Take back America

Take back America
Take back America

None dare call it treason

None dare call it treason

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Welfare Nation

You're Entitled by Harry Browne
Welfare is a good example.
Once upon a time, before the 1960s, a person who needed help got it by appealing to a local charity (such as the Salvation Army) or to the town government, or even getting aid from a local church. The downtrodden individual had to explain how he got into trouble and how he intended to work his way out of it. He was monitored closely to assure that he was telling the truth and that he stuck to his plan to get back on his feet. And he knew that the money he received came from the pockets of his neighbors. Federal welfare, however, requires nothing more ambitious, energetic, or embarrassing than filling out a form.
In former days, you knew that you had to work for what you got. Today you can get a regular check from the federal government provided you're willing to undertake the arduous task of walking to your mail box once a month.
The same is true for all sorts of government subsidies. You don't have to be broke or hard up. With minimal qualifications, you can just sign up and receive:
Unemployment benefits
Student loans
Farm subsidies
Subsidized mortgages
Subsidized medical insurance
Disaster relief, andThousands of other giveaways.
Once provided, these benefits become "rights," and anyone who suggests eliminating them is denounced as mean and heartless. It's assumed that without farm subsidies all small farmers would go bankrupt and the country would starve; without federal loans no one could afford to go to college; and without Medicare no one would live past 65. No one asks how the country survived so well before these things became government's responsibility.
The worst effect of these programs is to separate acts from consequences. They teach people to be careless. Since you don't have to pay for your own mistakes, you have no reason to exercise caution, restraint, or forethought. Whatever goes wrong, the government will take care of you.
So it should be no surprise that Americans save less than they once did, exercise less caution in their business and personal dealings, seem less able to support themselves, and are more dependent on government to survive. This, of course, provides politicians with an excuse for more laws and subsidies.
America has been transformed from the land of enterprise, initiative, and self-reliance into the land of entitlements and dependency.
Lost Virtues
The transformation has devastated our civilization - bringing on terrifying crime rates, the abandonment of educational standards, an epidemic of teenage pregnancies, and the birth of a permanent class of citizens dependent upon the state for support.
Many of the social problems that worry us so much today were virtually unknown before the federal takeovers of the 1960s:
Crime rates were a fraction of what they are today. Gangs didn't terrorize adults on the street or students in school. No one had seen drive-by shootings since Prohibition ended in 1933.
Children graduated from high school knowing how to read, write, and add - and knowing a great deal about history, geography, and science. Today many college entrants can't even read the entrance exam. And many students have been told little more about Christopher Columbus than that he was an angry white male who took out his frustrations on the Indians.
Teenage pregnancies out of wedlock were virtually unknown. In 1950 only one in 79 unmarried teenage girls gave birth to a baby (even before birth-control pills were available). In 1991 the ratio had dropped to one in 22.
Welfare was rarely discussed, because it wasn't a compelling social issue. "Welfare" as we think of it was a tiny program operated by your city or county government. The truly desperate were helped mostly by private charities who took an interest in seeing that anyone in trouble got out of it as quickly as possible. Today welfare is a national scandal, and few politicians have any idea how to end it.
The escalation of "entitlements" in the 1960s and 1970s has led to the devastation of American cities, the decline of American education, and the deterioration of self-reliance. It has turned America into a battleground on which groups fight for the power to dictate who gets to take what from whom, and who gets to impose the rules dictating how everyone must live.
The four episodes of rapid government growth destroyed the qualities that had made America unique, and transformed it instead into something like an Old-World nation.
The Civil War changed the federal government into a national government superior to the states and the people.
The Progressive Era established the principle that the government was responsible for the economy, and it produced the foreign policy that has kept us in conflict with one country or another for almost all of the past 80 years.
The New Deal established that no area of American life is off limits to government.
The Great Society destroyed the self-responsibility that made possible the prosperity and freedoms we once took for granted.
A tragic casualty has been the loss of the system of federalism the Founding Fathers designed. That system empowered local governments to set their own rules. Local tyranny existed sometimes, but people could escape it by moving to another state. Today you can escape only by leaving the country.
The four eras transformed America from a free country into a nation of obedient serfs, paper-pushers, victims, whiners, and antagonists. Now we are just another country in which the citizens live at the sufferance of their rulers.
As Joseph Sobran has said, the land of the free has become the land of the government permit.
You are living in it!

U. S. Government vs God

Revelation 21:1. Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
'We must save the planet'. We are brainwashed 24/7 with every thought and deed that is contrary to God. Yes, we need to do everything in our power to protect our planet, but Al Gore and his environmental wackos plan all their deeds in the belief of no God and man himself is left to his own salvation and destiny. They go so far as to say that a green planet without mankind is better than a damaged planet because there might be a species in the future who will do a better job than us. Only Evolution and time will tell.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Michele Obama still adjusting to living in the White House

There were tense moments at the White House this morning when security personnel rushed to the White House kitchen after hearing Michele Obama yelling and screaming. After several minutes of persuasion the Chief of Security finally convince Michele that these people were the White House Chefs; not a bunch of racist people dressed up in white sheets and cone hats. Can anyone say, 'visions of KKK dancing in her head'.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Beauty - Evolution or Creative Design

End results of Evolution.
The results through Creation.

By Russell Husted.
Beauty, and the abundance of things beautiful in this world, is surely one of the strongest arguments for God, and against evolution, that one can adduce. And why is that? Because the Bible offers a thorough rationale and explanation for a world filled with beauty, but evolutionary theory offers no rationale or explanation. I've seen several attempts by evolutionists to explain beauty and things beautiful, but they have been very unsuccessful. Here's why.
Since only one relatively unimportant species (humans) can discern or appreciate beauty, beauty is essentially “invisible” to all the other species. That's not a problem for Christian apologists, whose argument is that we are the only ones expected or intended to appreciate and benefit from beauty, but it is a serious problem for evolution apologists. Since beauty is “invisible” - that is, neither perceived nor appreciated as “beauty” - to all other species, it is wholly outside the influence or efficacy of any biotic component of “natural selection”, such as selective predation or mating or symbiosis. Consequently, it confers no reproductive success or advantage, and no survival advantage. Therefore, while the beauty of a living thing may be rooted in its genetics, there is no feedback or influence on its own or any other genome. Therefore, it cannot be explained or justified by evolutionary theory. “Evolution” and “beauty” are pretty much non sequiters.
On the other hand, the Christian arguments - that beauty reflects the nature and the esthetics of God; that it is His personal purpose and will; and that it is a gift from Him to humanity - derive naturally from the Bible and are each reasonable and logically consistent explanations within their theory of creation. In the Biblical paradigm of “intelligent design” by a Designer who loves both beauty and the one species capable of appreciating it, beauty is very much a “sequitur”!Look at the trees. Some trees are tall, some slender, some stately, some precisely geometrically patterned, and some are like mathematical formulae in expression. Like classical music. Others are almost chaotic, following few rules that we can see, but still emerge as something beautiful. Some are wizened and gnarled expressions of survival, but we admire them. We would hate to cut them down even if we were freezing and in need of fuel. I've seen a couple of “ugly” species, to my taste, but usually they're planted in someone's front yard! It's that 90 to 95% agreement thing, again.
Trees, which dominate (or did) almost every landscape and terrain, are beautiful to nearly every human eye. They needn't be, but they are. There's something about them, and about us, that “connects”. It involves colors, textures, designs and symmetries, even their stoic attitudes. There's no reasonable explanation that science can adduce. You have to turn to Scripture and the story of a Creator, Who has a sense of beauty, which He shared with us, if you want any sensible explanation. Not necessarily provable, but as easily argued as any evolutionary rationale, and your choice as to whether it is acceptable.
What about beauty of a different sort?
Why do we almost universally like sunrises and sunsets? Why do we stop to watch the sun go down? Evolution cannot explain it. If anything, I'm sure there is some serious “natural selection” against such appreciation, against such behavior!
Twilight is a dangerous time for prey. Predators are on the prowl, and I can imagine that more than one human has paid the price for dallying, its attention focused on a red sky or red cliffs, while the lion stalked. Sitting out under the stars, dreamily contemplating the dark and sparkling heavens, or gazing at salmon pink clouds, or lightening on the horizon, instead of seeking shelter and safety, sorely dares “natural selection” to permit our evolution as creatures with a sense for beauty.
The creation account, however, of Genesis 1 & 2 clearly tells us that this world was created for our pleasure. It tells us, as my more precise translation reveals, that it was fashioned and designed with love and intention. Many other scriptures tell us that the natural creation purposely and thoroughly reflects God's nature, and tastes, and purposes. The Bible tells us, several times, that if we want to know Him and discern His nature, we only need look closely at His creation. Romans 1:19,20 says it very plainly, and forcefully:
“because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead…”
That, within the context of the creation account and many other scriptures, is a powerful explanation of beauty. You don't have to believe it, of course. It's totally your choice. You have complete freedom to believe or not believe in God, in a Creator, an intelligent designer, or in chance. But if you choose to believe in chance as the designer of the life that inhabits this planet, and look to evolutionary theory and rationale to account for the abundant wealth of beauty present on this planet, you'll be sorely disappointed. It will be a fruitless exercise, both scientifically and intellectually.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Stairway to Heaven

U. S. Government officials to the Left. American citizens to the Right.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Matthew 18:6

The greatest judgement against America will be the harm we have done to our children. Child abuse, whether physically, spirituality and mentally. In lawyers term, this technicality will convict most Americans to damnation in the eyes of God. The primary responsibility is with the parents, but the Judges, Government officials, the media and ACLU type groups will be held equally responsible for their attempt to ban Christianity from being taught or mention anywhere in America's society. Eliminating Prayer in school, promoting Evolution and banning of the Ten Commandments; just three examples. Today's TV shows and Video games are an abomination to God and all that is good.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Socialist Government is "The Great Satan"

What is a socialist?
Posted: March 07, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009
The one fascinating thing I'm learning in writing for WND is the staggering ability of so many people to deny reality.
In last week's column, I pointed out that a lot of out-of-control brats in Washington are spending money and grabbing liberties. But from the e-mails I received from readers, it's clear the "progressives" don't get it. My opinion is this: Whether you call it a mallard or a canvasback or a teal, it's still a duck.
According to Dictionary.com, socialism is "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
Socialism might sound lofty and enlightened to liberals, but those of us in Flyover Country know better. If you take anything decent, traditional and uplifting – and flip it on its head – you have socialism. To whit:

1. Socialists believe in the use of force to gain their personal ends. Whether it's light bulbs or alternative energy or public schools or national health care, in the end there's always a gun at your head to get you to conform. If a man holds you up in the street, does it matter if he wants the money for drugs or to bail out someone's mortgage? It's still a gun, and it's still armed robbery.
2. Socialists believe in slavery. Their concept is not the slavery of an individual owning another individual, but of a state owning the output of the individual. We are now forced to work four months out of the year for the federal government before we see a dime of our own income, and it's getting worse. Our new administration has just indebted every family an additional $11,000 without our permission or approval. This is economic slavery. (If you don't believe me, watch what happens if you don't pay your taxes. See No. 1 above.)
3. Socialists are racists. The content of the character doesn't matter; it's all about the color of the skin. Read the e-mail I received in response to last week's column, in which the writer somehow made the extraordinary leap in logic from my premise of government fiscal irresponsibility to William Byrd whipping slaves three centuries ago. Yes, Byrd was a nasty man. But what on earth did that have to do with the topic of my column? This illustrates that socialists will always bring up the subject of race, regardless of the prevailing drift of the conversation.
Most people tend to look at the content of peoples' character rather than the color of their skin. If someone is honest, hardworking and decent, then who cares what he looks like? But if they're angry, abusive and violent … then sorry, the content of their character is demonstrating that they're not people to associate with, regardless of skin color. Conservatives – true conservatives – really don't give a diddly darn about someone's melanin content. As columnist Burt Prelutsky put it, "… most white Americans don't spend a lot of time dwelling on anyone's race. They're much too busy trying to make a living and raise their kids."
Socialists believe the worst in everyone. They believe that we are all racists, therefore racism must be shoved in our faces constantly. They believe we are stingy, so we must have our money forcibly removed and redistributed to others. They believe we are heartless and that the only source of compassion is the government, so compassion becomes government-mandated.
4. Socialists think religion, especially Christianity, is stupid and nothing but a prop for the unwashed masses. Why else would they forbid expressions of faith anywhere except (grudgingly) within the walls of a church? Religious people are seen as uneducated, primitive, bitterly-clinging troglodytes. Socialism is Satan's plan for Man, not God's.
5. Socialists believe in an ignorant society. How else can we explain their slavish devotion to a public school system that is so dumbed down that students can't read their own diplomas? Socialists know an ignorant society is good. Useful idiots are more amenable to dominance than citizens who have read and understood the documents of the Founding Fathers.
6. Socialists believe you have no right of self-defense. They don't even want you to talk about it in a school assignment. They pretend to have utter faith that government agents can protect you from any and all harm. In reality, it's the government agents that are among our biggest threats. What socialists are really concerned about is your ability to defend yourself against them.
7. Socialists are intolerant. If you have a dissenting opinion, you are mocked and ridiculed for having the temerity to disagree. Socialists do not believe in freedom of speech or they wouldn't be concerned about Rush Limbaugh or what ministers say from the pulpit.
8. Socialists are hypocrites. They expect the unwashed masses to conform to their ideals while they, the lofty and elite, are exempt. How else can you explain Al Gore's energy-sucking mansion? How else can they claim conservative talk radio or Internet news is too powerful when socialists dominate the newspaper and television media?
9. Above all, socialists are in denial. No matter how much you point out the obvious – that the government is fulfilling the dictionary definition of socialism – they flat deny it. If you point out the horrors of socialized medicine, for example, a socialist will say "But this time it will be different." Socialists are unconcerned that the government holds 40 percent of Citibank and over 80 percent of AIG. Nancy Pelosi assures us that government takeovers of banks should be "transitional" but not permanent, and Steny Hoyer hesitates "to use the word nationalization." You'll notice they don't deny it's a government takeover. They merely refuse to call a duck a duck. Quack quack.
Citizens do NOT have to politely accept liberal mandates as just another viewpoint in the American experience. Socialists are the enemy of the Constitution, and their ideas are antithetical to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

