The war yesterday and the battle today

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln gave one of the shortest and greatest speeches of his presidency that we now know as the Gettysburg Address. A part of that speech reflects what is happening in this country today. “Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty………Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and dedicated can long endure”. Today, the battle we are engaged in is not a military conflict but a battle for the minds and hearts of the citizens of this country. A battle to save our constitution from those who want to destroy our way of life and the freedoms we have enjoyed for over 230 years. There is a desire by individuals and certain groups to transform our country into a socialist/Marxist society where all power is placed in the hands of the government, the presidential czars and other appointed personnel. In essence, a dictatorship where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are trampled upon. A battle of two ideologies, one given to us by the Founders and the other by Karl Marx. One that allows citizens to be the best they can be and the other suppresses freedoms and has government control business, industry, speech and dictates to the citizens what they can and cannot do. One has a history of tremendous success and the other a history of human slaughter that has a record of killing over 70 million people.

President Obama's Pledge

’I pledge allegiance to the United States of America,
And not to an ideology, which can never stand,
One nation under socialism, divisive,
With no liberty or justice for anyone.’

Read and weep, unless we change

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with
the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, died 2012. It doesn't hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29 Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000. Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million. Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain:2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements. And living off various forms of government welfare."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

SAD!!!!

Obama and Fair Share

President Obama and his minions keep using the phrase "everyone must pay their fair share". Then the question we must ask is, what is everyone's fair share? We know they keep attacking those who work hard for their wealth as not contributing to the public good. When in fact, we know those who make it in society with high incomes always bring others along either as employees, or creating income by their purchasing power to other businesses and the employees that business may hire. Their wealth filters down to the benefit of others. We also know that 49% of the workers do not pay taxes. So, can we say that those taxpayers who are enjoying all the benefits of living in this country are getting a free ride and not contributing? The answer to that according to Obama's rhetoric is yes. But instead we must criticize those who make it and are supporting government and society with their taxes as compared to those that do not pay taxes. Now we know that everyone contributes, but using the Obama thought process, that would not be the case. So, carrying that further using the Obama method, the 49% that do not pay are not contributing and must pay their fair share. Therefore, we must have a minimum tax that everyone must pay and I propose a minimum of 10%. Now I know that the Pelosi/Reid crowd will not agree to that, but we must have everyone pay their fair share and 49% are not. But Obama and his cronies who believe in a Marxist form of government would prefer saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)". That is basicly what Obama is really saying when he says, "fair share". He tries to hide his real ideology through rephrasing Karl Marx. God help us if he gets reelected.

The perfect candidate?

The perfect candidate does not exist that would meet the desires of everyone. Candidates come forward and either they don't meet the "party" standards, lack sufficient funding, or are rejected by primary voters. Some are rejected because the voter does not spend time and effort to research each candidate or they listen to the rhetoric of the opposition and make their decision. The establishment did not want Sarah Palin on the ticket last time around and we saw how it seems that party members were not putting out 100% in supporting her. The establishment usually gets their way, but not all the time. But like little spoil kids, if they don't get their way, they may make things difficult for the candidate. Staying in power is more important than winning the presidential election. They all suck and until we can gain control of the Republican party, or even the socialist party (democratic) we will be left with limited choices. Do we like it, I doubt it. But we must start from the bottom up. And with the news media against us, it will be a difficult fight, but we can win. So we can argue among ourselves over who we prefer, and as I said, none of the 4 remaining will ever meet what we are all looking for, but it still comes down to Anybody But Obama. Our constitution gives us the right to debate in any format and we must realize if Obama gets reelected, that may end also. This administration is doing their best to silent opposition by trying everything to get control on the internet and print media. Obama and his minions are the most dangerous people in this country and if he gets elected again, may God have mercy on us. In either case, we must make sure the democrats lose control of the Senate and the Republicans maintain control of the House. Then it will be up to the Republican leaders in both Houses to checkmate Obama. My only fear is they will not have the courage to stand up to him for fear of losing in the 2014 election. Like I said, for both parties it is all about keeping yourself, your party in power. If they really cared about this country, we would not have a $15 Trillion plus deficit. They all talk a good line, but their actions do not follow their words. Politicians have been promising for years that the tax code must be changed and simplified, but have we seen any movement to do it. Of course not. The present tax code can be used by politicians to write in some relief for their friends and big donors. A flat tax, or a more simple tax code would eliminate that power from their hands. And what politician after having that power would give it up willingly. ABO people.

The Catholic Church and Obama Administration

We have heard that the Catholic Church is denying women the right to access contraception by not allowing it on their insurance policies. Where in the U.S. Constitution is it written that this is a right when people do have access to contraception through their doctors writing them prescriptions. The Catholic Church is not denying anyone access. It is just that they will not go against their religious teachings and conscience by paying for this in insurance policies. Next, we hear that 98% of Catholic women already use contraception. Well, to paraphrase the words of Nancy Pelosi, "you must quote the survey before reading it". If one was to read this so called survey you will see that the survey only included females between ages 15 to 44. Now this would eliminate people who are not too old to have sex. This survey also excluded those who were pregnant, who obviously were not using contraception, those who were following the teaching of the Church, those who were trying to get pregnant to start a family, those who were having sex without any regard whether they do or do not get pregnant and it appears that 2 in 5 of those females surveyed were Catholic in name only and did not regularly attend church or follow Church teachings. So, when anyone claims 98% on any survey, this should send up a red flag and requires a better review of the survey facts By the way, the full survey can be found at: ttp://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf

Tebow and Abortion

With the end of the football season upon us, will we still continue to see the mocking of Tim Tebow? Is this mocking because Tebow is a threat to the pro-abortion advocates or secularist? After all, we know Tebow was recommended for death by a doctor who urged Tebow's mother to have an abortion. Since Roe vs. Wade we have seen over 50 million abortions, but fortunately Tebow's mother gave birth which ask the question: "How many other Tebow's, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Einstein's etc. were killed through abortion". Add to that the number of potential parents that have been adversely affected by the trauma of abortion. Do abortion advocates believe that God will find their behavior acceptable? As a society, we seem to measure a person's success by what they have accomplished in life either through sports, business, entertainment or financial success. But, how will God measure a person's success? How the world looked at your success or how you treated your fellow man? Something to consider in one's life. After all, we have cheapen life as we can read in the papers every day. It seems lack of respect for life regardless of whether it is in the womb or a hospital bed is another way of saying if it is not wanted or a person becomes a burden, kill it.