil driller Nabors Industries Ltd. – in exchange for a $1 million gift to the Charles Rangel Center at City College of New York."
Never mind that Rangel has been plagued by corruption problems in the past.
Despite all of this, and other allegations that have not been disclosed in detail, the House wants to give him a 'reprimand'.
The hypocrisy is unbelievable, and Rangel isn't the first to exposed.
Earlier this week, we had reports about how John Kerry moved his yacht from his own state, and in the process dodged a nearly $500,000 sales tax. This from the man who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes in Congress.
So in less than a week, we have 2 instances where rich Democrats who vote for higher taxes, and then turn right around and circumvent paying the taxes they owe.
Why don't you practice what you preach, Democrats?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "If liberals didn't have double standards, then they wouldn't have any standards at all."
The Real America.
|
Friday, July 16, 2010
"America is not a Christian nation".
You hear that phrase often, be it from your rabid unneighborly ACLU lawyer, or sadly, from the current president of the United States. They'll tell you that America wasn't founded on Christianity, and that the Founding Fathers were all either deists or outright atheists. This view is touted in public schools and universities across the country.
Even some Christians, growing up in this environment, have to come to believe it. Others may not believe the founders were secular, but they certainly don't feel like they have enough evidence to refute the statement either. So, they remain silent, and the statement continues to ring out, unchallenged.
What I want to talk about today, is this: Is what they say really true? Is America indeed a godless Republic?
To answer this, I won't quote modern philosophers or verbose politicians. I'm going to go back to the beginning, when the harbinger of freedom first dawned on the shores of America. When such people as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lived and gave their lives and their livelihoods to see America rise. What do they say have to say about America?
First of all, let's look at a sage and very well known document, namely, the Declaration of Independence. This document was written by the supposed deist, Thomas Jefferson. Well then, why did the Deist find it necessary to mention God 4 times in the relatively short document? He makes reference to a "Creator" in the famous line about human rights, and even before that, Jefferson mentions "Nature's God". In the latter statement, he elevates God above nature, or natural law! Even more damaging to the 'deist' cause, Jefferson appeals to the "Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...". Now clearly, if Jefferson was in fact a deist, why would he be appealing to a God that he clearly calls a "Supreme Judge". Those aren't the words of deist or atheist by any stretch of the imagination. If that wasn't enough, later in the document, Jefferson makes this statement, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Divine Providence is defined as the "Activity of God in world affairs". If Jefferson was a deist, why would he use such language? The truth of the matter is that Jefferson mentions God pretty often! I was at the Jefferson Memorial a couple of weeks ago, and even there, most of his quotes mentioned God, in one form or another.
Now some might say, "How do you know he was talking about a Christian god"?
Who do you think he was talking about? Buddha??? Allah??? Thor??? I think not. The God almost universally believed in at that time in America was the Judeo-Christian God. To try to claim otherwise is downright silly, to say the least.
Now, what about the rest of the Founding Fathers? According to Adherents.com, ALL of the Founding Fathers professed to belong to one Christian church or another. The majority, 57.1%, belonged to the Anglican church, while 23.2% and 21.4% considered themselves Congregationalist and Presbyterian, respectively. Now, what about Ben Franklin? Many revisionist historians like to tout him as the man of reason, and as a deist.
The truth is far from that image. During the Constitutional convention, the delegates had reached a stalemate. There were deep and profound disagreements between the 2 sides, and it looked as if it would be impossible for them to reach agreement.
A man stood up, and requested that before the business proceedings of each day commenced, that it be opened in prayer to God. Not only that, he requested that a chaplain be appointed for the duration of the convention! The man who requested this was none other than Ben Franklin. The question begs asking, why would a deist recommend that the convention open its day praying to God to "enlighten our minds"?
Another argument revisionist historians and anti-God people use is to claim that there is no mentioned of God in the Constitution.
While it is true that God's name is rarely mentioned in the Constitution, the reasons behind that are far different from what leftists would have you believe.
