Politics of Obama administration are working ! Support the presindent toward economical Recovery ! (761)
Hot_Single_DudeKobenhavn, Capital Region Denmark68 Threads 73 Polls 11,289 PostsWalker is still able to walk a way for now... Easy guys! The law is going to get him ... just takes it,s time:
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/11/walker-koch-donations/
Even a Repubhead senator is agree that GOP should be shipped to Siberia:
Truth hurts GOP endorsers ... ey? 
Hot_Single_Dude: Walker is still able to walk a way for now... Easy guys! The law is going to get him ... just takes it,s time:
The law won't get him, I'm sure a demorat loon w/a gun will probably try. He's had death threats.
Hot_Single_Dude: Nice one Conrad ! and some fun for your whole weekend chap! Get plenty of popcorn to enjoy more
You wasted an hour for something that NO ONE will read.
Hot_Single_Dude: http://business.highbeam.com/4436/article-1G1-77823732/2000-presidential-election-why-gore-lost
There's more holes in that article than in 100 lbs of swiss cheese.
Where would one start
Hot_Single_Dude: Do not give America to these enemies of science and decency:
Let denmark send money. They don't mind taxes.
You're replying to post made by: Hot_Single_Dude
U.S. Posts Record Monthly Budget Deficit
By Robert Schroeder
Published March 10, 2011
| MarketWatch Pulse
WASHINGTON - The U.S. government posted a budget deficit of $222.5 billion in February, the largest monthly deficit on record, the Treasury Department reported Thursday. The government spent about $333 billion in the month and took in about $110 billion. Compared to February 2010, corporate tax receipts were 69% lower. On the spending side, the U.S. spent 29% more than a year ago on interest on the U.S. debt.
Copyright © 2011 MarketWatch, Inc
U.S. Posts Record Monthly Budget Deficit
By Robert Schroeder
Published March 10, 2011
| MarketWatch Pulse
WASHINGTON - The U.S. government posted a budget deficit of $222.5 billion in February, the largest monthly deficit on record, the Treasury Department reported Thursday. The government spent about $333 billion in the month and took in about $110 billion. Compared to February 2010, corporate tax receipts were 69% lower. On the spending side, the U.S. spent 29% more than a year ago on interest on the U.S. debt.
Copyright © 2011 MarketWatch, Inc
The Oath of Office versus the ‘Rule-of-Obama’
Obama swore an oath on the Bible when he became President, that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. The idea that we now have the Rule of Obama instead of the rule-of-law should frighten everybody. The fact that the Progressives support the policy, is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act. It is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.
The House Republicans must pass a resolution instructing the President to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out the office of Attorney General and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job. His job is to enforce the law, that’s the job of the Chief Executive of the USA. For us to start replacing the rule-of-law with the Rule-of-Obama is a very dangerous precedent.
Clearly Obama’s and Holder’s actions are a dereliction of duty and a violation of constitutional oath and are something that cannot be allowed to stand.
Obama swore an oath on the Bible when he became President, that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. The idea that we now have the Rule of Obama instead of the rule-of-law should frighten everybody. The fact that the Progressives support the policy, is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act. It is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.
The House Republicans must pass a resolution instructing the President to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out the office of Attorney General and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job. His job is to enforce the law, that’s the job of the Chief Executive of the USA. For us to start replacing the rule-of-law with the Rule-of-Obama is a very dangerous precedent.
Clearly Obama’s and Holder’s actions are a dereliction of duty and a violation of constitutional oath and are something that cannot be allowed to stand.
And the poll remains at 75% negative, 25% Positive for President Obama. Looks like he'll be on the guest speaker circuit in 2012.
NO OBAMA!!!! NO YOU CANT
NO OBAMA!!!! NO YOU CANT
Sparky55: And the poll remains at 75% negative, 25% Positive for President Obama. Looks like he'll be on the guest speaker circuit in 2012.
NO OBAMA!!!! NO YOU CANT
NO OBAMA!!!! NO YOU CANT
Sparky55: And the poll remains at 75% negative, 25% Positive for President Obama. Looks like he'll be on the guest speaker circuit in 2012.
NO OBAMA!!!! NO YOU CANT
NO OBAMA!!!! NO YOU CANT
YOU CAN HAVE A PARTY IN A PHONEBOOTH!
Faithfulness: The Oath of Office versus the ‘Rule-of-Obama’
Obama swore an oath on the Bible when he became President, that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. The idea that we now have the Rule of Obama instead of the rule-of-law should frighten everybody. The fact that the Progressives support the policy, is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act. It is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.
