Blue Moon for Armstrong

Neil Armstrong was laid to rest today , which happens to be a blue moon , when a full moon occurs twice within the same calender month.  There won’t be another one until July 2015.  Armstrong’s family wants people to look out at the moon tonight and give Neil a wink. Armstrong’s passing was even mentioned in Romney’s speech last night: The soles of Neil Armstrong’s boots on the moon made permanent impressions on OUR souls and in our national psyche. Ann and I watched those steps together on her parent’s sofa. Like all Americans we went to bed that night knowing we lived in the greatest country in the history of the world. God bless Neil Armstrong. Tonight that American flag is still there on the moon. And I don’t doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong’s spirit is still with us: that unique blend of optimism, humility and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American.

79e05ce35cuemoon.jpg 150x84 Blue Moon for Armstrong

Visit link:
Blue Moon for Armstrong

    Products We Use

  • Covert VideoPress WordPress theme that makes your blog feel and work like Youtube, allowing your to cash in on the video craze without ever having to create a video yourself!
  • Easy List Building Quickstart
  • OTO AzonCart WP Plugin
  • Rockstar Power Suite 2.0 Rockstar Power Suite is a powerful software toolkit designed to assist in creating, optimizing, and deploying professional business graphics and advertisements. Creating visually stunning and effective media for marketing has never been easier! Our easy-

Famous Words of Inspiration...


Powered By AMZ QuoteCash

RNC Speeches Day 3: Smitten by Mitt

The final evening of speeches at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa capped a solid three days of a pro-American, pro-free market, pro-opportunity political festival.  Hurricane Isaac forced the convention into a three-day affair, but in truth packing all the speeches and events into three days instead of four allowed the message to come across with much more focus and power. The final day of the convention was devoted to Mitt Romney, the man.  Many people spoke but only a few stood out to me.  One was Pam Finlayson , one of Romney’s church members who was welcomed into town by the Romneys, later facing deep travails.  The Oparowski’s story was also a powerful one about Romney helping a 14 year old write a will. A number of Olympians appeared yesterday to cheer Romney’s 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics achievements.  Mike Eruzione, captain of the 1980 US Olympic hockey team , as well as Derek Parra , participant in the 2002 games, were two stand-out speakers.  Also, dealing with education reform was Jeb Bush , who promoted school choice and even gave an unscripted tribute to his brother . Then, the big speeches. The “mystery speaker” turned out to be Clint Eastwood .  Well, what can I say?  It was too long, awkward, kind of strange, and also funny at points.  The empty seat schtick was fine, once I figured out there was an empty seat next to him.  With Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney next up, this was murder to watch at home and unfortunately is driving more of the conversation today than it should have.  Ad-libbing isn’t always the best route. In contrast, Marco Rubio’s speech was great!  Like Paul Ryan, it was philosophical and critical of Obama in a powerful way, using real examples and a positive message about the possibilities of America sans Obama.  It was inspiring and heart-felt.  Though he obviously misspoke once towards the end, it was nonetheless a speech that the party will remember, reinforcing how deep the younger GOP bench truly is.  Here’s the full speech: Then came the person whose speech we were all waiting for:  Mitt Romney .  He came out on a red carpet at the other end of the convention hall, shaking hands with the crowd before getting up on stage.  It looked to me just like the walk Presidents make down the aisle at a State of the Union address.  NBC, however, thought it looked like a wrestler on his way to grapple with the President.  It’s all about perspective, I suppose. I liked the speech.  I didn’t love it, though.  It was classic Mitt Romney.  He looked good and delivered the speech well, even through a mild fascist disruption .  On the merits, it was a solid speech, even a presidential caliber speech.  He didn’t have to be Barack Obama reading TOTUS, he just had to be palatable as a Commander-in-Chief to the general public.  To that end, the speech was a resounding success in my opinion. Where I have an issue is that while the speech aptly complimented the week-long dismantling of the Obama record, it didn’t balance that with what Romney would do beyond his five-point plan.  It was vague.  Like I said, classic Mitt Romney.  Politically, he’s a pleaser.  Luckily, he’s also a doer and has Paul Ryan by his side.  Here’s the entire speech: Here’s the money line , which was a great swipe at Hopeandchange : President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family. Ouch.  But so true.  Overall, the RNC was a success.  The evening speeches were solid, with a only few bumps here and there.  The Tea Party wasn’t mentioned in prime time, but through Ryan and Rubio its sentiments were articulated to the nation. Too keep the momentum going and irk Obama once again, Romney left first thing this morning to go to New Orleans to survey the damage from Hurricane Isaac .  Apparently, Obama is visiting Texas today before going back to DC — he hasn’t visited the Gulf Coast yet. A choice election indeed.

