YOU CAN'T MOCK OBAMA.....SAYS THE LEFT

Why do so many on the left say or imply that Obama is God or God-Like….

Recently, Jamie Foxx, on an awards show said this, “It's like church over here. It's like church in here. First of all, give an honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama,"

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Chris Matthews show back in 2009 said this,  ”Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task we’re seen too often as the bad guys.  And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. “

Now if you mock this President, the left thinks “heads need to roll”.  This is kind of what happens when people mock Mohammad.

We have always mocked our leaders, especially the President.  I can remember Nixon, Regan, and Bush’s 1 & 2 being mocked by Americans.  Even Carter and Clinton have been mocked.  But today, you can’t mock President Obama or else “heads need to roll.”

Recently at the Missouri State Fair, a clown with an Obama mask on, is in hot water for making fun of Obama.  From Fair officials to Senator Claire McCaskill, to the governor and lieutenant governor, condemned the rodeo clown’s decision to don a mask resembling the president’s face, and in the Daily Kos, a writer’s comment said, “All I want is some heads to roll.”    
 
Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill called the stunt shameful and unacceptable, noting that the fair receives taxpayer dollars and is supposed to celebrate the state.

She also said, “the Missourians who witnessed this stunt learned exactly the wrong lesson about political discourse — that somehow it’s ever acceptable to, in a public event, disrespect, taunt and joke about harming the president of our great nation,” McCaskill’s statement said.

Gov. Jay Nixon’s press secretary, Scott Holste, said in a statement, “The governor agrees that the performance was disrespectful and offensive, and does not reflect the values of Missourians or the State Fair.”

Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder said the clown’s performance reflected poorly on the state. “The [fair] celebrates Missouri and our people,” Kinder tweeted. “I condemn the actions disrespectful to [the president of the United States] the other night. We are better than this.”

Back in 2009 when reporting at a Tea Party Rally, Susan Roesgen interviewed a man holding a sign that displayed Obama made to look like Hitler. “This is a party for Obama bashers”, Roesgen reported.  Pointing to the poster that had Obama looking like Hitler, Roesgen asked, “What is this supposed to mean? What do you mean by that? The man holding the poster replied that Obama is fascist.

Roesgen: Wait, why do you say he’s a fascist? He’s the president of the United States. Do you realize how offensive that is?

Flashback to January 13, 2006. When CNN reporter Susan Roesgen filed the following report on how FEMA bureaucracy was delaying federal funds for the rebuilding of New Orleans.  

“City officials aren’t the only ones wondering when federal money will materialize. Catholic school girls marched on Jackson Square. They and their teachers say more money is needed to fix the levees, and they hoped the President would stop by after his meeting with business leaders. But while a look-alike showed up with a wad of cash, Mr. Bush did not.”

http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2009/04/cnn-susan-roesgen-gets-feisty-at-chicago-anti-tax-tea-party/

 No mention by Roesgen of how offensive it was to make a Bush figure that looked like Hitler and Satan.  

The low information voter needs to get informed.  Our country is being taken over by evil people with evil plans for America.

WAKE UP AMERICA

Liberty & Freedom.....Where do we get it......

We have forgotten the words of Benjamin Franklin, that freedom at any price is not freedom at all: “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

All of us take liberty and freedom for granted because it hasn’t been taken away from us, yet. On the other side of the world people are fighting for freedom, to be free from those who claim what they are doing is for the good of the country.  While they fight for freedom over there, here we are losing some of our alienable rights to people claiming what they are doing is for the good of the country. No one is doing what is good for the individual, or for our children. Few people can afford to retire. Most have to continue working to ensure the survival of the job creators, and to put food on the table.
Freedom is a chance to be better, a chance for your kids to have a better life than you did. Freedom is not making sacrifices so the leaders can make us feel safe.  Abraham Lincoln said it best when he said that democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. We have strayed far from those principles. Our motto is now “democracy and safety at any price and the safety of the job creators: the corporations”



To achieve those new ideals, we have become a nation of laws and regulations. Laws that are badly written and randomly enforced. Certain citizens who break the laws are given harsh sentences while others are forgiven for making a small mistake. A place where corporations can do no wrong, can never do anything illegal, but make mistakes from time to time and pay small fines to show they’ve learned their lesson.
Benjamin Franklin once said “Where liberty dwells, there is my country.” Does anyone know where liberty dwells these days, or where it will dwell in the days to come?

 This weekend we are hearing a lot about FREEDOM and LIBERTY. Many speeches shall be made and columns written about the *Founding Fathers* and the Patriots who gave their lives so that we may live in FREEDOM and LIBERTY in America. Many columns will be written quoting the *Founding Fathers*.
I am asking readers to really examine just how free are Americans today after all those lives that have been given in the quest for Liberty and Freedom. We hear so much about the sacrifices that the Founding Fathers and the American soldiers sacrificed on our behalf. In spite of all those lives – American falls deeper into Slavery and loss of Liberty than ever before. It matters not who sits in the Oval Office or in the Halls of Congress… Freedom, Liberty, keep fading further and further from view. 
Those who are sent to Represent us don’t really represent us – they get back to those political halls and they obey the orders given to them by the ruling groups on both sides of those political aisles. It is all a huge chess game with the pieces moved about in an effort to confuse and deceive We, The People. After each session is over we find that many more ‘laws’ have been put into place that further restricts all of our Freedoms and our Liberty, with taxes added and/or increased to pay for the Unconstitutional expenditures made by those who sit in ‘charge’.
The American Constitution was created for a Godly and moral people. The sad part is that that group of people has lost it’s way and taken a big bite from that forbidden fruit. They have taken it upon themselves to be their own gods and to worship all those things that God the Creator told us to not partake of. We are paying the consequence for disobedience today with a great more to come.
To me, true FREEDOM and true LIBERTY stems forth from ONE source. True Freedom and Liberty was handed to us when Christ sacrificed His life on that cross on Golgotha, or as many know it, Calvary. He sacrificed everything in order to open the door to True Freedom and True Liberty for each of us who choose to truly be FREE. He did not do it by way of deception or lies as others have since. Christ is all about TRUTH. Most human beings are far more concerned about their earthly lives – ignoring their eternal life. It should be just the opposite but the loud enticing voice of FUN and GAMES and COMFORT superceded the call for sacrifice and obedience to God the Father of all Creation.
We have reached a point in America where most refer to this holiday as the 4th of July rather than Independence Day. Instead of using the day to reflect upon what this nation was supposed to be and how far we have wandered from that original concept – we only think of BBQ’s, partying – with or without booze, fireworks, anything other than what the day should be about.
I invite each of you to take a few minutes to read the following verses and think of how True FREEDOM and LIBERTY is available to each of us – even while bound by the earthly chains of political and spiritual slavery. The time here on earth is short compared to our lives in Eternity. I am far more concerned about my Eternal Life and who I spend it with than I am about this faux freedom and liberty that we have here on earth. I like to quote THE FOUNDING FATHER of this planet.
(John 8:32 KJV)
(32) And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
(John 8:36 KJV)
(36) If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
(Romans 8:2 KJV)
(2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
(2 Corinthians 3:17 KJV)
(17) Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord {is}, there {is} liberty.
We hear a lot about CHOICE in America – usually in connection to a women’s Right to Choose abortion. (DEATH).
God gave each of us real CHOICE. He does not force anyone to make the Choice he gives to us. It is up to each of us to make that Choice., Eternal Life with Him or Death via eternal separation from Him.
I have a small picture that portrays Christ standing outside a door. He knocks. there is no doorknob on the outside of that door so Christ can’t just turn the knob, open the door and walk in. The person on the inside has to open that door and invite Christ in. That is FREE CHOICE in life.
I hope my words will have a positive effect upon those who read this. No big fireworks – drums beating – shouting or other sounds. Just a prayer that these words will reach far into your spirit and stir that part of your being that hasn’t been touched for many years, if ever. This is a very personal invitation to each of you – no one will ever know if you accept this invitation or reject it – other than yourself and God.
I do not say, God Bless America. I don’t say that because I know that He won’t bless that which has kicked Him out. However, God WILL bless those who repent and ask Him into their hearts and He will give you the strength to withstand all that is coming to this earth and those on it. Perhaps you walked with Him and strayed. He will take you back with open arms… just ask and ye shall receive.
I do pray that many who read this will be BLESSED by God.
Jackie Juntti