The House Republicans must pass a resolution instructing the President to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out the office of Attorney General and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job. His job is to enforce the law, that’s the job of the Chief Executive of the USA. For us to start replacing the rule-of-law with the Rule-of-Obama is a very dangerous precedent.
Clearly Obama’s and Holder’s actions are a dereliction of duty and a violation of constitutional oath and are something that cannot be allowed to stand.
Obama swore an oath on the Bible when he became President, that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. The idea that we now have the Rule of Obama instead of the rule-of-law should frighten everybody. The fact that the Progressives support the policy, is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act. It is absolutely critical for Obama to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.
The House Republicans must pass a resolution instructing the President to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out the office of Attorney General and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job. His job is to enforce the law, that’s the job of the Chief Executive of the USA. For us to start replacing the rule-of-law with the Rule-of-Obama is a very dangerous precedent.
Clearly Obama’s and Holder’s actions are a dereliction of duty and a violation of constitutional oath and are something that cannot be allowed to stand.
And clearly the whole foundation of the Republican party of America is unconstituional and against the United States of America and destroying the whole foundation of the US of A in the benefit of Taliban and Saudi funders of Fox News and REpublican campaines and what ever BS GOP stands for... when all what I write in this one are undenaiable facts... then what is worth listening to GOP definitions of the american constitution any way? I mean sending all GOP to Guantanmo base or at least exciling and fencing them in Arizona will almost do the job! America have never had any enemy more dangerous than GOP...
You're replying to post made by: Hot_Single_Dude
And clearly the whole foundation of the Republican party of America is unconstituional and against the United States of America and destroying the whole foundation of the US of A in the benefit of Taliban and Saudi funders of Fox News and REpublican campaines and what ever BS GOP stands for... when all what I write in this one are undenaiable facts... then what is worth listening to GOP definitions of the american constitution any way? I mean sending all GOP to Guantanmo base or at least exciling and fencing them in Arizona will almost do the job! America have never had any enemy more dangerous than GOP
Ok Dude. It's apparent you need another history lesson on the USA again. This time I hope you learn.
Posted: 10/31/10
Time to Reunite Church and State
By J. Matt Barber
John Adams, our second U.S. president, famously observed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The U.S. Constitution, indeed our entire republican form of government, was crafted by deeply pious men who were overwhelmingly Christian. It was fashioned within the context and framework of the Judeo-Christian zeitgeist of the time and was further intended to function in harmony with a Judeo-Christian worldview – period. Though leftists may deny this reality, it remains indisputable fact. The historical record is unequivocal.
Patrick Henry said this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
George Washington agreed:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
I'll say it: I agree with George Washington. Those godless, postmodern secular-socialists, who, today, hold the reins of government, are unpatriotic. Fringe leftists like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek to "subvert" Washington's "great pillars" of "religion and morality" and are distinctly un-American for it.
Distributed by
And clearly the whole foundation of the Republican party of America is unconstituional and against the United States of America and destroying the whole foundation of the US of A in the benefit of Taliban and Saudi funders of Fox News and REpublican campaines and what ever BS GOP stands for... when all what I write in this one are undenaiable facts... then what is worth listening to GOP definitions of the american constitution any way? I mean sending all GOP to Guantanmo base or at least exciling and fencing them in Arizona will almost do the job! America have never had any enemy more dangerous than GOP
Ok Dude. It's apparent you need another history lesson on the USA again. This time I hope you learn.
Posted: 10/31/10
Time to Reunite Church and State
By J. Matt Barber
John Adams, our second U.S. president, famously observed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The U.S. Constitution, indeed our entire republican form of government, was crafted by deeply pious men who were overwhelmingly Christian. It was fashioned within the context and framework of the Judeo-Christian zeitgeist of the time and was further intended to function in harmony with a Judeo-Christian worldview – period. Though leftists may deny this reality, it remains indisputable fact. The historical record is unequivocal.
Patrick Henry said this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
George Washington agreed:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
I'll say it: I agree with George Washington. Those godless, postmodern secular-socialists, who, today, hold the reins of government, are unpatriotic. Fringe leftists like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek to "subvert" Washington's "great pillars" of "religion and morality" and are distinctly un-American for it.
Distributed by
Forces of Stupidity of GOP will keep fightign agiasnt the very benefits of America and the sTUPId will keep supporting them:
notmy fault! Stupid is STUPID... some thing witht he wayone is brought up or lack of propper parents and stuff like that... ask McCain for example! he knows why if hypnotise
Freaking end of days buttheads
notmy fault! Stupid is STUPID... some thing witht he wayone is brought up or lack of propper parents and stuff like that... ask McCain for example! he knows why if hypnotise
Freaking end of days buttheads
Part 3
Au contraire, Monsieur le Président.