View post:
RNC Speeches Day 3: Smitten by Mitt


Famous Words of Inspiration...


Powered By AMZ QuoteCash

An Analysis Of Francis Schaeffer’s “The Church At The End Of The 20th Century”

Francis Schaeffer has been characterized as an Elijah to the late twentieth century.  Though not as inspired in the same direct sense as his Biblical forebears, Francis Schaeffer did articulate a vision of the future remarkable in its accuracy and a message startling in its relevancy.  Schaeffer was able to accomplish this by extrapolating from the cultural situation of the late 1960′s and early 1970′s and projecting these trends into the future where the implications of these assumptions would have the time necessary to fester over into a comprehensive dystopian milieu.  Schaeffer’s “The Church At The End 20th Century”, from a standpoint a tad less than nearly a half century in the past, explored a world not unlike our own where Western society has abandoned its Judeo-Christian foundations and stands poised to lose not only its order but also its liberty as a consequence. Throughout the corpus of his life’s work, Francis Schaeffer categorized ideas as the primary force motivating history.  Richard Pierard in “Reflections On Francis Schaeffer” says regarding Schaeffer’s philosophy of history, “People’s world views or presuppositions determine the direction of their political and social institutions and their scientific endeavors (199).”  ”The Church At The End Of The 20th Century” attempts to show how such distorted thinking comes to impact the structures of civilized existence such as the institutions of government and culture. Francis Schaeffer concluded that the confusion and chaos rampant at the end of the twentieth century were traceable to the rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundations upon which Western civilization once sat.  However, as a result, modern man has not drifted along as before, blissfully unencumbered by the burdens classical theism strove to address.  Instead the whole world has pretty much started falling apart.  In the first chapter titled “The Roots Of The Student Revolution”, Schaeffer provides a summary of the streams of thought he saw as establishing the backdrop of the contemporary world drama. Having abandoned the Judeo-Christian worldview, modern man has also forfeited many of the benefits inherent to that particular body of thought.  Being the God of both the physical realm and its order as well as the realm of the spirit and its yearning for freedom, those turning their backs on the God of the Bible inevitably end up losing an essential balance between these two pillars of existence. Much of the social confusion characterizing the contemporary world is understandable in terms of these extremes dancing unfettered across America’s cultural landscape.  In the mind of Schaeffer, philosophies and perspectives seemingly light-years apart to the casual observer were in the final analysis interconnected in that they stemmed from the same root problem. A number of thinkers who have abandoned Judeo-Christian principles have attempted to find ultimate answers in an understanding of science construed though their materialistic philosophy excluding life’s spiritual component.  Schaeffer referred to this approach as “modern modern science” (13). Schaeffer deliberately distinguished between modern science and modern modern science in an attempt to emphasize the difference between the two epistemological approaches.  Schaeffer stressed that modern science in fact arose amidst a Christian framework.  The methodology’s earliest practitioners believed that one could understand the operation of the physical universe since it had been imbued with a sense of orderliness by its rational creator.   However, modern modern science would step beyond the confines of such a paradigm to exclude the role of God by arguing that the universe is a closed system complete in itself.  But by eliminating the need for a personal Creator, modern modern science also eliminates those aspects of man transcending the sum of his material parts or those qualities Schaffer cleverly referred to as “the mannishness of man”.   When the cosmos is reduced to mere matter, man can no longer be seen as possessing those qualities that distinguish him from the proverbial furniture of the universe.  Instead of arising as responses to metaphysical verities, things such as emotions, thoughts, and acts of creativity are reduced to nothing more than responses to electro-chemical biological stimuli.  The aspirations the Declaration of Independence gives rise to become no different than the reaction to the gastrointestinal conditions sparking heartburn and may in fact possibly be interrelated. The hypothesis of man as little more than an empty bag of mostly water, as the infamous Crystalline Entity put it on one episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation”, does not fit the data or provide much comfort on a cold night when we consider the aspects of existence seeming to rise above the immediacy of our biological functions.  Such inadequacy no doubt provokes a response from those not willing to accept how divine revelation fills in these blanks but who realize that the cold scientism of Mr. Spock does not quite cut it either.   Schaeffer pointed out that assorted brands of mysticism are often, surprisingly, the children of scientism’s ultimate consequences.  