Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
HERE ARE THE FACTS
BUSH 8 YEARS
At the END OF SIX YEARS
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet to the lowest point in over 75 years;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $4.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 6% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
A man who has called Prop 8 in California divisive and discriminatory. That opposing gay marriage is a horrible thing to do.
A man who pals around people who hate Israel.
When I confront them by email and or comment on their blogs, they back away. No answer.
I know in the garden that Adam and Eve hid themselves because of their sin. It's no different the reaction from these people. They would couch their cowardice in wanting to avoid controversy. In wanting to bee respectful. Rather than having the courage to stand up for their duplicity under the light of day.
What grieves me is the people these so called christian leaders are leading astray. They are leading them over the edge like lemmings.
If they want to vote as they vote, then for GOD'S SAKE have the courage to stand up for what you believe. They won't. In fact, in one case all I received was snide remarks. To be fair, I have some pastor friends for whom the war and other issues trumps the life issues and Romans 1 morality. We have gone toe to toe on those issues. I respect their courage. It's the others I have zero respect for. I'm afraid that spinelessness is a disease they catch in seminary.
These spineless pastors and leaders are duplicitous. Doubleminded. Unstable.
Jesus warned of such in Matthew 7: (Emphasis mine)
A Tree and Its Fruit15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Tagging with graffiti is a serious problem in our city. Here are some examples that I snapped as I was cycling to work.
Experts draw the following conclusions about taggers.
The following picture shows the orgin of tagging. Other species marked out their territory in a similar way to modern taggers.
- These taggers are insecure people who crave for public recognitions.
- Their tags symbolise who they are and what they stand for.
- These taggers do not respect the property of other people. They are putting themselves forward because they want to be in a position where they have power to spend other people's money.
- Many of the new taggers belong to gangs, but some are independent.
- These people put up their tags all over the country that they wish to control. They are marking out their territory.
The worst aspect of the new age tagging is that when they gain power over their area, they will initiate attempts to outlaw all forms of tagging but their own. They want to achieve a monopoly over tagging. This smacks of hypocrisy. They want to stop others doing something they will still do themselves.
After watching the " Obama Movie" last night It came to me that
1) Tom Hanks did not actually land at Normandy on DDAY
2) Chris Reeve never actually flew around the earth wearing a cape
3) John Wayne was never a Green Beret
4) Barack Obama has never actually changed a thing in his political career.
TOO GOOD TO LEAVE ALONE
All at the same time that the equities (Dow etc) are up.
I won't try to explain why all this is good news, but it says that fear is diminishing.
Even the FEAR INDEX is beginning to come slowly down.
Maybe the Market knows something about the election I don't. Go Sarah.
I think that an Obama administration, combined with a Democratic-controlled Congress, would do grave and long-lasting damage to the American economy. Several specific points:
1)Energy. The Democrats, and the vast array of “activists” whom they enable, have demonstrated hostility to all practical forms of energy production and distribution. This is not just a matter of oil & gas drilling: as we have discussed many times on this blog, the U.S. electrical system faces a problematic future. There is every likelihood that, under a Democratic administration/Congress:
- a)The building of new coal plants would go from “difficult” to “impossible”
- b)The building of nuclear plants would continue to be virtually impossible
- c)Even the building of new natural-gas-fired plants would be severely delayed by environmental lawsuits and regulatory maneuvering based on the CO2-is-a-pollutant theory.
Solar and wind, beloved of Democrats, have their uses, but they also have their limitations. I see no evidence that either Obama or the Dem Congressional leadership has any interest in understanding the technical and economic factors that govern the extent to which these technologies can be practically employed. The intermittent nature of wind and usable sun, the difficulty of storing electricity, the supply-chain constraints which govern the large-scale introduction of any new technology–there is much less interest in these things than in the glib repetition of catch-phrases. And even the use of environmentally-blessed technologies will be greatly inhibited by environmentalist protests against the transmission lines required to connect these systems to the cities that need their power. These activists would, of course, gain great impetus from a Democratic administration.
Obama talks a lot about the middle class. The existence of a large and affluent middle class is enabled by widely available and reasonably priced energy, especially electricity. If electric rates are driven up by a factor of 2X or 3X, as is entirely possible with Democratic policies, there will be not only a direct effect on consumers, but an effect on virtually all workers as U.S. businesses–especially manufacturing businesses but also things like data centers–become less competitive.
