Here is a claim I have yet to see be reported by any major American News Source. Why Not?
TIMES OF INDIA
Pak Taliban claim responsibility for New York shootout
4 Apr 2009, 1420 hrs IST, PTI
ISLAMABAD: Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud on Saturday claimed responsibility for a shooting incident at an immigration services office in New York which claimed 14 lives.
The Pakistani Taliban commander claimed the attack was launched by a Pakistani man and another unidentified man.
"I accept responsibility. They were my men. I gave them orders in reaction to US drone attacks," Mehsud said by telephone from an undisclosed location.
The chief of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan warned that "such attacks would continue" to avenge missile strikes by US drones in tribal areas and "brutalities in Palestine."
Mehsud also pointed out that he had said a few days ago that his militants would carry out attacks on American soil.
The claim by the Pakistani Taliban commander came hours after a US drone attack in North Waziristan tribal agency killed 13 people, including women and children.
Authorities in New York said a man armed with two handguns killed 13 people at an immigration services centre before turning the gun on himself. The gunman was believed to be of Vietnamese-origin.
Mehsud had recently claimed responsibility for the terrorist siege of a police training centre at Manawan near Lahore that killed eight persons and injured over 90 as well as for two recent suicide attacks.
Showing posts with label Political Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Commentary. Show all posts
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Friday, March 06, 2009
ECONOMIC MELTDOWN: WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD
By: Joel Resenberg
http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/
Viewing the current crisis in light of Bible prophecy.
(Washington, D.C., March 6, 2009) -- From January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008, Americans lost $6.9 trillion in wealth in the stock markets.
Just since Barack Obama was elected, Americans have lost some $3 trillion in wealth, reports Investors' Business Daily, as the markets have plummeted some 30%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, for example, has collapsed from 9,625.28 on November 4, 2008 to 6,647.49 on March 4, 2009.
Firesale prices are in effect - Citibank stocks are under $1 and General Motors shares are selling for less than $2 - as investors see major American financial and manufacturing behemoths on the brink of bankruptcy.
Zoom out a bit, and we see the situation even more dire. Since the market's highs in October 2007, the DJIA is down some 50%. That means over the last 18 months, we have seen half the nation's wealth vanish into thin air.
In the midst of all this, millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Small businesses are dying. Big businesses are dying. Credit is tight. Confidence is low. And people are anxious.
Last weekend, I met with some evangelical Christian business leaders in Naples, Florida. They asked me what I thought the future held. I did not offer advice on how to win on Wall Street. But I did share with them a few thoughts from the Scriptures. In Matthew 6:19-21, Jesus said: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where theives break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where theives do not break in and steal; for where your treasure is, there is your heart also."
I asked the men, "More tough times may be ahead. If some of you have lost 30% to 50% of your assets, what are your plans going forward? What if another 30% to 50% of your wealth vanishes, or is confiscated in a massive new tax increase? Would it not be better to invest some or all of that wealth in the kingdom of God now, where it is safe and secure, while you still have it?"
The Lord is shaking our country and purifying His Church. He is requiring all of us to reconsider what we value, where our treasure is, where our hearts are. He is preparing us to see Him face to face. And when we see Him, there will be a day of accounting. He will ask us what we did with the resources He entrusted to us. What, then, shall we say?
The men also asked me, "Where is the United States in End Times Bible prophecy?" When I replied, "The Bible makes no indication that the U.S. is a significant player in End Times prophecy," they responded, "Why? What happens to us?"
I was honest with them, saying I don't know. I do believe we are living through the events Jesus talked about in Matthew 24 as signs of the "last days" before His return. That said, I don't know why the United States - the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the face of the earth in the history of mankind - is not ever clearly mentioned in or clearly alluded to in Bible prophecy concerning the last days. I don't know because the Bible doesn't tell us.
For the last several years, I have been explaining that we could be devastated by a nuclear war. We could be hit by a series of decapitating terrorist attacks. We could be hit by massive natural disasters. And/or we could face a series of economic disasters. Consider just two potential scenarios that could render the U.S. a non-factor in the last days:
Scenario #1: the U.S. could implode economically after the rapture. The rapture is an event described in I Thessalonians 4-5 when true followers of Jesus Christ are snatched away from the earth and meet Jesus Christ in the air at a time when the rest of the world has been saying there is "peace and safety." How many Christ-followers in the U.S. would disappear in the "twinkle of an eye," according to the Scriptures? We don't know for certain. It could be 10 million. It could be 25 million. It could be 50 million, 75 million, or more. The point is the rapture will have a devastating and irrecoverable impact on the U.S. in many ways. Consider, for example, how hard the American economy was hit when nearly 3,000 Americans were lost on 9/11/01. Now imagine the impact the loss of millions of Americans due to the rapture would have on the U.S. economy. You think we have a subprime mortgage crisis now? Imagine what the U.S. banking and real estate system will look like when millions of Christians disappear and are no longer here to pay their mortgages, or their credit card bills, or buy other goods and services. Our economy would implode, and suddenly America would no longer be the economic superpower it has been for a century.
Scenario #2: the U.S. economy could melt down in a Great Depression before the rapture. Such a melt down would emasculate our economic and military power and thus radically reduce our influence in the world. On October 16, 2008, I wrote about "the implications of this financial apocalypse." Things have only worsened since then. I am praying that the Lord will have mercy on us. But we cannot rule out the possibility that the Lord will remove His favor from our nation and allow us to be rocked to our core economically. Decisive action should be taken to strengthen our economy and help American businesses small and large grow and create more jobs. But the President's hastily-crafted multi-trillion dollar spending plan will not save the day and revive our moribund economy.
Most Members of Congress didn't even read the 1,100-plus page bill they voted in favor of, noted Sen. Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat. The Obama administration was rushing through this massive and expensive bill without giving the people's representatives the time to read it and consider its merits. Why? The plan is essentially European socialism and risks making our economic situation worse, not better. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the real price tag of the bill is actually $3.27 trillion over the next ten years. The feverishness with which the White House and Congressional leadership are running up our national debt is unnerving. They are rushing so fast to spend an unheard of amount of money without giving the people of the country much less their elected representatives the opportunity to read it, study it, debate it, much less amend it. In the process, they are piling more than $3 trillion worth of crushing new debt on top of the more than $10 trillion of debt we're already handing over to our children.
What does the future hold? It's almost as if we can hear the ice cracking underneath our feet. I don't know if the Lord will allow us to plunge into the icy waters of the North Atlantic. I pray not. But humanly speaking, you and I have very little influence to stop the current course of events. So we must pray. We must to turn to the Lord and seek His mercy, His grace, His favor on our nation and our leaders, lest we see the current economic crisis take us into a financial death spiral. What's more, we must seek the Lord in pray - even with fasting - for wisdom to know how to invest the resources He has entrusted to us to kingdom work.
Consider this excerpt from page 154 of Dead Heat : "What Bennett had never really considered carefully until now was the possibility that something else might devastate the American people, rendering them ineffective heading into the last of the last days. A financial downturn on Wall Street. The sudden collapse of the dollar. The beginning of another Great Depression. A series of devastating earthquakes. Or hurricanes. Or other natural disasters, like a tsunami. [Or ] the most cataclysmic terrorist attack of all time - five nuclear warheads. And there might be more to come. None of it was clearly prophesied in the Scriptures. Not that he could find. But perhaps he should have foreseen the neutralization of America by more carefully reading between the lines. If so, what else was he missing? What exactly was coming next?"
Last point for now: even as we process the enormity of our own economic crisis, we need to keep our eye on the global economy as well. We need to be aware of just how much suffering and geopolitical instability is being created by this global financial crisis. Russia's stock market, for example, is down 75%. The value of the Russian currency - the ruble - is down about 30%.. I believe we will see a terrible surge of anti-Semitism in Russia as a result. I believe many Russians will blame Jews for their economic troubles. They will blame America as well. The European economy, meanwhile, is experiencing the worst contraction in decades. Spain's economy, for example, is the worst in 15 years. Whom will Europeans blame? Will they turn against Israel and the U.S.? I suspect many will.
By: Joel Resenberg
http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/
Viewing the current crisis in light of Bible prophecy.
(Washington, D.C., March 6, 2009) -- From January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008, Americans lost $6.9 trillion in wealth in the stock markets.
Just since Barack Obama was elected, Americans have lost some $3 trillion in wealth, reports Investors' Business Daily, as the markets have plummeted some 30%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, for example, has collapsed from 9,625.28 on November 4, 2008 to 6,647.49 on March 4, 2009.
Firesale prices are in effect - Citibank stocks are under $1 and General Motors shares are selling for less than $2 - as investors see major American financial and manufacturing behemoths on the brink of bankruptcy.
Zoom out a bit, and we see the situation even more dire. Since the market's highs in October 2007, the DJIA is down some 50%. That means over the last 18 months, we have seen half the nation's wealth vanish into thin air.
In the midst of all this, millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Small businesses are dying. Big businesses are dying. Credit is tight. Confidence is low. And people are anxious.
Last weekend, I met with some evangelical Christian business leaders in Naples, Florida. They asked me what I thought the future held. I did not offer advice on how to win on Wall Street. But I did share with them a few thoughts from the Scriptures. In Matthew 6:19-21, Jesus said: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where theives break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where theives do not break in and steal; for where your treasure is, there is your heart also."
I asked the men, "More tough times may be ahead. If some of you have lost 30% to 50% of your assets, what are your plans going forward? What if another 30% to 50% of your wealth vanishes, or is confiscated in a massive new tax increase? Would it not be better to invest some or all of that wealth in the kingdom of God now, where it is safe and secure, while you still have it?"
The Lord is shaking our country and purifying His Church. He is requiring all of us to reconsider what we value, where our treasure is, where our hearts are. He is preparing us to see Him face to face. And when we see Him, there will be a day of accounting. He will ask us what we did with the resources He entrusted to us. What, then, shall we say?
The men also asked me, "Where is the United States in End Times Bible prophecy?" When I replied, "The Bible makes no indication that the U.S. is a significant player in End Times prophecy," they responded, "Why? What happens to us?"
I was honest with them, saying I don't know. I do believe we are living through the events Jesus talked about in Matthew 24 as signs of the "last days" before His return. That said, I don't know why the United States - the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the face of the earth in the history of mankind - is not ever clearly mentioned in or clearly alluded to in Bible prophecy concerning the last days. I don't know because the Bible doesn't tell us.
For the last several years, I have been explaining that we could be devastated by a nuclear war. We could be hit by a series of decapitating terrorist attacks. We could be hit by massive natural disasters. And/or we could face a series of economic disasters. Consider just two potential scenarios that could render the U.S. a non-factor in the last days:
Scenario #1: the U.S. could implode economically after the rapture. The rapture is an event described in I Thessalonians 4-5 when true followers of Jesus Christ are snatched away from the earth and meet Jesus Christ in the air at a time when the rest of the world has been saying there is "peace and safety." How many Christ-followers in the U.S. would disappear in the "twinkle of an eye," according to the Scriptures? We don't know for certain. It could be 10 million. It could be 25 million. It could be 50 million, 75 million, or more. The point is the rapture will have a devastating and irrecoverable impact on the U.S. in many ways. Consider, for example, how hard the American economy was hit when nearly 3,000 Americans were lost on 9/11/01. Now imagine the impact the loss of millions of Americans due to the rapture would have on the U.S. economy. You think we have a subprime mortgage crisis now? Imagine what the U.S. banking and real estate system will look like when millions of Christians disappear and are no longer here to pay their mortgages, or their credit card bills, or buy other goods and services. Our economy would implode, and suddenly America would no longer be the economic superpower it has been for a century.
Scenario #2: the U.S. economy could melt down in a Great Depression before the rapture. Such a melt down would emasculate our economic and military power and thus radically reduce our influence in the world. On October 16, 2008, I wrote about "the implications of this financial apocalypse." Things have only worsened since then. I am praying that the Lord will have mercy on us. But we cannot rule out the possibility that the Lord will remove His favor from our nation and allow us to be rocked to our core economically. Decisive action should be taken to strengthen our economy and help American businesses small and large grow and create more jobs. But the President's hastily-crafted multi-trillion dollar spending plan will not save the day and revive our moribund economy.
Most Members of Congress didn't even read the 1,100-plus page bill they voted in favor of, noted Sen. Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat. The Obama administration was rushing through this massive and expensive bill without giving the people's representatives the time to read it and consider its merits. Why? The plan is essentially European socialism and risks making our economic situation worse, not better. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the real price tag of the bill is actually $3.27 trillion over the next ten years. The feverishness with which the White House and Congressional leadership are running up our national debt is unnerving. They are rushing so fast to spend an unheard of amount of money without giving the people of the country much less their elected representatives the opportunity to read it, study it, debate it, much less amend it. In the process, they are piling more than $3 trillion worth of crushing new debt on top of the more than $10 trillion of debt we're already handing over to our children.
What does the future hold? It's almost as if we can hear the ice cracking underneath our feet. I don't know if the Lord will allow us to plunge into the icy waters of the North Atlantic. I pray not. But humanly speaking, you and I have very little influence to stop the current course of events. So we must pray. We must to turn to the Lord and seek His mercy, His grace, His favor on our nation and our leaders, lest we see the current economic crisis take us into a financial death spiral. What's more, we must seek the Lord in pray - even with fasting - for wisdom to know how to invest the resources He has entrusted to us to kingdom work.
Consider this excerpt from page 154 of Dead Heat : "What Bennett had never really considered carefully until now was the possibility that something else might devastate the American people, rendering them ineffective heading into the last of the last days. A financial downturn on Wall Street. The sudden collapse of the dollar. The beginning of another Great Depression. A series of devastating earthquakes. Or hurricanes. Or other natural disasters, like a tsunami. [Or ] the most cataclysmic terrorist attack of all time - five nuclear warheads. And there might be more to come. None of it was clearly prophesied in the Scriptures. Not that he could find. But perhaps he should have foreseen the neutralization of America by more carefully reading between the lines. If so, what else was he missing? What exactly was coming next?"
Last point for now: even as we process the enormity of our own economic crisis, we need to keep our eye on the global economy as well. We need to be aware of just how much suffering and geopolitical instability is being created by this global financial crisis. Russia's stock market, for example, is down 75%. The value of the Russian currency - the ruble - is down about 30%.. I believe we will see a terrible surge of anti-Semitism in Russia as a result. I believe many Russians will blame Jews for their economic troubles. They will blame America as well. The European economy, meanwhile, is experiencing the worst contraction in decades. Spain's economy, for example, is the worst in 15 years. Whom will Europeans blame? Will they turn against Israel and the U.S.? I suspect many will.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Possible Troubles
MailOnline
Hillary Clinton puts America on collision course with Israel as she pledges to press for Palestinian state
By Liz Hazelton
Last updated at 1:43 PM on 03rd March 2009
Hillary Clinton put America on a collision course with Israel today after pledging to press for a Palestinian state.
The U.S. Secretary of State's position brings her into conflict with the Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu.
Although Netanyahu has spoken of Palestinian self-government, he has shied away from a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.
Warm welcome: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton receives a bouquet and a kiss from Israeli President Shimon Peres as she arrives in Jerusalem today
Clinton, who is in Jerusalem for talks today, spoke after attending a conference in Egypt geared to raising donations for the Gaza Strip. She pledged $900million in U.S. aid.
'During the conference, I emphasised President Obama's and my commitment to working to achieve a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and our support for the Palestinian Authority,' she said after meeting Israeli President Shimon Peres.
She added that she had an 'unrelenting commitment to Israel's security' and said continued rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip must stop.
Her comments appeared carefully judged to maintain Washington's tough line against Hamas, which controls Gaza, while supporting the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
TheSecretary of State lays a wreath next to the Eternal Flame during a ceremony in the Hall of Remembrance at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem
She stressed that Hamas must recognise Israel, renounce violence and sign on to past Israeli-Palestinian agreements if it wanted to come out of isolation.
The Obama administration has listed progress in the Middle East as a priority.
Hardliner: Prime-minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu opposes a two-state solution
But the new president's pledge suffered a heavy blow after Israel's 22-day offensive in Gaza left the territory decimated.
The situation appeared to worsen when Shimon Peres confirmed the hawkish Netanyahu as his preferred prime minister after last month's close-run election.
Netanyahu supports expansion of existing Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, a policy strongly opposed by Washington.
He has enough parliamentary support to put together a right-wing government.
However, he has been seeking, unsuccessfully so far, to form a middle-of-the-road coalition that could reduce the chances of friction with the United States.
Netanyahu, clashed often with the U.S. administration when Bill Clinton, the secretary of state's husband, was in the White House.
Peace talks brokered by President Clinton broke down in 2000, his final year in office, and a new wave of violence swept the region.
Discussions were revived in late 2007 butstalled over violence, settlement-building and disputes over other core issues such as the future of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1158870/Hillary-Clinton-puts-America-collision-course-Israel-pledges-press-Palestinian-state.html
Hillary Clinton puts America on collision course with Israel as she pledges to press for Palestinian state
By Liz Hazelton
Last updated at 1:43 PM on 03rd March 2009
Hillary Clinton put America on a collision course with Israel today after pledging to press for a Palestinian state.
The U.S. Secretary of State's position brings her into conflict with the Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu.
Although Netanyahu has spoken of Palestinian self-government, he has shied away from a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.
Warm welcome: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton receives a bouquet and a kiss from Israeli President Shimon Peres as she arrives in Jerusalem today
Clinton, who is in Jerusalem for talks today, spoke after attending a conference in Egypt geared to raising donations for the Gaza Strip. She pledged $900million in U.S. aid.
'During the conference, I emphasised President Obama's and my commitment to working to achieve a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and our support for the Palestinian Authority,' she said after meeting Israeli President Shimon Peres.
She added that she had an 'unrelenting commitment to Israel's security' and said continued rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip must stop.
Her comments appeared carefully judged to maintain Washington's tough line against Hamas, which controls Gaza, while supporting the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
TheSecretary of State lays a wreath next to the Eternal Flame during a ceremony in the Hall of Remembrance at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem
She stressed that Hamas must recognise Israel, renounce violence and sign on to past Israeli-Palestinian agreements if it wanted to come out of isolation.
The Obama administration has listed progress in the Middle East as a priority.
Hardliner: Prime-minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu opposes a two-state solution
But the new president's pledge suffered a heavy blow after Israel's 22-day offensive in Gaza left the territory decimated.
The situation appeared to worsen when Shimon Peres confirmed the hawkish Netanyahu as his preferred prime minister after last month's close-run election.
Netanyahu supports expansion of existing Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, a policy strongly opposed by Washington.
He has enough parliamentary support to put together a right-wing government.
However, he has been seeking, unsuccessfully so far, to form a middle-of-the-road coalition that could reduce the chances of friction with the United States.
Netanyahu, clashed often with the U.S. administration when Bill Clinton, the secretary of state's husband, was in the White House.
Peace talks brokered by President Clinton broke down in 2000, his final year in office, and a new wave of violence swept the region.
Discussions were revived in late 2007 butstalled over violence, settlement-building and disputes over other core issues such as the future of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1158870/Hillary-Clinton-puts-America-collision-course-Israel-pledges-press-Palestinian-state.html
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Anti-Fairness Doctrine
Newsmax.com
Axelrod Says Obama to Discuss Fairness DoctrineMonday, February 16, 2009 3:54 PMBy: Dave Eberhart
An Obama senior adviser has indicated that the administration is mulling whether the controversial Fairness Doctrine will get a new lease on life, according to a report in Broadcasting and Cable.
