Impeachment Sham
Article 1 Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” This establishes the Congress as a whole as the creators of Laws for the U.S.
This Impeachment was passed purely on party lines, Article 1 229 (D) to 195 (R) and Article 2 229 (D) to 198 (R) as Speaker Pelosi said “ “Its been going on for 22 months, ok? “Two and a half years, actually.”
Obama Birth Certificate, the 800 Lb Elephant in the room the media refuses to see
1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes’. So how can the Obama birth certificate state his father is ‘African’? Even though he did come from East Africa an American hospital would have listed him as a Negro.
1. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth
as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big
deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is
age 25 years old and that Obama’s father was born in ” Kenya , East Africa “. This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya didn’t even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, It was known as the ” British East Africa Protectorate”.
3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place
of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”. This cannot
be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively. The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Finally to mention why was the original certificate released filled with photoshop layers and modern computer fonts?
Why hasn’t this been discussed in the major media????? Please share this with everyone you know with the hope that we can force the media, as well OUR NATION, to address this CORRUPTION. “IN GOD WE TRUST”
You may be a Republican if…
You believe that the proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well, by individuals, and that the most effective government is government closest to the people.
You believe that good government is based on the individual and that each person’s ability, dignity, freedom, and responsibility must be honored and recognized.
You believe that free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative and incentive have given this nation an economic system second to none.
You believe that sound money management should be our goal.
You believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age sex or national origin.
You believe we must retain those principles of the past worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to accommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view.
You believe that Americans value and should preserve their feeling of national strength and pride, and at the same time share with people everywhere a desire for peace and freedom and the extension of human rights throughout the world.
Finally, If you believe all these then the Republican Party may the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.
NEW COMING HOLOCAUST – CHRISTIANS AND CONSERVATIVES
February 17, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Neither legal mandate or compromise
The recent mandate nor the compromise that Obama has put forth regarding Contraceptive requirements for faith based employers is neither legal or Constitutional.
Amendment I reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Aside from the fact that contraceptive medicine is not health care, it seems only a reasoning for promiscuous sex to be rewarded. The argument that contraceptives are a woman’s health right fail to reason that condoms are used far more often than any female solution.
The Constitutionality of “ObamaCare” will still have to be decided by the Supreme Court soon but as it stands in the opinion of most Constitutional scholars, it is not nor will ever be.
The usurping of the Constitution, Congress nullified?
Obama appointed Richard Cordray to be head of a controversial consumer consumer financial protection agency and stacking the National Relations Labor Board (NRLB) with Pro-Union cronies, despite the fact that Congress is not officially in recess! It is being held open with pro-forma sessions and not gaveled “sin die” for the specific purpose of preventing recess appointments. From the Constitution: Article 2 Section 2″ The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” This should be an Impeachable offense! Will we see justice served by Congress?
Deception as a Principle of Governance By James Long
February 11, 2010
Deception as a Principle of Governance
By James Long
The Democrats all agree that President George Bush received a surplus when he took office after President Clinton’s term, and then he passed a deficit to President Obama. Democrats are outrageous prevaricators.
David Axelrod in the Washington Post, 15 January 2010:
The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus — with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.
Hillary said much the same thing on “Meet the Press,” 15 November 2009:
It, it breaks my heart, David (Gregory), that in 2001 we had a balanced budget and a surplus; and if we’d stayed on that path, we were heading toward eliminating our debt.
Similarly, Senator Robert Menendez on “This Week,” 24 January 2010:
And, you know, I love my dear friend (Jim DeMint) talking about, you know, fiscal responsibility, but when George Bush came to office, he had a $236 billion surplus. Barack Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit.
And a 07 February 2010 NYT editorial put it this way:
When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three (four, actually) years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.
President Obama in his first State of the Union address also mentioned the large surplus that President Bush inherited in contrast to the deficit that Obama himself inherited.
Every one of the above statements is patently and provably false. The dot-com bubble crashed almost exactly one year before Clinton left office, and the value of the NASDAQ (symbol ^IXIC available on YAHOO!) fell by $2.5 trillion dollars (half its total value) before the end of the Clinton administration. When the dot-com bubble popped, as all
economic bubbles do, the NASDAQ fell sharply. Every economic indicator during Clinton’s last year in office turned decisively downward — the surplus, government revenues, and the markets included. Economic projections made at the very top of an economic bubble are foolish, but the dot-com bubble had long since popped, and everything was going south by the time Clinton left office. Consequently, the Democrats’ projections of surpluses years into the future at a time when all indices were falling are not just foolish, but dishonest.
A lot of things happened in the economy during Clinton’s last year, all of them bad. Besides the dot-com bubble crash in January 2000, the DOW also peaked and started down shortly before Clinton left office, and the S&P started down shortly after that. The NASDAQ continued to fall for an eventual loss of $4 trillion, and the collapse of the DOW
and the S&P also resulted in more trillions of dollars lost in the markets.
With the markets crashing, federal revenues were reduced, and GDP growth slowed as President Clinton left office. The vaunted Clinton surplus fell from $236 billion in FY 1999 (ending 30 September 1999) to $128 billion in FY 2000 (ending 30 September 2000), Clinton’s last year. Axelrod’s and Menendez’s claims that the surplus was $236 billion on “[t]he day the Bush administration took over” were off by just sixteen months, during which time markets, government revenues, and the “Clinton surplus” were falling like rocks. At the end of the first FY of President Bush’s term (2001), the budget had a deficit of over $157 billion. The “Clinton surplus” fell $393 billion in twenty- four months (FY 1999 to FY 2001) following the dot-com crash, and Clinton was still in office for sixteen of those months.
Empirically, if the American voters in late 2000 believed that the Clinton surplus was as high as the Democrats now claim, and if the long-term projection for the surplus was accepted as valid by those voters, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election in a landslide that would have rivaled President Reagan’s victories. In reality, the voters in 2000 were nervous about the economy, having just witnessed trillions of dollars lost in the dot-com fiasco, and Bush won.
Not only did Bush inherit a plunging economy, but given the magnitude of the dot-com crash, this was an extremely perilous time for the American economic outlook. In the event, President Bush applied the proper corrective measures and the damage was minimized, with unemployment limited to a relatively benign 6.1%. The economy went on to register solid jobs, growth, and productivity from 2003 to 2007 until the next Democratic disaster hit: the unaffordable housing bubble.
Sandwiched between the stupid Clinton dot-com bubble and the deliberate Democratic housing bubble, the Bush economy did quite well from 2003 to 2007, with deficits steadily being reduced and government growing at a slower relative rate than the economy. But President Bush had to pay for the considerable costs of Clinton’s dot-com bubble
(unemployment compensation, job training, lost tax revenues, etc.) until the economy began to recover in 2003, and then, at the end of his term, Bush had to stop the economic collapse that was triggered by the Democrats’ mortgage follies. Democrats have hung a bad rap on President Bush because they want to achieve power, and dishonesty is
one of the tools they have used successfully (and frequently) in their quest to tell us how to live.
Every economic crisis we have suffered since WWII has been the result of Democratic Party malfeasance or misfeasance. LBJ’s wasteful and corrupt War on Poverty did almost nothing to lessen poverty, cost $6.6 trillion over a thirty-year period, and ended when President Clinton signed off on a Republican initiative to end it. In comparison, the total national debt was $5.2 trillion at the point when the fraud- ridden, $6.6-trillion War on Poverty was mercifully ended. President Obama has now substantially reinstituted the War on Poverty with his non-stimulating stimulus package.
President Reagan and President Bush pulled us out of the first two Democratic disasters described above, but Obama’s disaster is much worse. Obama is adding fuel to the raging inferno as the economy melts down, rather than taking known corrective actions similar to what Reagan and Bush (and Kennedy, in a similar scenario) did.
If Hillary is really interested in “heading toward eliminating our debt,” then she could tell the Democrats to quit spending our money foolishly.
In the Soviet era, Pravda was the major official Soviet newspaper. The term “pravda” is usually translated as “truth,” but as Russians use the term, pravda would be more accurately translated as “the official word.” The official Democratic word and the official words of all declining mainstream Pravdas is that everything is President Bush’s
fault, even if the disastrous dot-com bubble and its inevitable crash happened during the Clinton administration.
James Long is a professional engineer and manager.
Patriot’s History, a worthwhile reading.
For the past three decades, many history professors have allowed their biases to distort the way America’s past is taught. These intellectuals have searched for instances of racism, sexism, and bigotry in our history while downplaying the greatness of America’s patriots and the achievements of “dead white men.”
As a result, more emphasis is placed on Harriet Tubman than on George Washington; more about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II than about D-Day or Iwo Jima; more on the dangers we faced from Joseph McCarthy than those we faced from Josef Stalin.
A Patriot’s History of the United States corrects those doctrinaire biases. In this groundbreaking book, America’s discovery, founding, and development are reexamined with an appreciation for the elements of public virtue, personal liberty, and private property that make this nation uniquely successful. This book offers a long-overdue acknowledgment of America’s true and proud history.
A Patriot’s History of the United States: From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror
Some reviews:
“A welcome, refreshing, and solid contribution to relearning what we have forgotten and remembering why this nation is good, and worth defending.” — Matthew Spalding, National Review
“In A Patriot’s History of the United States, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen remind us what a few good individuals can do in just a few short centuries . . . . A fluid account of America from the discovery of the Continent up to the present day”. — Brandon Miniter, The Wall Street Journal
“No recent American history challenges the conventional wisdom of academics as aggressively as Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States”. — Daniel J. Flynn, Front Page Magazine
“There are a thousand pleasant surprises and heartening reminders that underneath it all America remains a country of ideas, ideals, and optimism—and no amount of revisionism can take that legacy away”. (John Coleman, Humane Studies Review)
Christian Manufacturer under fire for Bible references
The left is at it again, a Christian Manufacturer is under fire for Bible references within the serial number of its product.
ABC News has recently reported on the fact that Trijicon, the manufacturer of gun sites for our military has placed Bible verses in their serial numbers. ABC is quoted:
“U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious “Crusade” in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.”
Trijicon has stated that their company has been doing this since 2003. The company founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa, who was killed in a plane crash, started this practice.
Like every company the site manufacturer Trijicon, has no limits on how it can create its logo or any other limitations. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions “have always been there” and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is “not Christian.”
The Bible verses is question reference light:
John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
There is nothing wrong with giving our troops something to bolster their faith!
Combat vets have said that there truly is no atheist in a foxhole!
I find it incomprehensible that our Government can be bullied by a vocal minority who want Christianity to be removed from every aspect of our lives.
This country was founded upon the freedom OF religion, not from religion. The separation of Church and State is a progressive gross misinterpretation of our Constitution!
As much as the anti-religion pushes, we of any faith, need to push back harder to maintain our freedoms.