Separation of Church & State

Separation of Church and State.  I know of very few statements that carry so much emotion and so much misconception at the same time.  Our education system stifles religious expression with this phrase.  Our court systems have failed America with their rulings misapplying this phrase.  Our churches have been negligent to their responsibilities because of this phrase. The culmination of all this wrong doing has led this nation down a road that, may I boldly say, our founders never intended.  And now, even our government has attempted to deny our wounded warriors their very fundamental principles of faith; all because we have failed to understand the history that motivated Thomas Jefferson to make this statement to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.

What would we do as a nation if we owned the truth about Jefferson’s statements in this letter?  Would we have the courage to change things?  Would we have the courage to stand against the false premises and give truth the victory?  Well, let’s see, because here is the truth. 
When the first settler’s came to the continent in the name of religious liberty, they established charter governments.  Each new settlement had a new charter.  These charters wanted to make sure that they would never be prevented from practicing their religion again, so the charters contained provisions that ensured that ability.  Each charter established the religion of the colony.  They also contained provisions called “test acts”.  Test acts were oaths that each person had to take before they were eligible to hold any governmental office.  These oaths required a sworn allegiance to the religion of that charter. Additionally, part of the laws of these charters established means for persons of this religion to receive a license from the charter government to build a church or preach the established religion.  So, if you were not of the faith of the charter, you were not able to obtain a license to preach or build a church.  If you were not of the faith of the charter, you were not able to hold office to change the law so you could build a church or preach from a pulpit.  Not a great advancement in religious liberty, but the charter worked for those of like faith and practice.
The problem came when a religious denomination was not represented in any of the charters of the new colonies.  This was a particular problem for the pastors and preachers of the Baptist denomination. Men like Obadiah Holmes could not take a license to preach. Even if they would, they could not profess a denomination they did not support, so they could not have an official church, and could not legally preach in any charter.  History tells us that this did not stop these men from preaching.  However, it did hold some dire consequences.  If you doubt me, go ahead and research these men.  They were arrested, fined, imprisoned, and tortured for refusing to take a license to preach.  And yes, that happened right here, in the new American Colonies.
Several states, most prominently Virginia, refused to ratify the proposed Constitution because they felt:
“Whether the new Federal Constitution, which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty; on which it was agreed unanimously that, in the opinion of the General Committee, it did not.”
Virginia was led in this stand by the Virginia Baptist General Convention. A Baptist Pastor, by the name of John Leland was the head of this group.  Virginia wanted Pastor Leland to be the delegate for Virginia in the Constitutional Convention.  Pastor Leland did not want to be a delegate; he wanted to remain a pastor.  However, John Leland was a strong advocate for religious liberty.  He said,
“Every man must give account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in that way that he can best reconcile it to his conscience.  If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise let me be free.”
John Leland met with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and struck a deal. He offered James Madison his position as delegate for the state of Virginia as long as Madison promised he would make sure there was sufficient protections for religious liberty; namely a Bill of Rights.  Madison made his promise and held to it, being not only an ardent proponent for religious liberty, but for the entire Bill of Rights.  If you are interested in a fairly good account of this agreement, you can find this story in movie titled, Magnificent Heritage.
Once the Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights adopted, several founders tried to pass a bill to establish a tax to pay for Christian Teachers. Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to mention two, were adamantly opposed to this taxation. They felt this taxation was a direct assault on the religious liberty they had fought so hard to protect.  They felt that:
“…it is believed to be repugnant to the spirit of the gospel for the legislature thus to proceed in matters of religion; that the holy author of our religion needs no such compulsive measures for the promotion of his cause; that the gospel wants not the feeble arm of man for its support; that it has made and will again through divine power make its way against all opposition; and that should the legislature assume the right of taxing the people for the support of the gospel it will be destructive to religious liberty.”
They knew that where the government taxed they had an obligation to regulate.  If Christian Teachers were to be paid, even in part by taxes collected from the people they would become employees of the government.  Where the government employs, they will also, dictate.  (Precisely why vouchers are dangerous for Christian schools) The supporters of religious liberty prevailed and the bill was defeated. 
What most fail to see is that religious liberty is a Judeo-Christian view. In the Letters from a Federal Farmer, the author stated,
“It is true, we are not disposed to differ much, at present, about religion; but when we are making a constitution it is to be hoped for ages and millions yet unborn, why not establish the free exercise of religion, as a part of the national compact.”
Our founders were fighting for a nation where, in the words of John Leland all would be “equally free - Jews, Turks, Pagans, AND Christians”.  They knew from history that an attack on anyone’s religious liberty would be destructive to everyone’s religious liberty; for, where the government, through power or sword can dictate, there is no liberty.  So, when Thomas Jefferson was elected president, the Danbury Baptists wanted to encourage their new president to continue to fight to maintain religious liberty.  In a letter to President Jefferson they congratulated him on being elected and encouraged him to stand firm on this issue.  President Jefferson responded to this letter in 1802 with the following words:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
Now combine that explanation with the clarification offered by Jefferson in the second Session of Congress, regarding the adoption of the act for “establishing religious freedom”:
“…that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on their supposition of ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all liberty, it is declared, that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when its principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”
Thomas Jefferson was making a statement that the Government has no business in the affairs of the church - period.  If you take into account the very words of Jefferson and even those of Ben Franklin it is clear that they never intended for the people’s Government to attempt to eradicate every evidence or mention of God from any arena of society.  The intent of the founders was not to establish the government as a God-free zone, but to ensure that matters of religious conscience and practice was a government free-zone, except where “its principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”
Thomas Jefferson said , “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”
Benjamin Franklin said this at the Constitutional Convention:  “In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection.... All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor...have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?.... God Governs in the affairs of men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” 
Unfortunately for America the courts have not taken the time to understand this text in its historical context. I find it ironic really that we finally have the judges recognizing that to truly and correctly interpret a provision in the Constitution it is vital to refer to the intentions of the Founders.  Yet, in the one instance where they do quote a founder, they get it entirely wrong.  Is that a sign of judicial activism: the courts using whatever they can lay their hands on conveniently to propel their agenda?  Or is it simply ignorance of history and misapplication of principles?  I can’t help but think that if some attorney had taken the time to present an historically correct argument the courts would have never have been able to take Jefferson’s quote completely out of context and create a ruling that has changed the face of Liberty. 
Jefferson’s words ‘separation of church and state’ were a declaration that the government has no business in the affairs of the church.  He did not invent that principle, he inherited it from his fathers.  Henry I declared in the 1100 Charter of Liberties, a promise that Kings would no longer be evil and oppressive, that the Church would be FREE from government intrusion.  This principle is the very foundation for the 1st Amendment protection of Freedom of Religion believed and incorporated by our founders into our Constitution through the Bill of Rights.

By Jefferson’s own words, this was never to imply that God had no place in government.  Now you have the truth and to whom much is given, much is required.  The responsibility remains with the people to make a difference.  WE must force the truth to be heard.  WE must continue to let this lamp of experience guide us into the future.  WE must elect people who understand the true foundation of America.  We must bring Liberty back to America, for our children.
 

http://www.krisannehall.com/index.php/blog/92-in-context-separation-of-church-and-state

THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD (GUN)

One argument used by those who support taking away Americans Guns or support restrictions on the right to bear arms is, that our forefathers could not have imagined the types of guns that exist today compared to the firearms they had at that time. They say that the second amendment was never meant to cover machine guns and other such weapons.  And the Lapdog Media utilizes their freedom of speech and the press, to spread Obama's agenda on the subject.

To quote a phrase, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” and not only mightier but far more dangerous than any gun in the hands of a citizen.

Democrats argue that guns today do not fall under the intent of the 2nd amendment, couldn't one make a similar argument for mediums that are used for the expression of the 1st amendment. At the time of the founding the only tools for expressing speech were written or printed word. There was no way our forefathers could have imagined a media that could broadcast instantly to any home across the country. They could not have envisioned the invention of radio, television, or the internet.

They could not have imagined a "News" medium editing video tape to alter what somebody says (as MSNBC has done several times)

The modern media holds great influence over the public and can be misused in the wrong hands to do great harm. The power still exists to spread misinformation and with the ability to disseminate information so quickly wouldn’t it be rational to place restrictions on these mediums that could never have been imagined by men who lived over 200 years ago?

How would you liberals feel if a republican administration said they were going to start making news casters pass background checks?  Have a psychological background check? Or say that only a certain type of news can be aired or printed?  That would be wrong, just as it is wrong with what democrats want to do with guns.  The common denominator is that both are "RIGHTS", and they should not be infringed on.

But because we are becoming a Country of Men and not of Laws, these are the types of things that will continue to happen, and the scary question is, how far are you willing to go?...how many rights are you willing to give up????

WAKE UP AMERICA

WHITE HOUSE.....WE CAN KILL AMERICANS IF WE SEE FIT.....

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

Carney’s response is tailor made for quick filing under “The opposite of what he’d have said if Bush were president”:

Here is the video.

“These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise,” Carney said.  Are you KIDDING!!!

The White House defended the guidelines for targeting Americans in drone strikes as "fully consistent” with the Constitution.  Could somebody tell me where in the Constitutions that it says it's OK for the Government to take out Americans, because they are believed to be part of "an associated force".  Who decides what is an "associated force"??????

If this were George Bush or any Republican President doing this, the lapdaog media and the Democrats would be having anurisims trying to get to a micrphone to tell how much they are outraged at the fact that the President can kill American Citizens.....

WAKE UP AMERICA!!

WHY OBAMA LIED ABOUT BENGHAZI......

From Congressional hearings this week: 

On the night of the terrorist attack on Benghazi, President Obama was briefed only 1 time, about an hour after the terrorist attack started and he was never called again. 

For the next 7 hours of the attack, Obama never called to check and see what was going on, were we sending help to the Americans on the ground, was our Ambassador safe???  Nothing!!! 

Obama is the Commander in Chief, shouldn't he have been at least a little interested???? 

Also, Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey said that they knew that night that it was a terrorist attack.  So why did everybody in the Obama administration lie about the attack with a story about a You-Tube Video?  Why for 2 weeks did Obama continue to say we don't know what happened?  Why did Ms Rice go on the lapdog media 5 days later telling the You-Tube Story? 

Why would they all lie??  Oh wait, there was an election coming up.....if the American people knew that al-Qaeda was not week and on the run, like Obama told us, maybe it would have cost him some votes.  After all it's all about Obama.....

THE LIBERAL VIEW ON KILLING BABIES AND GUNS.....

Liberals are quick to defend and condone killing babies and say that if laws were put in place to stop abortions, girls would be going to the back alleys to get their abortions.

......Conservatives say that all humans have the right to life and we should not be killing babies.

Conservatives are quick to defend and condone the right to "Bear Arms" and say that if laws are put in place to restrict the right to "Bear Arms" criminals would be going to the back alleys to get their guns and bullets.

.......Liberals say that “We the People” don’t have rights to “Bear Arms” and that guns kill people.


Can you see where liberals are out of touch with reality and morality……
In both cases Liberals refuse to deal with the real problem, human responsibility and behavior.

Can a Liberal explain this to me

10 States are getting ready to raise the minimum wage.  And I expect that the federal government will be addressing the minimum wage increase soon, because it has not gone up since 2009.

This is what I am wondering about…..

Liberals tout that raising the minimum wage will stimulate the economy by putting more money in the consumers pocket.    But yet they want to raise taxes on the "Rich" and take that money out of the economy??

Well I did the math….

There are about 5 Million Millionaires in the US.  There are about 4 Million Minimum Wage Earners in the US.

Lets say for easy math that the Minimum wage increase is a .50 average per person(I think this will be a high estimate).  

So.....             52 Weeks
                x    40 Hrs
                =  2080 hrs per year
                x    .50 per hr increase
                =  $1,040.00 per person in their pocket per year
                x      4 Million Workers
                =  $4,160,000,000.00  BILLION DOLLARS

 So that is roughly just over 4 Billion Dollars per year to spur the economy.  (But remember, there are only 10 states raising the minimum wage, and I am using ALL minimum wage earners in the US in my calculations, so this number is extremely high.  It is probably closer to $1 Billion Dollars.)

Now lets look at the Millionaires.  If we go over the "Fiscal Cliff" (that Obama and the Liberals want to happen), the "Rich" are going to pay about an average of $48,500.00 more per millionaire, per year.  So, 5 million Millionaires being taxed an additional $48.5 K, that comes out to be about……. $242,500,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLARS.

4.16 Billion in the pockets of the people 
242.5 Billion in the pocket of the government 

I guess this is where Liberal Logic sets in....Liberals think that putting 4 BILLION in the pockets of the people will stimulate the economy, but don't think that taking 242.5 BILLION out of peoples pockets is money that could stimulate the economy, and they don't think that it will hurt the economy either.  

Wouldn't it be better to have the 242.5 BILLION in the economy to help stimulate it.  

And another thing, when you raise the minimum wage, the government is forcing small businesses to increase their overhead, which in turn will cause the small business to either, increase the cost of there product or lay off workers.  So if the cost of products goes up, then that 4 Billion dollars in peoples pockets from increasing the minimum wage won't be able to buy as much as before.

I believe that Minimum wage laws are bad for the economy (see my earlier post on minimum wage).  

http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2012/09/minimum-wagebad-for-economy-and-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fmfseo+%28WAKE+UP+AMERICA%29

And I think it is a stupid idea to give the Fed Government $242.5 BILLION more dollars when they haven't shown they know how to manage money.  Anybody that spends over 20 - 25% more than they take in doesn't need any more money.

So, I ask, will any of you liberals please explain this logic to me…….

My Response to "Mystery Unraveled"

My Response to "Mystery Unraveled"

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/11/08/mystery-unraveled-how-a-white-moderate-churchgoing-middle-class-middle-aged-woman-could-vote-for-obama/

I don't see where the mystery has been unraveled.  She's a moderate that believes that taking the life of  babies is OK, big government, and gay marriage is OK.  No mystery here.....

The true mystery is how a Christian could vote for Obama.  A man who thinks that taking the life of a baby, as late as the 3rd trimester, is OK?  How a Christian supports the idea of gay marriage, when the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin?  And before you jump up and down, God said "love the sinner, not the SIN".  I have no problem with a person who feels they are gay, but it is still a sin and we are not to condone it.  Just like all sin, we are not to condone them either.  And before you jump again, yes we all sin, but true Christians tries not to sin.  And too often we fall short, but we make a attempt to not sin.

As for her 5 reasons "moderates broke for Obama", they don't surprise me, after all she's a moderate.....

But here they are....

1).  I don't "know" if Obama is a Muslim or a Christian, but he does have socialist tendencies. (The Birth Certificate and that sort of thing was put out there by the democrats to distract the people) 

The problem here is that the dictionary definition of “socialist” sets an almost impossibly high bar for any leader. Even Vladimir Lenin himself couldn’t meet that standard. Actually, Lenin tried to implement pure socialism when he first came to power, but when his policies caused the Russian economy to collapse all around him, in 1921 he abandoned literal socialism and replaced it with a pragmatic, expedient reform program called the “New Economic Policy.” Under NEP, Lenin permitted various privatizations while seeking state domination of the “commanding heights” of the economy. President Obama has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over such “commanding heights” of our economy as energy, health care, finance, and education, with smaller forays into food, transportation and undoubtedly some areas I am overlooking.
Besides mimicking some of Lenin’s policy strategies, Obama also has adopted Karl Marx’s strategies for gradually socializing an economy. Before I spell out the Marxian nature of many of Obama’s policies, let me emphasize that I am not calling Obama a “Marxist-Leninist, period.” “Marxist-Leninist” connotes the brutal totalitarian police state of the late, unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is no comparison between Barack Obama’s statism and the genocidal, gulag-riddled regime of the Soviet Communists. That being said, Obama’s economic program is taken directly, if not deliberately, from the Marxist-Leninist playbook, and on that basis one may say that Obama tends toward Marxist-Leninist economics.
Besides adopting the Leninist strategy of seeking greater control over the commanding heights of the economy, if one reviews Marx’s 10-point platform for how to socialize a country’s economy in stages (“The Communist Manifesto,” chapter two), one finds that Team Obama and his congressional progressive allies have taken actions to further the goals laid out in all 10 of the planks in the Marx platform. 

