Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Illegal Aliens Want Sanctuary Policies In Writing
Lawmakers and police in a major U.S. city have reassured
illegal immigrants that they’re protected under longtime
sanctuary policies amid demands from open borders
advocates that the measures be formalized in writing.
took to the street this week to command Baltimore officials
to further solidify the city’s measures to shield illegal aliens
from federal authorities. Like many law enforcement agencies
across the nation, Baltimore Police bans its officers from
inquiring about suspects’ immigration status.
Now emboldened illegal immigrants want the policy in writing
to reduce crime and help bridge the gap between officers and
immigrants after the recent murders of three Hispanic men in
the area. The most recent victim, a Honduran, was clubbed and
beaten with a wooden stake by a mentally disturbed teen who
professed to hate “Mexicans.” Illegal immigrants are more prone
to cooperate in these sorts of police investigations if the
department has a written don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy,
their advocates say.
But Baltimore Police Chief Frederick Bealefeld asserts that a
written policy is unnecessary because his officers never ask
about immigration status as per the citywide sanctuary measures.
In the three years he’s served as department head, Bealefeld
says he hasn’t heard “one utterance on enforcement of
immigration laws.” For their part, city officials assure residents
that they should trust police to focus on fighting violent crime,
not enforcing immigration laws.
This week a Maryland legislator threw a wrench in Baltimore’s
sanctuary public relations campaign by announcing a proposed
bill that will give citizens the power to sue public officials who
violate federal immigration laws. If the measure passes, citizens
can file complaints against public officials in circuit court and,
if convicted, the official could be booted from office or face
criminal charges.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Restoring Fiscal Responsibility to the People's House
Dear Fellow Patriots,
In his first ad, which ran before the primary ended,
Ron Klein attacked my personal financial responsibility.
You and I have shared the challenges faced in these
tough economic times. And like many of you, my family
has struggled with financial hardship. And also like many
of you, we have honestly resolved every issue, and both
my wife and I are working hard every day to honor all of
our obligations, while ensuring our daughters' futures.
As I began looking over my own financial records to be
sure we were being upstanding, I considered the financial responsibility that a United States Congressman owes to
the American people. When one considers that Ron Klein
is questioning the roughly $15,000 my family has or is
working to repay, I have several questions for Ron Klein:
What about the trillions of dollars you have wasted at
the taxpayer's expense?
As a Member of the House Financial Services Committee,
why did you allow American taxpayer-funded TARP money
to be provided to foreign banks and financial institutions?
Why did you allow your office to exceed its allocated
operating budget?
Why do you refuse to take accountability for the failure
of stimulus money to actually stimulate the economy?
While you sat on the House Financial Services Committee,
South Florida has seen its unemployment rate more than
triple from 4% to nearly 13%.
On Tuesday evening, Klein's ally, Keith Olbermann,
again named me the "worst person in the world" -
for the 3rd time...truly one person's misguided opinion.
But there is no debate that - in the terms of fiscal
responsibility, Ron Klein is one of the worst Members
of Congress in the United States House of Representatives.
The teachable moment for Klein is that inept, incompetent
and dishonorable trial lawyers should never pick a fight
with professional intellectual warriors.
My House is in order.
But the same cannot be said about the people's House.
Steadfast and Loyal,
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Don't Tread On Me??
Don’t Tread on Me?
by Eric Rauch
Anne Rice’s recent announcement that she was
“quitting Christianity” is yet another voice
being added to the chorus of modern Christians
who claim to have forsaken Christianity.
Although there was nothing particularly novel
or unique about Rice’s statement, hers has received
an inordinate amount of press attention.
Apparently now that every drop of crude has been
wrung out of the Gulf oil spill, the American media
is returning to its former fascinations and obsessions—
and denigrating the church and Christianity is one of
its perennial favorites.
If you doubt this, I can assure you that I am speaking
from personal experience.
One of my weekday morning rituals is to locate positive
and encouraging articles about Christianity and the
church on the internet. It’s nearly as challenging as
hunting for elk in Florida—maybe even more so.
One recent article—by William Lobdell in the
Los Angeles Times—made the case that Anne Rice’s
exodus is only the “tip of the iceberg.” Lobdell writes:
“Rice is merely one of millions of Americans who have
opted out of organized religion in recent years, making
the unaffiliated category of faith the fastest-growing
‘religion’ in America, according to a 2008 study by the
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.” Of course, Lobdell
isn’t reporting anything new either. George Barna has been
warning of this trend for more than ten years. In fact,
just before his death earlier this year, Michael Spencer
(aka The Internet Monk) completed a book entitled
Mere Churchianity in which he made this observation:
What evangelicals in North America call Christianity is,
ironically, largely disconnected from Jesus as he appears
in the four Gospels.
I have argued for the past decade that American Christianity
has evolved into a movement that Jesus would not recognize
if he were to show up next Sunday. And it’s not just the
rituals and assumptions and values that are off-base.
The spirituality itself that comes out of contemporary
Christianity is largely unrelated to Jesus.
You don’t have to believe me; all you need do is look at
the statistics on who attends church, who used to attend,
and who swears they will never attend again. Thousands,
and possibly millions, of people are walking away from any
association with the religion known as traditional Christianity.[1]
In other words, what is true of “organized religion” in
general-Anne Rice was a Catholic—is also true of evangelicalism
in particular. Spencer limits his focus to evangelicals, but
Lobdell insists that this trend can be seen throughout all
of Christendom. Apparently Christians of every stripe are
becoming disillusioned with the model they have been given.
But does this really mean that the model itself is deficient?
Is Christianity as we have come to understand it, really a
deviation from the biblical definition, such that Jesus
Himself would fail to recognize it? Could it be that we
have set our expectations too high?
In truth, I believe the answer is much simpler and has
more to do with who we are and what we believe as Americans,
than it does with any perceived deficiency in the church or
with organized Christianity.
In his book, The Prayer of the Lord, R.C. Sproul relates
the following story:
When my friend John Guest, who was a noted evangelist in
England, first came to the United States in the late 1960s,
his first exposure to American culture was in the city of
Philadelphia. During his first couple of days there, his
hosts escorted him around the city to attractions such as
Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, and they told him
stories of the American Revolution to introduce him to the
history of this new world he was embracing as his home.
John was enjoying all of this until they went to Germantown,
just outside Philadelphia, and visited an antiques store
that specialized in Americana. Among the items in this shop
were placards and signs that displayed some of the battle
cries and slogans of the Revolutionary era, such as,
“No Taxation without Representation”
and “Don’t Tread on Me.”
announced with bold letters, “We Serve No Sovereign Here.”
John told me later: “That sign stopped me in my tracks.
I had left my native land and come across the Atlantic Ocean
in response to a call, a vocation to be a minister of the
gospel, to proclaim the kingdom of God. But on seeing
this sign, I was filled with fear and consternation.
I thought, ‘How can I possibly preach the kingdom of God
to people who have a profound aversion to sovereignty?’”[2]
John Guest’s question is no less important today than it
was 40 years ago. In a dramatic twist of irony, the modern
Christian accepts the sovereignty of the state without
question, all the while being skeptical and critical of
any sort of authority claimed by the church. While the
majority of early American colonists sought a limited
government that was accountable both to God and men,
most modern Americans seek a government that can grant
their every wish and a God who is limited and accountable
only to them.
Note the following reasons why Anne Rice decided to quit
Christianity: “In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay.
I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial
birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be
anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse
to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity
and being Christian.”
Each one of these “reasons” is not only a hot-button
political topic, but a convenient straw man that she can
set up to make it look like she has actually thought through
what she is refusing. The fact of the matter is that she
realized that she could only serve one sovereign. It’s sad
that she has chosen a liberal political agenda over the
Bride of Christ, but to her credit, at least she made her
choice. Too many other Americans are naively trying to swim
the channel between the two.
This is certainly not to say that conservative politics and
Christianity go hand-in-hand though. It’s also not to say
that everyone that has made the decision to quit Christianity
has done so for political reasons. The fact of the matter is
that people leave for all sorts of reasons. There are even
some—like the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-22)—who go away
grieving because they are unwilling to forsake all for Christ.
But one thing is certain; those who are forsaking being Christians
or being members of Christ’s Church are doing so because they
believe that something else holds greater authority. And without
fail, that “something else” is where that individual’s true
religious convictions reside.
Notice how many “I”s are included in Anne Rice’s resignation
notice. In essence, she is claiming that her personal creed
is superior (and more “Christlike”) to the creed of organized
Christianity. And in this belief she is far from being alone
(just read the comments that follow her announcement). One of
the most crippling heresies among modern Christians is that
Christianity is a “personal” faith.
Now, there is a sense where this is true, but it has been so
inflated by evangelistic programs and techniques, that it
has become the driving force of modern religion.
Nearly every religious bestseller in the last twenty years
has been written with the individual in mind. For every book
that can be purchased at any popular Christian bookstore chain
that discusses how the Gospel of Christ can transform a community,
I can show you 50 that discuss how the Gospel of Christ can
transform you: transform your marriage, transform your finances,
transform your Bible study, even how to transform your sex life.
Ever since Norman Vincent Peale, mainstream Christianity has
been repackaging the same message and Christians have been
buying into it.
The message is that Christianity is primarily a private faith,
a secret belief that has nearly limitless power to prepare you
for any personal circumstance that life throws your way, yet
one that is nearly powerless to change your neighborhood,
community, town, or city. You see, the powers that be have
informed us—and modern Christianity has conceded—that Jesus
can only transform individuals; it takes a civil government
to make any lasting societal change.
This change in sovereignty—replacing the True Sovereign with
the state—has had drastic effects on how people view the church.
Rather than viewing the state in light of the church, we have
learned to view the church in light of the state. No longer do
we question governmental policies based on what the Bible teaches,
instead, like Anne Rice, we have learned to question the church’s
policies in light of what the state teaches. We have taken Jesus’
statement to Pilate in John 19:11 and turned it upside down.
Rather than Pilate being granted his power from above, we now
believe that the state rules over the church. In reality, both
church and state get their power from above; there would be no
power anywhere on earth, if it wasn’t given from above.
This is what makes statements like Anne Rice’s so seditious.
We have become comfortable enough with separating Jesus from
His Church to the extent that we can no longer recognize that
His Kingdom is over all. We are more than happy to have the
nice loving Jesus, the one that meets all of our expectations
of social equality, yet we get a bit squeamish over the
commanding and law-abiding Jesus, the one who demands that if
we love Him we will keep His commandments (John 14:15).
This is where the reality of John Guest’s question about
proclaiming a Sovereign to a people who “serve no sovereign”
resides. It has become vogue once again to wave signs and
banners like those found in the Germantown antiques store.
But have we learned the lesson? What are we really proclaiming
when we raise our “Don’t Tread on Me” flags at the local
TEA party rally? We must remember always that we DO serve
a Sovereign here, and His name is Christ,
and He is the King of kings.
Notes:
[1] Michael Spencer, Mere Churchianity: Finding Your Way Back to Jesus-Shaped Spirituality (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press, 2010),
24-25.
[2] R.C. Sproul, The Prayer of the Lord (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2009), 40-41.
by Eric Rauch
Anne Rice’s recent announcement that she was
“quitting Christianity” is yet another voice
being added to the chorus of modern Christians
who claim to have forsaken Christianity.
Although there was nothing particularly novel
or unique about Rice’s statement, hers has received
an inordinate amount of press attention.
Apparently now that every drop of crude has been
wrung out of the Gulf oil spill, the American media
is returning to its former fascinations and obsessions—
and denigrating the church and Christianity is one of
its perennial favorites.
If you doubt this, I can assure you that I am speaking
from personal experience.
One of my weekday morning rituals is to locate positive
and encouraging articles about Christianity and the
church on the internet. It’s nearly as challenging as
hunting for elk in Florida—maybe even more so.
One recent article—by William Lobdell in the
Los Angeles Times—made the case that Anne Rice’s
exodus is only the “tip of the iceberg.” Lobdell writes:
“Rice is merely one of millions of Americans who have
opted out of organized religion in recent years, making
the unaffiliated category of faith the fastest-growing
‘religion’ in America, according to a 2008 study by the
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.” Of course, Lobdell
isn’t reporting anything new either. George Barna has been
warning of this trend for more than ten years. In fact,
just before his death earlier this year, Michael Spencer
(aka The Internet Monk) completed a book entitled
Mere Churchianity in which he made this observation:
What evangelicals in North America call Christianity is,
ironically, largely disconnected from Jesus as he appears
in the four Gospels.
I have argued for the past decade that American Christianity
has evolved into a movement that Jesus would not recognize
if he were to show up next Sunday. And it’s not just the
rituals and assumptions and values that are off-base.
The spirituality itself that comes out of contemporary
Christianity is largely unrelated to Jesus.
You don’t have to believe me; all you need do is look at
the statistics on who attends church, who used to attend,
and who swears they will never attend again. Thousands,
and possibly millions, of people are walking away from any
association with the religion known as traditional Christianity.[1]
In other words, what is true of “organized religion” in
general-Anne Rice was a Catholic—is also true of evangelicalism
in particular. Spencer limits his focus to evangelicals, but
Lobdell insists that this trend can be seen throughout all
of Christendom. Apparently Christians of every stripe are
becoming disillusioned with the model they have been given.
But does this really mean that the model itself is deficient?
Is Christianity as we have come to understand it, really a
deviation from the biblical definition, such that Jesus
Himself would fail to recognize it? Could it be that we
have set our expectations too high?
In truth, I believe the answer is much simpler and has
more to do with who we are and what we believe as Americans,
than it does with any perceived deficiency in the church or
with organized Christianity.
In his book, The Prayer of the Lord, R.C. Sproul relates
the following story:
When my friend John Guest, who was a noted evangelist in
England, first came to the United States in the late 1960s,
his first exposure to American culture was in the city of
Philadelphia. During his first couple of days there, his
hosts escorted him around the city to attractions such as
Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, and they told him
stories of the American Revolution to introduce him to the
history of this new world he was embracing as his home.
John was enjoying all of this until they went to Germantown,
just outside Philadelphia, and visited an antiques store
that specialized in Americana. Among the items in this shop
were placards and signs that displayed some of the battle
cries and slogans of the Revolutionary era, such as,
“No Taxation without Representation”
and “Don’t Tread on Me.”
announced with bold letters, “We Serve No Sovereign Here.”
John told me later: “That sign stopped me in my tracks.
I had left my native land and come across the Atlantic Ocean
in response to a call, a vocation to be a minister of the
gospel, to proclaim the kingdom of God. But on seeing
this sign, I was filled with fear and consternation.
I thought, ‘How can I possibly preach the kingdom of God
to people who have a profound aversion to sovereignty?’”[2]
John Guest’s question is no less important today than it
was 40 years ago. In a dramatic twist of irony, the modern
Christian accepts the sovereignty of the state without
question, all the while being skeptical and critical of
any sort of authority claimed by the church. While the
majority of early American colonists sought a limited
government that was accountable both to God and men,
most modern Americans seek a government that can grant
their every wish and a God who is limited and accountable
only to them.
Note the following reasons why Anne Rice decided to quit
Christianity: “In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay.
I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial
birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be
anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse
to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity
and being Christian.”
Each one of these “reasons” is not only a hot-button
political topic, but a convenient straw man that she can
set up to make it look like she has actually thought through
what she is refusing. The fact of the matter is that she
realized that she could only serve one sovereign. It’s sad
that she has chosen a liberal political agenda over the
Bride of Christ, but to her credit, at least she made her
choice. Too many other Americans are naively trying to swim
the channel between the two.
This is certainly not to say that conservative politics and
Christianity go hand-in-hand though. It’s also not to say
that everyone that has made the decision to quit Christianity
has done so for political reasons. The fact of the matter is
that people leave for all sorts of reasons. There are even
some—like the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-22)—who go away
grieving because they are unwilling to forsake all for Christ.
But one thing is certain; those who are forsaking being Christians
or being members of Christ’s Church are doing so because they
believe that something else holds greater authority. And without
fail, that “something else” is where that individual’s true
religious convictions reside.
Notice how many “I”s are included in Anne Rice’s resignation
notice. In essence, she is claiming that her personal creed
is superior (and more “Christlike”) to the creed of organized
Christianity. And in this belief she is far from being alone
(just read the comments that follow her announcement). One of
the most crippling heresies among modern Christians is that
Christianity is a “personal” faith.
Now, there is a sense where this is true, but it has been so
inflated by evangelistic programs and techniques, that it
has become the driving force of modern religion.
Nearly every religious bestseller in the last twenty years
has been written with the individual in mind. For every book
that can be purchased at any popular Christian bookstore chain
that discusses how the Gospel of Christ can transform a community,
I can show you 50 that discuss how the Gospel of Christ can
transform you: transform your marriage, transform your finances,
transform your Bible study, even how to transform your sex life.
Ever since Norman Vincent Peale, mainstream Christianity has
been repackaging the same message and Christians have been
buying into it.
The message is that Christianity is primarily a private faith,
a secret belief that has nearly limitless power to prepare you
for any personal circumstance that life throws your way, yet
one that is nearly powerless to change your neighborhood,
community, town, or city. You see, the powers that be have
informed us—and modern Christianity has conceded—that Jesus
can only transform individuals; it takes a civil government
to make any lasting societal change.
This change in sovereignty—replacing the True Sovereign with
the state—has had drastic effects on how people view the church.
Rather than viewing the state in light of the church, we have
learned to view the church in light of the state. No longer do
we question governmental policies based on what the Bible teaches,
instead, like Anne Rice, we have learned to question the church’s
policies in light of what the state teaches. We have taken Jesus’
statement to Pilate in John 19:11 and turned it upside down.
Rather than Pilate being granted his power from above, we now
believe that the state rules over the church. In reality, both
church and state get their power from above; there would be no
power anywhere on earth, if it wasn’t given from above.
This is what makes statements like Anne Rice’s so seditious.
We have become comfortable enough with separating Jesus from
His Church to the extent that we can no longer recognize that
His Kingdom is over all. We are more than happy to have the
nice loving Jesus, the one that meets all of our expectations
of social equality, yet we get a bit squeamish over the
commanding and law-abiding Jesus, the one who demands that if
we love Him we will keep His commandments (John 14:15).
This is where the reality of John Guest’s question about
proclaiming a Sovereign to a people who “serve no sovereign”
resides. It has become vogue once again to wave signs and
banners like those found in the Germantown antiques store.
But have we learned the lesson? What are we really proclaiming
when we raise our “Don’t Tread on Me” flags at the local
TEA party rally? We must remember always that we DO serve
a Sovereign here, and His name is Christ,
and He is the King of kings.
Notes:
[1] Michael Spencer, Mere Churchianity: Finding Your Way Back to Jesus-Shaped Spirituality (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press, 2010),
24-25.
[2] R.C. Sproul, The Prayer of the Lord (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2009), 40-41.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Obama Apologizes for Stupid Americans’ Opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque
Canada Free Press
It’s amazing that Obama lacked the foresight to see that
supporting the construction of a $100 million mosque 3
blocks from Ground Zero, something that 70% of Americans
oppose, won’t end well. But I guess when your closest
advisors are Valerie Jarrett the slumlord, Robert Gibbs
the clown, Rham Emmanuel the communist, and Michelle
Obama the millionaire’s wife, equating “religious freedom”
with an Islamic cultural center whose purpose is to promote
Sharia law is the kind of progressive garbage you get.
For you liberals who somehow got forwarded this column and
still don’t know what Sharia law is, allow me to enlighten you.
It is the literal interpretation of Islam that leads to the wide-
spread abuse and enslavement of women. It’s also called the
reality of “that woman in Iran who’s waiting to see if she’s
going to get stoned to death for adultery” rules. Who knows
if she really committed adultery? In Islamic societies all a man
has to do to give his wife the proverbial dirt nap,
is simply claim she did.
Under Sharia law, men are the judge, jury and executioners
of women, and Obama apparently thinks Americans are too
stupid to know this. While Obama may be able to lawyer his
way around the Ground Zero mosque as a “religious tolerance”
issue, the rest of us know a load of bs when we see one.
Americans don’t give a hoot what the college professors and
attorneys think. Allowing the Islamist barbarians who keep
their boots firmly planted on women’s throats and brought
the 9/11 massacre to our shores, to build their Arch de’
Terrorism 2 blocks from Ground Zero can kiss our you
know what.
Not only do Americans view the structure as anything but
a bridge to understanding, Islamists around the world will
also rightly perceive the mosque in a very different light
than the simple “right to build a place of worship”.
They will see it as spitting in the face of evil America and
hold it up as a shining example in their enslaved societies
to promote hatred of the West. It will become a “stupid
Americans let us build a mosque on their graves, so let’s
finish the job and kill them all” kind of thing.
Ever wonder how the Islamic Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem
got built smack dab on top of the ancient Jewish temple mount?
I can promise you, it was no attempt to “build bridges” either
that put it there. It was more like “let’s take over the Jews most treasured religious site and plant a mosque on it to show them
who’s boss”. That’s why Jews pray at the Western Wall, because
if they tried to visit the top of the temple mount,
the Arabs would riot.
Every time Obama speaks to Muslims, it’s always how wonderful
and understanding Islam is compared to our knuckle dragging
Judeo-Christian customs. Rather than apologizing endlessly
for America, and in this case our opposition to the Ground
Zero mosque, how about being honest for a change, champ?
Over the past 100 years, America has brought peace and
prosperity to billions around the world, while at the same
time Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving their
neighbors, especially women, wholesale. Talk about the
war that never ends. Shia vs. Sunni violence has been going
on for centuries and, by the looks of Iraq, will continue for
centuries more.
The irony is if our President, who clearly feels his #1 job is
reaching out to the Muslim world, had half a brain in his
communist head, he would be out there speaking forcefully
against Sharia law and educating his fellow Islamists to the
dangers of a literal interpretation of the Koran.
Who knows, maybe then Obama could finally do some good
for a change and save lives, rather than destroy them.
Somewhere in the Middle East
Iranian Air Defense Site:
'Unknown aircraft you are in Iranian airspace. Identify yourself.'
Aircraft:
'This is a United States aircraft. I am in Iraqi airspace.'
Air Defense Site:
'You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace
we will launch interceptor aircraft!'
Aircraft:
'This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter.
Send 'em up, I'll wait!'
Air Defense Site:
( .... total silence)
~Discovery Announcement ~ The densest element in the known Universe has been found!
A major research institution has just announced the
discovery of the densest element yet known to science.
The new element has been named Pelosium.
Pelosium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons,
75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons,
giving it an atomic mass of 311.
These particles are held together by dark forces
called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities
of lepton-like particles called peons.
The symbol of Pelosium is PU.
Pelosium's mass actually increases over time, as morons
randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere
and become assistant deputy neutrons within the Pelosium
molecule, leading to the formation of isodopes.
This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientist
to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach
a certain quantity in concentration.
This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.
When catalyzed with money, Pelosium activates CNNadnausium,
an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy,
albeit as incoherent noise, since it has half as many peons
but twice as many morons as Pelosium.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Illegal Immigration – No Problem
Illegal Immigration – No Problem
By:Howard Galganov
If the Republicans really want to take over the House,
and perhaps even the Senate, here is what I am
CONVINCED they have to do about ILLEGAL Immigration.
1 – Make it abundantly clear that there are NO such things
as UNDOCUMENTED people.
People who are in the country without proper
documentation are ILLEGAL.
2 - Come up with a comprehensive immigration solution
for ILLEGAL immigrants.
AND THAT’S EASY.
Give every ILLEGAL immigrant permanent residency
status if they have broken no laws other than being
in the USA illegally. How’s that for easy?
BUT – The condition of their permanent resident status
would be that they could NEVER – NEVER EVER become
citizens of the USA. And they could NEVER - NEVER EVER
participate in any type of election as a candidate,
a voter, or even a financial contributor.
AND – If any of these now “documented” residents ever
commit a crime. Goodbye.
3 - As for their American born children being Americans,
why change the laws of citizenship (14th Amendment)
that has stood since 1868?
4 - The next thing would be a law FORBIDDING the government
from offering services in any other language but English.
When my grandparents came to Canada in the first decade
of the 1900’s, they spoke Russian, Rumanian, Ukrainian and
Yiddish.
But what they couldn’t speak were either English or French.
The government made no special accommodations for them.
If they needed to communicate with the government, a friend
of the family, or someone from a Jewish Agency would help
them out.
Even though my grandparents were linguistically challenged
when they arrived, eventually, they learned how to communicate
in the English language with enough fluency to get by.
But MORE important than that, their Canadian-born children
(my parents) spoke perfect English and sufficient French.
So, when I call Lowes, Home Depot, Wal-Mart . . . etc-etc-etc,
and I hear a Spanish message, I have to wonder how serious
people in the United States really are about preserving their
language and culture.
I DO NOT BELIEVE any American politician should campaign
in Spanish. NOT A WORD, since they are running for office
in the USA, and NOT, and I repeat, NOT in Mexico.
If some American politicians believe that winning votes by
campaigning in Spanish, while giving approbation to the
use of the Spanish language is more important than drawing
a line in the sand, they should NOT be elected.
If I had a vote, I for one would NOT vote for any candidate
who would use Spanish to win favor with the minority,
no matter how much I would otherwise support his or her
other policies.
MORE SO – People who cannot pass a rudimentary English
language test should not be allowed to vote.
5 - BUT – Before any of that is done . . . SEAL THE BORDER.
America must use whatever number of military reserves
and law officers necessary to make the US/Mexico border
airtight. And leave those men and women on the border
until a more permanent solution can be deployed.
It just boggles my mind that the US has more than 100,000
fighting troops in Afghanistan, bleeding and dying for
Islamic ingrates who will NEVER accept a Western Style
Democracy, while Washington ignores a daily assault on
its own HOMELAND as if it is really no big deal.
Anne and I spent the day in Ottawa (Wednesday the 4th)
at the International Airport at US/Canadian Immigration,
where we were interviewed at length about who we are,
just to get a NEXUS Pass with which to easily enter the USA.
But, before we even got the interview, we had to fill out
comprehensive forms for US Immigration, giving them an
enormous amount of personal information.
And when we had our face-to-face interviews, we were
fingerprinted and had eye-scans, all of which was fine with us,
since we understand how vital Border Security really is.
Also, we respect America’s absolute RIGHT to defend its
sovereignty, especially at its borders.
Even though I am a great admirer of the United states of
America, and all it has stood for prior to Obama, Anne and
I understand that we are NOT Americans. And for us, being
in the United States is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.
So, if we who are law abiding, respectful, English speaking,
business owners who employ people, and do about 50% of
our media business in the USA can subject ourselves to this
type of scrutiny, JUST to get what amounts to a border
SPEED-PASS, why can’t everyone else, especially those who
want to live in the USA?
It’s just too bad so many Americans can’t seem to grasp that
reality, and the CRITICAL IMPORTANCE of the sovereignty of
their OWN country.
THE BIG ELECTION ISSUES:
1 - The economy.
2 – Joblessness.
3 – High Taxes.
4 – Obama-Care.
5 – The Stimulus.
6 – The Bank Bailouts.
7 – The Take-Over of AIG
8 – The Take-Over of General Motors and Chrysler.
AND THEN there’s the unfathomable INCOMPETENCE,
ARROGANCE and DISHONESTY of Obama’s White House,
Pelosi’s House, and Reid’s Senate.
Also not to be forgotten are the other IMPORTANT Obama
agenda items such as Card Check (removal of the secret
ballot from union voting) and the Fairness Doctrine
(censorship of Conservative electronic broadcasting).
Both of which are in Obama’s MUST DO list.
BUT . . . For my money, it is ILLEGAL Immigration that is
going to be the NUMBER ONE election issue, even though
most American’s are stewing over the other “stuff”
ALL THAT SAID – EVERY REVOLUTION NEEDS A CATALYST:
For ILLEGAL Immigration, there is a seething populace who
are no longer silent, who are becoming more and more LESS
Politically Correct, who will vote for the candidate who will
stand with America and America’s RIGHT to Border Sovereignty.
The economy and political arrogance are very important and
resonating issues. But, it will be ILLEGAL Immigration,
and the Party (candidate) that (who) comes up with a real
MADE IN AMERICA no excuses comprehensive solution to secure
the border that (who) will win power.
If the Republicans listen to their Conservative Base, and don’t
try to mirror the “nice-guy” Democrats to win Latino votes,
there is a BETTER than good chance the Republicans can take
the House AND the Senate.
And that would be the BEST thing that could happen to America.
It would also set up the mechanism to STOP Obama in his
SOCIALIST tracks, and set in motion the machinery for the
Republicans to take back the White House in 2012.
Sometimes we never know how good it is until how bad it gets.
And now, after less than two years of Obama, a whole lot of
people now know how bad it’s already gotten, and how much
worse it will get with TWO MORE YEARS of Obama/Democrat RULE.
In 2010 - Goodbye Reid and Pelosi.
In 2012 – Don’t let the door hit you on the way out OBAMA.
Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov
By:Howard Galganov
If the Republicans really want to take over the House,
and perhaps even the Senate, here is what I am
CONVINCED they have to do about ILLEGAL Immigration.
1 – Make it abundantly clear that there are NO such things
as UNDOCUMENTED people.
People who are in the country without proper
documentation are ILLEGAL.
2 - Come up with a comprehensive immigration solution
for ILLEGAL immigrants.
AND THAT’S EASY.
Give every ILLEGAL immigrant permanent residency
status if they have broken no laws other than being
in the USA illegally. How’s that for easy?
BUT – The condition of their permanent resident status
would be that they could NEVER – NEVER EVER become
citizens of the USA. And they could NEVER - NEVER EVER
participate in any type of election as a candidate,
a voter, or even a financial contributor.
AND – If any of these now “documented” residents ever
commit a crime. Goodbye.
3 - As for their American born children being Americans,
why change the laws of citizenship (14th Amendment)
that has stood since 1868?
4 - The next thing would be a law FORBIDDING the government
from offering services in any other language but English.
When my grandparents came to Canada in the first decade
of the 1900’s, they spoke Russian, Rumanian, Ukrainian and
Yiddish.
But what they couldn’t speak were either English or French.
The government made no special accommodations for them.
If they needed to communicate with the government, a friend
of the family, or someone from a Jewish Agency would help
them out.
Even though my grandparents were linguistically challenged
when they arrived, eventually, they learned how to communicate
in the English language with enough fluency to get by.
But MORE important than that, their Canadian-born children
(my parents) spoke perfect English and sufficient French.
So, when I call Lowes, Home Depot, Wal-Mart . . . etc-etc-etc,
and I hear a Spanish message, I have to wonder how serious
people in the United States really are about preserving their
language and culture.
I DO NOT BELIEVE any American politician should campaign
in Spanish. NOT A WORD, since they are running for office
in the USA, and NOT, and I repeat, NOT in Mexico.
If some American politicians believe that winning votes by
campaigning in Spanish, while giving approbation to the
use of the Spanish language is more important than drawing
a line in the sand, they should NOT be elected.
If I had a vote, I for one would NOT vote for any candidate
who would use Spanish to win favor with the minority,
no matter how much I would otherwise support his or her
other policies.
MORE SO – People who cannot pass a rudimentary English
language test should not be allowed to vote.
5 - BUT – Before any of that is done . . . SEAL THE BORDER.
America must use whatever number of military reserves
and law officers necessary to make the US/Mexico border
airtight. And leave those men and women on the border
until a more permanent solution can be deployed.
It just boggles my mind that the US has more than 100,000
fighting troops in Afghanistan, bleeding and dying for
Islamic ingrates who will NEVER accept a Western Style
Democracy, while Washington ignores a daily assault on
its own HOMELAND as if it is really no big deal.
Anne and I spent the day in Ottawa (Wednesday the 4th)
at the International Airport at US/Canadian Immigration,
where we were interviewed at length about who we are,
just to get a NEXUS Pass with which to easily enter the USA.
But, before we even got the interview, we had to fill out
comprehensive forms for US Immigration, giving them an
enormous amount of personal information.
And when we had our face-to-face interviews, we were
fingerprinted and had eye-scans, all of which was fine with us,
since we understand how vital Border Security really is.
Also, we respect America’s absolute RIGHT to defend its
sovereignty, especially at its borders.
Even though I am a great admirer of the United states of
America, and all it has stood for prior to Obama, Anne and
I understand that we are NOT Americans. And for us, being
in the United States is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.
So, if we who are law abiding, respectful, English speaking,
business owners who employ people, and do about 50% of
our media business in the USA can subject ourselves to this
type of scrutiny, JUST to get what amounts to a border
SPEED-PASS, why can’t everyone else, especially those who
want to live in the USA?
It’s just too bad so many Americans can’t seem to grasp that
reality, and the CRITICAL IMPORTANCE of the sovereignty of
their OWN country.
THE BIG ELECTION ISSUES:
1 - The economy.
2 – Joblessness.
3 – High Taxes.
4 – Obama-Care.
5 – The Stimulus.
6 – The Bank Bailouts.
7 – The Take-Over of AIG
8 – The Take-Over of General Motors and Chrysler.
AND THEN there’s the unfathomable INCOMPETENCE,
ARROGANCE and DISHONESTY of Obama’s White House,
Pelosi’s House, and Reid’s Senate.
Also not to be forgotten are the other IMPORTANT Obama
agenda items such as Card Check (removal of the secret
ballot from union voting) and the Fairness Doctrine
(censorship of Conservative electronic broadcasting).
Both of which are in Obama’s MUST DO list.
BUT . . . For my money, it is ILLEGAL Immigration that is
going to be the NUMBER ONE election issue, even though
most American’s are stewing over the other “stuff”
ALL THAT SAID – EVERY REVOLUTION NEEDS A CATALYST:
For ILLEGAL Immigration, there is a seething populace who
are no longer silent, who are becoming more and more LESS
Politically Correct, who will vote for the candidate who will
stand with America and America’s RIGHT to Border Sovereignty.
The economy and political arrogance are very important and
resonating issues. But, it will be ILLEGAL Immigration,
and the Party (candidate) that (who) comes up with a real
MADE IN AMERICA no excuses comprehensive solution to secure
the border that (who) will win power.
If the Republicans listen to their Conservative Base, and don’t
try to mirror the “nice-guy” Democrats to win Latino votes,
there is a BETTER than good chance the Republicans can take
the House AND the Senate.
And that would be the BEST thing that could happen to America.
It would also set up the mechanism to STOP Obama in his
SOCIALIST tracks, and set in motion the machinery for the
Republicans to take back the White House in 2012.
Sometimes we never know how good it is until how bad it gets.
And now, after less than two years of Obama, a whole lot of
people now know how bad it’s already gotten, and how much
worse it will get with TWO MORE YEARS of Obama/Democrat RULE.
In 2010 - Goodbye Reid and Pelosi.
In 2012 – Don’t let the door hit you on the way out OBAMA.
Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov
Friday, August 6, 2010
"Not According To Daddy"
Hillary and Chelsea were talking during preparations
for Chelsea's up coming wedding. Hillary trying to be
a good mother said,
"So tell me Chelsea, have you had sex with Marc?"
Chelsea, without the slightest hesitation, replied:
"Not according to Daddy"
for Chelsea's up coming wedding. Hillary trying to be
a good mother said,
"So tell me Chelsea, have you had sex with Marc?"
Chelsea, without the slightest hesitation, replied:
"Not according to Daddy"
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The Broken Window Fallacy
Stephen Gutowski
Worth Reading
Liberals are constantly insisting that government
spending will stimulate the economy and create
lots of jobs. Here is all you need to know to realize
how wrong that theory is:
It’s that simple. Wealth can either stay in the private
sector or the government can rip it out and use it for
it’s own purposes. Anytime the government takes wealth
out of the private sector that will, inevitably, result in
lower productivity from the private sector.
That, of course, leaves us to one conclusion.
The only way you can believe that government programs
stimulate the economy is if you believe that the government
is more efficient than the private sector. And the only way
you can believe the government is more efficient than the
private sector is if you’re a life-long shut-in who is also
high on crack.
Therefor the government should stick to taking wealth out
of the private sector only when necessary. In other words,
the government should stick to things that it and only it can
or should do. And though we may debate about what exactly
it is that only the government can or should do but, surely,
providing cocaine to monkeys and many many many many
many many other things our government currently does is
beyond it’s proper role.
Worth Reading
Liberals are constantly insisting that government
spending will stimulate the economy and create
lots of jobs. Here is all you need to know to realize
how wrong that theory is:
It’s that simple. Wealth can either stay in the private
sector or the government can rip it out and use it for
it’s own purposes. Anytime the government takes wealth
out of the private sector that will, inevitably, result in
lower productivity from the private sector.
That, of course, leaves us to one conclusion.
The only way you can believe that government programs
stimulate the economy is if you believe that the government
is more efficient than the private sector. And the only way
you can believe the government is more efficient than the
private sector is if you’re a life-long shut-in who is also
high on crack.
Therefor the government should stick to taking wealth out
of the private sector only when necessary. In other words,
the government should stick to things that it and only it can
or should do. And though we may debate about what exactly
it is that only the government can or should do but, surely,
providing cocaine to monkeys and many many many many
many many other things our government currently does is
beyond it’s proper role.
Ground Zero Mosque Statement from Allen West
August 4, 2010
"I am very concerned about the decision in NYC reference the approval to construct a mosque near the sacred Ground Zero site in New York City.
Leadership is based upon courage, competence, commitment, conviction, and character, something lacking in those supporting the building of this structure. Mayor Bloomberg's assertion that refusal to allow this mosque to be built would be a victory for islamic terrorists is an illogical statement. He certainly has not studied the history of islamic conquest against western civilization. I am available for a tutorial.
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals can take an act of cowardice and make it sound profoundly brave. There is a simple maxim that I use to express this situation, "when tolerance becomes a one way street, it leads to cultural suicide". The individuals who hijacked two airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center towers shouted, "Allahu Akhbar". The individuals who will attend the mosque would offer up like praise of "Allahu Akhbar". The individuals who detonate suicide vests, behead school teachers and headmasters, throw acid on little girls trying to attend school, and fire rockets into Israel shout, "Allahu Akhbar".
I do not support the building of a mosque at ground zero. It is not about Muslims, it is about a totalitarian, theocratic-political ideology with an imperialistic objective which I will not allow to claim victory in my Country.
Since Mayor Bloomberg is a rather financially blessed fella, my recommendation is that he and I take a trip to Mecca and visit the local churches and synagogues.......and on the way back we can have a discussion about religious freedoms and tolerance."
Steadfast and Loyal
LTC(R) Allen West
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)