With rationalism found wanting, modern man feels he must step beyond reason and make what Schaeffer refers to as “a leap upstairs” in order to find meaning in nonrational experience.   Writing along similar lines, James Sire says of existentialism in “The Universe Next Door”, “….against the absurdity of the objective world, the authentic person must revolt and create value (100).”  Values are not arrived at in a rational manner through contemplation upon transcendent criteria but through an intuitive choice based upon feeling much more akin to a mystical experience whether we decide to embrace New Age pantheism or various forms of political activism. In such a situation, one is reminded of the famous statement in “The Charge Of The Light Brigade”: “Ours is not reason why.  Ours is but to do or die.”  The human heart realizes that there are things worth valuing beyond the concrete material universe even if it cannot justify the basis for this belief.  However, when rational standards are abandoned, chaos of some sort is usually bound to follow. Perhaps the most ironic thing of this entire discussion is that, the further each alternative gets from the Judeo-Christian standard, the more allegedly objective rationalism and subjective romanticism come to resemble one another.   Schaeffer argued that, without some kind of transcendent reference point, even the imposing intellectual monolith of contemporary science breaks down into personal preference and social utility. Schaeffer illustrated this by highlighting how Cambridge Anthropologist Edmund Leach preferred a theory of evolution whereby all human races descended from one common ancestor rather than arising separately from one another (92).  Leach based such a conclusion on no other criteria than that the theory of a single common ancestor fit better with the notions of racial harmony.   No longer are scientific decisions to be made in light of the facts or data available at the time but in reference to the same kind of subjective criteria by which we would decide whether to wear a red or blue tie to work tomorrow.  Right answers and wrong answers become predicated on their usefulness to society or at least to those wielding power.  One might say objectively that objectivity is not quite what it use to be. Things might not be so bad if adherents of these worldviews sat in a corner and kept quiet amongst themselves.  Yet the ironic thing is that those convinced that no objective truth exists seem the most bent on inflicting their version of it upon everyone else in the attempt to remold society in their own image.  Regarding the application of secularist perspectives, Schaeffer was perceptive in realizing that —- as in the realm of thought —- these non-Biblical approaches to social organization end up in the same place as well.   Schaeffer elaborates upon what he sees as three alternatives to a society built upon Christian foundations.  Despite the differences in these systems, each bears a striking similarity. The first alternative Schaeffer warns about is hedonism, defined as each doing their own thing.  The second alternative is what Schaeffer refers to as “the dictatorship of 51%” or what social scientists and political theorists classify as pure democracy where there are no absolutes or standards beyond what is determined by the electorate, in a focus group, or by a committee.  The third possibility Schaeffer foresaw was some kind of dictatorship, either in the form of one-man rule or by an elite technocratic bureaucracy. As with scientism and the subjectivism from which the aforementioned approaches to politics and social organization derive their foundations, it would seem on the first view that anarchism and the various forms of authoritarianism would have little in common.  But once again, closer investigation reveals that each shares a startling degree of similarity. Anarchy promises liberation through the abolition of all traditional standards and institutions.  This is either an empty promise or the proponents of this particular outlook do not fully realize what they are advocating. Without eternal standards through which rights and property are respected, freedom rests on a most precarious foundation.  For while the adherents of the various form of Leftism claim to stand for freedom and rights, this concern extends only to those professing an ideology similar to their own or pursuing related ends.  Schaeffer illustrates this in the case of one student radical in Paris who told a caller to radio program, “…you just shut up — I’ll never give you a chance to speak (Schaeffer, 32).” So much for freedom of expression.  One cannot argue that such incidents merely reflect the heat of the moment and do not represent the true sentiments of those advocating total social revolution.  Similar sentiments have been expressed by the very theoreticians of this movement as normative operating procedure. Herbert Marcuse is quoted in “Left Of Liberal” as saying, “Certain things cannot be said, certain things cannot be expressed…which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination (Bouscaren, 13).”  In other words, those seeking a world of absolute decentralization in terms of morals just as much as politics would set themselves up as an elite imposing their own arbitrary standards with the same radical rigor they employed in their conflict to rend asunder the traditional order.   