The Founders believed that religion was a matter best left up to the individual, and to the states. Most state constitutions defined the role religion played in civil affairs, and as such, the Founders did not want the federal government to usurp that power. As Daniel Dreisbach puts it, "The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.
Imagine that. The lack of God in the Constitution, far from being the result of the anti-religious bias of the Founding Fathers, was simply an example of the Constitution's support of states rights. Take that, ACLU!
The truth is undeniable. The feverish attempt by radical leftists to revise and secularize our history cannot keep the truth from ringing out. They've tried to deny the devout religious beliefs of the founders. They've tried to explain away the Constitution and America's profound success as being simply the result of reason. To some extent, they've succeeded. They've offloaded their rhetoric and frenzied arguments to our children, via the public school system and the leftist media.
They've done all that, and yet, they've failed. The truth cannot be hidden anymore.
Now you know. They are the ones who are wrong.
Hot Links: Discover the truth regarding America through this website. David Barton has been a recent guest on the Glenn Beck program, and his website features loads of helpful information and articles regarding America's true, unadulterated history. http://www.wallbuilders.com/
Check out David Barton's books, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion
and Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White
.
You hear that phrase often, be it from your rabid unneighborly ACLU lawyer, or sadly, from the current president of the United States. They'll tell you that America wasn't founded on Christianity, and that the Founding Fathers were all either deists or outright atheists. This view is touted in public schools and universities across the country.
Even some Christians, growing up in this environment, have to come to believe it. Others may not believe the founders were secular, but they certainly don't feel like they have enough evidence to refute the statement either. So, they remain silent, and the statement continues to ring out, unchallenged.
What I want to talk about today, is this: Is what they say really true? Is America indeed a godless Republic?
To answer this, I won't quote modern philosophers or verbose politicians. I'm going to go back to the beginning, when the harbinger of freedom first dawned on the shores of America. When such people as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lived and gave their lives and their livelihoods to see America rise. What do they say have to say about America?
First of all, let's look at a sage and very well known document, namely, the Declaration of Independence. This document was written by the supposed deist, Thomas Jefferson. Well then, why did the Deist find it necessary to mention God 4 times in the relatively short document? He makes reference to a "Creator" in the famous line about human rights, and even before that, Jefferson mentions "Nature's God". In the latter statement, he elevates God above nature, or natural law! Even more damaging to the 'deist' cause, Jefferson appeals to the "Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...". Now clearly, if Jefferson was in fact a deist, why would he be appealing to a God that he clearly calls a "Supreme Judge". Those aren't the words of deist or atheist by any stretch of the imagination. If that wasn't enough, later in the document, Jefferson makes this statement, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Divine Providence is defined as the "Activity of God in world affairs". If Jefferson was a deist, why would he use such language? The truth of the matter is that Jefferson mentions God pretty often! I was at the Jefferson Memorial a couple of weeks ago, and even there, most of his quotes mentioned God, in one form or another.
Now some might say, "How do you know he was talking about a Christian god"?
Who do you think he was talking about? Buddha??? Allah??? Thor??? I think not. The God almost universally believed in at that time in America was the Judeo-Christian God. To try to claim otherwise is downright silly, to say the least.
Now, what about the rest of the Founding Fathers? According to Adherents.com, ALL of the Founding Fathers professed to belong to one Christian church or another. The majority, 57.1%, belonged to the Anglican church, while 23.2% and 21.4% considered themselves Congregationalist and Presbyterian, respectively. Now, what about Ben Franklin? Many revisionist historians like to tout him as the man of reason, and as a deist.
The truth is far from that image. During the Constitutional convention, the delegates had reached a stalemate. There were deep and profound disagreements between the 2 sides, and it looked as if it would be impossible for them to reach agreement.
A man stood up, and requested that before the business proceedings of each day commenced, that it be opened in prayer to God. Not only that, he requested that a chaplain be appointed for the duration of the convention! The man who requested this was none other than Ben Franklin. The question begs asking, why would a deist recommend that the convention open its day praying to God to "enlighten our minds"?
Another argument revisionist historians and anti-God people use is to claim that there is no mentioned of God in the Constitution.
While it is true that God's name is rarely mentioned in the Constitution, the reasons behind that are far different from what leftists would have you believe.
The Founders believed that religion was a matter best left up to the individual, and to the states. Most state constitutions defined the role religion played in civil affairs, and as such, the Founders did not want the federal government to usurp that power. As Daniel Dreisbach puts it, "The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.
Imagine that. The lack of God in the Constitution, far from being the result of the anti-religious bias of the Founding Fathers, was simply an example of the Constitution's support of states rights. Take that, ACLU!
The truth is undeniable. The feverish attempt by radical leftists to revise and secularize our history cannot keep the truth from ringing out. They've tried to deny the devout religious beliefs of the founders. They've tried to explain away the Constitution and America's profound success as being simply the result of reason. To some extent, they've succeeded. They've offloaded their rhetoric and frenzied arguments to our children, via the public school system and the leftist media.
They've done all that, and yet, they've failed. The truth cannot be hidden anymore.
Now you know. They are the ones who are wrong.
Hot Links: Discover the truth regarding America through this website. David Barton has been a recent guest on the Glenn Beck program, and his website features loads of helpful information and articles regarding America's true, unadulterated history. http://www.wallbuilders.com/
Check out David Barton's books, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion
and Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White .Israelis DESTROY the Gaza Flotilla Peace Myth
|
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Israel sets the record straight in this new video. I love it when people take a stand for the truth in such a powerful fashion. They're definitely doing it here, and doing a great job of it, I might add!!
Send this video to your friends and family. They need to know the truth!!
The Unknown Citizen
|
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be One against whom there was no official complaint, And all the reports on his conduct agree That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint, For in everything he did he served the Greater Community. Except for the War till the day he retired He worked in a factory and never got fired, But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc. Yet he wasn't a scab or odd in his views, For his Union reports that he paid his dues, (Our report on his Union shows it was sound) And our Social Psychology workers found That he was popular with his mates and liked a drink. The Press are convinced that he bought a paper every day And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way. Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured, And his Health-card shows he was once in hospital but left it cured. Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Instalment Plan And had everything necessary to the Modern Man, A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire. Our researchers into Public Opinion are content That he held the proper opinions for the time of year; When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went. He was married and added five children to the population, Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation. And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education. Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd: Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard. | |
From Another Time by W. H. Auden, published by Random House. Copyright © 1940 W. H. Auden, renewed by The Estate of W. H. Auden. Used by permission of Curtis Brown, Ltd
Happy Memorial Day.
|
Monday, May 31, 2010
It is the VETERAN,
not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the VETERAN,
not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the VETERAN,
not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the VETERAN,
not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the VETERAN,
not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the VETERAN,
not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.
Veritas Report(monthly edition)
|
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Fist Pump
Arizona signed its controversial immigration bill into law this week. Within a day or so, the main-stream media began running a story saying that illegal immigrants were leaving Arizona. Uh, DUH!! That's the point is it not?
Texas, Maryland, and Georgia have all voiced support towards crafting an immigration bill of their own similar to Arizona's. Meanwhile, Obama is fuming.
Its a good day!!
Hot Links:
Obama is losing the Jewish vote, BIG TIME. http://tinyurl.com/36odya7
The Muslims don't have to silence us, if we do it to ourselves. http://tinyurl.com/2682jde
Issue of the Month
ImmigrationIllegal immigration boils down to a single issue. Its about votes. Both parties have been courting the Hispanic vote for years, and as such, they've refused to pass any bill that actually does something about illegal immigration. Arizona finally got tired of this, and passed a bill of their own that actually DOES SOMETHING. We can't have that, can we! A state actually does what the federal government was supposed to be doing all these years, and they get slammed for it.
This is what 'amnesty' is about also. The heart of the issue isn't about the 'well-being' of the illegals. Its about votes for leftist politicians. If the illegals were 70-80% Republican, do you think the Democrats would be so interested in making them citizens?