Lenin once remarked that “Communism is Soviet power plus electrification.” Our present “progressives” seem more interested in de-electrification. Where the New Deal (and the Soviets) wanted to build hydroelectric dams, today’s “progressives” are, for the most part, more interested in destroying them.
Remember, electrical infrastructure is a long-leadtime item, and if we dig outselves into a deep hole in this matter, it will take a long, long time to dig ourselves out.
No one should kid themselves that because gasoline prices are on a downtrend at the moment the gas-price problem is solved. Even if economic stagnation in the U.S. persists for a long time, a recovery in the Far East will drive demand–and, absent new supply, prices. Drilling in the U.S. is important not only for gasoline and diesel supplies but for supplies of natural gas–this commodity also comes from wells, and often from the very same wells that produce oil. This is something that Nancy Pelosi, with her apparent belief that natural gas is not a fossil fuel, does not appear to grasp.
2)International Trade. There has been, understandably, a lot of concern about jobs lost to the offshoring of business activities, especially in manufacturing. But it’s important to understand that international trade also creates jobs. If you work at Boeing or Caterpillar, for instance, exports are very important to your employment future–and countries are much more able to buy your products when their economies are thriving. The ability to sell products/services to the U.S. has, of course, been a major factor in the economic success of countries like China and India and their consequent ability to buy jetliners, tractors, and other things from the U.S.
Democrats seem to think that trade is something that Americans do for other countries, kind of like a global welfare system. They tend to underplay trade’s benefits to Americans–the attitude often being “we send our jobs to China and all we get back is cheap t-shirts at Wal-Mart.” The reality is that we get plenty other than cheap t-shirts. What would a PC or laptop cost if all manufacturing (including that of all components) had to be done in the U.S.? I haven’t reviewed any manufacturing bills of material for such products lately, but I’m fairly confident that prices of a domestic-only product would be much higher. The same is true of a wide array of consumer products–there are many things that are broadly affordable to Americans that would, absent imports, be available only to the relatively affluent.
One of the things Obama talks about is using tax policy to punish companies that move jobs offshore. How would this actually work in practice? Consider an example: GE makes CAT scanners and other high-end medical equipment in Milwaukee, as well as in other places. Many of the components that go into these products are sourced from other countries, including China and Mexico. Suppose GE had been effectively required to get all these components domestically, either by making the parts themselves or by acquiring them from domestic suppliers. The finished products would cost much more, and, in international markets, would likely be uncompetitive with similar products made by (for example) Siemens. This would not be good for employment in Milwaukee, or anywhere else in the United States.
Democrats like to talk about working cooperatively with other nations, but this does not seem to be their actual view in the case of trade, as evidenced in the high-handed attitude toward Columbia and in Obama’s comments about NAFTA, which caused considerable dismay in Canada.
I am not a free-trade absolutist–I’m not absolutely opposed to tariffs and other import restriction under all circumstances. I do believe that trade is on balance a net benefit to the U.S. and also to the billions of people throughout the world that it has helped to raise out of poverty. And I’m very concerned that the Democrats’ extreme politicization of trade–to the point of demagogy–threatens to undermine the competitiveness of American business, cost American jobs, raise prices for everyone, and possibly set off a global trade war.
Most economists agree that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were a major factor in bringing about the Great Depression.
3)Democratic hostility to small business. To be more specific, Democrats are hostile to what I call the aspirational small business. If you want to run a small restaurant, or a plumbing service consisting of yourself and maybe one helper, then the Dems are mostly okay with that. It’s when you begin to dream about growing the business into something significantly larger that they begin to have real issues with you…as demonstrated by Barack Obama’s snideness about the idea of a plumber earning $250,000 per year. In the world of the “progressives,” workers are workers, and people who run things should be those who have ridden the educational conveyor belt all the way from kindergarten through graduate school. The degree to which American prosperity has been created by people who have started small–and built something large–is really something that they fail to grasp. The belief that the economy will consist of increasingly large enterprises which become more and more invulnerable to competition, with small business playing a minor role (pace J K Galbraith, among others) persists despite all evidence to the contrary.
With a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress, you can expect regulatory and tax policy that make it increasingly difficult for small businesses to grow. And the small business that becomes a larger business has, historically, been an important source of social mobility for immigrants and others who were not in a position to attend “elite” colleges.
If you are a plumber who is content to be a one-man show, then–especially if you are a union member–the Democrats will say nice things about you, and may not do you too much directly targeted harm (although their policies on things like energy will harm you along with everybody else). If you are a plumber who wants to build something bigger, then these are not your friends.