The now defunct Fairness Doctrine, if revived, could be used by a liberal administration to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other radio talk show hosts, as well as much of the new alternative media. The doctrine required broadcasters to report both sides of controversial issues. The Federal Communications Commission dropped it in 1987.
Asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" whether he would rule out reimposing the doctrine, White House senior adviser David Axelrod responded: “I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, and the president to discuss, so I don’t have an answer for you now.”
This soft position is a departure from a much more definitive posture on the doctrine touted during the Obama campaign in June 2008:
“Senator Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to Broadcasting and Cable at that time.
“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz said.
The specter of a return to the doctrine has enjoyed renewed visibility over the last couple of weeks as leading Democrats have been discussing it more and more.
Last week on a radio show, former President Bill Clinton announced that in his opinion something needed to be done to balance broadcasting.
“Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”
Clinton targeted the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn’t reflect economic reality, according to Broadcasting and Cable.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Axelrod Says Obama to Discuss Fairness DoctrineMonday, February 16, 2009 3:54 PMBy: Dave Eberhart
An Obama senior adviser has indicated that the administration is mulling whether the controversial Fairness Doctrine will get a new lease on life, according to a report in Broadcasting and Cable.
The now defunct Fairness Doctrine, if revived, could be used by a liberal administration to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other radio talk show hosts, as well as much of the new alternative media. The doctrine required broadcasters to report both sides of controversial issues. The Federal Communications Commission dropped it in 1987.
Asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" whether he would rule out reimposing the doctrine, White House senior adviser David Axelrod responded: “I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, and the president to discuss, so I don’t have an answer for you now.”
This soft position is a departure from a much more definitive posture on the doctrine touted during the Obama campaign in June 2008:
“Senator Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to Broadcasting and Cable at that time.
“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz said.
The specter of a return to the doctrine has enjoyed renewed visibility over the last couple of weeks as leading Democrats have been discussing it more and more.
Last week on a radio show, former President Bill Clinton announced that in his opinion something needed to be done to balance broadcasting.
“Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”
Clinton targeted the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn’t reflect economic reality, according to Broadcasting and Cable.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
By Joel Rosenberg Posted: 02/17 13:08:34/2009
U.S. To Help Rebuild City Of Babylon In Iraq
Officials hope Babylon can be revived and made ready for a rich future of tourism, with help from experts at the World Monuments Fund (WMF) and the U.S. embassy," reports the Reuters news agency. "'The Future of Babylon' project launched last month seeks to 'map the current conditions of Babylon and develop a master plan for its conservation, study and tourism,' the WMF says. 'We don't know how long it will take to reopen to tourists,' said Mariam Omran Musa, head of a government inspection team based at the site. 'It depends on funds. I hope that Babylon can be reborn in a better image.'"
"Cultural, religious, archaeological, and biblical tourism is a big opportunity for Iraq. I think rebuilding Babylon is a wonderful idea, as long as it is not done at the expense of the antiquities themselves."
U.S. To Help Rebuild City Of Babylon In Iraq
Largely overlooked by the Western news media over the past few weeks was an enormously significant story. The government of Iraq is moving forward with plans to protect the archaeological remains of the ancient City of Babylon, in preparation for building a modern city of Babylon. The project, originally started by the late Saddam Hussein, is aimed eventually at attracting scores of "cultural tourists" from all over the world to see the glories of Mesopotamia's most famous city. What's more, the Obama Administration is contributing $700,000 towards "The Future of Babylon Project," through the State Department's budget."
Officials hope Babylon can be revived and made ready for a rich future of tourism, with help from experts at the World Monuments Fund (WMF) and the U.S. embassy," reports the Reuters news agency. "'The Future of Babylon' project launched last month seeks to 'map the current conditions of Babylon and develop a master plan for its conservation, study and tourism,' the WMF says. 'We don't know how long it will take to reopen to tourists,' said Mariam Omran Musa, head of a government inspection team based at the site. 'It depends on funds. I hope that Babylon can be reborn in a better image.'"In my non-fiction book, Epicenter 2.0, I wrote about the Bible prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation that indicate the ancient city of Babylon in Iraq will, in fact, be rebuilt in the "last days" of history and become the wealthiest and most powerful city on the face of the planet. I also cited my interview with Iraqi Finance Minister Ali Abdul Ameer Allawi who told me in 2006 at the peak of the insurgency,
"Cultural, religious, archaeological, and biblical tourism is a big opportunity for Iraq. I think rebuilding Babylon is a wonderful idea, as long as it is not done at the expense of the antiquities themselves."
For many, I know the rebuilding of Babylon seemed like a far-fetched idea in the Bible. For many more, it seemed like a far-fetched idea in 2006, as well. But skeptics and cynics take note: now that the insurgency is dying down, the Shia-led government of Iraq is actually moving forward with this historic and prophetic project. They say Babylon will be "reborn." And they're right. It will be. Stay tuned.
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Stimulus Package
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDailyStimulus containsrationed medicine'Safe, effective' treatmentssoon to be limited by 'cost'
Posted: February 09, 20099:29 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
The former lieutenant governor of New York is warning that the $50 billion that President Obama expects to spend in the next few years on a nationwide digital health records system for every individual easily could, and probably will, result in rationed medical care.
WND recently reported on a little-discussed provision in Obama's plan that would demand every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, raising alarms for privacy advocates.
They said patients might be startled to discover documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.
Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, said unless people have the right to decide "if and when" their health information is shared, there is no real privacy.
Now Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor in New York and an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has released a commentary warning about the likelihood of rationed care – or a health care system that simply provides treatment when it determines the cost-benefit ratio for the treatment and the patient meets its guidelines.
A report in the Indian Express Finance suggested Obama plans to spend $50 billion "over five years" to create and use a system of electronic health records for every person who sees a doctor.
"Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion," wrote McCaughey. "These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department."
"If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes … in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face … rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later."
Other nations that utilize such programs typically deny costly treatments to patients who are senior citizens, and McCaughey warns that would be the case in the United States, too.
"Daschle says health-care reform 'will not be pain free.' Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt," she warned.
"Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard," she said.
McCaughey noted Daschle has discussed such plans, modeled after the United Kingdom, in his writings, and a national board to make necessary decisions.
"This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis," she wrote.
She cited a 2006 ruling in the U.K. that determined elderly patients with macular degeneration must go blind in one eye before getting treatment with a costly drug to save their other eye, a decision that outraged taxpayers who eventually forced a change.
"Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition," McCaughey said.
The stimulus plan calls its board the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research."
"The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept 'hopeless diagnoses' and 'forgo experimental treatments,' and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system," she said.
She said the plan simply needs more review.
"The bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn," McCaughey said.
She said doctors would end up with no choice about treatments.
"Hospitals and doctors that are not 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties," she warned.
The Institute for Health Freedom today also renewed its warning because the system is scheduled to be mandatory for everyone.
"IHF calls on Americans who care about health privacy to contact their members of Congress and President Obama to voice their own opinions about the need for opt-out and patient consent provisions, to ensure true patient privacy rights," the organization said.
Blevins' organization, one of the few raising the alarm at this point, said the stimulus plan would impose an electronic health records system on every person in the U.S. without any provision for seeking patient consent or allowing them not to participate.
"Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," Blevins said.
"Nobody wants to stop the proper use of good technology," Blevins said, "and for some people privacy is not an issue."
But she said the bottom line is that patients "would end up losing control of his or her personal health information."
WND previously has reported on attempts in Minnesota by state lawmakers to authorize the collection and warehousing of newborns' DNA without parental consent.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been successful in stopping the action there so far.
The Citizens' Council on Health Care has worked to publicize the issue in Minnesota. The group raised opposition when the state Department of Health continued to warehouse DNA without parental consent in violation of the genetic privacy and DNA property rights of parents and children.
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDailyStimulus containsrationed medicine'Safe, effective' treatmentssoon to be limited by 'cost'
Posted: February 09, 20099:29 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
The former lieutenant governor of New York is warning that the $50 billion that President Obama expects to spend in the next few years on a nationwide digital health records system for every individual easily could, and probably will, result in rationed medical care.
WND recently reported on a little-discussed provision in Obama's plan that would demand every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, raising alarms for privacy advocates.
They said patients might be startled to discover documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.
Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, said unless people have the right to decide "if and when" their health information is shared, there is no real privacy.
Now Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor in New York and an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has released a commentary warning about the likelihood of rationed care – or a health care system that simply provides treatment when it determines the cost-benefit ratio for the treatment and the patient meets its guidelines.
A report in the Indian Express Finance suggested Obama plans to spend $50 billion "over five years" to create and use a system of electronic health records for every person who sees a doctor.
"Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion," wrote McCaughey. "These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department."
"If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes … in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face … rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later."
Other nations that utilize such programs typically deny costly treatments to patients who are senior citizens, and McCaughey warns that would be the case in the United States, too.
"Daschle says health-care reform 'will not be pain free.' Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt," she warned.
"Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard," she said.
McCaughey noted Daschle has discussed such plans, modeled after the United Kingdom, in his writings, and a national board to make necessary decisions.
"This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis," she wrote.
She cited a 2006 ruling in the U.K. that determined elderly patients with macular degeneration must go blind in one eye before getting treatment with a costly drug to save their other eye, a decision that outraged taxpayers who eventually forced a change.
"Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition," McCaughey said.
The stimulus plan calls its board the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research."
"The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept 'hopeless diagnoses' and 'forgo experimental treatments,' and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system," she said.
She said the plan simply needs more review.
"The bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn," McCaughey said.
She said doctors would end up with no choice about treatments.
"Hospitals and doctors that are not 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties," she warned.