Also, for those crying 'racist' at Arizona, this bill is supported by conservatives, liberals, blacks and whites, and by young people! Over 70% of the entire population supports it. If that wasn't enough, 60% of the national population supports the bill as well. Wow. Look at all the racists we have out there!!
LOL
Pro-illegal activists threatened to boycott Arizona products because of the immigration bill. One of the items they planned on boycotting was Arizona Iced Tea. The problem? Arizona tea is based in New York, not Arizona.
What the...
Iran threatens to jail women with sun tans. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/28/women-suntans-arrested-iran-police-chief-warns/?test=latestnews Top News Story the Media Says Isn't News
Puerto Rico Democracy Act.Most of the media ignored this, but yesterday Beck picked it up.
Basically, this bill would set up a rigged voting system that would force Puerto Rico into an unfair elective process. The process is slanted to make statehood the most appealing option.
That means votes, and judging from what we've seen in Puerto Rico, it means Democrat votes, which will turn into Democrat congressional seats.
Heritage gives the details here: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/27/puerto-rico-democracy-act-–-legislation-biased-in-favor-of-statehood/
What Can I Do?
Contact your congressional leaders. Attend tea parties near you. Never stop praying for this country. We will triumph, but we cannot afford give up! We have everything to lose, and nothing to gain if we do. Take the time to get involved. Make a difference. America will rise from the ashes.
Yard Sign(Updated)
|
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Yard Sign...
Ralph, My neighbor is a "lefty" of sorts (Obama bumper stickers, gung-ho socialized medicine, "guns should be banned", etc.). So last week I put this sign up in my yard after one of his anti-gun rants at a neighborhood cocktail party. The sign wasn't up more than an hour before he called the police and wanted them to make me take down the sign. Fortunately, the officer politely informed him that it was not their job to take such action without a court order and that he had to file a complaint "downtown" first, which would be reviewed by the city attorney to see if it violated any city, county, or state ordinances, which if there was a violation a court order would be sent to the offending party (me) to "remove the sign in seven days".
After several weeks he was informed that the sign was legal (by a quarter of an inch) and there was nothing the city could do, which obviously made him madder. I tried to smooth things over by inviting him to go shooting with me and my friends at the hunt club but that seemed to make him even more angry. I then asked him if he wanted to go to a Tea Party rally but again he declined my outreach efforts to bring about a better understanding between political and social opponents.
I am at a loss how to reconcile our long relationship (notice I did not say friendship), any suggestions would be welcome.
Anyway, that's life in our neck of the woods, how's about yours?
Ralph, My neighbor is a "lefty" of sorts (Obama bumper stickers, gung-ho socialized medicine, "guns should be banned", etc.). So last week I put this sign up in my yard after one of his anti-gun rants at a neighborhood cocktail party. The sign wasn't up more than an hour before he called the police and wanted them to make me take down the sign. Fortunately, the officer politely informed him that it was not their job to take such action without a court order and that he had to file a complaint "downtown" first, which would be reviewed by the city attorney to see if it violated any city, county, or state ordinances, which if there was a violation a court order would be sent to the offending party (me) to "remove the sign in seven days".
After several weeks he was informed that the sign was legal (by a quarter of an inch) and there was nothing the city could do, which obviously made him madder. I tried to smooth things over by inviting him to go shooting with me and my friends at the hunt club but that seemed to make him even more angry. I then asked him if he wanted to go to a Tea Party rally but again he declined my outreach efforts to bring about a better understanding between political and social opponents.
I am at a loss how to reconcile our long relationship (notice I did not say friendship), any suggestions would be welcome.
Anyway, that's life in our neck of the woods, how's about yours?
.jpg)
I tried to make this as large as possible, but here's what the sign says if you have a hard time reading: "My Next Door Neighbor wants to ban all guns. Their house is NOT armed. Out of respect for their opinions, I promise not to use my guns to protect them. "Let's Go Over This Real Slow
|
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Many in the media are touting this arrest of the so-called "Christian militia group" as proof that Islam and Christianity aren't really all that different. After all, both have a few extremists nuts here and there, but overall they're both peaceful.
I cannot tell you how tired I am of hearing this drivel.