Francis Fukuyama, author of the acclaimed “The End Of History & The Last Man” noted in a May 22, 2000 Time magazine article titled “Will Socialism Make A Comeback” that a socialistic anarchism will come to exert influence over the world of the twenty-first century without having to assume the formal reins of government by orchestrating disruptive protests like those that now regularly taken place during global financial summits in an attempt to alter world policy. Francis Schaeffer has been with the Lord since the early 1980′s.  Yet the thought of this visionary Presbyterian continues to provide considerable insight into a world tottering on the edge of chaos and encouragement for Evangelicals having to navigate a variety of perplexing issues.  Schaeffer realized  that one could not avoid the dangers of the contemporary world by simply ignoring arenas such as politics and other forms of social engagement since such forces have the power to impact all facets of existence in a mass society.  Schaeffer addressed the impact of worldviews upon different aspects of culture in the chapter “Modern Man The Manipulator”. Particularly startling is the accuracy of Schaeffer’s predictions regarding technological development.  Schaeffer warned, “Very soon, all of us will be living in an electronic village hooked up to a huge computer, and we will be able to know what everybody else in the world thinks.  The majority opinion will become law in that hour (97).”   Today, this prediction finds itself on the verge of fulfillment.  Leaders such as Newt Gingrich and as far back as Ross Perot have suggested that the networking capability of the Internet be utilized for the purposes of referenda in order to decide major issues facing the nation.  However, Schaeffer correctly warned of the manipulation likely to result from the use of this technology by and against individuals not adequately grounded in the truths that do not change regardless of the latest digital innovations.  The Information Superhighway can take the websurfer either to the accumulated knowledge of mankind or the electronic equivalent of a red-light district.   Some will dismiss Schaeffer’s injunctions as Evangelical eschatological hysteria, especially when he speculates about the bio-electronic manipulation of individuals in reference to a May 22, 1970 International Herald Tribune article about monkey controlled by radio receivers implanted into their brains (98).  That is until one reads the May 22, 2000 edition of Time Magazine predicting that prison guards may someday be obsolete thanks to implantable biochips that could be used to modify inmate behavior.  Then one realizes that Francis Schaeffer’s understanding of human nature is truly holistic, comprehending the present in light of the past and the future in relation to the present. It would not be much of an overstatement to say that Francis Schaeffer played a primary role in awakening Evangelicals to the precarious state of the world around them.  One cannot discount the influence of Schaeffer upon the contemporary Evangelical mind.  Regarding Schaeffer’s influence, Clark Pinnock writes in “Reflections On Francis Schaeffer”,  “He [Schaeffer] enlisted in this task fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye who, although they were world-denying dispensationalists at first, quickly became culture-reclaiming activists (Pinnock, 179).”  In other words, Schaeffer helped Evangelicalism realize that the world and human endeavor possessed value beyond the number of souls that could be saved, central though individual salvation may be. Schaeffer in no way sought to undermine the centrality of the individual, but rather hoped to expand Evangelical concerns to encompass all areas of thought and creation since the God the Christian served was the master of these as well.  It was out of this sanctity for the individual created in the image of God that Schaeffer believed it was imperative for believers to engage in these other areas.  Key to accomplishing this mission, Schaeffer believed each individual must take stock of their personal beliefs.  Schaeffer often lamented that most people caught their presuppositions like they would the measles —- quite haphazardly. Such reflection was just not to be a Sunday school exercise.  Schaeffer saw it as groundwork for intensive apologetic conflict and engagement with a decaying world.  Though himself a Presbyterian minister and evangelist, Schaeffer hoped to inspire Christians to get involved as salt and light in all academic disciplines and intellectual pursuits.  Schaeffer said that the best thing a Christian scientist could do would be to invent a computer for the individual designed to counter the centralizing tendency of intrusive databases (Schaeffer, 99).  No where did he conclude that learning was off limits to the believer since it had often been employed for questionable purposes. I Chronicles 12:32 praises the children of Issachar for understanding the times in which they lived.  Our own era stands witness to a rate of change unprecedented in the pages of history.   Like the men of Issachar, Francis Schaeffer will be remembered as one of the few capable of rising above the confusion of the moment to determine the overall place of our times in relation to God’s providence and the consequences that will result from ignoring it. An Analysis Of Francis Schaeffer’s “The Church At The End Of The 20th Century” by Frederick Meekins syndicated from The Land of the Free .

