Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Think the influx of illegal minors is an accident? Think again...

To those who say the recent, massive influx of minors into America illegally is just a fluke, consider this. Recently, Eric Odom released a story on Liberty News revealing how the Obama Administration has for years been funneling tens of millions of dollars into Catholic and Baptist churches and charities for the purpose of preparing for the Obama Invasion of unaccompanied minors. According to the report:

Over a three-year period (2010-2013), the Catholic Charities Diocese of Galveston received $15,549,078 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for the “Unaccompanied Alien Children Project"'

In 2013, the Catholic Charities Diocese of Fort Worth received $350,000 from DHS for “citizenship and education training" with a program description of “citizenship and immigration services."

From Dec 2012 to January 2014, Baptist Child & Family Services received $62,111,126 in federal grants from Health & Human Services for “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program."

For more information, click here.

Odom notes that this is just the tip of the iceberg of definitive evidence that the current flood of unaccompanied minors is a planned policy decision by the Obama Administration that was in the works for several years. 

Winning over religious groups has been a key part of Obama's amnesty agenda. He knew he needed the faith and "compassion" angle to sell amnesty to Americans. We have seen Obama's strategy at work for years behind the scenes among conservative and evangelical groups we know. Now, we have clear evidence that Obama has been manipulating religious groups by greasing their palms with tens if not hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Funny how this administration will enforce the mythical "separation of church and state" so adamantly when it comes to religious freedom in the workplace or any public venue, but they will take advantage of "faith-based initiatives" when it suits their needs.


Why would Obama be so intent on bringing in so many people illegally? Because he promised to fundamentally transform America, and by flinging aside law, overwhelming our economy, and changing the very demographics of our country, he is doing precisely that. Besides, by promising these illegal immigrants virtually full government support of their very existence, he ensures future Democratic voters. Since today's pool of reliable Democrats are in many ways contracepting and aborting themselves out of existence, trucking in fresh supplies of loyal supporters is a great tactic to keep the Democrats in power.

Of course, it doesn't matter to Obama that along with the minors - which include many disease-ridden people and older teenage gang members -- untold numbers of others, e.g. terrorists -- are free to cross our now completely open borders as well. Thanks, Mr. President. We're so much better off thanks to your transformation of our country.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Consumers: The forced crusaders?

Whatever happened to just being able to give your money to a business in exchange for the product of your choice? Now everywhere we turn, we are forced to partake in the company's social views, even if those views are in direct opposition to ours. 

The most recent one is Burger King's "Proud Whopper" - in which the famed burger is encased in a rainbow-colored wrapper to show its support for the gay lifestyle at San Francisco's Gay Pride Parade. Right now, the corporate offices are only using consumer money to pay for the special wrapper and parade promotion at this one event. But it could expand the campaign unless consumers push back. 

In this case, celebrating a lifestyle choice - which, by the way, the Centers for Disease Control itself shows is not healthy - riddled with much higher disease and mortality rates than the general population - is not something Burger King should get involved in. Just let people eat in peace, please. 

Then again, I guess I am not forced to give my money to any corporation knowing it will be going to celebrate things I oppose - I just don't have to eat at Burger King anymore if they make their Rainbow Burgers go nationwide and it's not something I choose to support. But nowadays, there are more and more companies I need to avoid because I know my money is being used to support things that I don't necessarily support. 

I just wish that if companies want to use consumers' dollars to support something, that they could support something we can all get behind - like helping the hungry. But when a growing number of companies take on the politically correct causes of an increasingly left-leaning society, it forces consumers to be crusaders of their cause. Of course, we have the choice not to give our money to these companies - but neutral alternatives are getting more and more difficult to find.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Food for thought...who's running our country?

After a busy, busy work week and making the final stretch toward an equally busy weekend, I am cheating today and just sharing a funny email I received. Well, maybe not so funny when you think of how true it is. Happy Weekend!


By Junius P. Long

Food For Thought:

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally ......
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion ...
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but you don't have to show ID for the right to vote on who runs the government .....
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in  Egypt .....
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

If, in the largest city of the country, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because the government says a 24-ounce sugary drink might make you fat .....
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hi-jab is only subject to having her neck and head searched because of her religion ......
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more ...
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher’s "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable .....
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

If hard work and success is rewarded with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones....
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to reward them with 99 weeks of unemployment checks with no requirement to prove they applied for it .....
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.

If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government....
Then you might live in a country run by idiots.


Have another one? Add them to the comments section below! E.g., When a president asks taxpayers to fork over almost $4 billion to pay for food & healthcare for thousands of children spilling into our country illegally, while American kids and their families are suffering financially, and our U.S. Veterans are dying while waiting for healthcare....then you might live in a country.....well, you know the rest.

Monday, July 7, 2014

Government data: US climate in cooling trend

As we all have been informed by President Barack Obama, global warming is occurring at an alarming rate. It's so bad that we must all agree to immediate government control of our way of life - and control of our wallets. After all, the only way to stop global warming is to change our normal activities and pay lots and lots of money in higher taxes and higher electric rates.

Too bad that findings from our own government show that global warming just isn't happening (remember a few years ago when the "scientists" studying global warming were caught admitting that it's all a hoax?) In fact, the new data from The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveal that we are actually in a cooling trend, and have been for years.

Please read this article from Forbes for the details. The question is, will the global warming alarmists breathe a sigh of relief that they actually have nothing to worry about, or will they feel a sense of disappointment that their justification for allowing government control of our lives has been removed?

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.


Monday, June 30, 2014

U.S. Supreme Court gets it right in Hobby Lobby case

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that forcing closely-held corporations to provide all forms of birth control to all female employees violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it overly burdens the consciences of the Christian owners of the three corporations involved in the decision. This is a victory for religious rights. Of course, feminists and others on the left are crying foul, saying this violates women's rights and that companies have no religious rights.

They are wrong on both counts. First, this case is not about contraception. It is about religious freedom. Women -- who are not forced to work for any company -- still have the right to use contraception, and none of the employers in this case said otherwise. In fact, two plaintiffs in the case, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, agreed to pay for 16 of the 20 federally mandated contraceptives under the HHS statute. They just objected to being forced to pay for the ones that cause an already conceived embryo to be terminated, a.k.a. aborted.

Female employees of both companies still have the right to use any one of these four contraceptives in their own private time if they choose. The company owners, who have deeply held religious beliefs against abortion, just don't have to be forced to pay for them now.

It’s interesting how feminists howl about keeping the government "off our bodies and out of our bedrooms" but they have no problem allowing the government to force private citizens to pay for what goes on in the bedroom, even if it violates a private citizen's beliefs.

As for the argument that U.S. closely-held companies don’t have religious rights, such as the plaintiffs in this case, these companies are run by human beings. The companies are not some autonomous, robotic function that exists independently of human input. The human beings running such companies - in this case American citizens - should not be forced to forfeit their religious rights simply because they decide to start a private business. This is precisely what the US Supreme Court put forth in its ruling.

To hold that a private business owner must forfeit his religious rights in order to run a business means that American citizens only have religious rights when they are in the confines of an actual church, or within the privacy of their own homes. That is not what the Constitution guarantees. The First Amendment says the government cannot prevent the free expression of religion. It does not say that private citizens need to keep their beliefs private and hidden from the public square, or that the government can force them to go against their conscience. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act underscores this right.


Some argue that it’s not fair that companies shouldn’t have to pay for some forms of birth control while other companies pay for things like Viagra. The key difference is that no company is forced to pay for Viagra - which does not prevent or destroy life -- while the companies in the Supreme Court case were being forced to pay for abortifacients.

As much as the left wants the country to believe this ruling means that companies like Hobby Lobby are imposing their views on women and that women will lose their rights to contraception - such as Hillary Clinton is now saying - it is nothing but a political smokescreen. A smart woman - regardless of her political affiliation - will see right through it and realize that stripping some citizens of their religious liberties for the benefit of others is antithetical to true freedom for everyone.

In fact, it seems the ones who should be most in favor of the court decision are feminists. After all, it is this group that has historically exalted the values of independence and autonomy, yet they have become fixated on being dependent on others for certain forms of birth control, even against a citizen’s will. Unfortunately emotions prevail over reason.

The simple truth is, the plaintiffs in this case were not and are not forcing their employees to stop using contraceptives, so they are not imposing their views on anyone. What the Supreme Court did was tell the government that it cannot strip employers of their religious rights, and by extension, employees cannot impose their private choices on their employers.

Unfortunately, the only reason this case got as far as it did is because we have an administration that is resolute in destroying the Constitution. This case should never have seen the light of day because it should never have even been an issue in a supposedly free country.

The Supreme Court’s decision – while it does not remove the threat of those who will continue trying to strip citizens of their religious freedoms -- it does give a much-needed shot in the arm to defend this fundamental American freedom. While liberals will no doubt twist the case to court votes in November’s election, I hope voters will see the bigger picture and celebrate the defense of authentic liberty that was at the heart of this case. 

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.


Sunday, June 29, 2014

Clinton & Biden: Don't hate us because we're wealthy

Have you noticed lately how Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and other filthy rich liberals (like Michael Moore) are making the rounds trying to convince the public that they're not wealthy, or at least, that it's okay they're wealthy because they worked hard for it?

President wannabe Hillary Clinton is telling the masses that she was dead broke when she and her philandering husband left the White House in 2000. Apparently now that her and Bill's exorbitant speech fees, government pensions and other sources of income have brought them back in to good financial standing, she is touting the great American ideal of working hard and pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Clinton went as far as to say in an interview with The Guardian that she and her family aren't among the nation's wealthiest because they pay high income taxes. She went on to say that her daughter Chelsea -- who makes $600,000 a year as a news correspondent and who recently bought a $10.5 million apartment in Manhattan -- doesn't care about money.

Clinton said all this to explain why she has what it takes to be an advocate for combating income inequality.

"They [the public] don't see me as part of the problem, because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names, and we've done it through dint of hard work," she said.

Apparently she is different from other successful people who just have their wealth handed to them, don't work 100 hours a week making their business a success, and who often achieve their dream at the sacrifice of personal lives and relationships.

Hillary apparently is also unaware that the population in America that pays zero taxes are not the hard-working wealthy, it is the lower income citizens who pay nothing. She also doesn't seem to know that the top 0.1% of Americans pay more income taxes than the bottom 80%. If Hillary wants to be an advocate of anything, she should start by being an advocate of the truth.

The other president wannabe, Joe Biden, is doing essentially the same thing. He admitted in a speech recently that he wears expensive suits and that he gets an excellent salary and pension as Vice President of the United States, and then told people not to hold it against him,  because he has no savings account (a lie, by the way) and that he owns no stocks or bonds (another lie - they're just in his wife's name). Humility, apparently, is a great way to justify one's wealth when looking in the eye of the common man. Unfortunately truth becomes the collateral damage in Biden's desire to apologize for his wealth while trying to justify it.

Though Clinton and Biden both seem to believe that it is indeed okay to be successful, neither of them applies that support to those who have achieved success in the private sector by their own hard work. Look at how Mitt Romney was excoriated for his wealth, despite the fact that he achieved it honestly through hard work, and has demonstrated extreme amounts of charitable giving, both of his resources and his own personal time. You won't hear about that side of the story though. It would make him look too good.

I've heard a lot of discussion as to why Hillary and Joe are trying to outdo one another in their efforts to convince the public that they're just like everyone else. Some say it's because liberals feel guilty for their wealth. I've heard others say it just shows how truly out of touch they are with real America.

I say it's politics. Democrats win elections in two key ways: By promising handouts to those who don't want to work, and by demonizing those who are successful because they do want to work. They then take it a step further and execute an extremely successful public relations campaign that portrays Republicans in particular as the wealthy, successful (hateful, racist, bigoted) thieves that are causing all the problems in our country. And of course, Republicans, according to the PR campaign, are only concerned about the wealthy.

A Democrat admitting he or she is wealthy doesn't gel with the image of the "evil rich" that Democrats need the masses to hate in order to win their votes. The thing is, that by trying to soften the image of wealth by telling Americans they worked hard for it, Clinton and Biden are actually admitting that success comes from hard work and is not evil. But exercising such hypocrisy about this fact to win votes could be considered evil - or at the very least, extremely repugnant.


What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.



Sunday, June 22, 2014

Church's decision on gay-marriage deceives truth-seekers

One of the largest and most influential Protestant groups in the U.S. - Presbyterian Church USA - voted this past Thursday in Detroit to allow pastors to perform same-sex marriages in their churches. They also voted to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman, to two people of any gender.

The decisions were greeted with cheers and tears of joy from homosexuals and homosexual advocates present at the meeting, which took place at Cobo Hall. Commenting on the vote, the Rev. Sharon Mook, pastor of Fort Street Presbyterian Church in Detroit said of LGBT people, "They deserve to have the same rights. People are born who are not heterosexual...God's love is for all of God's children."

Yes, God's love is for all His children. That is why Christ said, "Go, and sin no more." God Himself loves the sinner, but hates the sin. While so-called Christian practitioners of homosexuality want us to believe that sodomy is not a sin, the Bible calls it an "abomination". So what homosexuals are trying to tell us is that God has changed His mind on that, that homosexuality is no longer a sin. But then that is to say God is imperfect and was "wrong" about homosexuality.

Of course, since God is perfect and therefore incapable of making mistakes, logic follows that it is man who is imperfect and very capable of making mistakes. In the case of Presbyterian Church USA, when a so-called House of God rejects God's word, it is no longer a House of God, but a cult. In this case, we have a cult that seeks to please man over God, which aptly calls to mind the prophecy of 2 Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths."

As mentioned earlier, a church that panders to cultural mores is no longer a church but a congregation of moral relativists. Yes, we are called as Christians to love one another and not to judge because we are all sinners. However, we are also called to reject sin by rejecting the empty promises of the world.

Churches that teach nothing but emotion-based love are missing half the message. Jesus showed love and compassion to all, and we are all called to follow His example. But He did not hesitate to call sin by its name, and true followers of Christ should be mindful of that. This vote by Presbyterian Church USA is not Christian or Bible based. It is a deception to pull weaker Christians away from the truth, and to confuse those seeking the truth as a way to blind them from it. As far as I can see, there is nothing loving in that.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.