New World Order, no place for Israel

Who kills more Israeli's, Islam or American foreign policies?

Is it time for revolt?
Posted: WND March 05, 20091:00 am Eastern© 2009
There comes a point when free men and women must say no to oppressive government exceeding its authority.
I think most everyone would agree with that.
Our Founding Fathers said no to the misuse of authority by the British crown, and most Americans believe it was the right thing to do. In fact, we are Americans today because of the courageous stand they took for liberty and justice.
I believe American government is entering an advanced stage of institutional injustice, corruption, oppression and tyranny that warrants protest, at the very least, and perhaps even defiance if we are to hold on to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The government is creating massive debts that can never be repaid.
The government is encouraging the worst kind of irresponsible personal lifestyles – from endless consumption without regard to the consequences to expecting bailouts from taxpayers to killing inconvenient, unwanted children in utero to unhealthy and unnatural behavior.
The government is grabbing powers for which it has no authority under the Constitution.
The government is making fatefully bad decisions about national security and national defense.
I could go on and on with such a list. But rather than talk about the macro-disasters being hatched in Washington on a daily basis by Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress, I would like to examine just one tiny example of the way they not only squander your wealth, but actually commit it to causes of pure, unadulterated evil.
A couple years ago, the U.S. government pressured Israel to evacuate all Jews from the Gaza Strip. Why? Because the Arab Muslims in Gaza insisted no Jews could live among them. Period. End of story. They demanded ethnic cleansing, and the world, for the most part, agreed.
So Israel capitulated, while acknowledging it fully expected the decision to result in an increase in terrorist violence directed at Jews inside Israel. That's exactly what happened.
Israel didn't respond forcefully to the attacks, again because of pressure from the U.S. and the rest of the world. Finally, after the attacks continued to intensify and spill more Jewish blood, Israel used its superior military forces to stop the attacks – with a minimum of human carnage, I might add.
Now what do you suppose the U.S. government wants to do?
It is offering to spend nearly $1 billion more in U.S. taxpayer wealth to build up ethnically cleansed Gaza, once again, though Washington claims it will not allow the ruling authorities in Gaza – the terrorist group Hamas – to control how the money is spent. Of course, that would be like transferring wealth to Iran with the understanding the mullahs will not control how it is used. It doesn't work that way. Like it or not, Hamas thugs control Gaza. They won the privilege to do that in elections, no less.
Now think about this.
Where else in the world does the U.S. government subsidize communities that practice ethnic cleansing?
Where else in the world does the U.S. support the notion that Jews, or some other religious or ethnic minority, don't have the right to live in peace?
Where else in the world does the U.S. government dole out money to an area under 100 percent control by Jew-hating, Christian-hating, America-hating terrorists?
The answer, of course, is only in the Middle East – and only when immoral people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are involved.
It's very dangerous to advocate this position. It's very risky. But someone has to stand up and start talking about it.
Is it time for people of the light to start denying the U.S. government the money to practice this kind of evil?
I know it's past time for us to be out in the streets protesting against all this new regime is doing to undermine the Constitution, America's heritage of freedom and the basic tenets of Western Civilization.
Maybe it's also time to say we just won't be a part of funding the hate.

Monday, March 2, 2009

Charles Darwin was right

One day the Liberal will evolve into the creature that truly matches their IQ and actions. They will have finally reached their goal and will be able to live comfortably in their bodies.