Enter the tea-party revolution (a national clamoring for a return to our nation's founding principles). America has coldly and quite vocally rejected Obama's anti-American agenda.
You've heard it said, but I'll say it again: People with conservative values – particularly Christians – need to take back America. We must take charge of government at every level from the municipal hall to the White House.
It's time for men of the cloth – as they did during the first American Revolution – to exercise true leadership, return to the pulpit and call for national revival, both spiritual and political. As George Washington so astutely observed, the notion that political issues, and those of "religion and morality," are somehow mutually exclusive, is patently absurd. They are one in the same.
Am I calling for a theocracy? Of course not. Am I calling for men and women of strong faith to retake control of all high-level positions of influence in government, academia, media and entertainment? Absolutely.
The late, great Rev. Jerry Falwell perhaps said it best: "I'm being accused of being controversial and political. I'm not political. But moral issues that become political, I still fight. It isn't my fault that they've made these moral issues political. But because they have doesn't stop the preachers of the Gospel from addressing them."
Pastors, priests and rabbis: It's up to you to address, head-on, these moral issues. Don't be intimidated by anti-theist groups like the ACLU, American's United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way and the like. These hard-left outfits engage in dishonest letter-writing schemes and file frivolous threats with the IRS in hopes of silencing you. Don't be silenced.
Guess how many churches have been penalized, or have lost tax-exempt status due to even one of these complaints: Exactly zero. To call these groups "paper tigers" is too strong. They're paper kittens.
Pastors: You have an absolute constitutional right, if not a duty, to stand at the pulpit and educate your flock about the hot-button political/moral issues of the day. You also have an absolute right to tell your flock exactly where candidates stand on these issues. You can even, as an individual, publicly endorse candidates. Most importantly, you have an absolute right to encourage parishioners to vote in accordance with their faith.
Biblical values must once again guide our political and cultural decisions and discourse, or tragically, this great American experiment – having survived longer than any governmental system in existence – may be at its twilight.
Still, I somehow doubt that the sun has set on this, the greatest nation on Earth. To borrow from a truly great president, Ronald Reagan, come Nov. 3, I suspect, instead, we'll once again awaken to a bright new future. We'll once again awaken to "morning in America."
Christians: Make it happen.
Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War" and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net / Facebook.com/jmattbarber / Twitter @jmattbarber (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
Distributed by
Au contraire, Monsieur le Président.
Enter the tea-party revolution (a national clamoring for a return to our nation's founding principles). America has coldly and quite vocally rejected Obama's anti-American agenda.
You've heard it said, but I'll say it again: People with conservative values – particularly Christians – need to take back America. We must take charge of government at every level from the municipal hall to the White House.
It's time for men of the cloth – as they did during the first American Revolution – to exercise true leadership, return to the pulpit and call for national revival, both spiritual and political. As George Washington so astutely observed, the notion that political issues, and those of "religion and morality," are somehow mutually exclusive, is patently absurd. They are one in the same.
Am I calling for a theocracy? Of course not. Am I calling for men and women of strong faith to retake control of all high-level positions of influence in government, academia, media and entertainment? Absolutely.
The late, great Rev. Jerry Falwell perhaps said it best: "I'm being accused of being controversial and political. I'm not political. But moral issues that become political, I still fight. It isn't my fault that they've made these moral issues political. But because they have doesn't stop the preachers of the Gospel from addressing them."
Pastors, priests and rabbis: It's up to you to address, head-on, these moral issues. Don't be intimidated by anti-theist groups like the ACLU, American's United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way and the like. These hard-left outfits engage in dishonest letter-writing schemes and file frivolous threats with the IRS in hopes of silencing you. Don't be silenced.
Guess how many churches have been penalized, or have lost tax-exempt status due to even one of these complaints: Exactly zero. To call these groups "paper tigers" is too strong. They're paper kittens.
Pastors: You have an absolute constitutional right, if not a duty, to stand at the pulpit and educate your flock about the hot-button political/moral issues of the day. You also have an absolute right to tell your flock exactly where candidates stand on these issues. You can even, as an individual, publicly endorse candidates. Most importantly, you have an absolute right to encourage parishioners to vote in accordance with their faith.
Biblical values must once again guide our political and cultural decisions and discourse, or tragically, this great American experiment – having survived longer than any governmental system in existence – may be at its twilight.
Still, I somehow doubt that the sun has set on this, the greatest nation on Earth. To borrow from a truly great president, Ronald Reagan, come Nov. 3, I suspect, instead, we'll once again awaken to a bright new future. We'll once again awaken to "morning in America."
Christians: Make it happen.
Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War" and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net / Facebook.com/jmattbarber / Twitter @jmattbarber (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
Distributed by
This anti american GOP virus is not effecting Wisconsin and Arizona and Florida only... the dang thing is out there and tries rapidley to consume what ever Decency and Real American values and rela patritism ... and barfing it all out so it look likes a Dang OBL with a bikini on when all counts...
Be Ware America THEY want it all back already and their moms are at sale for achieving their bloody goals!
Be Ware America THEY want it all back already and their moms are at sale for achieving their bloody goals!
You're replying to post made by: Hot_Single_Dude
Dude, here is another lesson for you. I pray that one day you will wise up and learn.....
Posted: 11/09/09
Is Health Care A Human Right?
Dr. David M. Berrman
We have all seen the signs that the liberal protesters hold up. We have heard the liberal pundits spew out their talking points concerning socialized medicine. We know the "Health Care is a Human Right" mantra that drones on and on and yet how can we argue against that? Do we conservatives not believe a person should be treated if they are dying? Do we not believe that there is a moral obligation in the following case for a person to receive care? Let us examine this hypothetical scenario;
A person stumbles into an emergency room with a gunshot wound. They fall on the floor close to death. The Doctors rush up and start asking questions about health Insurance. The fallen man is barely able to get out the words "I have no insurance" and the doctors order him to get out of the hospital and die since they are not going to work for free.
In this example we see an absurdity. Of course the Doctors would treat him in this situation because they have a moral obligation to do so. There is no hospital in America that would not treat a person under these circumstances. The question now is does a person have a human right to health care? My answer may shock some of you due to the example I just gave. Let's look more into what a human right is. Our founders talked about the idea of "certain inalienable rights" endowed by our creator. In order to understand the principle of natural rights we must understand it in the context of liberty. If you think of human rights outside the context of liberty we will miss the understanding of what true human rights are. The following are some principles that must be contemplated:
1) In order to have liberty one must recognize that there are risks to living in it.
2) Natural rights are not the same as another person's moral duty.
3) No political system can guarantee absolute protection for all possibilities of harm.
4) The natural passion of emotion a person experiences about a perceived injustice is not an argument to trample on liberty.
Distributed by
To be continued....
Dude, here is another lesson for you. I pray that one day you will wise up and learn.....
Posted: 11/09/09
Is Health Care A Human Right?
Dr. David M. Berrman
We have all seen the signs that the liberal protesters hold up. We have heard the liberal pundits spew out their talking points concerning socialized medicine. We know the "Health Care is a Human Right" mantra that drones on and on and yet how can we argue against that? Do we conservatives not believe a person should be treated if they are dying? Do we not believe that there is a moral obligation in the following case for a person to receive care? Let us examine this hypothetical scenario;
A person stumbles into an emergency room with a gunshot wound. They fall on the floor close to death. The Doctors rush up and start asking questions about health Insurance. The fallen man is barely able to get out the words "I have no insurance" and the doctors order him to get out of the hospital and die since they are not going to work for free.
In this example we see an absurdity. Of course the Doctors would treat him in this situation because they have a moral obligation to do so. There is no hospital in America that would not treat a person under these circumstances. The question now is does a person have a human right to health care? My answer may shock some of you due to the example I just gave. Let's look more into what a human right is. Our founders talked about the idea of "certain inalienable rights" endowed by our creator. In order to understand the principle of natural rights we must understand it in the context of liberty. If you think of human rights outside the context of liberty we will miss the understanding of what true human rights are. The following are some principles that must be contemplated:
1) In order to have liberty one must recognize that there are risks to living in it.
2) Natural rights are not the same as another person's moral duty.
3) No political system can guarantee absolute protection for all possibilities of harm.
4) The natural passion of emotion a person experiences about a perceived injustice is not an argument to trample on liberty.
Distributed by
To be continued....
Part 2
Let's take each of these and look at them;
1) "In order to have liberty one must recognize that there are risks to living in it." One of the inherent problems with people who do not understand liberty is their lack of understanding of the risks associated with it. They seem to think that they can have freedom while at the same time being under the control of centralized government. This is a major ignorance on their part. We could most likely eradicate most crime if we were to place police officer check points in and out of every town while having them search everyone at will. They could monitor all of our personal conversations by tapping our phones. They could come into our homes and search them whenever they wish, and take us into custody without any provocation or evidence of wrong doing. This would cut a lot of crime however it would be contrary to natural rights and therefore a free society must not allow such abuses of power. So the question becomes "Do we want a totalitarian society that cracks down on crime by violating everyone's natural rights or do we value our liberty and in doing so take more risk concerning crime?" The answer for a free people is obvious, we are willing to take the risk rather than live under tyranny. We also know that history teaches us that when people give up their liberty for so called security, they eventually end up with neither due to corruption of centralized power since "absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2) Natural rights are not the same as another person's moral duty. In the afore mentioned scenario, the question is this; "Is it the right of the man to be treated or is it the moral responsibility of the Doctor to treat him?" The Doctor has a clear moral obligation to treat the man in that situation. Having said that, the man does not have a natural right to be treated. There is a major difference. I will get to the answer of why I say this a bit later in this article.
3) No political system can guarantee absolute protection for all possibilities of harm. It is literally impossible for any government political system to always be able to protect its citizens in every situation. Putting trust in government to be your nanny is irrational. No government can fix every problem and protect from every hardship.
4) The natural passion of emotion a person experiences about a perceived injustice is not an argument to trample on liberty. As a minister of the gospel I often feel overwhelming compassion for people who are in various situations. My heart is frequently heavy over conditions I see in the lives of people. What I experience emotionally is never an excuse to trample on liberty. A free people are not motivated by emotions. Free people are motivated by principle as they understand that facts are more important in the long run than short term sentiment.
To be continued.....
Let's take each of these and look at them;
1) "In order to have liberty one must recognize that there are risks to living in it." One of the inherent problems with people who do not understand liberty is their lack of understanding of the risks associated with it. They seem to think that they can have freedom while at the same time being under the control of centralized government. This is a major ignorance on their part. We could most likely eradicate most crime if we were to place police officer check points in and out of every town while having them search everyone at will. They could monitor all of our personal conversations by tapping our phones. They could come into our homes and search them whenever they wish, and take us into custody without any provocation or evidence of wrong doing. This would cut a lot of crime however it would be contrary to natural rights and therefore a free society must not allow such abuses of power. So the question becomes "Do we want a totalitarian society that cracks down on crime by violating everyone's natural rights or do we value our liberty and in doing so take more risk concerning crime?" The answer for a free people is obvious, we are willing to take the risk rather than live under tyranny. We also know that history teaches us that when people give up their liberty for so called security, they eventually end up with neither due to corruption of centralized power since "absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2) Natural rights are not the same as another person's moral duty. In the afore mentioned scenario, the question is this; "Is it the right of the man to be treated or is it the moral responsibility of the Doctor to treat him?" The Doctor has a clear moral obligation to treat the man in that situation. Having said that, the man does not have a natural right to be treated. There is a major difference. I will get to the answer of why I say this a bit later in this article.
3) No political system can guarantee absolute protection for all possibilities of harm. It is literally impossible for any government political system to always be able to protect its citizens in every situation. Putting trust in government to be your nanny is irrational. No government can fix every problem and protect from every hardship.
4) The natural passion of emotion a person experiences about a perceived injustice is not an argument to trample on liberty. As a minister of the gospel I often feel overwhelming compassion for people who are in various situations. My heart is frequently heavy over conditions I see in the lives of people. What I experience emotionally is never an excuse to trample on liberty. A free people are not motivated by emotions. Free people are motivated by principle as they understand that facts are more important in the long run than short term sentiment.
To be continued.....
Faithfulness: You're replying to post made by: Hot_Single_Dude
And clearly the whole foundation of the Republican party of America is unconstituional and against the United States of America and destroying the whole foundation of the US of A in the benefit of Taliban and Saudi funders of Fox News and REpublican campaines and what ever BS GOP stands for... when all what I write in this one are undenaiable facts... then what is worth listening to GOP definitions of the american constitution any way? I mean sending all GOP to Guantanmo base or at least exciling and fencing them in Arizona will almost do the job! America have never had any enemy more dangerous than GOPOk Dude. It's apparent you need another history lesson on the USA again. This time I hope you learn.
Posted: 10/31/10
Time to Reunite Church and State
By J. Matt Barber
John Adams, our second U.S. president, famously observed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The U.S. Constitution, indeed our entire republican form of government, was crafted by deeply pious men who were overwhelmingly Christian. It was fashioned within the context and framework of the Judeo-Christian zeitgeist of the time and was further intended to function in harmony with a Judeo-Christian worldview – period. Though leftists may deny this reality, it remains indisputable fact. The historical record is unequivocal.
Patrick Henry said this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
George Washington agreed:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
I'll say it: I agree with George Washington. Those godless, postmodern secular-socialists, who, today, hold the reins of government, are unpatriotic. Fringe leftists like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek to "subvert" Washington's "great pillars" of "religion and morality" and are distinctly un-American for it.
Distributed by
And clearly the whole foundation of the Republican party of America is unconstituional and against the United States of America and destroying the whole foundation of the US of A in the benefit of Taliban and Saudi funders of Fox News and REpublican campaines and what ever BS GOP stands for... when all what I write in this one are undenaiable facts... then what is worth listening to GOP definitions of the american constitution any way? I mean sending all GOP to Guantanmo base or at least exciling and fencing them in Arizona will almost do the job! America have never had any enemy more dangerous than GOPOk Dude. It's apparent you need another history lesson on the USA again. This time I hope you learn.
Posted: 10/31/10
Time to Reunite Church and State
By J. Matt Barber
John Adams, our second U.S. president, famously observed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The U.S. Constitution, indeed our entire republican form of government, was crafted by deeply pious men who were overwhelmingly Christian. It was fashioned within the context and framework of the Judeo-Christian zeitgeist of the time and was further intended to function in harmony with a Judeo-Christian worldview – period. Though leftists may deny this reality, it remains indisputable fact. The historical record is unequivocal.
Patrick Henry said this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
George Washington agreed:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
I'll say it: I agree with George Washington. Those godless, postmodern secular-socialists, who, today, hold the reins of government, are unpatriotic. Fringe leftists like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek to "subvert" Washington's "great pillars" of "religion and morality" and are distinctly un-American for it.
Distributed by
Church is chuch and State is State and America must definately getting saved from dingo relegious types Faith! Fenatic Stupid Christians or fenatic Stupid Mulims or Fenatic Stupid jewish or what ever Fenatic anti ameircan buzo,s out there... all the same all the very same and all dangerous for America and holding Americ aback for development
Part 3
The liberals are masters at using emotions to move people to give up the essential principles of long term liberty. Emotions are short term and often result in the proverbial "unintended consequences" problem. Principles of liberty are based on absolute truth rather than subjective emotions. Compassion is great and care for the hurting is great. A desire to overcome what we notice as injustice is very important however we will never overcome injustice by trampling on the principles of liberty. In our scenario, I am sure some of you were quite shocked when I said; "The man does not have a natural right to be treated." If you define natural rights in the wrong way, you are making a huge mistake since the application could then be applied to many other things. For example; let's say a man is hungry, does he not have a need that is immediate? If he has not eaten for a week and stumbles to the sidewalk falling down faint with hunger does he have a natural right to another person's food? If I walk by and see him is it that he has a right to my food or is it that I have a moral obligation in my free will to feed him? It is not that he has any inherent right to my food but rather it is my moral obligation if I know what's going on and have the ability to feed him to do so. Is it then his natural right to have the government forcibly take some of my food and give it to him continually? The answer is NO! Even though the man is in a difficult situation, the government has no right to force me to give the man food. It is at odds with the principles of liberty. It is not at odds with liberty to have a moral responsibility before God to do something, but that must, in a free society, be left to individual conscience. For those of you who think food is not as important as health care let me suggest to you that in most people's lives food is considerably more important than health care. In fact without food one would die a lot quicker than would result from most health issues. Is it a natural right to have food? If it is, then the same argument can be made for the government to take over all of the food industry to make sure all people are given the "adequate nutritional needs." How about clothes? Based on the thinking of liberals who have no idea what natural rights means an argument can be made for the natural right to have clothes especially in the North East since it is so cold that a person could die from exposure to the cold. Therefore the government should take over the clothing industry to make sure that the natural human right is taken care of.
The liberals are masters at using emotions to move people to give up the essential principles of long term liberty. Emotions are short term and often result in the proverbial "unintended consequences" problem. Principles of liberty are based on absolute truth rather than subjective emotions. Compassion is great and care for the hurting is great. A desire to overcome what we notice as injustice is very important however we will never overcome injustice by trampling on the principles of liberty. In our scenario, I am sure some of you were quite shocked when I said; "The man does not have a natural right to be treated." If you define natural rights in the wrong way, you are making a huge mistake since the application could then be applied to many other things. For example; let's say a man is hungry, does he not have a need that is immediate? If he has not eaten for a week and stumbles to the sidewalk falling down faint with hunger does he have a natural right to another person's food? If I walk by and see him is it that he has a right to my food or is it that I have a moral obligation in my free will to feed him? It is not that he has any inherent right to my food but rather it is my moral obligation if I know what's going on and have the ability to feed him to do so. Is it then his natural right to have the government forcibly take some of my food and give it to him continually? The answer is NO! Even though the man is in a difficult situation, the government has no right to force me to give the man food. It is at odds with the principles of liberty. It is not at odds with liberty to have a moral responsibility before God to do something, but that must, in a free society, be left to individual conscience. For those of you who think food is not as important as health care let me suggest to you that in most people's lives food is considerably more important than health care. In fact without food one would die a lot quicker than would result from most health issues. Is it a natural right to have food? If it is, then the same argument can be made for the government to take over all of the food industry to make sure all people are given the "adequate nutritional needs." How about clothes? Based on the thinking of liberals who have no idea what natural rights means an argument can be made for the natural right to have clothes especially in the North East since it is so cold that a person could die from exposure to the cold. Therefore the government should take over the clothing industry to make sure that the natural human right is taken care of.
Faithfulness: You're replying to post made by: Hot_Single_Dude
Dude, here is another lesson for you. I pray that one day you will wise up and learn.....
Posted: 11/09/09
Is Health Care A Human Right?
Dr. David M. Berrman
We have all seen the signs that the liberal protesters hold up. We have heard the liberal pundits spew out their talking points concerning socialized medicine. We know the "Health Care is a Human Right" mantra that drones on and on and yet how can we argue against that? Do we conservatives not believe a person should be treated if they are dying? Do we not believe that there is a moral obligation in the following case for a person to receive care? Let us examine this hypothetical scenario;
A person stumbles into an emergency room with a gunshot wound. They fall on the floor close to death. The Doctors rush up and start asking questions about health Insurance. The fallen man is barely able to get out the words "I have no insurance" and the doctors order him to get out of the hospital and die since they are not going to work for free.
In this example we see an absurdity. Of course the Doctors would treat him in this situation because they have a moral obligation to do so. There is no hospital in America that would not treat a person under these circumstances. The question now is does a person have a human right to health care? My answer may shock some of you due to the example I just gave. Let's look more into what a human right is. Our founders talked about the idea of "certain inalienable rights" endowed by our creator. In order to understand the principle of natural rights we must understand it in the context of liberty. If you think of human rights outside the context of liberty we will miss the understanding of what true human rights are. The following are some principles that must be contemplated:
1) In order to have liberty one must recognize that there are risks to living in it.
2) Natural rights are not the same as another person's moral duty.
3) No political system can guarantee absolute protection for all possibilities of harm.
4) The natural passion of emotion a person experiences about a perceived injustice is not an argument to trample on liberty.
Distributed by
To be continued....
Dude, here is another lesson for you. I pray that one day you will wise up and learn.....
Posted: 11/09/09
Is Health Care A Human Right?
Dr. David M. Berrman
We have all seen the signs that the liberal protesters hold up. We have heard the liberal pundits spew out their talking points concerning socialized medicine. We know the "Health Care is a Human Right" mantra that drones on and on and yet how can we argue against that? Do we conservatives not believe a person should be treated if they are dying? Do we not believe that there is a moral obligation in the following case for a person to receive care? Let us examine this hypothetical scenario;
A person stumbles into an emergency room with a gunshot wound. They fall on the floor close to death. The Doctors rush up and start asking questions about health Insurance. The fallen man is barely able to get out the words "I have no insurance" and the doctors order him to get out of the hospital and die since they are not going to work for free.
In this example we see an absurdity. Of course the Doctors would treat him in this situation because they have a moral obligation to do so. There is no hospital in America that would not treat a person under these circumstances. The question now is does a person have a human right to health care? My answer may shock some of you due to the example I just gave. Let's look more into what a human right is. Our founders talked about the idea of "certain inalienable rights" endowed by our creator. In order to understand the principle of natural rights we must understand it in the context of liberty. If you think of human rights outside the context of liberty we will miss the understanding of what true human rights are. The following are some principles that must be contemplated:
1) In order to have liberty one must recognize that there are risks to living in it.
2) Natural rights are not the same as another person's moral duty.
3) No political system can guarantee absolute protection for all possibilities of harm.
4) The natural passion of emotion a person experiences about a perceived injustice is not an argument to trample on liberty.
Distributed by
To be continued....
Where did you found this bribed antilife Doctor any way Faith? Just imagine he calls him self a Doctor... I got a butcher who is much more "Doctor" than this so called Doc of urs
Arizona need him! Send him there before the entire rest of gOp monsters are exiled over
My point is this; the Constitution defines 'natural rights" as Rights that protect us from government tyranny :
The right to freedom of political and religious speech.
The right to bear arms, to not have our homes taken over by the government.
The right to be secure in our personal property and papers without unreasonable searches.
The right to due process of law, to a speedy trial by jury.
The right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
The right of protection from the government interpreting the Constitution to establish its own right to violate principle.
The right to individual state's rights since the federal government is only authorized to do what specifically is given them by the Constitution.
All of these natural rights have everything to do with protecting our liberties from government tyranny and nothing to do with guaranteeing that we personally have food, clothes, housing, or health care. When you give your liberties to the government in exchange for the security they promise, you end up with neither security nor liberty. That is the lesson of history and the result of informed thinking and common sense (which unfortunately may not be as common as it once was in America). The government often causes an increase in hardships simply by going beyond their authority specifically given to them in the Constitution. The government causes more problems than it says it wants to solve by infringing on natural rights of liberty.
If we want to "fix" health care we need free market principles, not more government control. If we wish to have a thriving economy we must stop making it a sin to have profit and we must end the income tax!!! (That's another article).
Do I want everyone to have health care? Do I want everyone to have food? Do I want all to have housing? You better bet that I do and the only way to increase the chances that all have what they need is to unleash freedom, and restrict this insane federal power grabbing, socialist, tyrannical government to its given Constitutional limits. Live Free Or Die!!!
Distributed by
The right to freedom of political and religious speech.
The right to bear arms, to not have our homes taken over by the government.
The right to be secure in our personal property and papers without unreasonable searches.
The right to due process of law, to a speedy trial by jury.
The right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
The right of protection from the government interpreting the Constitution to establish its own right to violate principle.
The right to individual state's rights since the federal government is only authorized to do what specifically is given them by the Constitution.
All of these natural rights have everything to do with protecting our liberties from government tyranny and nothing to do with guaranteeing that we personally have food, clothes, housing, or health care. When you give your liberties to the government in exchange for the security they promise, you end up with neither security nor liberty. That is the lesson of history and the result of informed thinking and common sense (which unfortunately may not be as common as it once was in America). The government often causes an increase in hardships simply by going beyond their authority specifically given to them in the Constitution. The government causes more problems than it says it wants to solve by infringing on natural rights of liberty.
If we want to "fix" health care we need free market principles, not more government control. If we wish to have a thriving economy we must stop making it a sin to have profit and we must end the income tax!!! (That's another article).
Do I want everyone to have health care? Do I want everyone to have food? Do I want all to have housing? You better bet that I do and the only way to increase the chances that all have what they need is to unleash freedom, and restrict this insane federal power grabbing, socialist, tyrannical government to its given Constitutional limits. Live Free Or Die!!!
Distributed by
Got to leave! Duty calls! May the force be with you Faith! 
You are replying to a post made by: Hot_Single_Dude
Where did you found this bribed antilife Doctor any way Faith? Just imagine he calls him self a Doctor... I got a butcher who is much more "Doctor" than this so called Doc of urs
First of all this is not a doctor of mine.
Second go to this website Dude.
Where did you found this bribed antilife Doctor any way Faith? Just imagine he calls him self a Doctor... I got a butcher who is much more "Doctor" than this so called Doc of urs
First of all this is not a doctor of mine.
Second go to this website Dude.
Dude, you are missing the whole point here on the US Constituion and American.
America wasn't founded by democrats or republicans but by Christians.
America wasn't founded by democrats or republicans but by Christians.
Dude, you're down to about 3 people involved on your thread. And the repetitive b.s. can get boring.
I just popped in to say repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive...
Hi Fudwiser!!! 
I just popped in to say repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive...
Hi Fudwiser!!!
leigh2154: Dude, you're down to about 3 people involved on your thread. And the repetitive b.s. can get boring.
I just popped in to say repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive...
Hi Fudwiser!!!
I just popped in to say repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive, repetitive...
Hi Fudwiser!!!
Hi 2154
I got lost a while back...just wandered in...and decided to "get lost" again....
amahlala: I got lost a while back...just wandered in...and decided to "get lost" again....
Hell, anyone coming in "here" is going to get lost.
More Threads
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
s*xual skills
Kultur-multur
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
Democrats destroyed America
your favorite topic?
Ladies
makeover
Why is this shameful?
The weird and the random facts around the world
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »