Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Talking-Points’

Are We Ignoring the Glaring Evidence of Our Nation’s Demise?


Evidence that America is Committing National Suicide

suicide-of-the-west_Cropped

“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” — Abraham Lincoln[1]

This is the first time I’ve seen Lincoln’s reference to national suicide. I’m more familiar with James Burnham’s book Suicide of the West that was published in 1964. The Cold War with Communism was in high gear in the 1960s. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a front-page nail biter.

Burnham’s book issued a stark warning to America that went beyond failed ideology of Communism as W.J. Rayment points out:

“Burnham’s thesis . . . was the growth of liberalism and its complete blindness to death, cruelty and injustice perpetrated by leftist regimes.

“In 1964, as today, it is very easy to see how a thinking person might see the intellectual drift to the left as a move toward societal suicide. For liberalism is a cry for the supremacy of general good intentions over the practical application of common sense. Burnham said that liberals are often driven by ‘profound non-rational, often anti-rational sentiments and impulses.’ Ideas like the welfare state and leniency on criminals to facilitate rehabilitation may have sounded good coming out of the mouth of a liberal, but they were disastrous in practice.

“Burnham’s book . . . was in effect a warning that leftward drift would ultimately destroy all affluence and freedom in the world.”

Lincoln indirectly blamed slavery for lawlessness in the United States. While we’ve abolished chattel slavery, we’ve substituted it with a new type of slavery. There are no longer chains, overseers with whips, and restrictive plantations.

In most cases the outward indicators that people are slaves are hidden, and that’s the way our government wants it. Most of the debilitating effects of the new State slavery can be seen in cities like Detroit and certain parts of Memphis, Atlanta, and Philadelphia. These cities committed suicide a long time ago, and their elected officials led them to the ledge.

Today’s political slavery is more insidious because the people enslaved don’t know they’re slaves. It’s not the so-called welfare queens and those who live in Section 8 housing who are the only ones enslaved. Young people who go to college on government grants and loans are also slaves to the State. That’s why we shouldn’t be surprised when they they vote for their slave masters because they’ve been really good to them.

The same can be said of the more than 90 percent of parents who send their children to government schools to be indoctrinated by the State. A majority invariably vote for the perpetuation and growth of government at the expense of others.

They, too, are slaves. Dependency is slavery.

No amount of fact-spreading and resultant consequences of their choices to put their faith in government will deter them ultimately from turning to government for security when a crisis comes. H. L. Mencken said it well:

“The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”

What Lincoln and Burnham did not see was a downgrading of personal morality of the worst kind and its legitimization by the State. A softening of morals results in the softening of the mind and the ability to think straight.

The use of the phrase national suicide is more than a metaphor. Liberalism kills, whether it’s with economic issues (slavery to the state) or social issues (homosexual marriage, abortion, divorce, single parents, out of wedlock births). “Who will follow the Jews, the gypsies, the handicapped and the aborted unborn who have died by the millions already?”[2].

Numbers Never Lie, But Theu Can Be Manipulated


by Published by https://www.politicaloutcast.com

Chris Matthews: Obama Deserves Credit For “This Amazing Economy”

 

Urkel Obama economyEvery time Obama speaks, Chris Matthews “gets a thrill up his leg.” So we can only imagine what Matthews is experiencing now that Obama has created such an “amazing economy.”

When government officials say the economy is bad, liberals blame Bush. When government officials say the economy is good, liberals give Obama the credit. But this is Obama’s 2nd term. They’ve got to skew the data to make it look as good as possible and then give Obama all the credit. That’s what Chris Matthews is doing:

“[W]hen is President Obama going to get some credit—and this is like Rodney Dangerfield—when’s he going to get some credit for this amazing economy that’s coming back? It definitely is coming back, maybe not like gangbusters, but the unemployment rate really dropped again today, and there really are a quarter-million new jobs out there. It really is amazing… It seems to me when I look at the stock market breaking all records, when I look at 236,000 new jobs and I keep thinking when are the Republicans going to do what Rodney Dangerfield asked for all those years, ‘show a little respect.’ And what does this all mean? Don’t they secretly say ‘damn it, things are getting better!’ I mean what are they saying when they read this stuff?”

Well, one thing that we’re saying is that that the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t include everyone who is unemployed. Howard Portnoy over at Hot Air made this observation:

“While 236,000 Americans found jobs in February, 296,000 stopped looking. Once an unemployed person has run through 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, moreover, he no longer exists in the eyes of the Labor Department’s statisticians, and is thus no longer counted as unemployed.”

A record 89.3 million Americans are no longer counted as unemployed. That includes people who have retired, but it also includes people who have simply given up looking for work. Millions of people are in this category. When millions have given up looking for employment because not many businesses are hiring anymore, that indicates that the economy is not doing well at all, and that in reality, the unemployment rate is higher.

Matthews asks when Obama is going to get the credit. I give Obama much deserved credit for this failing economy. And I understand it’s not just Obama. It’s his entire team, including the media and even many on the Republican team.

Centralized economic planning doesn’t work. Well, it works to centralize power over the economy in the hands of a dictator, but it doesn’t work to make the economy thrive. The government can’t ever be a catalyst for economic growth, because all it does is interfere in the economy by taxing and regulating businesses out of existence and granting monopolies to the big corporations which write laws benefiting themselves. Of course, that’s what liberals like Matthews call “leveling the playing field.”

I have no trouble at all giving Obama credit for this economy. But we don’t have an amazing economy unless you live in the White House or work for MSNBC. As for Americans, many are struggling to make ends meet, many are underemployed and many more have given up looking for work. Those things are natural consequences under socialism. When’s Chris Matthews going to give Obama credit for those things?

“Absolutism”


28 January 2013 / 12 Comments

images-2

A nation should be concerned when it seems its leader has tired of the grueling work of democracy.

One of the most remarkable and frightening aspects of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was his dismissal of his opposition – presumably the House Republican caucus – as “absolutists” who are without “principle.”

They are mucking up Obama’s agenda, and he won’t have it.

“For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay,” Obama said. “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect.”

Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism – “government by an absolute ruler or authority.” That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.

Once the president’s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.

This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat – whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.

Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?

The press, which avidly buys into the notion that much of the House Republican caucus is beyond reason, will lend a sympathetic ear to Obama as he struggles with the forces of darkness.

That reporters have been tapped to assist with Obama’s incipient GOP demonization campaign was made clear this week by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who in the handful of days since the inaugural, has already repeated the “absolutism” charge twice.

Read More:  http://www.politico.com/

Three Gun Control Arguments


ARGUMENT ONE: NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV QUOTE:
Some of you aren’t old enough to remember this – but those of you do may have forgotten about it. I remember it vividly. At the time it was laughed off as impossible. Looks like he knew what he was talking about.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN HE APPEARED AT THE U.N. AND BANGED HIS SHOE ON THE TABLE? THIS WAS HIS ENTIRE QUOTE AT THAT TIME.

Nikita Krushive

SECOND

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARGUMENT TWO: THE SHOTGUN

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it…
In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed yearsbefore, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.. Yours was never registered..
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tellsyou not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. “What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask. “Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t findan unkind word to say about them..
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.” The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. the surviving burglarhas become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparingto sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he wasconvictedand is now serving a life term..
How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire ? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm’s still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, The notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.” All of TonyMartin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA;THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. “…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..” –Samuel Adams

ARGUMENT THREE: A BLACK LADY SPEAKS OUT ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

This is a good video clip on guns by a Black woman. Also this is what you get when you research the 2nd AMENDMENT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn7bkncf1_E&feature=youtu.be

Going Back to the Basics of the Second Amendment


The rhetoric of the Right and Left has clouded the basics of the Second Amendment. The emotional hysteria by the Left has further enhanced their determination to disarm citizens so they can begin more of their socialist controls. Those on the Right are making assertions that cannot be supported with fact and all sides have misrepresented various details of crime and guns.

Let us see if we can clear the fog and look at this issue without the emotions, accusations and mischaracterizations of the political and media establishments. I will use the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the actual historical facts of the formation of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html)

The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists’ most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, “What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances.” The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.” Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.

A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to thenew government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was “what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that such “fundamental maxims of free Government” would be “a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community” against potential oppression and would “counteract the impulses of interest and passion.”

Madison’s support of the bill of rights was of critical significance. One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-Federalists’ objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12 amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the “Bill of Rights.”

Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of these clashing interests was “a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it.” When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it he declared that no government can be perfect, and “that which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government.”

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

 

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

A lot of reading, however, your advantage is having no one telling you what it says. You are an intelligent person and understand it for yourself.

The creation of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or the formation of a militia. It does not address the right of an individual to defend themselves, although it covers that in part. The real foundation is protecting the citizens of the United States of America against a tyrannical government controlling every aspect of their lives. It removes the ability to restrict the munitions needed for such a resistance (how much a clip can hold – in order to protect yourself you need the same capacity of your ammo clip to hold the same of those attacking you; federal, criminal, and now terrorist). It simply says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This was the concern of those (Federalist)  that wanted assurance that they would be able to protect themselves against a government taking over their lives.

Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt (FDR) introduced Socialism into our country. The political Left has seized upon that and throughout the last 100 years has made every effort to more us into a complete European style Socialist country. The primary step to seize control is to disarm the citizenry. Once disarmed, they cannot resist the domination of the government because they have no ability to resist. Disarming tax paying citizens puts them at the mercy of those that have no regard for life and property, or the pride of working for a living. 100% of the time when you disarm citizens’ crime increases dramatically.

All you have to do is look at our present Federal Government conduct. We have a President who studied Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist governments in all his schooling, and argued for the same. He has surrounded himself with people who have confessed being Socialist in their ideology. His misuse of Presidential Executive Orders further proves his conviction of being a KING, not a LIMITED PRESIDENT as outlined in our Constitution.

He and the Entire political Left are determined to disarm America although they know they will never be able to disarm the criminal element in our society. I have shared with you the experiences of Australia and England. They want their firearms back. They are warning America against what they are experiencing. When you hear the rhetoric of the Left in coming days remember the warnings of the citizens of Australia and England.

Whenever you meet force with force, you have a better percentage of survival. Education and training is critical and must be enforced with regard to owning any form of firearms. We must also have laws that deal with helping, and securing, those that are mentally challenged. The entertainment industry must take responsibility for what they glorify in film and video entertainment. We need to revive respect for life and liberty and the moral fiber that built this great nation.

Anger and shrill debate is never the answer. Restoring the peace and the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be our only resolve. Anyone want to join me?

Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?


Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?

King-Obama_croppedThere’s talk that President Obama will ignore Congress and issue Executive Orders to implement new gun regulations over against the clear reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Is an Executive Order a law? Will we be obligated to obey it?

Executive Orders have a long history. Republicans and Democrats have issued them. Only a few of them have been overturned by the courts.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats do much about Executive Orders they don’t like since both parties issue them. This is how the Washington game is played.

Republicans and Democrats like Executive Orders on difficult issues because it stops the legislative process that they’ll have to participate in and eventually vote yes or no. They can always tell the voters back home, “Well, I would have voted against that if the President hadn’t issued an Executive Order. Golly gee willikers, now my hands are tied.” Right.

An Executive Order is only valid if it’s done within the jurisdictional authority of the President’s constitutional authority. To rule against the Second Amendment is not a presidential prerogative. If it is, then the President could turn his attention to the First Amendment and issue an order that newspapers can no longer criticize him. Conservative talk radio would die a quick death if the President issued an Executive Order saying that the freedom of speech had to be limited in several ways, one of which was negative political speech, especially about him.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that President Obama would like to do all these things. He’s mad with power. He has a vendetta against America.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC made a statement about how President Obama should have been treated by presidential challenger Mitt Romney in their second debate. It was the fact that Gov. Romney actually challenged the President that led Matthews to go Gestapo on Romney:

“I don’t think [Mitt Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States… He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”

Yes you do. President Obama is an elected official. He’s not a king. The king battle was fought a long time ago at Runnymede in 1215.

If the President and other anti-Second Amendment advocates want to limit our freedoms, then they can go through the amendment process. An Executive Order is the chicken’s way out. It’s also unconstitutional.

The Democrats know this. That’s why they’re sending out Vice President Biden to soften the rhetoric:

“The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Did you see it? “Legislative action that we believe is required.” In terms of the Separation of Powers, the President does not have the constitutional authority to legislate. Of course, that hasn’t stopped him or any other president.

Biden went on to say that “this is a moral issue and that ‘it’s critically important that we act.’” Morally, the President can’t ignore an Amendment to the Constitution. How is banning guns for everyone the moral thing to do when only a tiny fraction use guns illegally? How will banning guns to stop immoral people from using whatever they can find to do harm?

Timothy McVeigh used kerosene and fertilizer to kill 169 people. Abortion doctors use medical instruments to kill pre-born babies? A man was poisoned with cyanide before he could cash in his $1 million dollar lottery ticket.

THANKS A LOT SANDY


The aftermath of Sandy defies description.

  • Three feet of Snow in West Virginia;
  • Several inches of sand covering everything several miles inland in New Jersey;
  • The front of a building in New York City completely blown off;
  • A wind-blown fire wiping out 80 homes;
  • Millions of people without power, safe drinking water and uncertain sewers;
  • Transportation interrupted, especially flights.

I have prayed, and I hope you have been too, for the victims of this historic storm. Such devastation boggles the mind and the cost of recovery will be staggering, especially because we’re broke as a nation.

However, Americans have always rallied behind our fellow citizens who are suffering and in need. We will respond again. Already all the forces of good and caring are at work meeting needs and bring comfort. No, I am not including the government.

I have no doubt that needs will be met, rebuilding will happen and “normal” will one day be reestablished. However, I am extremely concerned about a disaster no one is talking about, and “normal” may never be realized again has a result of that disaster. I am referring to the Presidential Election coming up next Tuesday. The storm has opened wider that opportunity for Leftist voting shenanigans.

With all the arguments over Voter Registration, Voter I.D. and Voter Fraud, this natural disaster has provided and added opportunity to make the corrupt more powerful. Consider the national debate;

  • The Left opposes Voter I.D. because they curry the favor of people who are here illegally. I.D.s exposes the fraud.
  • In Florida, over 50,000 people that are on the voting registration rolls are deceased. How many do you think will rise from the dead and vote?
  • The introduction of early voting has given the Left more time to encourage fraud by multiple votes from some people.
  • The Left has already manipulated the Military Vote into nonexistence because they know the Military votes predominately Republican.
  • California has already announced they will not be counting the mailed in ballots, as they did in 2008, because they claim it won’t make a difference in the outcome.
  • The U.N. has been invited again to “observe” our voting because the U.N. has been told that Republicans repress the vote in certain areas prohibiting poor and elderly people from voting.
  • With the power off, some areas will have to go to paper ballots opening the doors for screams of voting irregularity should the Left loose. Yes, it has been reported that the lawsuits have already been drawn up and ready for filing should Mitt Romney win. You’ve also heard how the Left has already arranged riots in strategic areas should Mitt Romney win. That will open the door for Marshall Law to be established, and the election deemed null and void.
  • Like in California, the Registrar of Voters has admitted that many citizens are registered in multiple cities and can’t do anything about that person from voting in each location.
  • There is no way to determine the number of illegal votes in the States that have not passed Voter I.D. laws.
  • Like I said, opened doors more even more voting shenanigans, especially should the election be extended because of Sandy’s destruction.

For conservatives in California elections are becoming a farce. For over 50 years the Left files lawsuits if measures don’t go their way. The courts are so corrupt and Left, that most of the time the Left wins. More and more I hear people say, “Why vote when the Democrats go to court and get the election overturned.” And here the Left is the one always screaming about voter repression. California leads the nation in voter repression because the Left always wins in court when we do not vote their way.

For my house and me, we will vote. We refuse to give up. The drums of revolutionary war are getting louder every day. Will we see a revolution in our day? I’m not sure anymore. I am not armed, and that worries me.

Hopefully God is hearing our prayers asking Him to forgive our sins and heal our land. However, our nation has reached levels of inequity that dwarfs Biblical Israel. They were rightly judged for their turn from God. America deserves the same. Is there a remnant of believers big enough for God to withhold His hand? I don’t know. I am praying He heals instead of punishes. What are you praying for?

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: