I guess some Americans don't want the truth to get out, but I do not have a 501.C (non-profit) status so I can say pretty much, whatever I wish to say. So let me post the article here for you to read. Be afraid, be very afraid, if Obama wins this election.
WASHINGTON — A church-state watchdog group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether the Roman Catholic bishop of Paterson, N.J., violated tax laws by denouncing Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama.
In a letter sent to the IRS on Wednesday (Oct. 22), Americans United for Separation of Church and State accused Paterson Bishop Arthur Serratelli of illegal partisanship for lambasting Obama's support of abortion rights.
In a column posted on the Diocese of Paterson's website and published in its weekly newspaper, Serratelli also compared Obama to King Herod, the biblical monarch who ordered the death of John the Baptist.
The bishop did not refer to Obama by name but only as "the present democratic (sic) candidate."
Under federal tax law, nonprofit groups — including religious organizations — are prohibited from intervening in campaigns for public office by endorsing or opposing candidates.
"If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood," Serratelli wrote.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United, said it is "impossible to interpret this passage as anything but a command to vote against 'the present Democratic candidate' because of his promise to sign a certain piece of legislation disfavored by the Catholic Church's hierarchy."
The Paterson diocese said Serratelli's column was focused on proposed abortion legislation, not the upcoming presidential election.
"It's absolutely, positively misleading to say that the bishop urged Catholics not to vote for Sen. Obama," the diocese said in a statement.
Rob Boston, a spokesman for the Washington-based Americans United, said that of the estimated 90 claims it has filed with the IRS since 1996, only four others have accused Catholic bishops or dioceses of electioneering.
Earlier this year, Americans United asked the IRS to investigate Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, for criticizing former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was running for the Republican presidential nomination at the time.
Crazy Papa
I'll make 'um an offer
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago?
Staggering statistics:
Body count: In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago ; 221 killed in Iraq .
Senators. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin,
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.,
Illinois Gov. Rod Blogojevich,
Illinois House leader Mike Madigan,
Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike),
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
.....our leadership in Illinois .....all Democrats.
Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago .
Of course, they're all blaming each other.
Can't blame Republicans; they're aren't any!
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want).
Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.
This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois . And he's gonna 'fix' Washington politics for us!
Can't wait!
Body count: In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago ; 221 killed in Iraq .
Senators. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin,
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.,
Illinois Gov. Rod Blogojevich,
Illinois House leader Mike Madigan,
Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike),
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
.....our leadership in Illinois .....all Democrats.
Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago .
Of course, they're all blaming each other.
Can't blame Republicans; they're aren't any!
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want).
Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.
This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois . And he's gonna 'fix' Washington politics for us!
Can't wait!
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Immorally "Skirting" the issue, Mr. Obama?
The article below was sent to me today via email and was a very interesting read. I had heard about this debate on the radio earlier in the election season, but it had been somewhat "glazed" over. When you read the actually transcript, it literally causes chills to travel up and down your spine. If those of us who consider ourselves Christian, do not get out and help the candidate fight this fight, this is the kind of future legislation we can expect from our government. Not "more of the same" but rather "More" governmental intrusion and immoral action by our country which is currently referred to as a "Human Rights" advocate. Sit at home and say absolutely nothing and this is what we have in store. Our country is on its way DOWN and those of us who "boast" of having a moral "backbone" better stand up and use it, or we can just walk away with our heads hung down in shame and allow our country to slip farther and farther into the hands of evil.
Please prayerfully consider the article below and what you will do to counteract its message.
God help us,
Dave
Saturday, October 11, 2008
JEFFREY: Debate in Obama's past
Terence P. Jeffrey
COMMENTARY:
The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Mr. Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged him in a colloquy every American should read.
The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Mr. Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled.
Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.
Babies who survived this, Nurses Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting.
Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not. So, Mr. O'Malley - a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Mr. Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee - drafted legislation.
In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a " 'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.' "
The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois," Mr. O'Malley told me.
The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Mr. Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois Senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Barack Obama.
"Nobody else said anything," Mr. O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this.
"Sen. O'Malley," Mr. Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the - the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb." Mr. Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about (1) a human being, who was (2) "alive" and (3) "outside the womb."
He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?
"And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Mr. Obama continued.
Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that (1) a human being, (2) alive and (3) outside the womb was (4) "properly cared for."
"Is that correct?" Mr. Obama asked Mr. O'Malley.
Mr. O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "[T]his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a - a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said Mr. O'Malley.
But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings - to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving - to these specific children of God, Mr. Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.
To explain his position, Mr. Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by Mr. O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."
By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Mr. Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."
"No. 1," said Mr. Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a 9-month-old - child that was delivered to term."
Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.
Mr. Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions," said Mr. Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
For Mr. Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.
Terence P. Jeffrey is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Please prayerfully consider the article below and what you will do to counteract its message.
God help us,
Dave
Saturday, October 11, 2008
JEFFREY: Debate in Obama's past
Terence P. Jeffrey
COMMENTARY:
The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Mr. Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged him in a colloquy every American should read.
The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Mr. Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled.
Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.
Babies who survived this, Nurses Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting.
Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not. So, Mr. O'Malley - a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Mr. Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee - drafted legislation.
In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a " 'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.' "
The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois," Mr. O'Malley told me.
The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Mr. Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois Senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Barack Obama.
"Nobody else said anything," Mr. O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this.
"Sen. O'Malley," Mr. Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the - the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb." Mr. Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about (1) a human being, who was (2) "alive" and (3) "outside the womb."
He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?
"And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Mr. Obama continued.
Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that (1) a human being, (2) alive and (3) outside the womb was (4) "properly cared for."
"Is that correct?" Mr. Obama asked Mr. O'Malley.
Mr. O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "[T]his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a - a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said Mr. O'Malley.
But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings - to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving - to these specific children of God, Mr. Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.
To explain his position, Mr. Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by Mr. O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."
By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Mr. Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."
"No. 1," said Mr. Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a 9-month-old - child that was delivered to term."
Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.
Mr. Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions," said Mr. Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
For Mr. Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.
Terence P. Jeffrey is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Trusting In The Lord!
Proverbs 3: 5 & 6 says "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight."
We are now entering into year number 4 of the cancer diagnosis and even though it is time for me to have another Pet CT Scan, I do not fear, in fact, I am looking forward to it so I can show these doctors that my God is better able to care for my needs and they need to jump on His bandwagon as well. Anyway, there is always a constant reminder, at least that is what I am reminded of, however, without fail, there is also a constant reminder that God has brought me this far, and I don't believe His intentions would have been to drop me now. It is very easy to allow the Lord to carry you through these events in life. We just need to remember that our lives here are temporal and we have an eternity in Heaven with Christ, our Lord; an opportunity to visit, talk & worship our King as He originally intended for us to do.
Anyway, that being said, the verse above reminds us that as we trust in the Lord, without leaning on our ability to understand (sometimes that is very hard when doctors are giving you time limits on your life)He, God, is very much in control of our everyday needs and requirements for life. He walks with me so graciously that He is like a VERY trusted friend. I can share my most intimate thoughts with Him and he does not rebuke me over my concerns. He show me the type of love that can only come from the Father.
Well I have continued to trust in the Lord and he is making my paths straight. Just short of one year ago, my oncologist told Barb and I that if we wanted to travel, this was the time to do it. So we went shopping for 10 months to find the near perfect travel trailer for the two of us and finally, a couple of weeks ago, we found it on the internet...made an offer and then packed up the Jeep and took off on this journey, not sure what we would find and when we arrived and stepped into the trailer, it was devastating. It was "surely" NOT what we were looking for and would not completely serve our needs at all. However, remembering that the "Lord is Good" and He is directing our paths, we starting looking around, and in one corner of the lot, there it sat. The perfect size, model, available space, right weight for our Jeep to pull and it was just the right amount of money we had planned to invest in the venture. AIN'T GOD GREAT?
So we went for it and purchased it ! And so we begin a new adventure/mission in our Christian life, as ambassadors of the road, going here and there, trying to introduce the God of all creation to those in our path. I almost feel like we have cheated God in the deal because all we had to do was to "Trust in Him". He did the rest.
So, in the midst of the situation, the hand we have been dealt...that we find ourselves in, we are happy and looking forward to driving the wheels off our Jeep as we take our "own hotel room" everywhere and anywhere we are led to go. Please pray for us, that we will use this new tool as an instrument of God's Glory, assuring everyone we meet, that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Won't you help us with that need? Also continue to pray for God's timing in my medical situation. I have completely surrendered this disease to Him to do with, as He sees fit. And He WILL receive the glory when I finally arrive HOME!
God bless you all very much and I hope you enjoy the worship music added to this site. It is for you that it has been added. Please tell others about this blogsite and my website and I will try to do a better job of updating it in the future. I will try to prepare photographs of our adventures as time goes on. I have noticed that the number of people looking at my website (www.nowwhut.org) and my blog (www.nowwhutaz.blogspot.com) has dropped off quite a bit. Please help me spread joy to others who need to be lifted up.
God's absolute best for you today,
Dave
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Great "Bailout" idea
I like the thinking behind this...
I was against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up...So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00. My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend plan.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family? Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved. Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads Put away money for college - it'll be there Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs. Buy a new car - create jobs - Invest in the market - capital drives growth. Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else! Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed
Forces.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult
U S Citizen 18+! As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's the rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work. But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom? I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion.
We deserve a dividend more than do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC .
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
I was against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up...So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00. My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend plan.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family? Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved. Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads Put away money for college - it'll be there Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs. Buy a new car - create jobs - Invest in the market - capital drives growth. Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else! Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed
Forces.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult
U S Citizen 18+! As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's the rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work. But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom? I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion.
We deserve a dividend more than do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC .
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)