Here are some examples, with Marx’s wording being revised for simplicity’s sake:

A).   State control of real property. Team Obama repeatedly has thwarted the development of domestic energy supplies by asserting government ownership and asserting arbitrary regulatory control over massive acreage.

Here is a link about how much land the government owns......

http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-owns-usa.html


B).   Progressive income taxes. Obama has an Ahab-like obsession with raising taxes on “the rich” even though the top 1 percent of earners already pay 39 percent of the total income tax.

C).   Abolition of inheritance. Obama favors re-institution of estate taxes.

D).   Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. Team Obama has declared war on offshore tax havens; has sought legal jurisdiction to tax the offshore income of multi-national corporations as well as foreign citizens and banks that have any investments in America (causing Switzerland’s oldest bank to recommend that its clients avoid all American investments);

E).   Centralization of the country’s financial system in the hands of the state. Dodd-Frank was a huge step in this direction.

F).   State control of means of communication and transportation. Team Obama has attempted to cow conservative media outlets like Fox News into submission through denunciation and has suggested reviving the so-called “fairness doctrine” and imposing heavier licensing fees on station owners. In the area of transportation, Obama insinuated government into the auto industry, has favored the high-speed rail boondoggle, and wishes he could compel us all to convert to “green transportation.”

G).   Increase state control over means of production. Through his green energy subsidies, his failed cap-and-trade scheme, now via EPA regulation, Obama has sought state control over the industry on which most other industries depend—energy.
 
H).    Establishment of workers’ armies. Obama has ramped up the number of Americans working for Uncle Sam by securing a large expansion of AmeriCorps and winning passage of his Serve America Act. He also has done everything he could to strengthen labor unions.

I).    Control over where people live. Team Obama doesn’t go quite this far, but one of the clear implications of cap-and-trade is that government could start to limit human mobility by controlling how far they can travel by capping energy consumption. In Brian Sussman’s book, “Eco-Tyranny,” you can read an executive order that Obama signed on October 5, 2009 that would “divide the country into sectors where all humans would be herded into urban hubs” while most of the land would be “returned to a natural state upon which humans would only be allowed to tread lightly.” (Marx wanted more equal distribution of the human population between town and country, whereas Obama favors urban concentration, but both want to control where people live.)

J).   Free education. Obama has sought a federal government monopoly on student loans for higher education, and in his 2012 State of the Union Address, he called for additional funds for new federal education programs.

Clearly Barack Obama’s policies have a distinctly Marxian flavor to them. Does that mean we are destined for socialism? Certainly not yet. But Marx knew that his 10 strategies would move a society toward socialism. The great free-market economist Ludwig von Mises agreed with Marx that government interventions breed further interventions and tend inexorably toward socialism. (See his class essay, “Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism.”)

There is another vital point to understand about Marxist-Leninist economics: The greatest damage is done to the middle class. With his customary bloodthirsty malevolence, Lenin said, “The way to crush the bourgeoisie [middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

You may suppose that Obama isn’t implementing that aspect of Marxist-Leninist economics, but you would be mistaken. It’s true that income tax rates haven’t risen under Obama and inflation has only surfaced in a few areas (e.g., food and energy) but what you need to understand is that government borrowing is a tax hike on future taxpayers. Obama’s unprecedented deficit spending has been subsidized by the Federal Reserve, whose balance sheet has swelled as they have bought more and more federal debt (more than 60 percent of the total last year). Whenever the Fed’s zero interest rate policy ends, some combination of massive tax hikes and/or raging inflation will ensue, devastating the middle class.

Already, Obama’s economic policies have hurt the middle class. They have enervated the job market, raised food and energy bills, and been accompanied by falling incomes and net worth. If these are the results of Obama’s partial steps in a Marxist-Leninist direction, imagine the damage that would be wrought by a fuller implementation of such an agenda.

I repeat that we should not recklessly call Obama a “Marxist-Leninist.” Although it’s too long and cumbersome a label for a generation addicted to sound bites and simplistic labels, a fair description of Obama and his economic goals is to say that he is “an interventionist, corporatist, statist, Big Government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor.”

2).  Obama's economic RECORD, has us with a 16T debt that will take well over 100 years to pay off.  This link will explain it in a nut shell....

http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2012/09/tax-richthat-will-pay-off-debt.html

She mentions, just like the democrat talking points tell her to do, that "we've tried that before".   

Yes we did, and it works.  But what too many people don't know is that we tried what Obama and the liberals want before and America almost didn't happen.  The Pilgrims tried it when they first arrive here and they almost starved to death.  It didn't take long for people to see that  sharing the wealth with people that didn't want to work doesn't work.  So they abandoned the system.   

Here is the account in a nut shell.....

William Bradford, the colony’s governor its first 30 years, wrote of the agreement between the Pilgrim passengers and the financial “Adventurers” in his book Of Plymouth Plantation. He noted that the seven-year contract signed July 1, 1620, before leaving Plymouth England, stipulated that the Pilgrims were to pool, for common benefit, “all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons…” It further noted “that at the end of the seven years, the capital and profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt the Adventurers and Planters…” During this time the colonists were to “have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said colony.” It doesn’t get more socialistic than this because the government divvied out the goods and loafers received the same as those who worked.

The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism made strong men lazy. In another book written by the same author, History of Plymouth Plantation, Bradford spoke of another problem because of the government created famine—thievery. Even in this Christian community, “much was stolen both by night and day….”

After two years of such, with the survival of the colony at stake, they contemplated upon “how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery.” They opted to abandon the incentive killing socialist contract in favor of the free market. And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”

The effects were almost immediate. A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much greater stimulus than governmental force. The Pilgrims now wished to work because they got to keep the benefits of their labor. “Instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God…. Any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” 

Like I said, we've tried Obama and the Liberals way.......

3).  Obama-care.  We won't have it for long.  By 2020 or so, we will have total Government health-care.  Mainly because the insurance companies will be out of business.  I believe this because of the pre-existing conditions clause.  Imagine yourself having a restaurant and the government came in and said that you had to feed anybody that comes in and says they are hungry.  How long would you stay in business.....

4).  Do the math.  X amount of people will use X amount of energy.  Whether it comes from the US or the middle east, doesn't matter.  But if we use our resources, we can drive down the cost of energy and improve our economy and at the same time work on other forms of energy.  But the EPA is out of control, it was put into place to help business, but now it is usually a hindrance to business...

5).  Here she has fallen for the class warfare lie.  

Here are links to the "Fair Share" lie.......

http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2011/09/fair-share.html

 http://wakeupamerica-nc.blogspot.com/2011/10/obama-on-misleading-america-on-taxes-to.html

OBAMA'S UN SPEECH HOSTIL TO CHRISTIANITY

Obama appeared to be against Christians practicing Christianity during his UN speech.  In his UN speech he said,

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied…"

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."  In other words, you cannot say anything bad about the prophet. 

It is a Christian belief that Mohammed is not a prophet.  So this belief would be slander.  Jesus came and died for the sins of mankind.  On the third day He rose again, which made clear that Satan had been conquered.  Jesus made it possible for man to return to God.  This was the task that Jesus came to do.  This is why, when He hung on the cross, He said: "It is finished".   All the work of the prophets and Jesus was accomplished there on the cross.  Man had the ability to approach God again as Adam and Eve did before they sinned.  Six hundred years later, Muhammad comes to tell that everything's actually different.  This makes it impossible for Christians to acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet.

So if you believe that Christ is the only way to salvation.  Believing that is slandering Mohammed.  That’s just a fact.  If you don’t believe me, you go into parts of the Middle East and proclaim Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and see what happens.

Then Obama continues,

"Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated…"  

Earlier he says we are to "not slander the prophet of Islam", but here he only says "…when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated…"  Not Christ himself.

So what he said was you can't slander the prophet, and you should condemn the hate when somebody desecrates the image of Jesus…

But wait, doesn't Obama's government fund the National endowment for the Arts, that funded the "Christ in piss" display. 

Wouldn't this be desecration??