See more here:
An Analysis Of Francis Schaeffer’s “The Church At The End Of The 20th Century”


Famous Words of Inspiration...


Powered By AMZ QuoteCash

The Inverse Political Ratio Between National Prominence and Life

When Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell ran in 2009 the Washington Post spent the campaign trying to persuade the FTC to penalize him for false advertising since his campaign was not built around social issues. Any time a “conservative Republican,” does not make the three A’s (abortion, abstinence & alternative lifestyles) the centerpiece of his campaign; the Posties are convinced he’s misleading voters. McDonnell didn’t have to discuss social issues because at that time conservative Virginia felt he was solid on those points. Instead, McDonnell focused on jobs and economic development. (For what happens during a campaign when the base no longer trusts the candidate see Obama 2012.) Now social conservatives may have to re–evaluate McDonnell. In sharp contrast to Gov. Scott Walker (R–WI) who remained conservative during nationwide controversy, McDonnell appears to be avoiding controversy at the expense of his commitment to social conservatives. Initially in hopes of becoming the Romney VP pick, now for a spot in the administration. The differing outcomes of June’s three controversies illustrate my point. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority controls construction of Metro’s Silver Line rail route to Dulles Airport. MWAA has an appointed board of directors, but only a minority is appointed by Virginia’s governor. And only one of the Virginia appointees was McDonnell’s, the other three having been appointed by his Democrat predecessor. The board initially required a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) specifying only union contractors — or contractors paying union wages with union work rules — could bid on Phase II of the Silver Line. McDonnell and the legislature objected and the board responded by giving construction firms with a “voluntary” PLA a higher rating during bid evaluation. McDonnell forcefully responded by reiterating no additional Virginia taxpayer dollars would be forthcoming unless the PLA was eliminated. Then he took advantage of a recently passed federal law and made two new appointments to the MWAA board, even though the existing board refused to seat them. McDonnell did not budge an inch during the controversy even though there was a danger Phase II would never be built. The MWAA board finally decided completing the line was more important than scratching union backs and it eliminated the PLA requirement. The governor decisively employed financial and public pressure to bend the board to his will and score a victory for Virginia taxpayers. The second example is the firing of the University of Virginia’s first female president, Teresa Sullivan, on June 10th. Rector Helen Dragas, a McDonnell appointee, lobbied other members of the Board of Visitors until she had enough votes to fire Sullivan. Then Dragas confronted Sullivan with the tally and demanded her resignation, without doing so at a formal board meeting. Although legal, the maneuvering ruffled more than one set of university feathers and it lacked the transparency and ritual hand–wringing demanded of most academic decisions. Uproar ensued. There were board resignations, “superstar” professors threatened to leave and large donors put a clamp on their wallets. McDonnell had no role in the ouster and was out of the country when it happened, but the bad publicity was on his watch. Twelve days later he delivered an ultimatum: if the board did not make a final decision on Sullivan by Tuesday the 26th, McDonnell would demand the entire board’s resignation on Wednesday the 27th. The Board reinstated Sullivan. McDonnell again was decisive and swift. Compare those two instances with the third. In 2011 McDonnell signed a bill regulating abortion clinics the same way out–patient surgical centers are regulated. This resulted in two outcomes: first veterinary clinics no longer had more regulations than abortion clinics. And second, Democrats finally discovered a small business burdened by unnecessary regulation. Step two was implementation by the Virginia Board of Health — completely dominated by McDonnell appointees. But McDonnell’s board voted to grandfather existing abortion mills, exempting them and effectively gutting the new law. The decision surprised abortion cheerleaders and stunned pro–life advocates. Representatives from the Attorney General’s office advised the board it was improper to amend a law passed by the General Assembly, but the board refused to change its decision. So what did the governor do when his board acted willfully, shocked his pro–life base and affronted the General Assembly? He did nothing. His spokesman said, ““The governor will review the final regulations when the board submits them for his review.” It’s now over two months later and the governor is evidently “reviewing” up a storm. This gains him nothing from abortion promoters, who will never support him, and erodes the trust of the life community. The delay only serves to avoid MSM negative publicity. I’m sorry to say it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion Gov. McDonnell is proving to be another Republican who “grows in office” but not in stature. The Inverse Political Ratio Between National Prominence and Life by Michael R. Shannon syndicated from The Land of the Free .

Link:
The Inverse Political Ratio Between National Prominence and Life


Famous Words of Inspiration...


Powered By AMZ QuoteCash

Stop Empowering the Thieves who Steal your Money in Broad Daylight!

Screwed By Dick Morris. This book has one important premise we all should live by!   Screwed is a great book. Its subtitle is: “How foreign Countries are ripping us off and plundering our economy- and how our leaders help them to do it.”   The book covers an array of subjects. It’s a tough read because it has a great deal of detail. But once you get through the first hundred pages it seems to pick up momentum. But at the end of the day or book which ever comes first there is one bold principle which should be drafted right at the top of the US Constitution. Remember our patriotic founders knew this rule. They just didn’t write it in bold print in the preamble and every page thereafter. And keep in mind that the founders never envisioned an economy the best in the world with trillions of dollars to spend and steal.   The rule is simple. Where ever there is money, it will always and I mean always attract thieves, con artist and sting professionals. And the good news is that most governments in the US are so large that there are folks robbing us blind each and every day.   And I believe what Morris is elaborating on in great depth is that now they have expanded the economy to encompass this thing known as global. Everything is global and international. So now you are faced with not just the home bred thieves but we now have international thieves. But these guys are very bold and do it in the daylight and they don’t wear masks.   Morris takes you through many phases of corruption. In some cases we have our own former congressmen and former elected officials taking money from foreigners and stroking the pockets of our elected officials to gain monetary windfalls. And in most cases these monetary gains are not good for you or the United States. Morris discussed the UN and how we throw Billions of dollars at them.  And international thieves just suck that money right up. There is no accounting. There isn’t even an Eric Holder to deny it.   Foreign investments may be the largest scam. We give charity to our enemies. It is not an investment we actually are paying off their leaders to do what? Who knows? But we don’t see any results from the trillions of dollars that have been paid to these foreign countries. And in all cases the countries receiving the charity have not improved the poverty levels or human rights of its poor people.   And Morris also exposes the international organizations that want the US to be part of them. Most people don’t realize that we have the greatest economy. China isn’t even close. Yet these countries want us to give up our sovereignty so that we can be told how to live by their standards.   And these standards by the way are basically liberal standards that the majority of Americans do not want. So the thieves and liberals want to control your life by giving your rights and your country’s sovereignty to leaders in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia and China.  Where is General Patton when we need him? He didn’t trust the Russians and the Chinese then, and it makes no fiscal sense to trust them today. That is unless you want them to steal from you?   So Morris as I see it wants us out of the UN, and all these international courts and organizations that don’t give us our fair share of our own sovereignty. He wants us out of any treaties that render to foreigners our rights and revenue.   