The Institute for Health Freedom today also renewed its warning because the system is scheduled to be mandatory for everyone.
"IHF calls on Americans who care about health privacy to contact their members of Congress and President Obama to voice their own opinions about the need for opt-out and patient consent provisions, to ensure true patient privacy rights," the organization said.
Blevins' organization, one of the few raising the alarm at this point, said the stimulus plan would impose an electronic health records system on every person in the U.S. without any provision for seeking patient consent or allowing them not to participate.
"Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," Blevins said.
"Nobody wants to stop the proper use of good technology," Blevins said, "and for some people privacy is not an issue."
But she said the bottom line is that patients "would end up losing control of his or her personal health information."
WND previously has reported on attempts in Minnesota by state lawmakers to authorize the collection and warehousing of newborns' DNA without parental consent.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been successful in stopping the action there so far.
The Citizens' Council on Health Care has worked to publicize the issue in Minnesota. The group raised opposition when the state Department of Health continued to warehouse DNA without parental consent in violation of the genetic privacy and DNA property rights of parents and children.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
President Bush a Socialist? Hmmmm. . .Maybe.
Washington Times
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts
Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)
EXCLUSIVE:
Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.
Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.
"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.
"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.
See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?
If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.
The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.
In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.
This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.
"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."
North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.
"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."
"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."
Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.
Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.
"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.
The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."
The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.
The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.
The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.
The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.
"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."
"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"
Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."
The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.
"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.
But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.
Jon Ward contributed to this report.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts
Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)
EXCLUSIVE:
Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.
Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.
"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.
"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.
See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?
If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.
The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.
In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.
This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.
"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."
North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.
"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."
"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."
Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.
Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.
"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.
The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."
The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.
The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.
The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.
The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.
"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."
"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"
Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."
The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.
"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.
But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.
Jon Ward contributed to this report.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Is President Obama a Christian? You Decide.
Read the interview and decide for yourself by the direct questions and the very direct answers by President Obama. I give the man credit that he answers very honestly and openly. I disagree vehemently with him on many of his answers as it pertains to Christianity, but I now support him as President of the United States. He was voted in by our system fairly and is now our President. I will continually pray for him and his family as he takes office.
I will let you decide for yourself on his beliefs: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/11/obamas_fascinat.html
I will let you decide for yourself on his beliefs: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/11/obamas_fascinat.html
Monday, November 10, 2008
OUR NATION: CHRISTIAN YES – CHURCH NO!
This election has caused a major rift in our country and it is very apparent just by reading blogs and notes on different forums. It is a sad state of affairs to be in today, and really no reason for it, though I hold by my sentiments that the life issue should have been the deciding factor for the Christian vote. Not Republican, Democrat or Independent. I am starting to think Ron Paul may have been the better candidate, though I think Alan Keyes or Huckabee for me were preferable.
As believers we should be striving for a Christian nation. There is no reason why not. Not for a Church run nation, but a Christian nation. A Christian nation is run by strong Bible believing Christians from many denominations in the Christian arena. I know, that shocks many of you, that I would say that, being as conservative as I am, but it is true nonetheless.
I have worked with many strong believers in the past few years from many different denominations who love the Lord and believe the Bible to be inerrant in what it teaches and infallible. They worship in different ways then I do and enjoy different parts of the service then I do and that is what makes the body of Christ so amazing and enjoyable and that is what our government should look like as well. The different parts of the body functioning as they should in the world.
How amazing would that be? A body of believers from all denominations that value life and the world, governing the United States. Sure they are still sinners, as we all are and would make mistakes, but the core would be there. The core of the original documents would be there again. Belief in God, a true belief in God, and none of this false marketing for the vote that happens every four years. A fear that we will one day stand before our maker in judgment for our actions and the laws we enact on our people.
This can happen, but it takes Christians voting through the truths of Scripture and not because they are a donkey, elephant and whatever the independent animal is. We have to vote based on the absolute truth of Scripture. One is easy and that is life. We have to make priorities. Yes it is hard to go against our parties. Yes, I have done it. At this moment in time I do not trust either party, and think they are both corrupt and self-seeking, and self-serving. Like I keep saying, though many do not listen, the only reason I could vote for McCain is because of his pro-life stance. In the news today I read that one of the first things Obama plans on doing is: “Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush's first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn't be surprising if Obama did the same.”
3,000 babies will die today as I write this, and that saddens me deep down and it should all of us. More babies will die this month then will even come close to dying in the Iraq war. I know first hand this makes many Democrats, Republicans and Independents sick. We together need to move forward to end this and many other issues like this one that surround our society. If we were a Christian nation again then the church would be able to function again in its proper role within its neighborhood; helping the poor, the down trodden and the widows more fully instead of the government.
My question is why are a lot of us more worried about voting a party line then voting our Christian values? All laws are moral in essence, and it just ends up whose morals we are going to impose and I think Christ’s morals are the best. Let’s starting voting accordingly!
Obama is now our President whether we like it or not and we need to be praying for him, our country and this world, as he is walking not only into many national issues, but many global issues. Actually, many of the national issues affect the global community. Everyone will disagree at some point with a decision he makes, but he is now our leader and we need to submit unless he goes against what Scripture commands, as this is what the Bible Commands us.
Acts 5:28-32, “saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!” But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
As believers we should be striving for a Christian nation. There is no reason why not. Not for a Church run nation, but a Christian nation. A Christian nation is run by strong Bible believing Christians from many denominations in the Christian arena. I know, that shocks many of you, that I would say that, being as conservative as I am, but it is true nonetheless.
I have worked with many strong believers in the past few years from many different denominations who love the Lord and believe the Bible to be inerrant in what it teaches and infallible. They worship in different ways then I do and enjoy different parts of the service then I do and that is what makes the body of Christ so amazing and enjoyable and that is what our government should look like as well. The different parts of the body functioning as they should in the world.
How amazing would that be? A body of believers from all denominations that value life and the world, governing the United States. Sure they are still sinners, as we all are and would make mistakes, but the core would be there. The core of the original documents would be there again. Belief in God, a true belief in God, and none of this false marketing for the vote that happens every four years. A fear that we will one day stand before our maker in judgment for our actions and the laws we enact on our people.
This can happen, but it takes Christians voting through the truths of Scripture and not because they are a donkey, elephant and whatever the independent animal is. We have to vote based on the absolute truth of Scripture. One is easy and that is life. We have to make priorities. Yes it is hard to go against our parties. Yes, I have done it. At this moment in time I do not trust either party, and think they are both corrupt and self-seeking, and self-serving. Like I keep saying, though many do not listen, the only reason I could vote for McCain is because of his pro-life stance. In the news today I read that one of the first things Obama plans on doing is: “Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush's first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn't be surprising if Obama did the same.”
3,000 babies will die today as I write this, and that saddens me deep down and it should all of us. More babies will die this month then will even come close to dying in the Iraq war. I know first hand this makes many Democrats, Republicans and Independents sick. We together need to move forward to end this and many other issues like this one that surround our society. If we were a Christian nation again then the church would be able to function again in its proper role within its neighborhood; helping the poor, the down trodden and the widows more fully instead of the government.
My question is why are a lot of us more worried about voting a party line then voting our Christian values? All laws are moral in essence, and it just ends up whose morals we are going to impose and I think Christ’s morals are the best. Let’s starting voting accordingly!
Obama is now our President whether we like it or not and we need to be praying for him, our country and this world, as he is walking not only into many national issues, but many global issues. Actually, many of the national issues affect the global community. Everyone will disagree at some point with a decision he makes, but he is now our leader and we need to submit unless he goes against what Scripture commands, as this is what the Bible Commands us.
Acts 5:28-32, “saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!” But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Saturday, November 08, 2008
A Great Article about True Conservatism
The Conservative Agenda: Its Basis and Its Basics
By Norman L. Geisler
By Norman L. Geisler
Introduction
As I listen to liberals articulate their agenda, I am struck by the stark contrast between true conservatism and liberalism. In point of fact, I am struck by the unAmerican nature of political liberalism. Indeed, the basics of conservativism are identical with the basis of Americanism. The natural birth of conservativism is the same as the national birth of America: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There are numerous basic principles of conservativism contained in our National Birth Certificate: The beliefs in 1) a Creator, 2) Creation, 3) God-given moral absolutes; 4) Governments are ordained of God; 5) the Providence of God, and 6) a final day of judgment. Other principles, like 7) the freedom of speech, 8) the right to political dissent, 9) the right to bear arms, 10) a government based on the consent of the governed, and 11) freedom against tyranny are also implied in The Declaration of Independence.
However, the most fundamental principles of conservativism are the first three: Creator, creation, and God-given moral absolutes. These are the foundation of our country, our constitutions, our courts, and our conservative agenda. And the erosion of these principles in the courts portends the condemnation of our country, as the prospects of restoring them offers hope for our preservation.
The Basis of Conservativism
A conservative is someone who wishes to conserve the basic principles on which our country was founded. He wants to protect, preserve, and achieve the application of these principles to our country. So, the basis of conservativism is the grounds for the basics of conservativism. This being the case, let me speak first about the origin of conservativism.
The Origin of Conservativism
Conservativism is firmly rooted in the principles of The Declaration of Independence which is the basis of Americanisms. That The Declaration of Independence is our founding document and the birthday of our country has been firmly established in a recent brilliant Amicus Brief before the High Court titled Gonzales v. Planner Parenthood (2007).
The Original States
Gonzales demonstrates that all the original states endorsed The Declaration, and every state since has been required to form a government that is in conformity with the U. S. Constitution “and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” As late as August 21, 1959 Hawaii was admitted to the United States based on the same basis, namely, that it concurred with “the principles of the Declaration of Independence.”
The Articles of Confederation (1781)
In the pre Constitution Articles of Confederation document drafted in 1777 and ratified in 1781 all agreed in “cooperation between the States” and sent “delegates of the United States of America” to participate. This acknowledges that the country already existed before this time and had delegates to send. Indeed, following the spirit of The Declaration of Independence, these Articles spoke of the “Great Governor of the world” who “authorize[d] us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual union.”
The Northwest Ordinance (1787)
Likewise, in The Northwest Ordinance was created in 1787 to serve for those territories that would seek thereafter to become States of the already existing United States. It too borrowed from The Declaration of Independence, insisting that “religions, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government...shall forever be encouraged.” In its introductory legal document it insists that “the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty... formed the basis whereupon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected....”
The U. S. Constitution
In 1789 The Articles of Confederation were replaced by The United States Constitution and thus became the national government mandated by The Declaration of Independence. It begins, “We the people of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Clearly, the “United States” already existed or they could not be doing this “for” the nation. Indeed, as The Constitution says, they were only making “a more perfect union” than the one already in effect for 13 years. The new Constitution did not create a new nation. It simply created a new document to govern the already existing nation. This new Constitution was “for the United States of America.” It was not the creation of the United States. Article VI makes it clear that it was only providing a better government for the nation that already existed. It affirms that the nation already existed and had an initial form of government under The Articles of Confederation which in turn was based on The Declaration of Independence. For The U.S. Constitution affirms that “all the debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation....”
Indeed, the draft of The Constitution (1787) ends with a reference to the ratification of the Constitution, speaking of “the Independence of the United States of America” as the “twelfth” years before it (in 1776).
As late as 1961 in McGowan v State of Maryland, Justice Douglas wrote: “The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the Creator, and which governments must respect.” It then refers to the familiar words of The Declaration of Independence as a basis of this affirmation, saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evidence, that all men are created equal....” Justice Douglas adds, “And the body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights enshrine those principles.”
On the Jubilee of The U. S. Constitution, President John Quincy Adams wrote: “This act [i.e., the Constitution] was the compliment to the Declaration of Independence; founded on the same principles, carrying them out into practical execution, and forming with it, one entire system of government....”(1).
Indeed, the Founders and presidents dated their government from the time of The Declaration (in 1776), rather than from The Constitution [in 1789]. This included Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson and even Abraham Lincoln. In his famous Gettysburg Address (1863) Lincoln said: “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation....” But eighty seven years before 1863 when Lincoln gave the famous address was 1776, the year of The Declaration of Independence when America was born.
The Implication of Conservativism
If The Declaration of Independence is our founding document, then its principles are our founding principles. And a conservative is one, who by definition, wants to conserve these principles. As already noted, the most basic of these are the first three. So, we will concentrate on them and their implications for a truly conservative agenda.
Creator
Contrary to current judicial shyness about recognizing God, our founding document and our founders had no reluctance to acknowledge the Creator. This is obvious in numerous way. First, The Declaration itself refers to the “Creator” and “Nature’s God.” Also, The Articles of Confederation speak of “the great Governor of the World.” Further, the father of the Constitution, James Madison, declared that “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of “the Governor of the Universe” (Memorial & Remonstrance, 1785).
What is more, Congress has been opened by prayer to God from the very beginning. And presidential oaths have been taken in the name of God, adding “so help me God.” This is to say nothing of “In God we trust” on our coins, above the head of the president of the House of Representative’s, and in the fourth stanza of our National Anthem.
Further, early presidents with the consent of Congress invoked “God” in their thanksgiving proclamations, such as Washington, Adams, and Madison. The First National Thanksgiving Proclamation in 1777 was signed by Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress. It affirmed that: "...it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received, and to implore such further blessings....” Later, George Washington declared that "...it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour” (Oct. 3, 1789).
What is more, the Constitutions of many States refer directly to God. In my own State the Constitution begins: "We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union ... do ordain and establish this Constitution."
Like other States, the Tar Heel Constitution even went so far as to disqualify atheists from holding office, saying, in Article VI, Section 8: "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." There is no scarcity to official references to God by our Founders and in our founding documents. And a conservative is someone who wishes to confess openly and conserve perpetually this God-given and God-acknowledged heritage, including our Pledge of Allegiance “under God.”
Creation
Further, in addition to acknowledging “the Creator and Ruler of the world,” a conservative is one who believes that “all men are created equal.” He does not believe, as the Scopes evolutionary textbook did in 1925, that the “Caucasians” are the “highest type” of human beings (2). Nor does he believe as Charles Darwin did (in The Descent of Man) that vaccinations and laws to help the poor should be eliminated because it preserves the weaker breed that natural selection would have eliminated. Darwin wrote: “We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick: we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small pox”(3).
Nor does a conservative believe, as Hitler did in Mein Kampf, that “If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile”(4). In short, there are moral implications to Darwinian evolution, namely, if natural selection explains common ancestry, then there is nothing wrong with eliminating the weak and undesirable among us.
In short, if there is not a Creator and Moral Law-Giver, then man is just an animal without any God-given rights, and those in power are under no moral obligation to preserve these rights. A true conservative finds Darwinianism and its social consequences to be contrary to every fiber of his being and loudly proclaims with our founding Fathers and documents that “all men are created equal” and, hence, are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” foremost among them are the rights to life and liberty.
God-given Moral Laws
Nietzsche was right: If God is dead, then there are no God-given moral laws. As the French atheists Jean Paul Sartre put it: As a person without God, “I was like a man who’s lost his shadow. And there was nothing left in heaven, no right or wrong, nor anyone to give me orders.... I am doomed to have no other law but mine”(5). The simple truth is that if there is no absolute Moral Law Giver, then there are no absolute moral laws. Or, in Jeffersonian terms, “Nature’s Laws” come from “Nature’s God.” Both logic and history inform us that we cannot separate the Moral Law from the Moral Law-Giver and that we cannot have good government or society without an absolute standard for good.
The Destruction of the Declaration
Liberals are deconstructionists. They want to deconstruct the Constitution. Conservatives are reconstructionists. We want to reconstruct the Constitution the liberal courts have deconstructed to conform with the way the framers constructed it. Sadly, liberals, to borrow the title of Ann Coulter’s excellent best seller, are truly “Godless.” Of course, this is not necessarily true in their private lives, but it is in their public policy. For they would eliminate God from government and government schools. But a government less God is literally a God-less government. Mark Twain said it well: “ The American Christian is a straight and clean and honest man, and in his private commerce with his fellows can be trusted to stand faithfully by the principles of honor and honesty imposed upon him by his religion. But the moment he comes forwards to exercise a public trust he can be confidently counted upon to betray that trust in nine cases out of ten, if ‘party loyalty’ shall require it....” He continues, “There are Christian Private Morals, but there are no Christian Public Morals, at the polls, or in the Congress or anywhere else–except here and there and scattered around like lost comets in the solar system”(6). The more recent godless trend in our government can be demonstrated by the Supreme Court decision between 1961 and 1987 discussed later. First, lets look at the historical record.
The Humanist Manifestos
Beginning with the first Humanist Manifesto in 1933, Secular Humanism declared itself a “religion” with three fundamental principles(7): No Creator, no creation, and no God-given moral absolutes. In their own words, they declared there is–
No Creator.–“Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.” In brief, there is no Creator of the world or of mankind.
No Creation.–“Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.” In short, mankind was not created but evolved by natural processes.
No God-Given Moral Absolutes.–“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values”
That is to say, there are no God-given moral absolutes.So here we have a self-proclaimed religion of Humanism that is opposed to three fundamental principles of The Declaration of Independence. But since The Declaration is the founding document of America, The Humanist Manifesto is at the core an anti-American religion. And since it is a religion less God, then it is a God-less religion.
But one may argue that the First Amendment permits freedom of religion–even for Humanist religions. In response, a serious case can be made against the thesis that by freedom of religion was meant also freedom from religion. And it may also be argued that “religion” as meant by the founding Fathers was not intended to include atheism. Indeed, many States incorporated anti-atheist statements in their constitutions. Even the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in Kneeland, 1838 that “[The First Amendment] embraces all who believe in the existence of God. This provision does not extend to atheists because they do not believe in God or religion.”
Be this as it may, even granted that Humanism (without belief in God) is a religion (as Torcaso v. Watkins said in 1961), nonetheless, neither Humanism nor any non-theistic religion has the right to be the established (i.e., favored) religion in government schools.
The Humanist Courts
A Humanist culture will ultimately produce humanist courts. It took a generation or two to do it, but it eventually happened. And granted that Humanism is a religion, then it would follow that Humanism–or at least its central religious beliefs–have become the established beliefs in our public schools. Just how this happened is a matter of record.
1925–At the Tennessee Scopes Trial ACLU attorneys argued that teaching evolution was part of their religious rights, claiming that permitting the “teaching of a particular doctrine that comes from a particular religious book...contravene the provision of our constitution”(8). But, as we have seen, evolution is a particular doctrine from a particular religion called Humanism.
1933–John Dewey signed Humanist Manifesto I (1933) which proclaims a religious point of view that denies the fundamental beliefs of The Declaration of Independence – Creator, creation, and God-given moral absolutes.
1934--John Dewey wrote a book called the A Common Faith in which he declared: “Here are all the arguments for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race. Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind. It remains to make it explicit and militant”(9). During the next decades Dewey concentrated on training teachers in this militant Faith to indoctrinate our children in our tax-supported government schools. Within a generation Humanist had achieved their first major victories in the Supreme Court.
1961–In Torcaso v. Watkins the High Court proclaimed that “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others” (emphasis added). Then in rapid-like decisions the Supreme Court began to make ruling after ruling that eliminated the Creator, creation and God-given moral absolutes as an official part of our government school programs.
1962 (Engel)–State required devotional prayers were banned from public schools. We had been praying in American schools for some 300 years before that with no perceivable damage to our children or our freedoms.
1963 (Abington)––State required devotional Bible-readings was barred from public schools. It is worthy of note that our earliest schools were started to teach children to read the Bible with the 1647 “Old Deluder Satan Law”(10).
1968 (Epperson)–Laws forbidding teaching evolution was declared unconstitutional. This was done in spite of the fact that evolution is opposed to creation, a doctrine embedded in our American Birth Certificate and at the basis of our freedoms.
1973 (Roe and Doe)–De facto abortion on demand was approved by the High Court in these two decisions. This too flies in the face of the fundamental constitutional right to life stated in The Declaration of Independence and in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of The Constitution.
1990 (Stone)–-The display of the Ten Commandments was forbidden in public schools. With this ruling, not only was the legal history of the these moral principles reversed but so was the moral foundation necessary for good government and education called for by our early Fathers.
1987 (Edwards)–Laws requiring teaching creation, if evolution is taught, were struck down. This ruling not only enshrined naturalistic evolution and eliminated teaching the crucial creation pillar of our founding document, but it established (contrary to the First Amendment) a crucial tenet of non-theistic religions.
Thus ended a generation of liberal, High Court rulings that in effect established the central tenets of Religious Humanism in our tax-supported institutions of learning. For they favored the central teachings of non-theistic religions, like Secular Humanism, over the opposing tenets of other religions, namely, orthodox theistic religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Indeed, these Court rulings favored religious beliefs that were opposed to the foundational documents of America. All true conservatives cringe at these anti-American conclusions.
The Tragic Conclusion
Religious Humanist John Dunphy summed up their Humanist strategy well in his 1983 article in The Humanist journal: “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new Faith: A religion of humanity.... These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers. For they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach...”(11).
Indeed, this is precisely what happened between 1961 and 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled that government cannot endorse teaching Creator, creation, or God-given absolutes in America’s public schools, even though these are the basic principles of The Declaration of Independence on which our government is based. So, in effect the courts ruled that teaching the great truths of The Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional! These judicial decisions are not only unconstitutional, but they are unAmerican. Thus, if Thomas Jefferson returned today, he would discover that he was being forced to pay taxes to public schools that were teaching his children that The Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. I have no doubt what the proclaimer of “Taxation without representation” would do: He would start a second American revolution!
The Basics of Conservativism
The basic principles of conservativism are the basic principles of Americanism–those embedded in our Birth Certificate–The Declaration of Independence. It is from these principles that we derive the conservative agenda. Foremost on the list are the beliefs in a Creator, creation, and God-given moral absolutes. Let me briefly comment on each area.
The Creator
If we are ever going to be successful in reestablishing the conservative agenda in America, then it cannot be done without overcoming the hostility to invoking God in the public square and overcoming the antagonism toward acknowledging Him in our schools. Contrary to the tragic ruling against teaching creation along side of evolution in public schools, our founders had no such problem in giving due credit to the Creator.
Fortunately, the vestiges of our religious heritage can still be found in our culture. Last time I looked God’s name was over the president’s head in The House of Representatives in the phrase “In God we trust.” Nor has it been minted out of all our coins. Indeed, it is still found in the last stanza of the National Anthem, though it is seldom sung outside of churches. Yes, his name is still invoked to call Congress into session. Ironically, the US Marshall still invokes God’s blessing at the opening session of Federal Court when he prays: “...God bless the United States and this honorable Court.” Yes, we still pay military Chaplains who can use God’s name, and presidents still take oaths in God’s name. And liberals have not yet physically deconstructed the Jefferson or Lincoln Memorials–even though they may wish to do so if they could.
A certain tragic irony emerges from eliminating God and any prayer to Him from our public school. After the Virginia Tech massacre, someone put the following on the internet which I summarize: “Dear God: Why don’t you do something about all the violence in our schools like the mass slaughters at Columbine and Virginia Tech. Signed, Johnny.” To his surprise He received a reply: “Dear Johnny: Sorry, I am not allowed in school anymore. Signed, God”!
Actually, there are at least ten good reason for prayers in the public school which I wrote to the editor of The Charlotte Observer, and my then honorable Senator Jesse Helms put into the Congressional record. We should have voluntary class prayer because:
1) Our government was based on religious principles (of which prayer was a part) from the very beginning.
2) The First Amendment does not separate God and government but actually encourages religion (which includes prayer) in the Free Exercise clause.
3) Early Congressional actions such as The Northwest Ordinance (1787) encouraged religion in public schools of which prayer was a part.
4) Early Presidents, with congressional approval, made proclamations encouraging public prayer.
5) Congress has prayed at the opening of every session since the very beginning.
6) Schools had prayer for some three hundred years before the Supreme Court ruled that State mandated class devotional prayers were unconstitutional (Engel, 1962).
7) Since the High Court outlawed state mandated class devotion prayer and Bible reading the nation has been in steady moral decline.
8) Morals must be taught, and they cannot properly be taught without religious sentiments like respect for the Creator since both logically and practically there will not be respect for an absolute moral law without respect for an absolute Moral Law Giver.
9) Forbidding prayer and other religious expressions in public schools establishes in effect the religion of Secularism.
10) To forbid the majority the right to pray because the minority objects, is to impose the irreligion of the minority on the religious majority.
If theistic children who do not believe in Darwinian evolution, sex education, and homosexual life-styles are exposed to these contrary beliefs without violation of their rights, then why can’t the tiny minority of atheist’s children to be exposed to voluntary prayers?
Creation
My experience as the lead expert witness for teaching creation alongside of evolution in the 1981 Arkansas “Scopes II” trial taught me invaluable lessons. The State had passed a “balanced treatment” law which was the reverse of Scopes I (1925). It read in essence, if you teach evolution, then you must also balance it off by teaching creation, but one does not have to teach either. The evolutionists at the Scopes I Trial (1925) spoke in favor of teaching both views. John Scopes said: “Education you know, means broadening, advancing. If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought, be one individual. I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory”(12). ACLU attorney Malone pled: “For God’s sake, let the children have their minds be kept open–close no doors to their knowledge; shut no door from them.... Let they have both. Let them both be taught. Let them both live”(13). The irony is that creationists were called “bigots” many times at the Trial. But let not the kettle call the pot black. If it was bigotry in 1925 when only creation was taught in schools, then it is still bigotry in 2007 when only evolution is being taught.
God-Given Moral Absolutes
The Conservative agenda is a moral agenda. Yes, we believe in legislating morality. In fact, really everyone does, even those who deny it(14). Since virtually all good laws prescribe some behavior as good and others as bad, there are really no such laws that do not legislate morality. No civil society is without legislation on moral issues, forbidding theft, abuse, rape, and murder. Indeed, even liberals favor these laws, as well as others condemning racism, hate crimes, and genocide. The truth is that everyone favors legislating morality. The only question is whose’s morality will be legislated. The conservative answer has always been “God’s”! From the very beginning our founding document spoke of “Nature’s Laws” that come from “Nature’s God” or “the unalienable rights” of the “Creator.” Among these are the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Indeed, most all of the Ten Commandments have been put into law at one time or another.
Laws Protecting Life
First and foremost on the list is the right to life. For the right to life is the right to all other rights. Those who are not allowed to live, are not allowed to have any other rights. And this right to life extends to both ends of life, thus opposing both abortion and euthanasia. At the time of The Declaration abortion was forbidden by both English Common Law from which our law was derived and an early American law which in 1716 forbid midwives to perform abortions(15). And the unborn were defined in the dictionaries of the day as a “child in the womb” and a child as a “very young person”(16). This leaves no doubt about the framers views against abortion.
Historically, being against abortion was not a uniquely Christian view for even the ancient pagan Hippocratic oath opposed both abortion and euthanasia, pledging, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Whatever minor intramural debate there may be about capital punishment for guilty criminals, there should be absolutely no doubt about the wrongness of giving capital punishment to innocent babies by abortion!
Resetting the Conservative Agenda
There are some who wish to refocus the conservative agenda away from the life and death issues of abortion, euthanasia, terrorism, and pro-family values to other things like poverty, privacy rights, Gay rights, animal rights, and environmental concerns. The conservative response is based in our founding national documents and its fundamental principles.
On Pro-Life
1. We believe in the unalienable right to life of all humans, born and unborn, young and old–whatever their ethnic orientation..
2. We believe there is no right to do a wrong, and that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings of any size, age, color or creed. The unalienable right to life takes precedence over questionable right of privacy. Killing innocent human beings in private is no more justifiable than killing them in public.
3. We believe it is hypocritical to focus on saving baby seals while we destroying baby humans at the rate of over 3000 per day by abortion.
4. We believes in the unalienable right to life of the born and unborn, not in alienating the unborn from their right to life.
5. We believe that the right to privacy of the mother does not take precedence over the right to life of the child.
On Civil Rights
1. We believe in civil rights for all persons, but we do not believe in uncivil actions against any person.
2. We believe that abortion is the worst violations of civil rights because it violates the very basis of all civil rights--the right to life itself. The right to life is the right to all other rights. Hence, those who are not allowed to live are deprived of all their civil rights.
3. We believe that homosexuals have civil rights but that homosexual activity is a civil wrong against themselves and their society. We do not believe there are any rights to do a wrong. Likewise, polygamist, pedophiles, and rapist have civil rights, but their activities as such are not civil rights; tey are uncivil wrong. And we believe is wrong to give rights to do a wrong.
4. We believe the evident truth that “all men are created equal” opposes slavery, racism, and ethnic discrimination.
On The Family
1. We believe that our domestic constitution should begins with “We the parents of our children, in order to form a more perfect society, establish the family to insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
2. We believe that a family consisting of one male and one female, and whatever children with which God blesses us. And we pledge ourselves to preserve the family as the basic unit of society, the teacher of social skills, moral values, and the duty of good citizenship.
3. We believe that since the roots of most social problems begin in the family that we should be doing everything we can to strengthen the family, not to weaken it. To be pro-family is to be pro-society, and to degrade the family by approving of distorted unions is destructive of our society.
4. We believe that divorce is generally harmful to the family and should be discouraged and diminished.
On Homosexuality
1. We believe that civil rights for homosexuals should not be a pretext for civil wrongs done by homosexuals–both against themselves and society. We believe that if laws against smoking can add seven years on the average to ones life, then laws restraining homosexual activity, which can add some 20-30 years to their lives, should be welcomed as well(17).
2. We believe that uncivil behavior is not the basis for a civil union. In the beginning God did not unite Adam and Steve but Adam and Eve.
3. We believe that since no homosexual union has ever produced a child, then only babies produced by homosexual unions should be adopted by homosexuals.
On Education
1. We encourage home schools, private schools, and parental control of public schools, not government control of our tax-supported institutions.
2. Since we firmly believe that taxation without representation is tyranny, we believe that the majority view of creation, held in some form by over 75 percent of Americans, should be represented in public schools. And we thank Judge Antonia Scalia for his brilliant defense of this in his dissenting opinion in the 1987 Edwards case.
3. We believe that sex education is best done by parents, not the schools. If the school is to be involved, it should be with parental permission and review of the curriculum. We believe children should not be taught a sex course in “how to” but, if any, they should be taught one in “why not” to get involved in sex before marriage.
4. We believe that no child should be left behind and that, if necessary we should spank their behind to help accomplish this. We believe discipline is a necessary condition for proper education and the moral law (as expressed in the Ten Commandments) is necessary for proper discipline.
5. The Ten Commandments are represented on the East end of the Supreme Court, over the Chief Justice’s head, and on the upper wall, and we see no reason the same Court should forbid our school children from having them on their walls.
6. We believe that no harm was done for 300 years of school classes talking to the Creator in public schools and much harm has been done in the generation since prayer has been locked out of school classes.
7. We believe that the Bible, the world’s best seller, should be read, not banned, from public school classes.
8. We believe that if it was bigotry in 1925 to teach only one view of origins in public schools when only creation was taught, then it is still bigotry today to teach only one view of origins when only evolution is being taught.
On God and Government
1. We believe in government based on God, not a government without God.
2. We believe civil laws should be based on unchanging Divine principles; , not on changing human precepts.
3. We believe in the cooperation of religion and state and in the encouragement of religion by the state, not in the separation of religion from the state or in the antagonism against religion by the state.
On Poverty
1. We believe that poverty cannot be voted out of existence but that it should be worked out of existence. We believe poverty is better addressed by private compassion than by public compulsion.
2. We believe in making a living by working, not in making a living at not working.
3. We believe our economy is best served by capitalism, not collectivism. We believe that the economy is best served by private entepenureship, not by public ownership.
4. While we are concerned about the poor life of those born, we are even more concerned about those who by abortion were never allowed to be born.
On Crime and Punishment
1. We believe the punishment should fit the crime and that it is fit to punish a crime.
2. We believe that focusing on criminal rights to a fair trial should not overshadow the need to protect non-criminal’s rights to happy life.
3. We believe in the rights of innocent citizens to be protected from the wrongs of guilty criminals.
4. We believe criminals should be treated as persons to be punished, not patients to be treated. We believe forced “rehabilitation” is a violation of personhood. We believe proper punishment is the best form of rehabilitation.
5. We believe it is a gross inconsistency to protest capital punishment for guilty criminals while one engages in capital punishment on innocent babies.
On War
1. We believe in the right to protect our right to life.
2. We also believe that fighting terrorist is better done on their soil than ours and that we must fight fire with fire, not with mere fiery anti-war rhetoric.
3. We are more concerned about actual global terrorism than debatable global warming. Indeed, I believe that alleged global warming could be significantly diminished by circulating less liberal hot air used in attacking the Commander in Chief in his fight against global terrorism.
4. Yes, we still believe in the Second Amendment and the old NRA slogan that “when guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.”
Conclusion
In summation, conservatives believe in life, liberty, and happiness based on God’s law and achieved in a context of freedom of religion and speech. In short, we believe in a godly, not a God-less government. Put another way, we believe The Declaration of Independence.
I close with a quote from its author. My favorite line on any monument in our nation’s capitol is from the Jefferson Memorial. Standing in front of the magnificent statue of Thomas Jefferson and looking over the water toward the White House one can read these words engraved in large marble letters: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”
Notes
1. Robert C. Cannada, America’s Rule of Law (National Lawyers Association Foundation, 2002).
2. George William Hunter, A Civic Biology (New York: American Book Company, 1914), 196.
3. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, in The Great Books edition, 323.
4. Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1939),162.
5. Jean Paul Sartre, No Exit and Three Other Plays:The Flies (New York: Vintage Books, Random House, 1947), 122.
6. Mark Twain, Christian Science (NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1906), 359-361.
7. It added other principles, but these are among the first and most basic listed in the Humanist Manifesto I (1933).
8. The trial transcript is published in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution Case (Cincinnati, Ohio: National Book Company), 51-52.
9. John Dewey, A Common Faith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934), 87.
10. This was so named from its first line of the law which goes on to affirm that if our children are taught to read the Bible they will have the best defense against Satan who wishes to deceive them.
11. Paul Kurts, The Humanist (Jan/Feb., 1983), 26.
12. Cited in P. William Davis, The World of Biology, 2nd ed. (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1979), 610.
13. Cited in T. C. Mercer, ed., The World’s Most Famous Court Trial (Cincinnati: National Book Company, 1925), 299.
14. See Norman .L. Geisler and Frank Turek, Legislating Morality (Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998).
15. See James Witherspoon “Reexamining Roe: Nineteenth-Century Abortion Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.” St. Mary’s Law Journal 17 (1985), 32.
16. See Dennis J. Horan, “Abortion and Midwifery: A Footnote in Legal History,” in Hilger, Horan, and Mall EDS, New Perspectives on Human Abortion (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America., 1981), 199.
17. See Geisler, Legislating Morality, Chap. 9.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
President Obama
Romans 13:1-3, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.”“Nanci and I were just talking about President Obama, and how we wish him well. I have a profound sorrow that I could not vote for the first African American president in U. S. history. In two past elections I voted for Alan Keyes, an African American with a deep respect for the civil rights of unborn children, and the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. How I wish he could have become our president. How I wish that Barack Obama believed God's Word in these fundamental areas. How deeply I wish I could have voted for him.” – Randy Alcorn (http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/)
This is basically the exact sentiments that my wife and I have. We also wish that we could have voted for the first African American President, but we also could not based on his lack of support for the rights of the unborn. Psalm 119:13-16, “With my lips I have declared All the judgments of Your mouth. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, As much as in all riches. I will meditate on Your precepts, And contemplate Your ways. I will delight myself in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word.”
We also voted for Alan Keyes when he was on the ticket for president, and wished he would have been the first African American President who truly encapsulates Christian virtues.
America, though, by demonstration of the vote, has shown that they are more concerned with their self then others. We, and I say we because we are ‘The United States,’ voted based on our own self preservation by virtue of money, as people have been complaining about the stock market. We chose to vote to bring people back from helping others in Iraq, and they are better in Iraq, even if you want to say we went in there for the wrong reasons. Interestingly, if you truly think on these things they are more selfish in nature, when compared to allowing babies to be killed in the womb for no reason. We chose a President that allows babies to be killed by the thousands everyday, because we think that he is going to make “our” lives so much easier. Who cares about a few dead babies, “we don’t want our sons or daughters punished with a baby,” especially if it will cause our lives to be encumbered in some fashion?
I think that Randy Alcorn again says it nicely and I will steal this as my prayer as well, if that is allowed. “I pray that in those areas where President Obama does advocate what is right, God will richly bless him. I pray God will give him wisdom and strength in negotiating with international heads of state. I pray God will change his mind in areas where he's wrong, and restrain him from keeping his promises to Planned Parenthood concerning the Freedom of Choice Act, which would dramatically set back the legal cause of unborn children. I pray that, by some heart-changing miracle or providential human miscalculation, the next Supreme Court justice would be someone who would vote for the right to life of our smallest children, God's smallest children.”-Randy Alcorn
Acts 5:28-32, “saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!” But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Possible New Changes-- Not Good Changes
By Tim Wildmon Posted: 10/22/2008
If the polls are to be believed, Americans are about to make history on November 4. And I am not talking about Sen. Barak Obama being the first African-American to be elected President of the United States. The history I am talking about is the fact that Americans have never been willing to elect a hard-core liberal to be their Commander in Chief. But it appears, they – we – are ready to embrace this worldview.
If Obama is elected President, it will represent some significant fundamental changes in our American way of life. Sweeping changes that may say a lot about our attitudes towards the traditional values that have long been taken for granted by many people.
Obama’s ideas for where he wants to take our country are on the extreme left of the political spectrum and were considered radical by a vast majority of Americans not too many years ago. Here are a couple of predictions about Obama and his potential presidency that will have a major impact on our country
* He will appoint American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyers (or their ilk) to the federal bench including the Supreme Court. Liberals, like Obama, believe it is the court’s job to perform social engineering that legislative bodies will not do. Remember, these judges are lifetime appointments.
* Obama and the Democrats will move quickly to give amnesty or an easy “pathway to citizenship” to the 15 to 20 million illegal aliens currently living in our country. If this happens it will place the GOP into permanent minority status, and may lead ultimately to the death of the Republican party.
As my mama used to say, you are known by the company you keep. Jeremiah Wright was Obama’s pastor for nearly 20 years. We are all aware of the many wacky, bizarre, anti-American statements he has made, including his belief that the AIDS virus was maliciously injected into the black population by the federal government. Obama said he never knew his minister held these views. Does anyone really believe that? Only when it became politically expedient to disassociate himself from Wright did he do so.
Also, William Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist, who lives in Chicago helped launch Obama’s political career in his – Ayers’ – living room. They served on boards together. Obama wrote a commendation for Ayers’ book. The point is, Obama has felt comfortable around Ayers and Wright for all these years because they are ideologically kindred spirits. As someone pointed out to me, Obama would not be eligible to get a job with the FBI because of these associations. But these facts don’t even give most Americans pause.
Now as for his economic views, Obama is an unapologetic socialist. As he told Joe the Plumber the other day, when he gets to the White House he is going to “spread the wealth around.” I have to hand it to Obama, that is about as straightforward as you can get. That is the language of Karl Marx, the father of Communism. Just 10 years ago, making that statement would have ended the campaign of any U.S. presidential candidate. It would have been a major media controversy. Not in today’s America. America, historically, has always been about capitalism, free markets, free enterprise, using your brain, risk-taking and reward. The idea of working hard and making more money for you and your family has always been a driving incentive in America. Socialism, however, believes that the government should take that money from that person who worked hard and succeeded and – as Obama said – redistribute it to others through welfare and entitlement programs. It’s also a way to buy votes from the masses. Promise people freebies, they will vote for you. And let me tell you, with the Democrats in total control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House, you have never seen the kind of raw, unadulterated, peddle-to-the metal tax and spend socialism like we are about to experience.
Finally, Obama and many other liberal politicians promote an undercurrent of jealously and envy of those who have succeeded because of hard work, personal sacrifice and perseverance through hard times. But did you know that the top 10% of income earners in America already pay 71% of all federal income taxes? And the top 25% pay a whopping 86% of all federal income taxes. How is it “fair” to compel this group of Americans to pay even more? These are the people who are building companies and creating jobs. If we continue to soak them with more and more taxation, eventually, our free enterprise system will implode.
Obama may be this generation’s political Golden Boy, but he is no King Midas. His touch on our government will not turn everything to gold, but will more likely smother the American goose that laid the American Golden Egg.
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
If the polls are to be believed, Americans are about to make history on November 4. And I am not talking about Sen. Barak Obama being the first African-American to be elected President of the United States. The history I am talking about is the fact that Americans have never been willing to elect a hard-core liberal to be their Commander in Chief. But it appears, they – we – are ready to embrace this worldview.
If Obama is elected President, it will represent some significant fundamental changes in our American way of life. Sweeping changes that may say a lot about our attitudes towards the traditional values that have long been taken for granted by many people.
Obama’s ideas for where he wants to take our country are on the extreme left of the political spectrum and were considered radical by a vast majority of Americans not too many years ago. Here are a couple of predictions about Obama and his potential presidency that will have a major impact on our country
* He will appoint American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyers (or their ilk) to the federal bench including the Supreme Court. Liberals, like Obama, believe it is the court’s job to perform social engineering that legislative bodies will not do. Remember, these judges are lifetime appointments.
* Obama and the Democrats will move quickly to give amnesty or an easy “pathway to citizenship” to the 15 to 20 million illegal aliens currently living in our country. If this happens it will place the GOP into permanent minority status, and may lead ultimately to the death of the Republican party.
As my mama used to say, you are known by the company you keep. Jeremiah Wright was Obama’s pastor for nearly 20 years. We are all aware of the many wacky, bizarre, anti-American statements he has made, including his belief that the AIDS virus was maliciously injected into the black population by the federal government. Obama said he never knew his minister held these views. Does anyone really believe that? Only when it became politically expedient to disassociate himself from Wright did he do so.
Also, William Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist, who lives in Chicago helped launch Obama’s political career in his – Ayers’ – living room. They served on boards together. Obama wrote a commendation for Ayers’ book. The point is, Obama has felt comfortable around Ayers and Wright for all these years because they are ideologically kindred spirits. As someone pointed out to me, Obama would not be eligible to get a job with the FBI because of these associations. But these facts don’t even give most Americans pause.
Now as for his economic views, Obama is an unapologetic socialist. As he told Joe the Plumber the other day, when he gets to the White House he is going to “spread the wealth around.” I have to hand it to Obama, that is about as straightforward as you can get. That is the language of Karl Marx, the father of Communism. Just 10 years ago, making that statement would have ended the campaign of any U.S. presidential candidate. It would have been a major media controversy. Not in today’s America. America, historically, has always been about capitalism, free markets, free enterprise, using your brain, risk-taking and reward. The idea of working hard and making more money for you and your family has always been a driving incentive in America. Socialism, however, believes that the government should take that money from that person who worked hard and succeeded and – as Obama said – redistribute it to others through welfare and entitlement programs. It’s also a way to buy votes from the masses. Promise people freebies, they will vote for you. And let me tell you, with the Democrats in total control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House, you have never seen the kind of raw, unadulterated, peddle-to-the metal tax and spend socialism like we are about to experience.
Finally, Obama and many other liberal politicians promote an undercurrent of jealously and envy of those who have succeeded because of hard work, personal sacrifice and perseverance through hard times. But did you know that the top 10% of income earners in America already pay 71% of all federal income taxes? And the top 25% pay a whopping 86% of all federal income taxes. How is it “fair” to compel this group of Americans to pay even more? These are the people who are building companies and creating jobs. If we continue to soak them with more and more taxation, eventually, our free enterprise system will implode.
Obama may be this generation’s political Golden Boy, but he is no King Midas. His touch on our government will not turn everything to gold, but will more likely smother the American goose that laid the American Golden Egg.
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama Socialist Plan in His Own Words
Obama states in his own words that he wants to "spread the wealth around." Taking the money from those who worked to earn it and then give it to others. It is a socialist suggestion.
A Plumber from Ohio!
CNSNews.com‘Spread the Wealth Around’ Comment Comes Back to Haunt ObamaWednesday, October 15, 2008By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in Holland, Ohio, Sunday, Oct. 12, 2008. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Barack Obama’s recent comments to a plumber named Joe are making some Americans nervous about Obama’s wealth-redistribution tendencies.
“Your tax plan’s going to tax me more,” the plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher told Obama at a rally in Ohio on Sunday.
Wurzelbacher told the Democratic presidential candidate he’s about to buy a company that will put him above the $250,000 income level. Obama has said he will raise taxes on people making a minimum of $250,000 – and that includes small businesses that file taxes as individuals.
“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too,” Obama told the plumber.
“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
The latter comment about spreading the wealth around has been picked up by the Republican presidential candidate John McCain and other critics, who say Obama sounds like a socialist.
Obama’s discussion with Wurzelbacher went into much more detail. Obama told the plumber that as a small business owner, he’d get a tax cut for his healthcare costs. And he said the plumber’s taxes would stay the same for amounts below $250,000.
“It is true that from 250 up…for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39 percent, which is what it was under Bill Clinton,” Obama said. Obama also said that “95 percent of small businesses make less than 250 ($250,000).” And he told the plumber that over the last 15 years, when Joe wasn’t making $250,000, “you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you’d actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code.”
It’s like Robin Hood, the Wurzelbacher told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto on Tuesday. Wurzelbacher said he’s the kind of person who lives paycheck to paycheck – and “I just resent the government or Barack Obama’s plan to take more away from me.”
Sen. McCain worked Obama’s “spread the wealth around” phrase into a speech he delivered on Tuesday.
“This weekend, a plumber concerned that Senator Obama was going to raise his taxes asked him directly about his plan,” McCain told a rally in Blue Bell, Pa. “The response was telling. Senator Obama explained to him that he was going to raise his taxes to quote ‘spread the wealth around.’ This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income tax cut for millions who aren't even paying income taxes right now.
“My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can ‘spread the wealth around.’ My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans,” McCain said.
McCain says he would reduce business tax rates to boost job-creation.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in Holland, Ohio, Sunday, Oct. 12, 2008. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Barack Obama’s recent comments to a plumber named Joe are making some Americans nervous about Obama’s wealth-redistribution tendencies.
“Your tax plan’s going to tax me more,” the plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher told Obama at a rally in Ohio on Sunday.
Wurzelbacher told the Democratic presidential candidate he’s about to buy a company that will put him above the $250,000 income level. Obama has said he will raise taxes on people making a minimum of $250,000 – and that includes small businesses that file taxes as individuals.
“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too,” Obama told the plumber.
“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
The latter comment about spreading the wealth around has been picked up by the Republican presidential candidate John McCain and other critics, who say Obama sounds like a socialist.
Obama’s discussion with Wurzelbacher went into much more detail. Obama told the plumber that as a small business owner, he’d get a tax cut for his healthcare costs. And he said the plumber’s taxes would stay the same for amounts below $250,000.
“It is true that from 250 up…for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39 percent, which is what it was under Bill Clinton,” Obama said. Obama also said that “95 percent of small businesses make less than 250 ($250,000).” And he told the plumber that over the last 15 years, when Joe wasn’t making $250,000, “you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you’d actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code.”
It’s like Robin Hood, the Wurzelbacher told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto on Tuesday. Wurzelbacher said he’s the kind of person who lives paycheck to paycheck – and “I just resent the government or Barack Obama’s plan to take more away from me.”
Sen. McCain worked Obama’s “spread the wealth around” phrase into a speech he delivered on Tuesday.
“This weekend, a plumber concerned that Senator Obama was going to raise his taxes asked him directly about his plan,” McCain told a rally in Blue Bell, Pa. “The response was telling. Senator Obama explained to him that he was going to raise his taxes to quote ‘spread the wealth around.’ This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income tax cut for millions who aren't even paying income taxes right now.
“My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can ‘spread the wealth around.’ My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans,” McCain said.
McCain says he would reduce business tax rates to boost job-creation.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)