4)Demonization of entire industries. Right now, the Democrats are demonizing the oil industry, but, inevitably, other industries will come into their sights over time.
Punitive tax policies against the oil industry would have one primary result: they would reduce the supply of oil. If tax rates increase, then the hurdle rate–the threshold that must be exceeded for a given new production project to makes sense–will increase, and fewer projects will get done. This is true for the refining sector as well as the production sector. The result: reduced supply and higher prices.
The same is true for other industries that would, over time, be found politically convenient as targets of demonization.
5)Micromanagement of innovation. According to Obama’s website: “Obama and Biden will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies.” What if the government had established an Advanced Computing Fund, circa 1976, to “identify and invest in the most compelling computing strategies?” What is the likelihood that unknown individuals like Mr Gates and Mr Jobs, without political connections, would have been chosen as recipients of investment? Isn’t it much more likely that the money would have gone to IBM, AT&T, and various Beltway companies skilled at extracting funds from the government? Wouldn’t the personal computing and networking industries have likely been strangled in the cradle, or at least greatly delayed?
An interesting example of micromanagement can be found in Obama’s proposal to “Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama-Biden plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs.”
Do Obama & Biden really think that, for example, learning to be a welder on wind-turbine towers is really all that different from learning to be a welder working on oil refineries or on steam power plants? Do they think that the work of an electrical engineer tying a solar power facility to the grid is based on a whole different set of principle from that of an EE tying a steam or hydro plant into the grid? What we have here is, again, planning based on the politically-hot buzzwords of the moment rather than on serious analysis of resource needs. And this sort of thing is an inherent consequence of economic micromanagement.
I knew someone who, circa 1999, wanted to create a light-manufacturing business and looked at a local-government incentive program which provided cheap facilities to “high technology” businesses. Since his business involved machining rather than software or electronics, he was informed that he was not eligible. (This was a clean business; there were no environmental issues.) I’m pretty sure that most of the “high tech” companies that were subsidized by this local government are no longer in existence. Expect a lot of this sort of thing with government micromanagement.
6)Elimination of the secret ballot in union elections. The Democrats want to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, substituting a “card check” procedure which would leave workers open to intimidation.
I’m not opposed to unions (in the private sector–public employee unions are a whole different matter), but the elimination of the secret ballot would shift the balance of power considerably. The most serious implication of this would be the growth of restrictive work rules, reducing productivity–and, therefore, real incomes–across the entire economy. As Shikha Dalmia says:
Companies’ biggest fear is that unions will foist rigid workplace rules upon them–just as they did on the former Big Three automakers–preventing them from quickly redeploying their workforce in response to shifting market conditions, crimping their productivity and global competitiveness.
(Economics aside, the civil-liberties implications of eliminating the secret ballot in this context are very serious.)
7)Corporate taxes. Democrats seem to think that corporations can be used as bottomless reservoirs of tax revenue without any negative impact on people…or, at least, people who are potential Democratic voters. In actuality, corporations are not the final payers of corporate taxes. The impact of good or bad things that happen to a corporation is always eventually passed through to individuals:
- —employees (including executives as well as other workers)
For most corporations, the compensation paid to executives is actually a pretty small part of the overall financial pie. Most of the cost of increased corporate taxes would be reflected in higher prices, lower wages, and/or lower net income for shareholders…the latter effect, of course, being reflected in lower stock prices and mutual fund values.
But the real impact of increased corporate taxes would be felt in reduced competitiveness with foreign companies–many advanced countries already have corporate tax rates that are significantly lower than those in the U.S.
For all their talk about “global perspectives,” the Democrats seem to have a hard time remembering that we are not, and cannot be, an economically-isolated country.
Of those, some are voting for pro abortion candidates.
Some of them are Christians.
Some I know are good people.
I have often on this blog said that I have more in common with the Roman Catholic Church in many issues than I do with Evangelicals. It's not Roman Catholic Leaders who are wobbly enough to vote for candidates of death.
I know that many catholics in the pew are wobbly. I know that many priests even are off the reservation. It is discouraging when I see men and women who otherwise could be good students of the Word of God in leadership saying things that are profoundly against the sanctity of life. Most of them are evangelicals. and some catholics. and some liberal Lutherans. and and and
The election is next Tuesday if you are a conservative and liberals vote on Wednesday. I used that as a joke sometimes. Seems like the Liberals worry that the sheep they have as voters might actually Believe this and wait till Wednesday to vote. Of course many of them are Olberman fans. They believe any kind of drivel. What about that well informed electorate Jefferson said we should have? OR does that explain the situation we face today?
So I will for the few people I might convince that read this blog, I will keep up the drumbeat until close of business Tuesday.
Wednesday I will get up to Serve God and Honor the new American President Elect.
Till then, I will tell the truth any way I can, over and over and over and over and.....
In that way I fight the good fight.
October 27, 2008
Dear brothers and sisters,
In these days you are seeking the votes of your fellow Americans for public office. At the same time, you take the position that abortion, however regrettable it may be, should remain legal.
I write to express the convictions of tens of millions of citizens. Your position is a blatant contradiction to the very meaning of public service, the first requirement of which is to be able to tell the difference between serving the public and killing the public!
We ask, first of all, Have you ever seen an abortion? So many who defend abortion’s legality cannot even bring themselves to look at the horrifying pictures of children torn apart by the procedure (www.unborn.info). But if we cannot look at it, why should we tolerate it?
We likewise ask, Are you willing to publicly describe what you think should be legal? “Typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece…" (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S). In the same case, abortionist Dr. Hylan Raymond Giles, when asked, “Can the heart of a fetus or embryo still be beating during a suction curettage abortion as the fetus or embryo comes down the cannula?” answered, “For a few seconds to a minute, yes.” Abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell, in sworn testimony, described the “D and E” abortion procedure, still legal throughout our nation, by saying,
When you say the word “abortion,” is this what you mean? When you say it should be legal, are you willing to quote those who explain what it is?
Your position is undermining the fabric of our nation. We repeat to you again the question posed by Mother Teresa in her speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC on February 3, 1994. “And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
We have not yet heard a “pro-choice” candidate answer any of these questions.
That’s why people cannot vote for you, and you shouldn’t be asking for their vote. If you can’t respect and protect the life of a little baby, how are you supposed to respect and protect our lives, or any other right we possess?
When you ask citizens for their vote, you are actually asking them to share in your failure to protect these children. You’re asking them to share in the deception by which you justify that failure. You’re asking them, too, to contradict the meaning of public service. They are not morally permitted to say yes to what you are asking.
We in the pro-life movement do not need any reminders about the plight of young mothers. We serve them every day, providing real alternatives to abortion.
Nor do we accept the accusation that we are narrowly focused on a “single issue.” We are not ashamed of the fact that we recognize a holocaust when we see one, and that we understand the foundation, heart, and core of our concern for all the other issues – life itself.
We’re not a vote for you to court or an interest group for you to appease. Rather, our movement represents the heart and core of every movement for justice. That is why, whether you end up elected to public office or not, we will be there – in the halls of government, in the media, and on the streets of every city, town, and countryside across America – pressing the cause of justice for a group of human beings whose rights you have forgotten.
We will neither cease to remind you, nor will we wait for you to remember. Our cause is as great as America itself, and it will prevail. May you have the wisdom to join us.
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life
They don't care a whit about these things. Most liberal voters are easily deceived and easily led by smooth talk about empty platitudes that mean nothing.
One devoted democratic woman after watching how FAKE the Liberals Democrats are toward WOMEN in faux feminism has had it. She has said goodbye and is now voting for McCain. Working inside the campaigns she became irritated by the way they treat women, particularly women candidates in this election cycle has said GOOD BYE.
Here's the real point. Any scrap of actual women's rights and feminism was lost in the emptiness surrounding the right for women to kill their own babies.
When it all comes up empty the only thing you can do is say goodbye. She did.
Hat Tip to Kelly. THANK YOU!
Yet, the people believe that he is open and honest?. Are the majority of people voting for Obama Lemmings or just simple people that want help and in their hour of need are being taken by a scam artist?
1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
13. Your Record of baptism– Not released or ‘not available’
14. Your Illinois State Senate records–’not available’
Hat Tip Rich
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The women were greatly moved by this, mostly. Here are some pictures Pastor Phil took.
The group picture I took. I never appear in the photos. My lovely wife does. She's the one at the podium in Yellow.
In case you wonder what we do, we follow the cursillo format. It's cursillo that caused me to come to Jesus. It has morphed into dozens of iterations. Cursillo was the catholic iteration. Then Lutherans used it, then it became Road to Emmaus, Tres dias.
Pentecostals do this as well. It's called Encounter. The only difference is a Deliverance service.
Otherwise it's almost exactly the same.
I guess it's so effective, that's why so many people use it. I wish everyone would have the opportunity to do this. Every church should have an active retreat renewal ministry like this for both the men and the women.
The only regret I have are the women who attended who's husbands did not first attend. That was a mistake. Oh, it did them good. But it's very hard on a marriage when a wife is set on fire for Jesus and her husband is passive. It creates distance. More than should have been. More than was there before the retreat.
I pray for those precious women. They have a doubly hard situation now. We only had a few, but those are enough.
Lives change, it's better if couples can change together. If they do, their marriage becomes even stronger.
So, if you ever have a chance to do the cursillo or encounter retreat, do it. It will in fact change your life forever.
Jesus wants me to vote for Barack Hussein Obama.
How could I disobey Him?
Because Jesus controls everything, including our own history, if Obama wins it will be because Jesus wanted it that way.
I gave Jesus a call, He told me you got the wrong memo.
It’s Palin McCain he want’s you to vote for. Take it from me.
Just do that, you’ll be OK. Fires of Hell extinguished.
Everyone knows Jesus text messages these days.
You just might have gotten one of the robo calls we’ve heard so much about.
But it is kinda warm here today...I better double check…
I know it's kind of silly. Fun between guys. BUT, afterwards, I thought, MAYBE Jesus would use text messages to reach someone if he wanted to. Why not?
All kinds of other subjective prophetic ways are used by Him to transmit messages to His people. Why Not texting?
So, if you get a text message and it says, "I LV U" It could just be from the John 3:16 Creator of the whole universe. Why Not?
"Before we accept your script, you ARE voting for OBAMA aren't you?"
That's the level of insanity the left has arrived at.
Read this whole thing. It should scare HELL out of you.
Obama supporters are Nazi fascists devoted to world domination. OK, maybe not all. Most. Many. Those in this story.
Did Saddam bagman help Obama buy mansion?
Photo confirms Rezko financier linked with late Iraqi tyrant
Posted: October 28, 2008
9:22 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Former Baathist official Nadhmi Auchi with cousin Saddam Hussein
Former Iraqi official Nadhmi Auchi bankrolled his longtime friend and business partner, Syrian and Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko, who in turn bankrolled Obama's political career before being convicted this year of fraud.
That much is known. What's not known is whether any Auchi funds aided Obama's 2005 purchase of a $1.65 million mock-Georgian mansion in the leafy Kenwood district of Chicago. On the same day, Rezko purchased an adjacent lot from the same seller.
In addition, Rezko personally toured the house with Obama before their same-day purchase of the adjoining parcels. He also advised Obama on negotiating his end of the deal.
Obama ended up buying his side of the property for $300,000 below the asking price, while Rezko, through his wife, paid full price, $625,000, for the adjacent vacant lot.
Just three weeks earlier, Rezko – who at the time was under indictment and virtually bankrupt – received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Auchi, his "close friend" and partner, who smuggled weapons to Saddam's regime.
Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones Jr. and his protege Barack Obama
A year before their real estate deal, Obama, fresh off his U.S. Senate win, attended a dinner that Rezko hosted honoring Auchi at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown Chicago. There, he met with Rezko, as well as his career mentor, Emil Jones, president of the Illinois senate, where Obama had previously served. Jones also is close to Auchi.
While Obama acknowledges attending the 2004 event, he claims having no memory of meeting Auchi there.
"I just don't recall," he said, even though the dinner was held in Auchi's honor and Rezko had invited Obama to meet him and other friends.
What's more, Rezko that same year had held another reception for Auchi, this time at his mansion; and according to court testimony in Rezko's trial, both Barack and Michelle Obama attended the reception and met Auchi.
Auchi at the time was under investigation by the U.S. government. The Pentagon had accused him of perpetrating fraud in Iraq, and he was subsequently barred from future entry into the U.S.
Auchi turned to Rezko to lobby several politicians in an unsuccessful bid to reinstate his visa.
It's not clear if Obama, a vocal Iraq war critic, was one of those politicians. But the senator did intervene on behalf of another shady Iraqi official at Rezko's request.
Emil Jones and Nadhmi Auchi
After Aiham Alsammarae was jailed in Iraq for fraud in 2006, Obama's Senate office sought information from the State Department about his status and relayed it to his family living in Chicago.
Alsammarae, a dual Iraqi-U.S. citizen who donated the maximum $2,300 to Obama's campaign, attended the same Four Seasons reception for Auchi attended by Obama.