First of all, the people who claim this conveniently leave out that there might be a so-called "Christian" terror attack every 5 years or so, while Muslim terrorist attacks occur almost every week, if not more.
Some may try to tell you that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, and then use that as an example of Christian terrorism. You wanna know who propagated that falsehood? Louis Farrakhan. In the aftermath of 9/11, he used that claim as a defense for his own religion. The sad part is that the truth is so easily discovered, yet many today still attempt to use this failed argument. Timothy McVeigh himself said that, "Science is my religion". Leave it to Farrakhan to deduce "Christian" out of that.
We could argue further over the different attacks and plots that have occurred on both sides, but let's get down to the heart of the matter.
The difference is in the beliefs of the separate faiths, not in the actions of people who supposedly adhere to it.
The word "Christian" by definition means a Christ follower, or one like Christ. Would Jesus condone murdering police officers? No. Would Jesus condone blowing up innocent children as a way to protest government? Everything Jesus did was an act of love, and clearly, what this militia group was planning had nothing to do with it. They can call themselves Christians all they want to, but their actions were anything but Christ-like. Jesus lived His life, and He killed no one.
On the other hand, let's look at Muhummad. Can you see him killing innocent people and raping small children? Oh wait...he did that. Can you see him creating a religion that is fueled by hate and a lust for conquest? Oh wait...he did that too. Can you see him creating a religion that viciously oppresses women and homosexuals? Oh wait...he did that too!
Can you see him writing this?"
Surah 9:29: PICKTHAL: "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture (Christians & Jews) as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Oh wait, he did that too.
You wanna compare Christianity and Islam? Look at the 2 founders.
Don't even try to tell me they're the same.
You want more info? Check out these links. The first link even allegedly details how some of the "love" parts of the Quran were actually taken from Christian manuscripts. If that's true, Muhammad wasn't just all the things we've listed above. He was also a plagiarist.
Supporting Ron Paul & Supporting Israel are Mutually Exclusive
|
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Yes that's what I said. The two don't go together, anymore than conservatism goes with liberalism, common sense goes with Keith Olbermann, and Hillary Clinton goes with...eh, we won't even go there. (Insert Rush Limbaugh's age joke about Hillary here)
Now you might say, come on, how bad can he be? I'll show you how bad.
For starters, he wants to cut off all aid to Israel. He also wants to entirely get out of the Middle East, even though that will leave the place in abject disarray.
He also apparently has problems with calling Hamas a terrorist organization, and he went so far as to deplore Israel's 2009 Gaza offensive and our verbal support of it.
Citing that the 3,000 rockets fired into Israeli territory were just "a few small missiles", he condemned the House resolution that expressed strong backing for Israel in its invasion of the strip. So not only does he have a problem with us helping Israel, he even opposes us saying anything derogatory about terrorists!!
In other words, he agrees with Cynthia McKinney, but I digress.
His brilliant plan for the Middle East is this:
We should abandon our ally Israel, the only stable, western democracy in the Middle East to its power-hungry Muslim neighbors, and if Paul has his way, a nuclear armed Iran. Never mind that said country's leadership has already claimed that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. That's the other part of Paul's stance that is pathetic. Not only does he oppose helping Israel in any way whatsoever, he sees no problem with Iran having nukes. His skewed logic is that if we possess nukes, so can the Iranians! If we have it, we shouldn't stop the terrorists from having them either! After all, they need them to defend themselves against us evil westerners.
Never mind that it may lead to a nuclear war that could destroy the Middle East. Never mind that thousands of Israelis and millions of Iranians may die. Never mind that Iran might decide to give those nukes to Al Queda to use on our cities. If we hide behind our borders, they'll never attack us if as long as we leave them alone and let them do what they want unopposed!
This reminds me of a poem written by a pastor in World War II. I've modified the wording just a little.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Israelis,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Israeli.
When they came for me(the Americans),
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
Be silent if you want. Let evil march around the world unopposed while you hide behind your borders afraid that even speaking against it might offend them. See what it gets you.
I won't be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