And if we are going to give Billions of dollars to countries for social reasons then let’s do it as an actual investment. Build a factory. Build something. It makes more sense to do that then to make the dictator fifthly rich and then they don’t vote in our favor in the UN. They actually vote against us after they take our money. It is time to tell all these blood suckers to take a hike and if the liberals don’t like it, they can move to the country of their choice as long as the dictators let them in. Bring plenty of cash!   What should be written across the top of the Constitution are some pretty simple thoughts. First off if you are dealing with large sums of money, don’t. It attracts too many professional thieves. Lawyers and all sorts of formidable thieves come out of the wood work to claim their “fair” share. Is this what Obama envisions as fair share?   By the way Hillary and Obama seem to be in favor of surrendering our sovereignty to these international thieves. They have the Clinton attitude… Can’t we just get along”? If getting along means paying trillions in jobs and money… tell them to go shovel it.   So the rule becomes simple. If there is any measure in a bill or law that effects billions of dollars it should not be run by the government. Our government has become too accessible to the crooks. Let’s face it, if you were a crook and you could get away with stealing billions, wouldn’t you line up for a shot?  For your Obama fair share?   That is why we have fraud in almost all our liberal programs. People are being paid to give out the money. The more they give out the better. It becomes obvious today that the government can not be trusted with our welfare and our money!   Remember the old Abbot and Costello routine. Abbot gives Lou one dollar. And then he gives himself one dollar. Then says two and gives Lou another dollar. And he gives himself one two more dollars. In other words Abbot took Lou as a fool and stole money from Costello right in front of his face. That’s what the bureaucrats and politicians have done for years. Look at their healthcare and benefits and salaries. How come you can’t buy their healthcare at the same price?   It is time to start putting all these liberals and crooked bureaucrats and politicians in their place. As my book says, its time for a peaceful revolution to put the money and sovereignty back where it belongs… In the hands of the people! Obama won’t do it. You have to do it. Start electing folks who will at least shrink the government. The more the government grows the more thieves that it attracts, and the more of your money that they steal. And even if you are poor, they steal money from the pot that would actually go to you … That is if you want to get out of the poverty revolving doors?   Now that’s the statement that should be written across the US Constitution. So stop growing the government and weakening our US sovereignty and giving our hard earned money to thieves! Please vote the liberal Democrats out!  Once and forever! Stop Empowering the Thieves who Steal your Money in Broad Daylight! by Dr. Phil Taverna syndicated from The Land of the Free .

See the original post here:
Stop Empowering the Thieves who Steal your Money in Broad Daylight!


Famous Words of Inspiration...


Powered By AMZ QuoteCash