A 2004 Pentagon report identified Auchi as an Iraqi billionaire and global arms dealer "who behind the facade of legitimate business, served as Saddam Hussein's principle international financial manipulator and bag man."
The report states that "significant and credible evidence has been developed that Nadhmi Auchi has engaged in unlawful activities," such as bribing "foreign governments and individuals prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom to turn opinion against the American-led mission to remove Saddam Hussein."
Obama and top fundraiser Tony Rezko, a business partner and close friend of Auchi
He also helped "arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and dual-use technology into Iraq."
Since October 2002, Obama has publicly opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom, which ousted Saddam Hussein. Auchi was a cousin of the executed dictator.
As for Rezko, the Obama campaign says the presidential hopeful was unaware of his dirty dealings and has returned more than $200,000 in donations tied to him.
Obama has confessed misjudgment only in the subsequent purchase of a 10-foot strip of the adjacent S. Greenwood Avenue property from Rezko, not the original seemingly coordinated purchase of the parcels with Rezko on the same day, which political watchdog groups have called a "sweetheart deal."
Plot of land Rezko bought on same day Obama bought $1.65 million Georgian mansion next door
Obama described his subsequent $105,000 transaction a "boneheaded move," only because Rezko was under indictment at the time for bribing elected officials and other influence-peddling charges. He denies they coordinated their bids on the adjoining parcels so the Obamas could buy their dream home at a discount.
And his campaign has reiterated that Obama has no recollection of meeting Iraqi bagman Auchi, while adding that Auchi does not recall meeting Obama.
"There are no skeletons with this guy," Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power has insisted regarding her candidate. "He's clean."
1967 – Nadhmi Auchi joins Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime as Oil Ministry official
1974 – Antoin Rezko immigrates to U.S. from Syria
Another view of Obama's mansion
1979 – Auchi founds General Mediterranean Holding, procuring arms for Saddam's regime
1980s – Auchi begins bankrolling Rezko real estate deals in Illinois
1991 – Barack Obama interviews with Rezko for a position at his low-income housing development business, Rezmar
1993-1996 – Obama takes on Rezko as a client at his Chicago law firm, representing various Rezmar housing projects
1995 – Rezko starts to bankroll Obama's political career, in the end raising a total of more than $250,000 for his various campaigns
October 2002 – Obama gives speech opposing war with Iraq
June 2003 – Rezko holds lavish fundraiser for Obama at his Illinois mansion, providing key seed money to launch his U.S. Senate campaign
April 2004 – Auchi meets with Rezko, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and State Senate President Emil Jones Jr., Obama's career mentor, at the Four Seasons hotel in Chicago. Newly elected U.S. Sen. Obama also attends event
2005 – U.S. bars Auchi from entry, after Pentagon accuses him of Iraqi fraud
2005 – Rezko lobbies Illinois and U.S. officials for Auchi to be allowed back into the U.S.
May 23, 2005 – Auchi wire-transfers $3.5 million to Rezko
June 15, 2005 – Obama partners with Rezko in purchasing adjacent properties on South Greenwood Avenue in Chicago's leafy Kenwood district
January 2006 – Rezko sells Obama adjoining 10-foot strip of land
June 2008 – Rezko convicted of taking kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with the state of Illinois
I have watched it for years. OH, half those people are full of baloney. I know that. They are glib and really wrong much of the time. But they really love the whole deal.
I enjoy them. I enjoy the camaraderie. Even if it's only TV. I have watched Bloomberg. They don't seem to be having as much fun. FBN isn't on my cable. I have no opinion.
The only reason I mention it is this morning they are really cheerful. The world doesn't appear to be coming to an end.
I'll bet their ratings are off the chart. I can't be alone in enjoying this channel as much as I do.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Read the whole thing.
A Christian CAN (Is physically able to) vote for Obama. He can also visit a brothel and rob a bank. All are possible. Sin can be forgiven.
So am I saying it is a sin to vote for Obama? Not if you are ignorant. So if you don't KNOW, if you have been living in a cave for the last year, if you have no idea of where Obama stands in issues of righteousness like life and homosex, and you vote for him, it might not be sin. The bible clearly says: Therefore, to Him Who Knows to Do Good and Does Not Do It, to Him is Sin, James 4:17
What about the rest of us? How then shall we live or vote?
I will grant that for a lot of people disgust with a difficult war, spending, torture and economics trump it may appear that a righteous position could be as a christian to vote Obama.
If those were the only issues, change from a flawed President and Party, I might consider Obama too. Certainly Health Care and many other issues aren't far from my heart. Economics are very deceptive. Promises of hope are very enticing.
That's what sin does. Entices.
John McCain is not a perfect candidate at any level. Sarah Palin is better. But they are human. Human leadership is flawed and very flawed as humans. My hope is not in people. But, I must be willing to do all I can according to James. To do any less is sin.
Now, back to the question, Can a Christian vote for Obama and not be in deliberate sin?
A Christian can IF:
- They are Christian in name only. Name the name of Jesus but with reservation
- They are able to crush that still small voice that says don't do it
- They are willing to vote against the biblical mandates "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12), but “The wicked shall turn into hell all the nations that forget God” (Psalm 9:17).
- They can turn a blind eye to Pro Choice's result
- They can ignore without grief the abomination of Homosexuality taught in schools, exhibited in the streets and marriage of same sex couples ordained of the courts
Romans 1:25 also warns us that people would exchange the truth of God for a lie. Because of this, God will turn those who choose the lie over to their own desires.
We can't ignore corruption and graft by people in government without a moral compass, it happens in both parties, but one party seems to flaunt it openly. The opposition of secular voices who suppress and oppose the testimony of Jesus in the Public Square. Who does these things? Can you vote for them?
So a person CAN vote Obama if they are unable to hear the voice of God for themselves and have had the voices of the media and campaigns trumping His voice in their spirit.
5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth,
who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.
6 Now godliness with contentment is great gain.
7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry
A christian in name only can vote for Obama. There are plenty of them.
2 Timothy 4:3-4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
My hope and prayer is that people will vote righteousness. If you consider yourself a christian and if you believe that a vote for Obama is a righteousness vote I would recommend that you shut off the TV. Seek God and ask him what you should do. If you can't vote for, or against as I will do, then perhaps not voting at all is what he is calling you to do.
This is not about you, this is about the generations of your children and grand children.
I will now answer what I believe to be the truth; a born again blood bought spirit led christian who hears and obeys the voice of God will NOT be able to vote for Obama without it being sin to him or her. This action is not without consequence.
For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
1 John 1:6-7:
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with
one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under
grace? Certainly not!
I don't know what else I could say, but I do believe you can be forgiven if you vote Obama, God's grace will be enough to get us thru even if he is elected. I will honor him as President of the USA if he becomes President. I don't want to stand before God and try to explain at the Bema seat of Jesus my vote if I voted for Obama.
Much hangs in the Balance. This isn't about you. Does your vote take us closer or further from God's best?"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12), but “The wicked shall turn into hell all the nations that forget God” (Psalm 9:17).
Vote your consience, just be sure your conscience isn't seared. Luther spoke of this:
Monday, October 27, 2008
Should be good news.
Exploration will stop. Alternative research will halt. Economics will change.
Under the cost of true production and refining. Will only result in shortages and higher prices later.
But, this is a great example of a really bad prophet on TV's stupidity. I won't mention his name, but he has a show of 700 if you get my drift.
He's wrong 100% of the time. He is predicting horrible things for our economy. He's wrong about that too.
If voter fraud would ever be ripe for investigation, this would seem to be the year with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) having been caught filing thousands of bogus voter registrations in at least 14 states. Acorn's history of deceit and the national sweep of today's scandal demand a federal probe. Safeguarding the integrity of the vote is every bit as important as protecting access to the polls, yet Democrats want Justice to pay attention only to the latter.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers recently sent two letters to Attorney General Michael Mukasey deploring a news leak that the FBI is investigating Acorn, and warning Justice to focus instead on "voter suppression." Barack Obama has also joined in this political intimidation, demanding in two letters that Mr. Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Justice staff who he claims are engaged in "unlawful coordination" with John McCain's campaign to pursue "so-called 'election fraud.'" There is zero evidence that such coordination exists, but it is remarkable that a Presidential nominee would dismiss election fraud as a myth.
The lawyers at the Civil Rights Division are already falling into line. Justice recently decided to reverse a policy in place since 2002 to send criminal attorneys and other federal employees to monitor polling places. The decision came two weeks after a September meeting to which the Civil Rights Division invited dozens of left-wing activist groups to discuss voter "access" to the polls.
Justice has also failed to enter the fray in Ohio. As many as 200,000 new voter registrations in that state are suspect, yet Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is refusing to follow the 2002 Help America Vote Act that requires her to verify these registrations. The Ohio Republican Party sued Mrs. Brunner, but the Supreme Court said the GOP lacked standing. Justice does have standing -- it is charged with upholding that law -- but has ignored the fight. The Justice excuse is that it isn't appropriate to file litigation so close to Election Day.
Yet that hasn't stopped the Civil Rights Division this month from filing a lawsuit against Waller County, Texas, to correct alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act; a lawsuit against Vermont for failing to report accurately on overseas ballots; and an amicus brief in a case filed by a civil-rights group that is suing to stop the Georgia Secretary of State from complying with voter verification rules. Justice's election suits always seem to side with liberal priorities.
It doesn't help Justice's credibility that attorneys charged with supervising voting issues are avowed Barack Obama supporters. According to Federal Election Commission data, James Walsh, an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, has donated at least $300 to Mr. Obama. His boss, Mark Kappelhoff, has given $2,250 -- nearly the maximum. John Russ, also in Civil Rights, gave at least $600 to Mr. Obama.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to make these attorneys available to us, though she didn't deny that the contributions were made. She noted that the Hatch Act does not forbid federal employees from donating to candidates, and that Justice's internal "standards for recusal" on prosecutions depend on any "given situation." Apparently so.
Vote fraud is real and can affect elections. In 2001, the Palm Beach Post reported that more than 5,600 people who voted in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election had names and data that perfectly matched a statewide list of suspected felons who were barred from voting. Florida was decided by about 500 votes.
In 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the result of a mayor's race because of absentee ballot fraud -- a case that led to a stricter Indiana ID law recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. A 2005 Tennessee state Senate race was voided after evidence of voting by felons, nonresidents and the deceased. A Washington State Superior Court judge found that the state's 2004 gubernatorial race, which Democrat Christine Gregoire won by 133 votes, had included at least 1,678 illegal votes.
Voter access does need to be protected, but Democrats are using that principle as a political weapon, suggesting that any serious look at fraud is intended to "disenfranchise" voters. This is a naked attempt to protect their friends at Acorn, who have been registering thousands of phony voters. Congress put the voter fraud statutes on the books, and Justice is obliged to enforce them.
Obama is 100 percent consistent in his votes, speeches, and books in advocating and promoting the destruction of personal property rights.
Obama [and socialism- Marxism] promotes “class” and “group” rights over individual rights.
In every vote, in every speech, and in both of his books, Obama advocates and promotes class & group rights over individual rights.
Socialism [really Marxism] compels the people to work for the state. Obama advocates and promotes “community sacrifice” in every speech, every vote and in his two books; nation wide and worldwide. U.S. Taxpayers need to “sacrifice” for the poor in Africa and other third world nations.
Remember his demand for a national civilian security force larger than the combined military?
What does he plan on using it for?
A government of, by, and for the people will be changed by Obama into a government of,by and for the state.
Barack Obama has introduced into our national politics, national election fraud the likes of which our country has never experienced.
He has introduced into our national politics financial fraud and campaign finance fraud--through unsecured credit card contributions, the likes of which our nation has never experienced.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid have in their sights, small businesses, the middle class, savings and now our 401K plans.
Obama and the socialist-Marxist democrat party want to cut military spending by 25%.
With Red China on the rise, Iran on the rise north Korea, Russia, Venezuela on the rise, Obama wants to eliminate missile defense systems and cut military spending by 25%.
These people, these extremists, these Marxists will operate without any checks and balances.
There will be nothing to stop them; nothing to stop their tyranny. They will operate without Constitutional restraints because they reject the Constitution’s limits on the Federal government.
They are preparing to brutalize anyone to silence them, to investigate them, to punish those who dare to speak out against them.
We’ve seen this repeatedly. They will also brutalize anyone who pays taxes and earns an honest living. This is about power and control and eliminating the remaining obstacles and constraints on the Federal government.
Everything will be on the table. Every one of us, regardless of race, sex, party affiliation or income will be hurt by Obama’s socialist-Marxist tyranny; except the ruling class-the political elites and the bureaucrats.
You’ll continue to hear Obama railing against the private sector-the government hates the private sector-the government rapes the private sector- and yet the vast majority of Americans, you and me- we make up the private sector.
The government hates the Christian religion. The IRS is investigating church after church after church if a pastor speaks even in passing about anything political while Obama’s buddies, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan and all Muslims in America, get away with murder.
Obama repeatedly speaks about “community sacrifice” -never about individual liberty, merit and success, which he detests.
So all of these “American values” have to be destroyed in order to recreate the society that Obama envisions.
HAT TIP JOEL