Now if we can just get the BLACKS & UNIONS to stop voting as a “block” and start voting their CONSCIENCE we could win this thing. I have been a union member my entire life and I receive 3 very nice pensions, BUT I NEVER ‘drank the “cool-aid” when they tried to tell me back when I was just an apprentice, if I wanted to work I WILL vote Democratic. I NEVER lost a days work unless I wanted to, and I voted Conservative ( Republican ) the entire time……If my dad ever taught me anything it was, “don’t EVER allow your moral and religious beliefs be trumped by your politics”….PM
Last week Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan lashed out at the Obama Administration for forcing religious organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. New Obama regulations will force Christian organizations to provide free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion drugs to workers even though this violates Catholic Church teaching. The new rules are so strict that most Catholic institutions will not qualify for an exemption.
Even Pope Benedict warned of the “grave threat” to religious freedom in United States before the Obama Administration approved the new rules.
The topline number in this Pew survey shows that the current breakdown among registered voters is 43/48 GOP/Dem, which is a seven point shift from their 39/51 results in 2008. Now that alone should worry the Democrats, seeing as Pew found that the breakdown in 2010 was 43/47, which was the year where Democrats got shellacked across the country; but the news is if anything worse when you look at the breakdown by religious affiliation. A lot of attention will be on how Jewish support for the GOP went from 20/72 to 29/65 between ’08 and today; but what may be even more important is that that GOP support among white Mainline Protestant and white Catholic voters flipped from 45/45 and 41/49 in 2008 to 51/39 & 49/42 in 2011. How this will translate into likely voters is, of course, anybody’s guess… but if you’ve been wondering why the President is suddenly talking about how neat God is, it’s probably because somebody on his staff is keeping track of Pew.
When Rick Santorum says Barack Obama is the most anti-religion president in history, he now has statistics to back him up.
SOURCE: Gateway Pundit
Can there be any explanation why the 4 Republican candidates running for the office of the President Of These United States has NOT mentioned a word about this. These guys are so busy fighting each other while something as HUGE as this can be laid right in the lap of Hussein Obama and all his union cronies! . This is UNBELIEVABLE!…..Papa Mike
Sharia Court In Indian-Controlled Kashmir Issuing Decrees Against Christians…
Muslim-Majority = Christian persecution.
(CNSNews.com) – India’s Christian minority has long faced harassment at the hands of militant Hindus, but in the Indian-controlled portion of Muslim-majority Kashmir the threat is coming from Islamic fundamentalists.
A shari’a court in Srinagar, capital of India’s Jammu and Kashmir state, has issued a decree expelling four pastors from the territory, after accusing them of using financial inducements to convert young Muslims to Christianity.
Although the court has no legal jurisdiction over non-Muslims, political parties have reportedly remained silent; Indian churches have been alone in protesting the ruling.
“Surprisingly the political class has not spoken a word about it [the court ruling], which is disastrous,” Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India president Cardinal Oswald Gracias said this week.
Seattle libraries will not allow patrons to eat or sleep or go barefoot. But they can watch all the hardcore porn they want in front of children.
Seattle PI reported:
The Seattle Public Library has a long list of rules of things you can’t do in the library, to ensure “comfort and safety” of staff and patrons. You can’t eat, sleep, look like you’re sleeping, be barefoot, be too stinky or talk too loudly.
But you can watch graphic porn on a public computer in front of kids. Despite repeated complaints from female patrons about men watching porn in full view of their children, the library has held fast to its policy of unfettered online access for grown-ups.
The reason: It’s not in the business of censorship.
The latest dust-up comes after a mother with her two kids saw a man watching “hard-core porn” at the Lake City library and complained. When the librarian refused to ask the man move to a less visible screen, Julie Howe wrote the library, the media and lawyers and got on KUOW.
“It was very shocking,” said Howe, whose 10-year-old girl had seen the man’s screen and cried that night. But, she acknowledged, “it’s not an easy one to solve.”
Other libraries also allow porn
The library’s position was mirrored elsewhere. The King County Library System has a similar policy, of filtering kids’ access on computers, while allowing adults to roam freely. The American Library Association endorses the same stance.
“Sometimes, in a library, you’re going to see information that’s going to make you uncomfortable,” Barbara Jones, director of the association’s intellectual freedom office, said on KUOW Wednesday.
Stephen Kruiser has more on the right to watch porn in public.
SOURCE: The Gateway Pundit
The Republican Presidential candidates should be fighting Barack Obama instead of each other.
Now, the gloves are off. But Republican challengers for the White House aren’t throwing their hardest punches at Barack Obama. No, they’re flailing away at each other.
Monday’s debate in Tampa, Fla., was particularly nasty, with Mitt Romney making his strongest attack to date against Newt Gingrich. And no wonder. Until recently, the former Massachusetts Governor’s dream of finally capturing the Republican nomination looked like a sure thing. But that was before the gods of the recount took away his victory in Iowa.
And Gingrich found a new enemy to attack in two debates in South Carolina: the liberal media. The crowd ate it up, and a huge number of undecided voters made a last-minute decision to vote for the former House speaker.
So after three State contests, we have three winners: Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses by 34 votes; Mitt Romney was an easy (and expected) winner in New Hampshire; and Newt Gingrich came from behind to win a decisive victory in the Palmetto State.
Now it’s on to Florida, where there are more delegates up for grabs than in three previous States combined. Florida is a winner-take-all State where only registered Republicans can vote in the primary.
The Sunshine State is huge: twice the size of any other State east of the Mississippi. To reach all Florida voters, a candidate has to saturate the airways in five different media centers. For a while, it looked like Romney’s large war chest and massive preparation gave him an unbeatable advantage. But that was before Gingrich’s impressive victory in South Carolina, which encouraged a ton of new supporters to flock to him — many with their checkbooks open. Now, pollsters say the race is virtually tied.
Who is writing the script for this year’s Presidential contest? It’s become a cross between the Three Stooges and Monty Python. It’s an ugly “least ugly” contest.
Is there any candidate who can electrify his supporters and unite the conservative base while appealing to independents? I don’t see one. The closest is Ron Paul, who has a wildly passionate group of base supporters. But, as much as I admire the guy and his principled stand on some vital issues (principles that haven’t changed an iota during his long career in office, unlike all of his opponents), I don’t see him garnering enough support to win the nomination. Nor will his support switch to either of the likely nominees. Gingrich was stupid enough to denounce Paul’s views as “outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.” That’s sure not going to win him the support of many Paul followers.
More and more, I think we need to start thinking the unthinkable: Come November, Barack Obama will be re-elected to a second term. There, I’ve said it. I know this idea will give many of you apoplexy. Believe me, I resisted coming to this conclusion for as long as I could.
What will Obama’s re-election mean for our country? In some ways, I think an Obama victory could help in the struggle for freedom. Bear with me while I explain why.
It’s a sad fact of nature that many of us will work much harder to defeat something we passionately oppose than to support something we like. I can’t think of anything that would unite and inspire the conservative opposition more than Obama’s re-election. The membership rolls of the various Tea Party groups would explode.
With an aroused and determined opposition, Obama’s entire legislative program would come to a grinding halt. We would not just slow our country’s slide into socialism; with enough good guys (and gals) elected to Congress, we could actually begin to reverse it.
Remember, the Administration can’t spend a penny on anything if Congress doesn’t appropriate it. The Constitution clearly specifies that every spending bill must originate in the House of Representatives. If enough Tea Party favorites retain their seats and enough new ones join them, the House can refuse to give the Democrats any of the money they want.
If enough conservative Republicans also win Senate seats to gain a majority there, at the very worst we’ll have four years of gridlock. At the best, we could actually see some important bills passed — possibly with enough of a majority to overcome a Presidential veto.
Audit the Fed, anyone? Defund foreign aid? Put the brakes on irresponsible loans, outrageous subsidies and absurd earmarks? How about slashing some budgets by 10 or 20 percent or taking away every penny from some of the worst violators of the Constitution? It could happen.
Faced with the pathetic choices for the Republican nomination, I can tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to give my money to the best candidates for the House and Senate I can find, because that’s where the future of liberty will be decided. And I hope you’ll do the same.
How did we end up with such a sorry group of candidates running for our Nation’s highest office this year? I don’t know. Where were candidates like Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour and a bunch of others I could name? I said last year that my dream ticket was Chris Christie and Marco Rubio. Maybe I’ll get to see it — in 2016.
In the meantime, here’s a suggestion for my stalwart Republican friends out there: If you don’t want to lose an election, don’t nominate losers.
Until next time, keep some powder dry
Source: –Chip Wood
And if you’ve not heard it too much already, here’s a compilation from the world of the same song, done by 71 different artists
This is the same wretched hag who loves to claim she’s a devout Catholic.
Via Fox News:
“The administration has issued a regulation that will require all healthcare plans to cover sterilization and all FDA approved contraceptives including those that induce abortions. This will force Catholic individuals and institutions to act against their consciences. All across the nation..”
“Is this a speech or do we have a question disguised as speech?”
We cannot and will not comply with this law.
Will you stand with your fellow Catholics in opposing this law?
I’m going to stand with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made and I support it.
SOURCE: Weasel Zippers
Every time a BLACK Dimocratic politician opens his mouth he calls Conservatives RACIST….What they fail to see is that WHITE people do NOT vote for people because of their SKIN COLOR! BLACKS do NOT want to be confused with FACTS, or the TRUTH, because their minds were made up as soon as they see the color of their skin. BLACK = OBAMA……PM
What he’s really saying: Anyone who opposes Obama is a racist.
Via The Hill:
Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said Thursday that the GOP presidential candidates need to “quit trying to send subliminal racial messages during the campaigns.”
“In the last few days, both Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich have been guilty of saying things that are not helpful to a society begging for racial inclusion,” said Cleaver, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, speaking on CNBC. “Whether they are intentional or not, I’m not 100 percent certain; I do know that it doesn’t matter in many cases. It’s just unfortunate and it tends to divide.”
Cleaver cited as examples Newt Gingrich’s recent comments on food stamps, including calling President Obama a “food stamp president,” and Mitt Romney’s comments on “the very poor.”
Why not cut to the chase and just translate the whole Bible to read, “Put this down and read the Koran”?
This story illustrates how pandering to the rigid intolerance of Muslims will inch by inch eradicate Christianity:
A controversy is brewing over three reputable Christian organizations, which are based in North America, whose efforts have ousted the words “Father” and “Son” from new Bibles. Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers are under fire for “producing Bibles that remove “Father,” “Son” and “Son of God” because these terms are offensive to Muslims.”
Concerned Christian missionaries, Bible translators, pastors, and national church leaders have come together with a public petition to stop these organizations. They claim a public petition is their last recourse because meetings with these organizations’ leaders, staff resignations over this issue and criticism and appeals from native national Christians concerned about the translations “have failed to persuade these agencies to retain “Father” and “Son” in the text of all their translations.”
Biblical Missiology, a ministry of Boulder, Colorado-based Horizon International, is sponsoring the petition.
The main issues of this controversy surround new Arabic and Turkish translations.
Father is replaced with words like Lord and Allah, Son with Messiah or proxy.
Even Turks and Arabs might be curious as to what the Bible really says, but not if they are obedient Muslims. Why not cut to the chase and just translate the whole Bible to read, “Put this down and read the Koran”?
He’s obviously insanely vulnerable, but who’s our candidate? — Mitt Romney?
(LA Times) — President Obama’s job approval rating declined in all but three states in 2011, with some of the steepest declines coming in likely battlegrounds he must win this fall to claim a second term.
New state-by-state data released by Gallup on Tuesday shows that a majority of respondents approved of the president’s performance in only 10 states plus the District of Columbia, down from 13 a year earlier.
Meanwhile the number of states where his approval rating was below 40% doubled in 2011, from 10 to 20. That list now includes New Hampshire, where his approval rating was 38.7% — the lowest score in any of the states he carried in 2008.
Put into electoral terms, states with majority approval of Obama in 2011 account for 159 electoral votes, Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones points out. Those states where he is below 40% account for 153 electoral votes.
The remaining 226 electoral votes include the key prizes of Ohio (42.1% approval), Pennsylvania (45% approval) and Florida (43.6% approval).
“His approval rating is a key indicator of his electoral vote chances, but it alone will not dictate his success,” Jones writes. Voter turnout and the identity of Obama’s Republican opponent will also play a role.
SOURCE: Weasel Zippers
t would seem that the progressive left has decided to beat the ‘evil corporations’ at their own game.
According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, 2011 was a record year for lobbying in California and the top two offenders guilty of buying influence with politicians were unions:
“The California Teachers Assn. spent the most on lobbying last year, $6.5 million, in a year when schools were battling threatened budget cuts and legislators acted on bills involving education reform and charter schools.
The California State Council of Service Employees was the second-biggest spender on lobbying with $4.9 million.”
The California Teachers Association is the largest teachers union in California and The California State Council of Service Employees is an affiliate of SEIU.
These two unions even spent more money that the oil lobbyists who came in 3rd place spending just $4.2 million.
So my question is… when two unions spend more money lobbying than the ‘evil’ oil companies, does that make those unions more ‘evil’ or is this just another example of a progressive double standard?
I’m really beginning to like this Rubio guy and it would NOT surprise me if he ends up on the Republican ticket or at least be asked.
Last week Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan lashed out at the Obama Administration for forcing religious organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. The rule would force Christian organizations to provide free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion drugs to workers even though this violates Catholic Church teaching. The new rules are so strict that most Catholic institutions will not qualify for an exemption.
Even Pope Benedict warned of the “grave threat” to religious freedom in United States before the Obama Administration approved the new rules.
Today Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bill to protect religious groups from Barack Obama’s HHS mandate that forces Christian organizations to provide abortion drugs, contraceptives and sterilization. The legislation pushed by Obama is clearly an assault on the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The NC Register reported:
Back in February 2009 Barack Obama promised to cut the $455 billion deficit in half in four years.
That didn’t happen.
Instead, Barack Obama tripled the US deficit his first year in office.
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday predicted the deficit will rise to $1.08 trillion in 2012.
The office also projected the jobless rate would rise to 8.9 percent by the end of 2012, and to 9.2 percent in 2013.
These are much dimmer forecasts than in CBO’s last report in August, when the office projected a $973 billion deficit. The report reflects weaker corporate tax revenue and the extension for two months of the payroll tax holiday.
A rising deficit and unemployment rate would hamper President Obama’s reelection effort, which in recent weeks has seemed to be on stronger footing.
If the CBO estimate is correct, it would mean that the United States recorded a deficit of more than $1 trillion for every year of Obama’s first term.
Sebelius and the Obama administration “have said ‘To hell with you’ to the Catholic faithful of the United States,” Bishop Zubik wrote. “To hell with your religious beliefs. To hell with your religious liberty. To hell with your freedom of conscience. We’ll give you a year, they are saying, and then you have to knuckle under.”
With unusually strong language, Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh alerted his flock to a new threat to the Church.
The Obama administration has directly and deliberately attacked our fundamental right to religious freedom, and in a most patronizing way. His Department of Health and Human Services has mandated that contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs be part of every health care plan, free of charge. With this decision, Catholics and Catholic institutions such as hospitals, universities and social agencies will be forced to pay for and provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs.
By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strunk.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Vogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Vogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Soetoro, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigra <http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/in-4.jpg> tion records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
WHO IS THIS GUY?
Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.
Obama Mocks & Attacks Jesus Christ And The Bible / Video / Obama Is Not A Christian
When Was The Last Time You Herd This Man Praise Christianity AND While Praising Islam He Admits He’s Muslim!
Oprah Winfrey: Jesus Did Not Come To Die On The Cross
You’re a sick senior citizen and the government says there is no nursing home available for you. So what do you do?
Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot four Politicians.
Of course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating, air conditioning and all the health care you need!
Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That’s great. Need a new hip, knees, kidney, lungs or heart? They’re all covered.
As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you as often as they do now.
And who will be paying for all of this? It’s the same government that just told you that you they cannot afford for you to go into a home.
Plus, and because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income taxes anymore.
Is this a great country or what?
muslims main purpose in life is to KILL, MURDER, RAPE, and BEHEAD Christians!. Then we have people here in the United States like Mayor Michael muslim”Ass-Kisser” Bloomberg of New York who goes out of his way to ‘appease’ muslims by helping them build a huge mosque just yards from the 9/11 site where these muslim BASTARDS murdered over 3,000 Americans……The ONLY way to stop the murdering of Christians all over the world by muslims is to stand up and fight them to their DEATH……..Papa Mike
Just another day in post-Arab Spring Egypt.
(AINA) — A mob of over 3000 Muslims attacked Copts in the village of Kobry-el-Sharbat (el-Ameriya), Alexandria this afternoon. Coptic homes and shops were looted before being set ablaze. Two Copts and a Muslim were injured. The violence started after a rumor was spread that a Coptic man had an allegedly intimate photo of a Muslim woman on his mobile phone. The Coptic man, Mourad Samy Guirgis, surrendered to the police this morning morning for his protection.
According to eyewitnesses, the perpetrators were bearded men in white gowns. “They were Salafists, and some of were from the Muslim Brotherhood,” according to one witness. It was reported that terrorized women and children who lost their homes were in the streets without any place to go.
According to Father Boktor Nashed from St. George’s Church in el-Nahdah, a meeting between Muslim and Christian representatives was supposed to take place in the evening in Kobry-el-Sharbat. But, by 3 P.M. a Muslim mob looted and torched the home of Mourad Samy Guirgis, as well as the home of his family and three homes of Coptic neighbors. A number of Coptic-owned shops and businesses were also looted and torched. “We contacted security forces, but they arrived very, very late,” Said Father Nashad. The fire brigade was prevented from going into the village by the Muslims and the fires were left to burn themselves out. “Those who lost their home, left the village,” said Father Nashed.
With a tiny fraction of the productivity.
Via Weekly Standard:
It’s regularly been pointed out that the average compensation — that includes pay and benefits — for federal workers is now double the private sector average. Defenders of federal employees have routinely insisted that this is an unfair comparison. Well, Andrew Biggs, the former Social Security Administration deputy commissioner for policy and American Enterprise Insititute Scholar, points to this astonishing fact:
The average federal government employee receives a salary of around $75,000 per year. With present and future fringe benefits equal to about 76 percent of salaries, that makes for total annual compensation of around $133,000. How does this match up to the private sector?
CNN Money has a nice survey of the 25 highest paying companies in the country, outlining the average total compensation per employee in each one. According to CNN, the closest match to federal employment is Microsoft, whose average employee compensation is 133,023 per year, making it the 17th highest paying company in the country.
So there you have it. Federal workers are paid as much as one of America’s most prestigious and highest paying employers.
Whoa!… Must See – Tennessee College Republicans Release “The Debt Generation” (Video)
THE BEST 1 Minute 19 Seconds YOU WILL SPEND TODAY- This video was made by Tennessee College Students.
You won’t regret it.
“The Debt Generation”
Thanks Jim For The Heads-Up!…… audio clip ( Audio Rewind 01/26 )
Conservative talk radio star Mark Levin offered a passionate defense of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on his show Thursday.
Levin was upset at recent attacks against the former House speaker by GOP pundits on the Internet and by Republican politicians in various public forums.
“If this is what the conservative movement has come to, then count me out,” Levin said. “I am not a special pleader for Gingrich. Newt Gingrich and I aren’t friends. We aren’t even acquaintances.”
But Levin took issue with those who cite a TV interview from 1988 as evidence that Gingrich broke from former President Ronald Reagan. “Newt Gingrich didn’t trash Ronald Reagan,” Levin said. “He said going forward we need tactical changes from the Reagan era, not changes in principle, not that we shouldn’t promote Reagan.”
Levin then played an audio clip ( Audio Rewind 01/26 ) from the interview to prove his point. “Reaganism is a value system which carried 49 states last time [in the 1984 election,” Gingrich said. “It’s fairly inclusive, more than just a personality issue.”
Republicans must remember that Gingrich was the first GOP speaker of the House in almost 50 years, Levin said. “He was fighting Democrats to win the House of Representatives before most of the people trashing him on the Internet were old enough to wipe themselves … before most of the commentators on TV were switching from Democrats to Republicans.”
It’s OK to criticize Gingrich, Levin said. “But don’t count me among those who are going to destroy the man,” he continued. “You can disagree with the man on substance, but don’t turn him into some Marxist, Reagan-hating mental case, because he’s not.”
Levin is particularly angry with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, an aggressive Romney supporter. “I was appalled when the two-year governor of New Jersey, who has done absolutely zero for the conservative movement, gets on TV and regurgitates all the ethical bull crap thrown at Newt Gingrich when he was speaker of the House.”
Levin’s not too happy about recent criticism of Gingrich from former Sen. Bob Dole, either. “Bob Dole was part of the problem,” he said.
An underlying motive drives the GOP criticism of Gingrich, Levin said. “There’s an effort to clear the path for Romney. If [Rick] Santorum was considered a threat, they’d be pulling out quotes from him and turning him into a pretzel too.”
It’s self-destructive for Republicans to launch negative commercials about Gingrich rather than focusing on President Barack Obama, Levin said. What’s most important is to defeat the establishment.
He had some choice words for Gingrich’s presidential opponent, Mitt Romney. “What was Mitt Romney doing when Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House fighting Democrats? He was running against Ted Kennedy as a self-identified progressive.”
Levin was referring to Romney’s unsuccessful bid to take former Massachusetts Sen. Kennedy’s seat away from him in 1994.
“Newt Gingrich, if he does nothing else, did more for the conservative movement than virtually everyone today who’s criticizing him,” Levin said.
To be sure, Gingrich made some mistakes in the past, Levin acknowledged. “I make no excuses for his personal life, which was a mess,” he said.
“But he has found his faith now, he has found God. Why would we act like Marxist leftists ourselves, like a bunch of frenzied nut jobs trying to turn this man into something he’s not. We would not have taken back the House of Representatives but for Newt Gingrich.”
As for those criticizing Gingrich, “What the hell did they do to take back the House of Representatives?” Levin said.
If You Support Hussein Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
In his State of the Union response the other night, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels neatly summed up Mitt Romney’s (who has a roughly 90 percent chance of being the GOP nominee according to Intrade) economic case against President Barack Obama: “The president did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight, but he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse.”
In other words, the Obama Recovery stinks. Even if today’s GDP report — for the fourth quarter of 2011 — shows 3 percent growth or better, it would be just the fourth time that has happened since the economy began turning up in June 2009: 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2010, and 3.8 percent in the second quarter of 2010. But no 3 percent-plus quarters since then.
The first nine quarters of the Reagan Recovery, by contrast, looked like this: 5.1 percent, 9.3 percent, 8.1 percent, 8.5 percent, 8.0 percent, 7.1 percent, 3.9 percent, 3.3 percent, 3.8, percent, 3.4 percent. In fact, the Reagan Boom went from the first quarter of 1983 until the second quarter of 1986 without notching a sub-3 percent GDP quarter.
And few economists are expecting the Obama Recovery to take off anytime soon. The IMF predicts just 1.8 percent growth for 2012 (and that’s assuming no EU sovereign debt meltdown). And the Federal Reserve sees growth in the 2.2 percent to 2.7 percent range with unemployment around 8.2 percent to 8.5 percent. Ugh!
The WSJ offers two explanations for the anemic rebound:
Economists say the nature of the recession helps explain the slow recovery. Aftershocks from the financial crisis have left banks reluctant to lend, making it hard for companies, and especially start-ups, to get access to capital. The housing market, which has historically helped lead the economy out of recession, remains deeply depressed.
Many business leaders say they are also being held back by policy-related uncertainty, everything from the threat of new regulations and higher taxes to the fear that political gridlock could hamper the government’s ability to respond to a new crisis. Recent economic research has given some weight to those complaints. A study by a trio of academic economists found that policy uncertainty has risen in recent years, and that periods of uncertainty have in the past corresponded with rising unemployment and slowing growth.
Whichever explanation holds more weight with voters may go a long way toward deciding who’ll be America’s next president.
Read more……:Business Insider
Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents?
If the Republican primaries are any indication, one big debate in the upcoming election will be whether President Obama is pushing the country toward a European-style welfare culture.
Mitt Romney, for example, argues that “over the past three years, Barack Obama has been replacing our merit-based society with an entitlement society.”
Newt Gingrich has taken to calling Obama “the best food-stamp president in American history.”
Obama, in contrast, says the government must play an increasing role — what he likes to call “shared responsibility” — to ensure a society that is fairer.
So is Obama turning the country into a welfare society and away from one focused on opportunity?
While it’s true that the country has been headed in this direction for many years — with the explosion in entitlements since the 1960s and the aging of the population — Obama has, in fact, greatly accelerated the trend. Examples:
Direct payments. The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama’s last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.
People getting benefits. According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That’s up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries.
Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That’s 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.
Disability. The number of people on Social Security disability has steadily climbed since the 1970s, thanks mainly to easier eligibility rules. But their numbers jumped 10% in Obama’s first two years in office, according to the Social Security Administration. That sharp rise was due largely to meager job prospects since the recession ended in 2009. When employment opportunities are scarce, experts note, many who could otherwise work sign up for disability benefits instead.