I really hate having to compose posts like this, but when I see rank hypocrisy coming from somewhere, I have to speak out about it. It appears that good old BlogAds.com has finally gotten a good dose of its own medicine. As some of you might recall, I was unceremoniously dumped by BlogAds.com a good long while back, because I dared to gripe and complain about a ridiculously slow server that controlled the editing of my ads on my site. One night, after being fed up with their idiotic slow server; I in some very colorful language, told them that their server was too slow and asked them to fix it. I posted it on their facebook page, which of course made them look like rank buffoons. For this I was dropped; there we no second chance, there was no, “Hey, can we talk about this on the phone?” None of that, just a tersely worded e-mailed that said, “Were not selling you anymore” and that was the end.
So, to the people at BlogAds.com —-hey, how does it feel to get the door slammed in your face? To be honest, it could not have happened to some better people, if you ask me. Maybe this will make the reconsider their rather rude way of dealing with me. I admit that my site does not have the hits that some of the other bigger political blogs might have, but that does not excuse the way I was treated, because it was THEIR product, that caused the problem in the first place. I do realize that these guys are not obligated to give anyone access to their service, but I believe that their “blogger relations” person has a lot to learn when dealing with the public and people like me, who make a living at their writings.
So, again, to people at BlogAds.com —- How does it feel?
Another thing too; to put a bit of politics into this, BlogAds.com has what are called Liberal and Conservative “Ad Hives,” and the liberal hive is like twice the size of the Conservative Hive. What does that tell you? Who do you think they really promote? You have two guesses and the first one does not count. What does it say when Perez Hilton, a morally degenerate liberal gets more promotion on that Advertising Company’s website —- than say, Ann Althouse? I am just saying, you are what you promote and in BlogAds.com’s case, it is not a pro-American, Conservative business.
RICK SANTORUM: I am Catholic. And Angry! I am an Angry Catholic Conservative! RAWR!
If that does not nail Rick Santorum to a peg, I do not know what does. 😀 Although I must say, I never saw it as “anger,” but more of this idiotic bandying around his CatholicFaith. Between him and Romney’s whack job Mormonism, I fear for what this Country could become. If either of these two is picked for the nominee, I will be voting Libertarian Party again. I will repeat, what is on my About Me page and, I think, is on my About This Blog Page; and that is that my loyalty is not to the Republican Party —- but rather to principles. If I feel that the Republican Party is going to pick a big Government establishment Conservative, as George W. Bush was, I will vote Libertarian Party.
Some of you might be asking, “If you’re a Christian and a Fundamental Baptist, who do you dislike someone who is running as a Christian Conservative?” To this, I answer the following: My issues with Roman Catholicism aside —- While I think that it is great that there is a President candidate, who is a Christian and is not afraid to represent that, I just feel that Religion should not be the core or center issue in an election. This Nation is facing some serious issues, related to fiscal matters, not social; social Conservatism is a battle that the Republicans and the Conservative Christian community fought — and ultimately lost — back in the 1980’s. The Republican Party does not need to fight that battle again. I am very sorry to say this, but as much as I am a Christian and a defender of those beliefs. I do not believe that it is the right of anyone, to force his or her religious beliefs on anyone at all A logical fallacy drove the Christian Conservative movement of “God and Country” in the 1980’s and essentially, it was a dismal flop. This is because the philosophy of Senator Barry Goldwater was correct; which said you could not legislate morality.
This is why I tend to separate myself from the extreme religious right in this Country. This is what people like Ed Brayton tend to misunderstand about me. I am not an extremist at all. Just because I happen to think that Islamo-facism is a bit a problem and I happen to defend American values, does not make me someone who is alignment who is agreement with the far religious right, who believes in Christian domination. I just do not believe that any belief should be dominated over any other. I believe that ALL faiths should be able to practice their faiths in peace, without fear of persecution from Government or other rival faiths. I also happen to believe that if someone decides that he or she wishes to refrain from subscribing to that faith, that he or she has the right to be left alone as well.
This, my friends, is the true definition of freedom.
You must be kidding me! This is either a huge idiot or his blinded by his liberal guilt.
Occupy Wall Street Is Not Anti-Semitic
By Jeffrey Goldberg
I’ve been sent the link to this video, put out by the Emergency Committee for Israel, several times, and finally opened it this morning. It contains a handful of examples of anti-Semitic rhetoric expressed at unknown points, and at unknown places, in the Occupy Wall Street protests. The rhetoric is quite obviously anti-Semitic, but I was left thinking that if this was all the anti-Semitism the Emergency Committee could find, then they’re going to have look harder before making definitive judgments.
Sure, there is going to be hostile anti-Jewish feeling expressed at the margins of any populist movement, but a) it appears as if the people expressing these thoughts in the video are real outliers; b) it’s obvious to me that most people who attend these rallies are angry about corporate greed and excessive CEO compensation (among other financial concerns) and not about Israel or perfidious Jews; and c) this movement has (like most political movements, actually) disproportionate Jewish representation. To say that there are occasional outbursts of anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street is not to say that Occupy Wall Street itself is antisemitic. The University of Chicago has an anti-Semitic professor on the faculty, but does this make the university itself anti-Semitic?
Now either Goldberg either does not know about this or, what is the more likely explanation is, he is covering for them. He tries to mount the “Well, we cannot call them all antisemitic” petard. Which is a nice diversion, but it is, as always, wrong.
So, to me, because he is a Jew and refuses to acknowledge this; a self hating Jew.
This is Part II of our three-part series, “Robert Prechter Explains The Fed.” You can read Part I here.
Money, Credit and the Federal Reserve Banking System Conquer the Crash, Chapter 10
By Robert Prechter
… Let’s attempt to define what gives the dollar objective value. As we will see in the next section, the dollar is “backed” primarily by government bonds, which are promises to pay dollars. So today, the dollar is a promise backed by a promise to pay an identical promise. What is the nature of each promise? If the Treasury will not give you anything tangible for your dollar, then the dollar is a promise to pay nothing. The Treasury should have no trouble keeping this promise.
In Chapter 9 [of Conquer the Crash], I called the dollar “money.” By the definition given there, it is. I used that definition and explanation because it makes the whole picture comprehensible. But the truth is that since the dollar is backed by debt, it is actually a credit, not money. It is a credit against what the government owes, denoted in dollars and backed by nothing. So although we may use the term “money” in referring to dollars, there is no longer any real money in the U.S. financial system; there is nothing but credit and debt.
As you can see, defining the dollar, and therefore the terms money, credit, inflation and deflation, today is a challenge, to say the least. Despite that challenge, we can still use these terms because people’s minds have conferred meaning and value upon these ethereal concepts.
Understanding this fact, we will now proceed with a discussion of how money and credit expand in today’s financial system.
How the Federal Reserve System Manufactures Money
Over the years, the Federal Reserve Bank has transferred purchasing power from all other dollar holders primarily to the U.S. Treasury by a complex series of machinations. The U.S. Treasury borrows money by selling bonds in the open market. The Fed is said to “buy” the Treasury’s bonds from banks and other financial institutions, but in actuality, it is allowed by law simply to fabricate a new checking account for the seller in exchange for the bonds. It holds the Treasury’s bonds as assets against — as “backing” for — that new money. Now the seller is whole (he was just a middleman), the Fed has the bonds, and the Treasury has the new money.
This transactional train is a long route to a simple alchemy (called “monetizing” the debt) in which the Fed turns government bonds into money. The net result is as if the government had simply fabricated its own checking account, although it pays the Fed a portion of the bonds’ interest for providing the service surreptitiously. To date (1st edition of Prechter’s Conquer the Crash was published in 2002 — Ed.), the Fed has monetized about $600 billion worth of Treasury obligations. This process expands the supply of money.
In 1980, Congress gave the Fed the legal authority to monetize any agency’s debt. In other words, it can exchange the bonds of a government, bank or other institution for a checking account denominated in dollars. This mechanism gives the President, through the Treasury, a mechanism for “bailing out” debt-troubled governments, banks or other institutions that can no longer get financing anywhere else. Such decisions are made for political reasons, and the Fed can go along or refuse, at least as the relationship currently stands. Today, the Fed has about $36 billion worth of foreign debt on its books. The power to grant or refuse such largesse is unprecedented.
Each new Fed account denominated in dollars is new money, but contrary to common inference, it is not new value. The new account has value, but that value comes from a reduction in the value of all other outstanding accounts denominated in dollars. That reduction takes place as the favored institution spends the newly credited dollars, driving up the dollar-denominated demand for goods and thus their prices. All other dollar holders still hold the same number of dollars, but now there are more dollars in circulation, and each one purchases less in the way of goods and services. The old dollars lose value to the extent that the new account gains value.
The net result is a transfer of value to the receiver’s account from those of all other dollar holders. This fact is not readily obvious because the unit of account throughout the financial system does not change even though its value changes.
It is important to understand exactly what the Fed has the power to do in this context: It has legal permission to transfer wealth from dollar savers to certain debtors without the permission of the savers. The effect on the money supply is exactly the same as if the money had been counterfeited and slipped into circulation.
In the old days, governments would inflate the money supply by diluting their coins with base metal or printing notes directly. Now the same old game is much less obvious. On the other hand, there is also far more to it. This section has described the Fed’s secondary role. The Fed’s main occupation is not creating money but facilitating credit. This crucial difference will eventually bring us to why deflation is possible.
Understanding the Fed: How to protect yourself from the common and misleading myths about the U.S. Federal Reserve
It’s time to pull back the curtain on the Federal Reserve system. In this revealing 34-page ebook, you’ll learn how the Federal Reserve controls the money supply, you’ll pin-point a few critical points in Federal Reserve history, and you’ll uncover several important myths and misconceptions, like who owns the Federal Reserve Bank.
Representing more than 10 years of research by financial analyst Robert Prechter, this free report goes beyond Federal Reserve history and it’s government mandate and digs into the Fed’s real motivations for being the United States’ “lender of last resort.”
HENRICO, VA (WWBT) – NBC12 has uncovered one of those stories that makes you think: “How in the world does that happen?!” A truck filled with President Obama’s podiums and audio equipment was stolen in Henrico just days before his visit to Chesterfield.
We confirmed an investigation with the U.S. Defense Department. There are still a lot of questions. The biggest one being did the thieves intentionally target the President’s truck or did they take advantage of a crime of opportunity and give a big “uh-oh” when they saw what was inside.
When you see President Obama speak, there is a pretty typical setup including the presidential seal on a podium, the see-thru Teleprompter and a portable sound system.
Thieves saw the truck carrying that equipment and couldn’t resist the target.
We’re told the truck was parked at the Virginia Center Commons Courtyard Marriott in advance on Wednesday’s presidential visit to Chesterfield.
Sources said inside that vehicle was about $200,000 worth of sound equipment, several podiums and presidential seals, behind which only the President himself can stand.
They told NBC12 around 12:30 Monday afternoon that truck was recovered in the parking lot of the Holiday Inn Express near the airport and hotel staff confirm police activity. One guest we spoke with said he saw various law enforcement agencies examining a white box truck parked there.
According to him, the entire back parking lot was blocked off as Henrico Police along with “lots of guys in suits” investigated. He said the truck had no markings and no indication anything special was inside. That leads to another big question of whether or not any of that was actually stolen.
Late Monday evening we found a truck with US government tags still parked in the Marriott’s lot. We are waiting to find out if that is the original truck returned to the staff or a second vehicle.
If I were the Defense Department or the Secret Service, I would be watching E-Bay. Although, I highly doubt they took anything. Most likely, these thieves stole the truck, and got it somewhere, busted the lock and opened the back; and most likely when they saw what was in it —- in unison, screamed “OH CRAP!” and quickly brought the truck back!
Ed Morrissey brings a more serious thought to the table:
Update: On a more serious note, commenter NeoKong points out just how bad this security breach could have been:
The story is funny and everything until you realize what a breach of security this really was.
Once somebody gained unsupervised access to that bus and it’s contents they could have done anything they want. What if somebody planted a device or some sort of miniaturized explosive….? What if somebody planted electronic tracking devices or audio or video devices….? They would know where the POTUS would be going days in advance. Can anyone imagine the sort of conversations they could listen in on if somebody planted as bug or the details of security they could see if there was surveillance equipment…?
This is a BFD. Getting to that podium is almost as good as getting up close to the POTUS.
As for the explosive: Must….resist….saying….what…I’m….thinking….I….serve…the…Lord. 😯
But seriously, Ed’s commenter makes a good point; sounds like someone didn’t think things through much at all. Doug Powers, who is Michelle Malkin’s new flunky, writes a very funny piece on this story. 😀
A trial is set to begin Monday for a Montgomery County teacher, accused of punching and choking several of her first grade students.
Susan Burke, 36, was arrested in February, after nine of her first grade students at Greencastle Elementary School claimed they were abused. According to investigators, Burke allegedly choked, kicked, punched and scratched children in her class.
Montgomery County police learned of one incident on Jan. 7, when a Greencastle Elementary School student complained of being physically assaulted on several occasions.
Police interviewed all of the students in Burke’s class, and their investigation revealed eight more victims, all ages 6 or 7, police said. In addition to being choked, some students also reported being kicked, punched, scratched or squeezed on the arms, police said. Additional students reported witnessing the attacks, police said.
Burke was also charged in an alleged March 2010 assault of a student as a result of this investigation, police said. The incidents allegedly took place on school property and during school hours.
I hate to be the one to do this; but something about this story smells fishy. For one, nowhere in that report does it say that any of the children came home with bruises or anything of the sort on them. For all we know, these black kids decided that they did not like their teacher and decided to tell their parents that the teacher was hurting them. Believe me when I tell you; I know kids can be, and it is a common thing nowadays, for students to level false accusations against a teacher, if they do not like them.
In fact, locally here, in one of the public schools in one of the cites around here — a teacher, who had been with the school system for over 30 years, was accused of rape. The student was a Latino girl, who did not like the fact that she was getting too much homework from this teacher. So, she devised a plan. She was a minority, she was a girl and she was going do this teacher in. She accused him of rape. Well, he was suspended and there was an investigation, that lasted for over 2 years. Finally, the teacher was cleared of the charges and the girl put on trial for making such a big false accusation like that. During the trial, when asked about why she would do such a thing, her reply was, “Revenge.” She went on to say that because she was a Latino and a female, she figured they would just convict him and remove him from the school.
I am quite happy to report that the man accused, ended up not only suing the school; but also the girl’s family, the school district, and also La Raza, who was providing the attorney pro-Bono and boasted to the media that they would “bring down this oppressive white man.” The defendants tried to get the man to settle for a very small amount and basically, he laughed in their faces and rejected the settlement; he went on to win the case for millions. He promptly sold his house and left the State. He now lives very well, I am told.
The point I am making is this; why are these school officials just believing what these silly kids are saying? Why? Because they are black and she is white? I also got a kick out of how the woman was made out to be the evil oppressive white woman, who was picking on those poor little innocent black children! (yes, that is sarcasm…)
If the truth be known in this case; these kids were most likely a bunch of spoiled brats and most likely made this woman’s life a living hell and they most likely deserved the little smacks that they got from this woman. But, because we live in society that treats white on black “Crime” differently than actual black on white crime. This woman will most likely lose her career; because a group of minority students decided that they did not like Mrs. “Whitey Teacher” no more and with the help of Mommy and Daddy, figured out a way to get rid of her, for good.
A growing number of Israelis and foreign Jewish groups are expressing concern over the anti-Semitic flavor of some of the “Occupy Wall St.” economic protests in the US.
From the 13th century expulsion of Englands Jews to the 19th century Russian pogroms to the Nazi Holocaust, sour economic conditions have historically formed the backdrop of rising anti-Semitism.
Last week, we reported on a lone protestor at the Wall Street sit-in who insisted that America’s economic woes could all be traced back to “the Jews.”
Since then that message has been picked up by others at “Occupy Wall St.” demontrations around the country.
In Los Angeles, California, protestor Patricia McAllister, who identified herself as an employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District (we can only hope she is not an educator), had this to say:
“I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government… they need to be run out of this country.”
On the American Nazi Party website, leader Rocky Suhayda voiced support for “Occupy Wall St.” and asked, “Who hold the wealth and power in this country? The Judeo-Capitalists. Who is therefore the #1 enemy who makes this filth happen? The Judeo-Capitalists.”
I will readily admit to not being a supporter of Wilsonian foreign policy. However, as I have written on this blog before, that disliking of Wilsonian foreign policy has never equated to hatred of Jews or of Israel. Furthermore, this idiotic practice of making a scapegoat out of the Jews, for the problems that America faces right now, is very repugnant.
What these communists ought to be protesting is the headquarters of the Democratic Party; that is because the Democrats are the people, who in 1973, passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to give loans to people, that under normal circumstances, would not be qualified for it. It was the Democrats, who in 1994 added the subprime clause to the community reinvestment act of 1973. It was at the passing of that subprime clause that President Clinton’s housing director threatened to sue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, if they did not come up with these loans to those who normally would not qualify for them.
This was the gaming of the housing market, during a time of prosperity in America that caused one of the biggest stock market crashes and the largest downturn in the economy. It is true that during the Bush Administration that some needed regulation of the housing market and of the stock market was removed. However, that was not the root cause of the great crash of 2008; it was the Democrats gaming of the housing market; combined with already unstable economy after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that caused the economic downturn in America.
Nevertheless, these leftist buffoons want to scapegoat a minority of people, who are the chosen ones of the Almighty God, for the sin of daring to come to America and for being successful in business. This here is one of the many reasons why I have moved away from the so-called “Paleo-Conservative” political position — not because I am warmonger, but because I find this sort of hatred to be most offensive. I would no more blame the Jews for the downfall of the economic downfall in this Country than I would blame of the black race for the moral decline in this Country. Both of those sorts of mindsets are rooted in bigotry and ignorance. Neither of which I want to be associated with at all.
The cold, hard truth is this; the nation economic troubles are due to idiotic progressive polices that were planned out in the short term, without thought of what could happen in the long term. The moral decline in this Country is due to this Nation’s forgetting about the Almighty God and his Son Jesus Christ; and the leaving out of his Word in the family home. Protestant Christianity, and not Islam or any other perversion of the Christian faith — was the founding bedrock of this fine Nation of ours. This Nation’s abdication of that Christian Faith, in lieu of self-serving carnality is why this Nation’s morals are on the skids.
Anyone who says or believes otherwise is a simple-minded buffoon.
Pat Buchanan’s new book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? makes a comprehensive case about why America is in deep trouble, but the bulk of the book deals with what VDARE.com and Buchanan both refer to as the “National Question.” Thus Buchanan devotes one chapter to economics, two chapters to religion, and one to foreign policy. But no less than six chapters, comprising 243 pages, are devoted to the issue of race, immigration, and multiculturalism.
While most of the Republican presidential candidates have criticized President Obama about his waste of taxpayer money on the politically connected and now bankrupt energy company Solyndra, Rick Perry has remained silent. Why? Perhaps because he may soon have his very own Solyndra.
As governor, Perry created the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, which has doled out, at his discretion, nearly $200 million to 133 businesses. More than $16 million from the fund has gone to firms with officers or investors who were major Perry contributors.
One such firm is Convergen, which has developed a lung-cancer treatment that is under Phase II clinical trial. The company was successful in getting Texas taxpayers to put up $4.5 million through Perry’s fund, despite founder David Nance’s investing a measly $1,000. Did Nance’s $335,000 to Perry’s campaigns, association fundraisers, and TexasOne Foundation have anything to do with it?
It likely did, given that Convergen’s proposal failed the regional review process meant to extricate political influence — and was later approved by a state advisory panel that Nance formerly sat on. The amount awarded also happened to be highest amount ever from the fund. Perry and his team know that Convergen may soon look a lot like Solyndra, since only 33 percent of successful Phase II drugs make it to the market.
But this is not an assault on Governor Perry in particular: He is far from alone among his Republican gubernatorial colleagues in advancing corporatist policies.
For example, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, who’s been mentioned as a potential vice presidential running mate for Perry, has also fallen to corporatism in a variety of ways. McDonnell succeeded in getting his state’s general assembly to increase funding for the Governor’s Opportunity Fund, a $54 million pot from which he can give grants to corporations that create jobs in the commonwealth. He has also created special tax incentives for the wine and film industries and provided the International Speedway Corporation a $1.5 million grant to keep one of its NASCAR races in the state.
I see his point; the Republicans and Conservatives are going ballyhoo Obama for his green energy debacle, they should be prepared to answer for some of their own misdeeds. Contrary to what some of the Bloggers on the right like to print, corruption and political favors are common on both sides. This needs to end, the era of backroom deals and favors, in this day of so-called transparency needs to end.
In other words; if we are going to point the accusing finger at the other side, we should clean the trash up in our own backyards.
In the early morning hours, on the eve of a banquet designed to expose the homosexual activist agenda, security cameras on the campus of the Christian Liberty Academy, a school run by the Church of Christian Liberty in Arlington Heights, Ill., captured what may be a prominent example of an anti-Christian “hate crime.”
An unknown vandal or vandals threw chunks of concrete bricks through the school’s entryway with a message protesting the banquet, which was planned by Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, or AFTAH, to honor pro-family activist and author of “The Pink Swastika,” Dr. Scott Lively.
Upon the concrete bricks were written the words “Shut down Lively,” and the vandals included a note theatening more violence if the church and school didn’t stop hosting such “homophobic” guests.
“This is just a sample of what we will do if you don’t shut down Scott Lively and AFTAH,” the note reads. “F— Scott Lively. Quit the homophobic s—!”
The radical ‘gay’ movement is not amused by ‘The Pink Swastika’. Thoroughly researched exposé reveals the role of sadistic homosexuals in Naziism
Hours later, a “press release” was sent by email to AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera, Church of Christian Liberty Pastor Calvin Lindstrom and the Chicago Independent Media Center claiming responsibility for the attack.
“In the early morning hours of October 15th, we put two chunks of concrete through the glass windows and doors of the Christian Liberty Academy,” claims the author of the release, identifying himself only by a vulgar nickname. “We did this because at 6 p.m. today they will be hosting an event organized by the homophobic hate group Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, that [sic] will be presenting an award to Scott Lively.”
The statement continues, “These chunks of concrete were thrown through these windows and doors for two reasons: to show that there is a consequence for hatred and homophobia in our community and to directly cause this event to be shut down. If this event is not shut down, and the homophobic day trainings do not end, the Christian Liberty Academy will continue to be under constant attack.”
Despite what Rush Limbaugh and what Max Fisher over at the Atlantic might be saying; the President is right to be sending troops in this region. I will explain what I mean. The Lord’s Resistance Army is not a group of Christian missionaries or anything of that sort; it is a group of terrorists, who maim and kill — all the while hiding behind some sort of perverted pseudo-Christian doctrine.
I realize that the Conservative Blogosphere’s goal is to discredit this President and everything that he does. However, in this case, the President, in fact, is taking the correct steps in stopping this crazed group of thugs from hurting any more people than they already have. It was the right thing to do and we as Conservatives, who believe that no one should have to suffer at the hands of crazed tyrants, should be supporting the President’s action in this case.
I also understand that this group has been fighting against Muslims in the area, while I do not agree with the tenants of the Muslim faith. I do not believe that the methods being used by the group are legal, sane, or even moral. Furthermore, I believe the slaughter of innocent people, including the elderly is very an immoral act to commit.
I also realize that there are some, who are Conservative, might feel that the President is engaging in too many conflicts. Let me say this, this is not an engagement for the protection of empire; this is an engagement for the cause of morality. For many years, the United States of America has been the beacon of Democracy and for Christian morality throughout the entire World. What this group is doing to the people of that region is vile and immoral; in the case, I believe it is the United States of America’s responsibility to the insure that innocent people are no harmed any longer.
In closing: While this blog and its owner might disagree with the President’s domestic policy, I do wholeheartedly agree with the President’s decision to put a stop to the treachery that is taking place in this Country and to its people. I commend the President for stepping up to the plate and insuring the protection of the citizens of Uganda. It is my fervent hope and prayer, that the Lord’s Resistance Army is stopped from inflecting any more violence on innocent people.
Although, I would advise everyone to read the comments over at HotAir.com on this video. Seems the good doctor is not totally telling the truth here.
Exit Question: I just wonder, does this include little Jew babies too, Dr. Paul? Hmmmm? I ask this seeing that in the little newsletters, with your name on them — you referred to them in some very nasty ways. I also wonder if it includes little black babies too, seeing all of the nasty racist stuff you said about them too.
Sarcasm aside, this is my point: The problem with Ron Paul and his followers, is they believe that liberty only extends to the White Anglo-Saxon people of America; that is selective liberty and it is what America did for the first years of it’s founding, until Abraham Lincoln (A Republican!) put a stop to it and again in 1964, when we stopped the selective liberty process entirely.
Again, it is great video; but Ron Paul is not being totally honest as usual. 🙄
As you all know, I am operating under a new set of rules now; so, I have to be very careful about how I word things now. Basically, I believe this below to be about Mitt Romney and less about the Tea Party. The problem with Romney, outside of being a flip-flopper, has his own set of problems, that Christian Conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Party people should be very worried about, and that my friends is not bigotry, it is the truth.
Scott Galupo writes:
I think the rest of the answer lies in the Tea Party itself.
About a year ago, I wondered whether the Tea Party was something to respect and/or fear, as it seemed to be throughout 2009 and into the 2010 primary season, or if it was “just a bloc of conventional conservatives in anti-authoritarian drag.”
Twelve months later, the question answers itself.
The Tea Party is/was composed primarily of religious conservatives, seniors worried about Obamacare’s impact on Medicare, and anti-immigrant curmudgeons. The libertarian ethos the movement projected was an utter fiction, and one that the national press corps briefly lent credence to.
In her Iowa speech last month, former Gov. Sarah Palin offered a fleeting glimpse of what the Tea Party was supposed to represent—a transpartisan attack on the bosom buddies Big Government and Big Business. More recently, Conor Friedersdorf muses quixotically about what a potential Tea Party-Occupy Wall Street alliance would look like.
The problem is Tea Partyers, as conventional conservatives, were never intellectually prepared to deliver on this threat. There’d been talk about ending corporate welfare in Republican circles for years. The TARP bailouts added a powerful new ingredient to this critique.
But when it came down to it, what did Wall Street and corporate America ever have to fear from the Tea Party? Lower corporate taxes and regulatory rollback? Seriously?
If CEO types truly fear a freer free market, why do they constantly complain on the shout shows of being “handcuffed” by Washington? And for crying out loud, didn’t I watch the Tea Party movement go viral on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade?
The Tea Party, ultimately, had nothing new to say.
Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain can take a measure of comfort in this fact when their candidacies eventually conclude.
As for the Tea Party, I had wrote a while back that I was skeptical of the actual movement itself. The problem was that the Tea Party movement itself was co-opted by Republican operative organizations like freedomworks and the like. At that point, is when the grassroots stopped controlling the movement and the beltway crowd started controlling it.
As for his comments about Herman Cain; there are quit wrong, Herman Cain is the current frontrunner in the Primary race, and unless this guy is trying to be an underhanded racist, I believe his comment is way off. I mean it is bad enough, that we have liberal blacks attacking Herman Cain, now he has to be attacked from a so-called Conservative, from the right? I mean, the guy worked for freaking John Bonher, what does that tell you?
I will say this; if Herman Cain does eventually withdraw from the primary race; it will not be because he did not try. It will be because of the liberal controlled and owned media destroyed him and because of the Republican establishment, who still has not completely gotten over the days of Trent Lott and his ilk — simply refused to acknowledge him as a serious contender. I will also give a warning to the Republican establishment, if you reject Herman Cain and he does end up going back to Atlanta, you will never live it down. As the Liberal Media and the Democratic Party will never, ever let you live that down. It does not matter what the Liberal blacks did, that will never be brought up, but what will be brought up is how a white-controlled and financed political party, basically told a black CEO to “get real buckwheat.” and proceeded to try and discredit him. Trust me, it will happen, the left is just waiting for the outcome of the race.
The daughter of a Mormon bishop who has abandoned her family’s faith claims in a new book the election of Mitt Romney to the presidency would put the U.S. in danger due to what she calls the Republican’s “outrageous,” “horrific” and “mind-controlling” beliefs.
“While he attempts to portray Mormonism as just another Christian religion, Mitt Romney counts on his skills to shift our attention away from what he truly believes,” says Tricia Erickson, author of “Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? The Mormon Church Versus the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America.”
“If the American people knew what he truly believed, they would surely not place him in the highest office in the land.”
Yet others, such as professor Richard Bushman, a Mormon and previous missionary himself who has taught at Harvard, Columbia and Brown Universities, are defending the faith. He calls Erickson “disillusioned” and someone who “instead of walking away felt an obligation to discredit [her] former faith.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the official name for Mormonism, has rocketed into the national consciousness this month since Rev. Robert Jeffress, a Rick Perry supporter who pastors the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, said Romney was “not a Christian” and that Mormonism is a “cult.”
“Part of a pastor’s job is to warn his people and others about false religions,” Jeffress said Sunday, standing by his controversial remarks. “Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Mormonism are all false religions.”
In her book, Erickson paints an unflattering picture of the Mormon faith, which counts not only the former Massachusetts governor as a member, but also fellow GOP presidential contender Jon Huntsman, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., radio talk-show host Glenn Beck, singer Gladys Knight, actresses Amy Adams and Katherine Heigl, “Napoleon Dynamite” actor Jon Heder, entertainers Donny and Marie Osmond, and sports stars including the NFL’s Steve Young, Danny White and Merlin Olsen.
Erickson goes on to expose the insane beliefs of the Mormons and tell about her horrifying experience in that cult:
Erickson says Romney believes:
He will become a “god” in the afterlife and be given his own planet
Satan is Jesus’ literal brother
Jesus was not born of a virgin birth
He will be given his own afterlife kingdom where he will have sexual relations with his wife, Ann, to populate his kingdom with spirit children as God the Father Himself has a wife on His own planet.
“Mormonism teaches we pre-existed on God the Father’s planet as spirit children before we were planted in our mother’s wombs,” Erickson told WND. “And the reason why we’re here according to Mormonism, is so that we can work out our own progression to godhood and our own planets themselves.”
The author, who herself was married in a Mormon temple at age 19 but now considers herself a non-denominational Christian, says there’s a secret agenda Mormon officials don’t like to talk about publicly.
“A complete takeover of the government,” she said. “They have more people in the CIA, the FBI. They have an employment office for Mormons in D.C. to be able to infiltrate them into the government.”
“They’ve been trying since the beginning to get someone in the presidency, because they believe they have to establish their authority so when Jesus comes to Earth, the Mormon Church will take control of the government and the Mormons will be the government of God on Earth,” she continued.
Erickson says her main concern is that the leader of the free world have the ability to discern fact from fiction.
“It may be crucial to our survival,” she said. “If his beliefs are distorted, which they unequivocally are, why would it not be be critical to our existence to protect our country from being placed in the hands of such a person?”
When asked for specific rituals she considers bizarre, Erickson claims Romney and other Mormons take part in clandestine marriage ceremonies involving “outrageous” customs. Explaining her own Mormon wedding, she says she was forced to completely disrobe against her will.
“It was horrific,” she told WND. “There I was standing naked. They brought this bowl of water, and started washing my body down and whispering prayers over my body. They stopped over the right and left breast, the navel and knees and prayed specific prayers.”
To help ensure the general public did not learn details of the rituals, she says believers took a symbolic knife to feign their own murder if members spilled the beans of what really goes on behind closed doors.
“They actually had us slashing our guts open and our guts falling to the ground if we told people of the secret dogma of the ceremonies,” Erickson said.
“Mitt is not a casual Mormon,” she told online interviewer Thom Hartmann, noting Romney has reached the upper echelons of the faith. “There is no way that he will be able to not listen to the [Mormon] prophet. His eternal salvation depends on it. He has to put the church first over country.”
Here is a video that also shows what Mormon’s truly believe:
As much as I would like to say that this is the first time that I have heard this; it is not, this young lady is not the only person to have told stories like this about the Mormon Cult. Another well-known author, speaker and former Mormon, Ed Decker has exposed the Mormon cult for what it truly is.
Here is Ed Decker’s testimony of how he came out of the Mormon Cult:
Here is another very, very, interesting radio program with Ed Decker. It is about the Free Masons and the founding of America. The Free Masons and the Mormon Church are joined at the hip. Please listen to this, you will find it very interesting. The show is from the early 1990’s, I believe anyhow. The show and the ministry which Ed appeared on went bankrupt in the 1990’s and went off the air. Ironically, the host’s wife died of cancer; she was diagnosed, not long after this show was broadcast.
The next book that I very highly recommend, is actually a comic book. It is a part of the “Crusader’s” series of Comic by a man, who I have much respect for; his name is Jack Chick:
Here’s the Romney response via Mitt Romney’s campaign manager:
I admit it, and I have written here as such; I am not a Mitt Romney fan in the least. However, I find this to be quite a amusing, Mr. President insecure is now going after Romney. I think voters should look long and hard at this, when voting in November 2012.
The man that the GOP needs to pick, is Herman Cain:
The world’s foremost Elliott wave expert goes “behind the scenes” on the Federal Reserve
October 13, 2011
By Elliott Wave International
The ongoing economic problems have made the central bank’s decisions — interest rates, quantitative easing, monetary stimulus, etc. — a permanent fixture on six-o’clock news.
Yet many of us don’t truly understand the role of the Federal Reserve.
For answers, let’s turn to someone who has spent a considerable amount of time studying the Fed and its functions: EWI president Robert Prechter.
Money, Credit and the Federal Reserve Banking System
By Robert Prechter
An argument for deflation is not to be offered lightly because, given the nature of today’s money, certain aspects of money and credit creation cannot be forecast, only surmised. Before we can discuss these issues, we have to understand how money and credit come into being. This is a difficult chapter, but if you can assimilate what it says, you will have knowledge of the banking system that not one person in 10,000 has.
The Origin of Intangible Money
Originally, money was a tangible good freely chosen by society. For millennia, gold or silver provided this function, although sometimes other tangible goods (such as copper, brass and seashells) did. Originally, credit was the right to access that tangible money, whether by an ownership certificate or by borrowing.
Today, almost all money is intangible. It is not, nor does it even represent, a physical good. How it got that way is a long, complicated, disturbing story, which would take a full book to relate properly. It began about 300 years ago, when an English financier conceived the idea of a national central bank. Governments have often outlawed free-market determinations of what constitutes money and imposed their own versions upon society by law, but earlier schemes usually involved coinage. Under central banking, a government forces its citizens to accept its debt as the only form of legal tender. The Federal Reserve System assumed this monopoly role in the United States in 1913.
What Is a Dollar?
Originally, a dollar was defined as a certain amount of gold. Dollar bills and notes were promises to pay lawful money, which was gold. Anyone could present dollars to a bank and receive gold in exchange, and banks could get gold from the U.S. Treasury for dollar bills.
In 1933, President Roosevelt and Congress outlawed U.S. gold ownership and nullified and prohibited all domestic contracts denoted in gold, making Federal Reserve notes the legal tender of the land. In 1971, President Nixon halted gold payments from the U.S. Treasury to foreigners in exchange for dollars. Today, the Treasury will not give anyone anything tangible in exchange for a dollar. Even though Federal Reserve notes are defined as “obligations of the United States,” they are not obligations to do anything. Although a dollar is labeled a “note,” which means a debt contract, it is not a note for anything.
Congress claims that the dollar is “legally” 1/42.22 of an ounce of gold. Can you buy gold for $42.22 an ounce? No. This definition is bogus, and everyone knows it. If you bring a dollar to the U.S. Treasury, you will not collect any tangible good, much less 1/42.22 of an ounce of gold. You will be sent home.
Some authorities were quietly amazed that when the government progressively removed the tangible backing for the dollar, the currency continued to function. If you bring a dollar to the marketplace, you can still buy goods with it because the government says (by “fiat”) that it is money and because its long history of use has lulled people into accepting it as such. The volume of goods you can buy with it fluctuates according to the total volume of dollars — in both cash and credit — and their holders’ level of confidence that those values will remain intact.
Exactly what a dollar is and what backs it are difficult questions to answer because no official entity will provide a satisfying answer. It has no simultaneous actuality and definition. It may be defined as 1/42.22 of an ounce of gold, but it is not actually that. Whatever it actually is (if anything) may not be definable. To the extent that its physical backing, if any, may be officially definable in actuality, no one is talking.
Understanding the Fed: How to protect yourself from the common and misleading myths about the U.S. Federal Reserve
It’s time to pull back the curtain on the Federal Reserve system. In this revealing 34-page ebook, you’ll learn how the Federal Reserve controls the money supply, you’ll pin-point a few critical points in Federal Reserve history, and you’ll uncover several important myths and misconceptions, like who owns the Federal Reserve Bank.
Representing more than 10 years of research by financial analyst Robert Prechter, this free report goes beyond Federal Reserve history and it’s government mandate and digs into the Fed’s real motivations for being the United States’ “lender of last resort.”
You are a #OccupyWallStreet protester and you are a confirmed leftist — all down with Mao and all that. Is this who you want being your spokesman?
The Occupy Wall Street movement is getting sympathy from an unlikely person: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
The 2008 GOP presidential nominee said he understands the growing protest movement’s concerns over Washington bailouts of major financial institutions.
“Down in Arizona today, Maricopa County has the highest number of homes underwater of any place in this country,” he told reporters Wednesday. “And it’s disgraceful that we took care of the financial institutions, and we did nothing about the housing crisis. So I understand their frustration.”
He later quipped that he may be the “only” Republican does.
No John, we should have not taken care of either. We should have let the banks fail, that were failing and we should have not messed with the housing market either; as both would have corrected themselves. This proves that which I and many others like me have believed for years, that John McCain is nothing more than a two-bit big government conservative or as we call them, Republican in Name Only or RINO.
The alternative title to this posting should be, “owning up to that fact that I have let myself go, in the last six years, since leaving my last Church.”
Tonight I was looking at my logs and noticed that a posting about Canada, that I wrote in a fit of anger a year ago was gaining popularity on here. Well, that changed tonight, because I deleted the silly thing.
I mentioned on here Sunday that I had found a new Church. I am a Christian and it is time I started acting like one. Which means some things are going to change around here with the blog. They are:
No more classic rock videos
Bad Language: I am going to try and work on that….
No more behavior unbecoming of a follower of Jesus Christ — even with those I disagree with…
My reasons for this, are thus; what I do in the privacy of my home is one thing — what I do publicly on this blog is representation of my Church and of my Christianity. It is also for public consumption. The last thing that I want to do, is bring a reproach to the great Church that I just started attending.It says on my twitter bio that I am a lousy Christian. As of today, I am going to start a working’ on that lousy bit. If I screw up, call me on it, please and yes that includes the people who are not my friends.
I hope you all understand. But I am rounding another corner in my walk with the Lord and I do want you all to come with me. I won’t cut older posts, as that is in the past; unless it’s something very vulgar and some starts linking to it. But everything after this point will go through the, “is God pleased with this?” filter.
Thanks for reading…
Update: I wrote this originally on my iPod touch; I made the corrections needed here on the laptop.
One of the core differences between liberals and radicals is that liberals are capitalists. They believe in a capitalism that is democratically regulated—that seeks to level an unfair economic playing field so that all citizens have the freedom to make what they want of their lives. But these are not the principles we are hearing from the protesters. Instead, we are hearing calls for the upending of capitalism entirely. American capitalism may be flawed, but it is not, as Slavoj Zizek implied in a speech to the protesters, the equivalent of Chinese suppression. “[In] 2011, the Chinese government prohibited on TV and films and in novels all stories that contain alternate reality or time travel,” Zizek declared. “This is a good sign for China. It means that people still dream about alternatives, so you have to prohibit this dream. Here, we don’t think of prohibition. Because the ruling system has even oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time. It’s easy to imagine the end of the world. An asteroid destroying all life and so on. But you cannot imagine the end of capitalism.” This is not a statement of liberal values; moreover, it is a statement that should be deeply offensive to liberals, who do not in any way seek the end of capitalism.
Zizek is not alone. His statement is typical of the anti-capitalist, almost utopian arguments that one hears coming from these protesters. A recent debate about whether to allow Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights icon, to speak to Occupy Atlanta was captured on video and ended up on YouTube. As Lewis looked on, arguments on both sides were bandied about. “The point of this general assembly is to kick-start a democratic process in which no singular human being is inherently more valuable than any other human being,” argued one protester. Ultimately, because no “consensus” could be reached, Lewis was turned away. Yes, like the Zizek speech, this was just one data point. But surely it was an indication that liberal skepticism about this movement is not unwarranted.
And it is just not the protesters’ apparent allergy to capitalism and suspicion of normal democratic politics that should raise concerns. It is also their temperament. The protests have made a big deal of the fact that they arrive at their decisions through a deliberative process. But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to liberals. “We speak as one,” Occupy Wall Street stated in its first communiqué, from September 19. “All of our decisions, from our choices to march on Wall Street to our decision to camp at One Liberty Plaza were decided through a consensus process by the group, for the group.” The air of group-think is only heightened by a technique called the “human microphone” that has become something of a signature for the protesters. When someone speaks, he or she pauses every few words and the crowd repeats what the person has just said in unison. The idea was apparently logistical—to project speeches across a wide area—but the effect when captured on video is genuinely creepy.
These are not just substantive complaints. They also beg the strategic question of whether the protesters will help or hurt the cause of liberalism. After all, even if the protesters are not liberals themselves, isn’t it possible that they could play a constructive role in forcing Americans to pay attention to important issues such as inequality and crony capitalism? Perhaps. But we are hard-pressed to believe that most Americans will look at these protests, with their extreme anti-capitalist rhetoric, and conclude that the fate of the Dodd-Frank legislation—currently the best liberal hope for improving democratically regulated capitalism—is more crucial than they had previously thought.
Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. (Psalms 116:15 KJV)
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:55-57 KJV)
For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:6-8 KJV)
Firstly, let me say that I do not believe that all of the protesters of this little movement actually believe that which is in this video, because that is collectivism and I do not play that game. However, I happen to find quit ironic that the very people who wanted to lecture we Conservatives on the supposed “New-Tone”, all the while calling anyone who disagrees with their liberalism terrorists — are now talking about violent revolution.
Let me also say this; there are many out there in the Conservative/Republican/Tea Party that would happily give them what they want. I hope like the dickens that it never, ever comes to that, but I will tell you, there many who would be willing and able to use violence against those who would try to take what is rightly theirs to start.
Again, I believe this is simply the opinion of one person. However, if it is the growing feeling among this people; I do truly fear for what happen in this Country in the future.
The phrase “work three jobs” appears frequently in stories about economic malaise. It generally refers to people whom are underemployed and working many labor-intensive, low-benefit, low-paying jobs in order to pay their bills and get by. Of course, part of the reason it comes up so much is that the economy is so bad that there really are a large number of people working multiple jobs to pay their bills and still struggling.
Conservatives, seeking to dampen the message of the “We are the 99 Percent” message put forth by the Occupy Wall Street protesters, started a tumblr of their own titled “We are the 53 percent.” While the 99 percent refers to the overwhelming majority of Americans who have watched government prop up financial institutions while taking half-measures to help ordinary citizens through a punishing recession, the “53 percent” refers to the percentage of Americans who pay federal income taxes, the implication being that those Americans who don’t make enough money to pay income taxes are scofflaws living lives of lavish comfort. People who don’t pay federal income taxes nevertheless pay other kinds of taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and the like, but why get bogged down in the details when you’re trying to portray half the country as a bunch of shiftless freeloaders?
Conservative blogger Erick Erickson, in the tumblr’s first post interprets the “work three jobs” thing somewhat differently than we’ve seen it used before
Needless to say, had I known it was ran by that insolent jerk; I would have never bothered. By the way, I still have the option of suing the living crap out of all of the parties involved with my slandering; I spoke with a lawyer friend of mine and he said, I have a solid case. All I have to do, is file the paperwork needed and get the process started and let me tell you, when it comes to this guy and the other people involved — discovery is going to be a bitch for them.
In closing, let me just say, that I am one of the 53% of America. But Erick Erickson, does not speak for me; not in the least.
Understanding the Fed: How to protect yourself from the common and misleading myths about the U.S. Federal Reserve
In the early morning hours, on the eve of a banquet designed to expose the homosexual activist agenda, security cameras on the campus of the Christian Liberty Academy, a school run by the Church of Christian Liberty in Arlington Heights, Ill., captured what may be a prominent example of an anti-Christian “hate crime.”
The Occupy Wall Street movement is getting sympathy from an unlikely person: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).