ROB'S NEW BLOG

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. is an African American Christian preacher and Pentecostal bishop who is the senior pastor at Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland.  Bishop Jackson is also a right-wing conservative, founder and chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition composed of ministers who oppose same-sex and abortion.  What is astonishing to me, however, is that Bishop Jackson claims to be a Democrat but appears to be against many of the policies advocated by Democrats including health care reform labeling it reverse classism.  For example, at a recent speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Jackson stated: “If I’m going to have to lessen the care of some folks and people who are worthy of service, worthy of care don’t get served, we have a real problem. In other words, my life is not worth less because I’m worth more financially…There’s a reverse classism in this whole issue.”  Of course, Bishop Jackson did not mention the estimated 47 million Americans without health insurance.  “We hope that everything that has to do with this health care program grinds to a slow halt,” he declared.”

In order to gain traction for his right-wing conservative views, Bishop Jackson has continued to exploit his status as a registered Democrat just to create the appearance of nonpartisanship and independence.  He was a strong supporter of John McCain during the 2008 elections urging him to take a firm stand against marriage equality in order to win right-wing votes by demonstrating fealty to “our cause.”  It’s not surprising that Jackson supported McCain since he has voted Republican since the Bush presidency.

Right-Wing Watch recently reported that Bishop Jackson said: “I voted for President Bush, but here in Maryland—a primarily Democratic state—in order to vote in the primaries that affect the election; you need to be a Democrat. That’s where I started. Over time, however, I’ve found that I have very little in common with the Democratic Party in terms of national moral values issues. Still, being able to say I’m a registered Democrat disarms many of the people who want to write me off as an “Oreo” or an “Uncle Tom.”  It appears to me that Bishop Jackson is a “pretend Democrat” who uses his political platform to further his right-wing radical agenda and the members of his congregation should take notice.

Bishop Jackson’s views are closely aligned with those of right-wing Evangelical Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, even co-authoring publications with him.  However, in 2010, under Perkins’ leadership, the Family Research Council was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as the result of a political attack by a “liberal organization” and “the left’s smear campaign of conservatives“.  However, in 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Woody Jenkins against Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chief David Duke. The campaign was also fined $3,000, reduced from $82,500, after Perkins and Jenkins filed false disclosure forms in a bid to hide their link to Duke.

On May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.” Perkins claimed not to know the group’s ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation. Moreover, in 1999, two years before Perkins’ speech to the CCC, then Republican House Speaker Trent Lott had been embroiled in a national scandal over his ties to this group. GOP former chairman Jim Nicholson then urged Republicans to avoid the CCC because of its “racist views.” The Duke incident surfaced again in the local press in 2002, when Perkins ran for the Republican nomination for the Senate, dooming his campaign to a fourth-place finish in the primaries.

Bishop Jackson has said that same-sex marriage is “an assault” from “the enemy.” He said it’s a “seed” that “corrupts, perverts, and pollutes.”  It seems to me that Bishop Jackson is very interested in legislating marital equality and denying Gay Americans the same rights as other Americans, but is apparently mute on marital infidelity since he was a strong defender of former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain during Cain’s sexual harassment scandals.

While every American has the right to express their opinions about issues that are passionate to them, it is difficult for me to understand why a Christian Bishop who presides over a 3,000 member congregation many of whom are probably African American, can pretend to espouse democratic values on the one hand yet aligns himself with contrary policies and views more consistent with the right-wing conservative radical agenda.  I believe Bishop Jackson owes his congregation an explanation of his views and policies including his stance as a democrat, but that’s just my take.

 CLICK HERE FOR THE EASIEST REAL ESTATE GUIDE ON THE INTERNET

CLICK HERE TO LEARN HOW TO CATCH A CHEATING SPOUSE

Today, President Obama announced that he is for same-sex marriage and therefore, I decided to reissue this article on this subject.  Ever since Gay Americans began to publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation including marriage, verbal and physical attacks on members of the Gay and Lesbian community have been unprecedented. When President Obama eliminated the Don’t Ask, Don ‘t Tellrule thus permitting gay and lesbians to serve openly in the Military, the right-wing Christian conservatives including Republican presidential candidates went berserk.  The most extreme former Republican presidential candidate is Rick Santorum and his statements about homosexuality and the right to privacy. In an interview with the Associated Press published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states’ ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual. Right-wing radical rhetoric concerning Gay Americans has been so deliberate and passionate that it has spread to schools where bullying has been responsible for too many young people taking their own life.

In 2008, 52% of the California electorate approved Proposition 8. This proposition called the “California Marriage Protection Act”, added a new provision to the California Constitution which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was “an essential institution of society,” that leaving the constitution unchanged would “result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay,” and that “gays … do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.” The success of Proposition 8 in 2008 was heavily influenced by Evangelicals and other Christian Conservatives who dumped a ton of money to get it approved. Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort,” Judge Reinhardt wrote.

Mitt Romney condemned the decision saying, “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.” We all know that Willard Mitt Romney strongly opposes same-sex marriage even though his Mormon faith is inconsistent with Christian values.

Former Presidential Candidate Newt “Moon Colony” Gingrich said, “With today’s decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.”  Gingrich added, “The Constitution of the United States begins with “We the People”; it does not begin with ‘We the Judges’. Federal judges need to take heed of that fact. Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage.”

It’s interesting to note how Romney and Gingrich use the Constitution to justify their opposition to the court’s decision on marriage; however, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage. It does not say that straight couples are the only ones who can marry, nor does it say that homosexuals can’t get married. The Constitution does say that everyone has the right to personal liberty, privacy, and equality under the law. Laws that ban consenting adults from marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution. Thus, the judges made the right call but both Romney and Gingrich promises to appoint judges who will consistently misinterpret the Constitution. Basically, laws against same-sex marriage are similar to laws that once banned interracial marriages in the South which were subsequently declared UN-Constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court.

Same-sex marriage has become a major religious and Republican conservative issue in several states. The New Jersey State Senate recently voted to legalize same-sex marriage which, if passed by the State Assembly, will be vetoed by Governor Christie.  Conservatives and members of the religious community are railing against the Maryland General Assembly currently considering same-sex legislation. It astonishes me why the religious community would enthrall itself on the wrong side of a constitutionally protected issue.  In addition, last night, an overwhelming North Carolina majority approved a constitutional amendment not only to band same-sex marriage even though that law was already on the books, but to revoke legal recognition of civil unions and possibly domestic partnerships.

The 14th amendment of the Constitution says that all citizens are to be equal under the law. Gays are citizens too, and have the same ‘civil rights as other Americans, including the right to marry. Marriage is one defined by religion and also defined by government. For most churches, marriage is between a man and a woman even though their doctrine may be differ. Government, for the most part, view marriage as a legal economic partnership in similar to a business partnership. Government allows partners to have joint bank accounts, own property jointly and authorized to make certain decisions for one another. Consequently, there is no reason why this Civil right should be enjoyed by some and not others!

Same-sex marriage is not about marriage or sex, but about choice. I chose to become a Christian and as such, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.  However, God did not give me, any Christian, any right-wing religious radical, or anyone else the right to impose our beliefs or choices on someone else.  In spite of what Santorum and others imply, God also loves Gays and Lesbians.  Here is what the Bible says in two of many verses about Eunuchs, who were Gay:  “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matthew 19:12.)  “Thus says the Lord: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.” (Isaiah 56:1-12).

Even the Declaration of Independence gives each of us the unconditional right to make choices because it declares that, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” 

Some pursue happiness by becoming liars, adulterers, gay bashers or hate-mongers, while others choose to become pious and honorable. Some become Republicans; others become Democrats. Some marry the opposite sex; others marry the same sex. It’s all about civil rights. Sometimes it’s best to honor the unwritten “eleventh” Commandment – Thou shalt mind thine own business, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE FOR THE EASIEST REAL ESTATE GUIDE ON THE INTERNET

CLICK HERE TO LEARN HOW TO CATCH A CHEATING SPOUSE

During this 2012 campaign season, Republican presidential candidate, Willard Mitt Romney and other right-wing conservatives persist in portraying President Obama as being “weak” on national security issues.  Romney was both for and against the removal of Qaddafi, the former Libyan dictator, and he was both for and against setting a timetable to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.  Romney also attacked President Obama on his recent open-microphone slip during which he was overheard telling Russia’s President, Dimitri A. Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to deal with Russian concerns over the American missile defense system after the election in November.  An asinine comment by Romney knowing that not much foreign policy takes place during an election year.  Romney also likes to say that President Obama apologizes overseas for the United States a distortion that has been debunked.

May 1, 2012 represents the first anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  During an interview in 2007, Romney said that the country would be safer by only “a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” But since President Obama’s strategy succeeded, Romney’s campaign has become outraged and now says that it’s wrong for the Obama campaign to point out that Romney initially opposed it:  “The killing of Osama bin Laden was a momentous day for all Americans and the world, and Governor Romney congratulated the military, our intelligence agencies, and the President.”  “It’s now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters’ attention from the failures of his administration.”  If it was okay for Willard Mitt Romney to say getting bin Laden wasn’t important and it was okay for him to attack President Obama’s strategy, why wouldn’t it be okay for the Obama campaign to show how Romney was wrong and Obama was right?  That does not divide America but rather solidifies the strength of President Obama’s National Security policies as well as his courage as President.  Here is the bin Laden story:

Shortly after taking office, President Obama directed former CIA Director, Leon Panetta, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of the war against al Qaeda.  In August, 2010, the President was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden and it took many months to validate this information.  President Obama ran many secret meetings with top advisers to go over a plan.  They discussed many options, including an assault from the air, but there was not unanimity about the plan that was executed.  National Security Advisor, John Brennan said, “The president had to look at all the different scenarios, all the different contingencies that are out there,” he said. “What would have been the downsides if, in fact, it wasn’t bin Laden? What would have happened if a helicopter went down?”

In late April 2011, the President determined that there was enough credible intelligence to act and he authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden.  On Friday morning, April 29, 2011, at 8:20 a.m., before he boarded a plane for Alabama to view tornado damage, President Obama gave the go-ahead for the Sunday, May 1st raid.  That night, the President attended the White House Correspondence Association annual dinner and gave no hint of what was happening behind the scenes.

After playing nine holes of golf on Sunday morning, May 1st, President Obama joined his senior aides in the White House Situation Room at 1PM to go over final preparations for the secret raid on the bin Laden complex.  The SEALS knew how the complex was laid out and even where bin Laden and his family likely could be found on the second and third floors of the largest building on site.  According to the National Journal, they had been practicing at a mock complex, a replica of bin Laden’s home, built at a secret base in nearby Afghanistan.

“You can imagine that for something as important as this, and something as risky as this, every effort would be made to do the practice runs, understand the complexities and the layout of the compound,” Brennan said. “There were multiple opportunities to do that in terms of going through the exercises to prepare for it.”  But the SEALs could not know for sure what would happen once they dropped in to the complex. They didn’t know whether they could get in and out before the Pakistani government — which had not been informed about the raid before it was launched — would be able to scramble fighter jets and get them to the scene to respond to this “Pakistan threat” from a mysterious source.  There were “a lot of people holding their breath,” Brennan said. It went like clockwork — almost.

Brennan said U.S. forces were prepared to take bin Laden alive but knew he would probably not go down easy.  It was unclear the following Monday whether he “got off any rounds,” Brennan said, but he reached for a weapon as a firefight broke out, and the SEALs shot him in the head.  Two Bin Laden couriers were killed along with one of Bin Laden’s sons and a woman reportedly used as a shield by one of the men.  Other women and children were in the compound, according to Pakistani officials, but were not harmed. U.S. officials said that Bin Laden fired his weapon during the fight and that he was asked to surrender but did not.

One of the U.S. helicopters, a CH47 Chinook, was damaged but not destroyed during the operation, and U.S. forces destroyed it with explosives. The operation took 40 minutes; much of it spent searching the residence for intelligence information. The Americans took Bin Laden’s body into custody after the firefight, taking it back to Afghanistan by helicopter, and confirmed his identity.  A U.S. official said he was buried at sea in accordance with Islamic practice.  Pakistani officials said that the operation was a joint U.S.-Pakistani operation, but U.S. officials said only U.S. personnel were involved in the raid.

Bin Laden was killed not by a drone strike, but up close during a firefight with U.S. troops.  He was living in a million-dollar mansion with twelve-foot walls less than 100 miles from the Pakistani capital.  The U.S. had been monitoring the compound for months after receiving a tip that Bin Laden might lodging there.  The house had no phone or television and the residents burned their trash.  The house had high windows and few points of access, and U.S. officials concluded it had been built to hide someone.

Taking out Osama bin Laden was an extremely difficult, sensitive and dangerous mission that could have failed costing the lives of the Navy SEALS.  Even though his credibility as President and Commander-in-Chief was at stake and how Republicans would exploit any failure possibly damaging any reelection hopes, President Obama made the call.  In 2009, President Obama issued an order to use force against pirates holding American Captain Richard Phillips hostage and as a result, Navy snipers shot and killed three of the pirates simultaneously when a pirate was spotted pointing an AK-47 rifle at Captain Phillips.  President Obama has been nothing less than a confident Commander-in-Chief.  While Willard Mitt Romney and right-wing Republican conservatives attempt to portray him as weak on National Security issues, President Obama continues to prove them wrong.  Given his often wrong and inconsistent national security positions over the years, a President Willard Mitt Romney would be a disaster for this country, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

 CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK HERE FOR COLOR BROCHURE ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK TO SIGN-UP IN LAMININE FREE

Over the years, theologians continue to disagree on whether there is immediate life after death.  Some believe in the concept of “soul sleep,” that once you die, both your body and soul lie in the grave until the resurrection.  Others believe that at death, the soul or spirit separates from the body and ascends to heaven or descends into hell.  Although I believe in the latter, the only source where there is an answer for us is in God’s Word, the Bible.  Job raises the question in Chapter 14, verse 14, “If a man dies, shall he live again?”  Exactly, what happens to us after we die?

In 1 Corinthians 2:9, Paul tells us that there is not only life after death, but eternal life is so glorious that “no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him.” . As God in the flesh, Jesus came to the earth to give us eternal life.  He sacrificed His life on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin.  According to Matthew 27:50, while He was on the cross, Jesus “yielded up the ghost,” thus His spirit was separated from his body.  But on the third day of being in the grave, Jesus’ body was resurrected and re-joined His spirit.  Paul also tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:14 that, “God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.”  According to the Bible, we will all be raised at the resurrection, but what happens immediately after death?

The gospel of Luke, Chapter 9, verses 29-31, tells us that, “And as he (Jesus) prayed, the fashion of his (Jesus) countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.  And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.”  Deuteronomy 34:5-6 tell us, “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord.  And he (God) buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor; but no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day.”  Moses body was buried but his spirit ascended into heaven confirming his appearance in glory (brilliance) to meet with Elijah and Moses, sufficient evidence that the spirit is separated from the body at death.

The Bible describes two occasions where God’s servants ascended to heaven without dying – Enoch and Elijah (Elias).  Paul tells us in Hebrews 11:5, that “By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”  “When the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven in whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal (2 Kings 2:2 NIV).  Paul also tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:8 that, “We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” Paul is saying that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.  In other words when we pass from this life in an instant we will be present with God in heaven.  “And they stoned Stephen calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). Here, Stephen acknowledges the fact that after he is stoned to death, his spirit will be with Christ.

In addition to the above biblical references, there are at least two examples in the Bible where Jesus gives us a glimpse of what happens after death.  In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus tells the story of a rich man and Lazarus.  While some theologians believe that these verses represent a parable (story), I am among those who do not because in all of Jesus’ previous parables, He never identifies the name of a person – in this case “Lazarus.”  Verses 22 and 23 say, “The time came when the beggar (Lazarus) died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side.  The rich man also died and was buried.  In Hades (Hell), where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.”  According to these scriptures, there is immediate recognition after death, the rich man was in pain, he could see as well as talk.  The rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers about “this place of torment” (v. 28), but Abraham says in v. 31, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” 

While Jesus was on the cross just before He gave up His spirit, one thief hanging beside Him asked, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Luke 23:42).  Jesus answered him saying, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”  Jesus didn’t tell the thief that he would be with him at the resurrection but “today” meaning immediately.  Finally, John tells us in Revelation 6:9, “And when he (Jesus) had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held.”  John did not see bodies but their spirit.

I believe there is sufficient biblical evidence to suggest that immediately after death, our soul departs the body and goes either to heaven or hell.  People who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will go to heaven (Romans 10:9), those that do not unfortunately will end up in hell.  Have you made a decision to receive Jesus Christ as Savior?  The choice is yours, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

One of the most colorful and controversial characters in the House of Representatives is Tea Party Republican Allen Bernard West.  West was elected to Congress in January, 2011, and is the first black Republican Congressman from Florida since reconstruction.  West served in the United States Army for over 20 years including several combat deployments, achieving the rank Lieutenant Colonel.  West spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 20, 2010, and was endorsed by former Governor Sarah Palin.  As one of 32 African-American Republican candidates for Congress in 2010, West said he supported the Tea Party movement and dismissed the notion that the movement was motivated by racism.

Since joining Congress, Allen West has made some appalling and bizarre statements and comments that, in my opinion, are not appropriate for a political leader.  For example, at a Republican Party dinner this past January, 2012, West said of Democrats, “Take your message of equality of achievement…You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.” Though he called out Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi by name at the dinner, vowing to stop Obama from destroying the country, West defended his comments by saying they were directed not at congressional Democrats but at their “message.”

In January 2011, Congressman West condemned the official flying of a Palestine Liberation Organization flag in Washington, DC, saying that the raising of the flag is “an attempt to legitimize an organization with a known history of terrorist actions”.  During an interview, West stated that Keith Ellison, a Democratic Minnesota Congressman and practicing Muslim, represents the “antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established.”  West later said that his initial comment was misinterpreted and “not about his (Ellison’s) Islamic faith, but about his continued support of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).”  CAIR is not a terrorist organization but works to raise awareness about Islam and Muslims and has continuously and courageously condemned all forms of terrorism and extremism.  Even former President Bush was a CAIR supporter.

On July 19, 2011, in response to comments directed at him in a speech Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic Representative and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman made on the House floor after Congressman West had departed the chamber, West sent an email to Congresswoman Schultz, which he copied to members of House Democratic and Republican leadership, characterizing Wasserman as “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives“, that she was “not a Lady” and asked that she focus, instead, on her own congressional district. This is Congresswomen Schultz’s comment: “The gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this (Ryan) plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries. Unbelievable from a member from South Florida.”  I guess West has a big problem with the truth especially coming from a woman.

At a town hall meeting on April 11, 2012, Congressman West responded to a question about what percentage of the American legislature are card carrying Marxists or neo-Castro Socialists, by stating. “I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”  Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said West is trying to turn back the clock to the days of Republican Senator Joe McCarthy and the so-called “Red Scare.”  West is now trying to capitalize on his comments by asking his donors to send money for, “the fight for the heart and soul of our nation. It’s a fight we can win, but we must all be involved.”  

Conservative Republican Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, was incensed over West’s comments making the following statement during his show on April 12^th, “As the future leader of the Republican party, I am shocked and stunned and deeply saddened by this behavior.  It is incorrigible and any Republican party — local, state or national — that contributes to Allen West’s reelection campaign before he apologizes for this statement will meet my wrath in the future.”

Last December during a House vote, Congressman West compared the Democratic Party to the Nazi party by saying, “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine.”  “But let’s be very honest,” he added. “You have the president, who has an incredible megaphone and a platform, and he has people all across this country believing that the only people on Capitol Hill are House Republicans. He’s not talking anything about his controlled Senate.  So it’s a great propaganda machine.  And I have to give him kudos for being able to leverage that.”  Goebbels was Adolph Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda from 1933 to 1945 and was known for openly exploiting “the lowest instincts of the German people” like racism, xenophobia, and economic insecurity to engender a zealous antisemitism.

West, of course, consistently blames reporters for, “taking my words and twisting it around.”  “What I’m talking about is a person that was the minister of propaganda. And I’m talking about propaganda,” he said. “Once again, you guys will take whatever I say and you will spin it to try to demonize me or demagogue me.”  West apparently believes that he is really the victim.

While I commend Congressman West for his outstanding military service having achieved the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, serving in the Gulf War and in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, earning a Bronze Star and three Meritorious Service Medals.  However, in my opinion, Congressman West is a poor excuse for a political leader.  In addition to his frequent over-the-top comments and statements, he is a supporter of the Ryan 2012 budget that gives thousands of dollars to the rich while eliminating Medicare as we know it, he is critical of the “Americans with Disabilities Act,” and he wants to abolish Planned Parenthood.  Not only will Congressman Allen West never become a vice presidential candidate in spite of Sarah Palin’s endorsement, I don’t believe that a sane Florida electorate will re-elect him to a second term, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

 CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK HERE FOR COLOR BROCHURE ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK TO SIGN-UP IN LAMININE FREE

Based on my recent article, “Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Cult?” I received a rather interesting and extensive comment from a Jehovah’s Witness named Greg.  Therefore, I decided to respond to several points embraced by Greg that I strongly disagree with along with supporting Biblical references.  Greg says that Jehovah’s Witnesses hold the Bible as the ultimate authority on all matters regarding a Christian’s life, and when a belief is in conflict with the Bible, they go with the Bible as the standard for the truth.  A point well taken.  A significant, difference, however, is their Biblical translation.  The Witnesses use the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT), a translation published in 1961 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, a Jehovah’s Witness organization.  NWT is solely for the use and benefit of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Thus, I believe that the NWT translation is basically consistent with Witness doctrine rather than sound Biblical principles.  For example, The New World Translation has been criticized for its rendering of John 1:1.  Most English translations render this verse: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” By contrast, the NWT renders the verse: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This translation supports their doctrine that Jesus was not God.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Jesus is Very Different from the Scriptures

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach and preach a Jesus who is extremely different from the Jesus of the Bible.  Jehovah’s Witnesses regard Jesus as the first and only being directly created by Jehovah God.  They believe that Jehovah God has never had any personal contact with creation but was indirectly responsible for the creation of all beings by empowering Jesus to bring the physical universe into existence.  However, as previously noted, our Bible says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Jesus Deny the Deity of Christ

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is not all powerful, that He is not all knowing, and that He is not even all present.  Here is what our Bible says, “who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but  made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.”  (Philippians 2:6-7).

Jesus is Not to be worshiped

Jehovah’s Witnesses insist that Jesus should not be worshiped, and although they admit that Jesus should be honored, they refuse to honor Him to the same degree God the Father is honored.  This position severely conflicts with what Jesus says in John 5:23, that it is God’s will for “all to honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” Here is what the Bible also says, “And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. (Matthew 2:11).  “And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him.” (Matthew 28:9).  Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe that prayers should not be addressed to Jesus, but here is what the Bible says, “And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:59-60).

Jehovah’s Witnesses Deny the Physical Resurrection of Jesus

Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus rose bodily from the grave teaching instead that He rose in a “spirit body.”  Therefore, Jesus’ resurrection can’t be seen as a victory over physical death when, in fact, this is inconsistent with what the Bible reveals.  For example, 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 says, “So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” Here is additional evidence: Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”  But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. (John 2:19-22).  “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”” (Luke 24:39).

As noted in my previous article, in my view, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be regarded as true Christians and basically is a cult.  They claim to be Christian yet deny essential Christine doctrine.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

 CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK HERE FOR COLOR BROCHURE ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK TO SIGN-UP IN LAMININE FREE

A few days ago, Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on our door to invite me to a biblical study.  As I reflected on the visit, it occurred to me that unlike Mormonism that seems to hide much of their doctrines, these folks are usually upfront about their religious beliefs.  I previously published a two-part article on Mormonism entitled, “Is Willard Mitt Romney, A Mormon, Also a Christian?”  Because of their flawed doctrine, that article concluded that Mormons are not Christians even though they use the name “Jesus Christ” in their literature.  Jehovah’s Witnesses also claim to be Christians because they are serving the true and living God and that their religion is the only true church.  However, they deny the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), the divinity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith.  When you examine Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs, their doctrines parallel cults.  Wikipedia defines “cult” as a “new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.”  The purpose of this article is to examine some of Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs for the purposes of determining if they are a cult.

The core religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses are similar to those of Christians.  They rely on the authority of the Bible and worship only one God.  Some of their other beliefs, however, differ significantly from those of mainstream Christians including their rejection of the Trinity and the existence of Hell.  Jehovah’s Witnesses use a special translation of the Bible called the New World Translation.  The New World Translation is similar to most other modern biblical translations but major differences occur in verses that conflict with particular doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that differ from mainstream Christianity.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. They stress the fact that God has revealed his personal name to humanity which is Jehovah.  Jehovah has a spirit body and lives in heaven, but sees all things.  They do not believe that Jesus was “fully God, fully man.”  They teach that Jesus was not God but rather God’s first creation. Christians believe, however, that Jesus existed in pre-human form as God’s agent of creation and God’s chief spokesman (the Word), and took on human form as the man Jesus by means of a virgin birth.

In the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the purpose of Jesus’ incarnation on earth was: (1) to teach the truth about God; (2) to provide a model of a perfect life for people to follow; and (3) to sacrifice his life to set humans free from sin and death.  Jesus’ crucifixion was not on a cross, but a single upright stake.  After his death, God raised Jesus from the dead “as a spirit creature” and Jesus returned to his home in heaven. Jesus was not made King, however, until 1914. A belief that is unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses is that the eschatological events predicted in the Book of Revelation began in 1914.  This is when God gave Jesus his Kingdom and Jesus has been ruling from heaven ever since.  At this time Jesus threw Satan and his demons out of heaven and down to earth, which is why, according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the world has been getting progressively worse since 1914.

Like the majority of Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe humanity’s current situation is due to the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden. The disobedience of the first couple caused death to enter the world, and as a result, all human beings get sick, age, and die. This is against God’s plan which was to make the entire Earth a paradise.  However, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not emphasize the spiritual consequences of Adam’s sin on humanity nor do they teach that human free will has been damaged.  Rather, they expect and encourage their members to strive to do God’s will and remain pure in his eyes.

Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the existence of hell.  Instead, they hold that the souls of the wicked will be eradicated.  The death that Adam brought into the world is spiritual as well as physical, and only those who gain entrance into the Kingdom of God will exist eternally. However, this division will not occur until Armageddon, when all people will be resurrected and given a chance to gain eternal life. In the meantime, “the dead are conscious of nothing.”  Based on their interpretation of prophetic books like Daniel and Revelation, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people will go to heaven to rule with God and Jesus.  The remainder of the righteous will enjoy paradise on earth – a restored Garden of Eden in which there is no sickness, old age, death or unhappiness.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are known to mainstream Christians and others as people who won’t allow themselves or their children to have blood transfusions.  In fact, they will go so far as to allow a loved one to die rather than accept a transfusion as they believe transfusions are a gross violation of God’s law. They support this notion with these verses: “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gen. 9:4). “You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood” (Lev. 17:14). “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:28, 29).

To interpret these verses to mean that transfusions are forbidden is inconsistent with the fact that the context is referring to animal blood, not human blood.  Additionally, there is a big difference between eating blood and receiving a life-giving blood transfusion.  Eating blood was wrong because it profaned the life of the animal.  But for a person to willingly share his blood intravenously to share life with someone does not profane anything.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that a “clergy class and special titles are improper.”  To support this position, they use these verses: “I will not show partiality to any person or use flattery toward any man” (Job 32:21). “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10). “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave” (Matt. 20:25–27).  These verses, however, basically illustrate that we shouldn’t credit men for what comes from God and that his followers should be willing to serve.

Jehovah’s Witnesses also ignore Biblical teaching concerning the authority of Church leaders and the appropriate honor that’s due them because of their office: “Respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and…esteem them very highly in love because of their work” (1 Thess. 5:12–13), “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor . . . ” (1 Tim. 5:17), and “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Heb. 13:17).  Thus, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ use of the Bible typically quotes passages out of context.

During the late 90s, there were less than 100,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Now there are about seven million around the world.  They do not have churches and meet in “Kingdom Halls.”  This religious sect was started by Charles Taze Russell who was born in 1852.  He was raised a Congregationalist but at the age of seventeen, he tried to convert an atheist to Christianity but ended up being converted to agnosticism.  Some years later he went to an Adventist meeting, was told that Jesus would be back at any time, and became interested in the Bible.

Russell taught his followers the non-existence of hell and the eradication of unsaved people, the non-existence of the Trinity, the identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel, the reduction of the Holy Spirit from a person to a force, the mortality of the soul, and the return of Jesus in 1914.  When 1914 had come and gone, Russell modified his teachings and claimed Jesus had, in fact, returned to Earth, but that his return was invisible. His observable return would come later but still very soon.  It would result in the final conflict between God and the Devil—the forces of good and the forces of evil—in which God would be victorious.  This conflict is known to Jehovah’s Witnesses as the battle of Armageddon, and just about everything the Witnesses teach centers around this doctrine.

Here are a few of Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs that are completely inconsistent with Christine doctrine:

1. God is not a Trinity; the doctrine is inspired by the Devil.
2. Jesus is not to be worshiped or prayed to-he is only an angel (a.k.a. Michael the archangel).
3. Jesus Christ is a “created being” who at one time did not exist.
4. The Holy Spirit is not a person but is “God’s active force” (i.e., gravity, electricity, etc.)
5. Heaven is hope only for select Jehovah’s Witnesses.  The majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses hope to live on “paradise earth.”
6. Heaven is limited only to 144,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses.
7. Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only “true Christians.”  All churches and denominations are considered “false religion.”
8. There is no Hell or eternal judgment (“Hell” is simply the grave.)
9. There is no life after death except for the 144,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses.
10. Jesus second coming happened invisibly and secretly in 1914.
11. The “first resurrection” occurred in 1918.
12. Jesus did not rise from the dead bodily but as a spirit being.
13. Jesus was equal to Adam (just a man).
14. Jesus could have sinned and failed in his mission.
15. Jesus was not born the savior but became the savior at his baptism.
16. God is not omnipresent.
17. God is not omniscient.
18. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not sure of their salvation.
19. All earthly governments are controlled by the Devil.
20. The Holy Spirit is only available to select Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In my view, Jehovah’s Witnesses meet the criteria and definition of a “cult” because their beliefs are bizarre and do not represent true Christian doctrine, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

 CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK HERE FOR COLOR BROCHURE ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK TO SIGN-UP IN LAMININE FREE

Recently, Willard Mitt Romney, Republican presidential candidate, gave Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, some interesting advice when he said that, “misrepresenting the truth is not a good way” to boost one’s campaign, and candidates looking to gain ground should “use truth as one of the pillars of your strategy.”  Considering Romney’s consistent un-truths to boost his campaign, the advice to Santorum is astonishing yet most news pundits do not call Romney out for his myriad of lies.  Romney is known to be a card-carrying “flip flopper” exercising either a “flip” or a “flop” depending on whom he is trying to impress.  In my opinion, he has become the best lying presidential candidate ever and he continues to gain momentum.  Here are just 20 of his many, many whoppers:

1. Romney said to Mississippi Republicans about President Obama, “He was going to cut the budget deficit in half. He’s doubled it.”  This has been one of Romney’s favorite lies and his Republican base just buys into this absurdity.  When President Obama took office, the deficit was about $1.3 trillion.  Last year, it was $1.29 trillion and will probably be about $1.1 trillion this year.  Doubling the deficit would have been $2.6 trillion.
2. In a recent press release, Romney said that Obama plans to “end Medicare as we know it.”  Here is another example of Romney’s hypocrisy.  Obama’s health care legislation actually strengthens and protects Medicare, yet Romney endorses the new House Republican budget plan that ends Medicare and replaces it with a voucher system.
3. In an interview with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, Romney said, “I believe we should get rid of Obamacare.  It’s a disaster.  It’s going to cost a $trillion plus.”  Yet, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) cuts the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars according to the Congressional Budget Office.
4. During a campaign stop in Iowa, Romney said, “[W]hen the president went around at the beginning of his term and apologized for America, it made us just heartsick.”  Another lie.  The President has never apologized for America and Romney knows it. Here is what the President said:“I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world,” Obama said right after the statement about Britain and Greece. Obama continued: “If you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality that, though imperfect, are exceptional. ”
5. While campaigning in New Hampshire, Romney said that President Obama seeks “a European-style welfare state to redistribute wealth and create equal outcomes’ regardless of individual effort and success.”  This is what I would call a “bald face” lie.  Romney wants Americans to believe that the Obama White House wants everyone, regardless of effort or circumstances, to have the same amount of money.  The president has never given anyone reason to make such unfounded claims.
6. During a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Romney said, “I know what it’s like to worry whether you’re gonna get fired. There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip.”  We all know this one is a big lie.  Romney has been wealthy all of his life and has never worried about getting a pink slip.
7. After his New Hampshire primary win, Romney said that President Obama, “lost our AAA credit rating.”  We all know that it was congressional Republicans, especially the Tea Party who were responsible for the lowered credit rating during the Debt Ceiling negotiations.
8. During one of the Republican debates, Romney told his audience why he didn’t seek re-election as governor: “That would be about me. I was trying’ to help get the state in best shape as I possibly could. Left the world of politics went back into business.”  Another bald-face lie.  Romney didn’t re-enter the private sector after leaving the governor’s office, he launched his presidential campaign.
9. While campaigning in New Hampshire, Romney stated that, “European-style welfare” countries end up with a system that “creates poverty.”  When asked to support his statement, Romney not only lied but pretended that he never said it.
10. Romney recently said, “We’ve got a president in office three years, and he does not have a jobs plan yet. I’ve got one out there already and I’m not even president, yet.”  Apparently Romney forgot about the address Obama delivered to a joint session of Congress where he presented a jobs plan.  It’s been scrutinized, analyzed, and subjected to CBO scoring.  Does Romney assume that people are stupid?
11. Romney has said that he, “stood as a pro-life governor and that’s why the Massachusetts Pro-Life Family Association supported my record as governor, endorsed my record as governor.” Until he flipped, Romney was a pro-choice governor, and when he was endorsed by the Massachusetts Pro-Life Family Association, Romney forcefully rejected their support.
12. Romney said, “We have $15 trillion of debt. We’re headed to a Greece- type collapse, and he adds another trillion [dollars] on top for Obamacare and for his stimulus plan that didn’t create private-sector jobs.”  People of reasonable intelligence know that our debt problem has absolutely no resemblance to Greece. The Affordable Care Act reduces the debt and the stimulus added millions of private sector jobs to the economy.  Where does Romney get this stuff?
13. Asked about his investments in Freddie Mac, Romney told Fox News, “My investments, of course, are managed not by me. For the last 10 years they’ve been guided and managed by a trustee, they’re in a blind trust. And the trustee invested in mutual funds and so forth and apparently one of the funds had Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac bonds.”  Another lie.  As the Boston Globe originally reported: “And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.” The Romney campaign has not disputed that report because it is public information.
14. Romney also lied when he said, “I didn’t get involved in politics early in my life,” and didn’t get “politically involved” until after he ran the 2002 Olympics.  Yet, another lie.  Romney ran for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and spent $7 million of his own money.
15. After receiving Donald Trump’s endorsement, on President Obama and the economy, Romney said, “He’s frequently telling us that he did not cause the recession, and that’s true. But he made it worse.”  Not only is the economy much stronger than it was, even Romney has said that the economy has improved since Obama took office.
16. Romney told supporters in Las Vegas that the President told Americans, “to skip coming here for conventions and meetings.”  Not true.  What Obama said in reference to Wall Street recklessness, “You are not going to be able to give out these big bonuses until you pay taxpayers back.  You can’t get corporate jets.  You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime.  There’s got to be some accountability and some responsibility.”
17. Romney claims that, “President Obama is shrinking our military.”  Obama has increased defense spending three times in three years.  The Pentagon budget is poised to shrink, but Republicans have backed the cuts, and the reductions are to be expected after one war has ended and another scales back.
18. Romney claimed that Syria is Iran’s “route to the sea.”  Actually, Iran has 1,520 miles of its own coastline and does not share a border with Syria as implied by Romney.
19. On contraception access, Romney said that the Obama administration is “requiring the Catholic Church to provide for its employees and its various enterprises health care insurance that would include birth control, sterilization and the morning after pill.”  Another bald-face lie.  Churches are exempt.
20. Romney said that President Obama “also promised he’d cut taxes for middle-income Americans.  Hasn’t done that, either.”  Romney must have forgotten that Obama cut taxes for the middle-class several times.  In fact, he recently signed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which extends the payroll tax cut he passed for 2011 through the end of 2012, and lets middle-class families keep more of each paycheck in their pockets.  Overall, the average middle-class family pays lower taxes today than when President Obama took office.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell told his viewers, “[T]he political media have a problem. It’s a problem the press has always had and has never solved. When should they call a lie a lie? When a candidate like Mitt Romney, who lies much more than most candidates, says something that is utterly false, the press will say, it’s ‘not accurate.’ They might even use the word ‘false.’ They might use the word ‘untrue,’ but they will never, ever use the word ‘lie.’ And that is what lying politicians like Mitt Romney count on every time they try to get away with one of their ridiculous lies….In the silly rules of politics and political coverage, the word ‘lie’ just can’t seem to find its place.”

In his article in late January 2012, Columnist Jon Chait wrote that Romney appears to be “an audacious liar,” adding, “Even by the standards of politicians, Romney seems unusually prone to dishonesty.“  Newt Gingrich said recently that Mitt Romney “has a near pavlovian reflex of lapsing into falsehoods in order to rearrange reality to his liking.” That’s harsh for a fellow Republican, but absolutely true.

It is apparent that Willard Mitt Romney will say anything to become President and is obviously infected by “foot in mouth disease.”  He seems to distort or misrepresent the facts every time he opens his mouth and while many of us presume politicians will “stretch or embellish” the truth to suit their cause, Romney has made it a profession.  Once a liar, always a liar, and savvy Americans will never elect this liar to the White House, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

 CLICK HERE FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK HERE FOR COLOR BROCHURE ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK TO SIGN-UP IN LAMININE FREE

JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON MARTIN

Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American high school student from Miami, was visiting his father in a gated Sanford community, a Suburbs of Orlando.  Trayvon, his dad and brother were watching the NBA All-Star game and at halftime, Trayvon walked to the nearby 7-Eleven to get some Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea.  On his return trip, he drew the attention of 28-year old Martin Zimmerman who was armed, patrolling the neighborhood in a sport-utility vehicle and who called 911 to report “a real suspicious guy.”  Zimmerman is white but identifies himself as Hispanic.  “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something,” Zimmerman told the Police Dispatcher. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around looking about.”  ”Now he’s coming towards me. He’s got his hand in his waistband.  And he’s a black male…Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is…These assholes, they always get away.  After discussing his location with the dispatcher, Zimmerman said, “Shit he’s running,” and the following sounds suggested that he left his vehicle to run after Trayvon.  “Are you following him?” the dispatcher asked. Zimmerman replied: “Yep.” “Okay, we don’t need you to do that,” the dispatcher warned.  Several minutes later, according to other callers to 911 in the neighborhood, Zimmerman and Trayvon got into an altercation on the ground and Trayvon can be heard screaming for help.  A single shot rang out and Trayvon Martin is dead, his only weapons–a bag of Skittles and a can of tea.

Zimmerman told police that he acted in self-defense.  He was licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and police initially told Trayvon’s father that they hadn’t charged Zimmerman because he was a criminal justice student with a “squeaky clean” record.  However, in 2005, Zimmerman was arrested for “resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer” but those charges were subsequently dropped.  Police records reveal that Zimmerman had called 911 forty-six times between January 1, 2012, and the day he shot Trayvon.  Florida guidelines for licensed gun owners state, “A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman.”  I don’t believe Zimmerman cared about the guidelines because he was on a mission and believed the law was on his side. Could it be that Zimmerman was a vigilante with “a false sense of authority” in search of young African American men in his neighborhood to execute?

Zimmerman’s self-defense claim relies on “Stand Your Ground” legislation signed into law in 2005 by former Republican Governor Jeb Bush.  This law allows Florida residents to use deadly force against a threat without attempting to back down from the situation. (More stringent self-defense laws state that gun owners have “a duty to retreat” before resorting to killing.)  Seventeen states have passed “Stand Your Ground” laws which opponents call a “license to kill” or a “shoot first” law.  This law has been unpopular with law enforcement officers in Florida since it makes it much more difficult to charge shooters with a crime.

In recent years, the Sanford Police Department has engaged in a series of public blunders.  For example, in 2006, two private security guards—the son of a Sanford police officer and a volunteer for the department—killed an African American teen with a single gunshot in the back.  The guards were released without charges. Perhaps the most significant incident occurred in late 2010: Justin Collison, the son of a Sanford Police Lieutenant, sucker-punched a homeless African American male outside a bar and officers on the scene released Collison without charges.  He eventually surrendered after a video of the incident appeared online.  The police chief at the time was ultimately forced to retire.  It should also be noted that Anthony Raimondo, the Sanford patrol Sergeant in charge on the night of Collison’s assault, was also the first supervisor on the scene of Trayvon Martin’s shooting death.

When Trayvon was executed by Zimmerman, all he had were Skittles, iced tea, and a cell phone, authorities told the L.A. Times.  The phone has been mentioned in multiple reports and people are asking what happened to the cell phone.  Why did the police on the scene not use it to identify Trayvon or contact his next of kin? “Trayvon’s body was bagged and taken to the morgue where he was tagged as a John Doe,” writes African American affairs blogger Sandra Rose.  No one contacted Trayvon’s family even though police had Trayvon’s cell.  Trayvon’s death was not reported to his parents until 3-days later.

ABC News reported that a 16-year-old girl was on the phone with Trayvon Martin just before he was killed, and she said that Trayvon was evading the pursuer. She told her story to the network:  “He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man, Trayvon’s friend said. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.” 

Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, apparently cornering Trayvon.

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”  Trayvon’s phone logs show the conversation occurred five minutes before police first arrived on scene.

The public outrage against the senseless killing of an unarmed African American teen has been intense.  The local state Attorney’s Office, which has the option of pursuing a case against Zimmerman, said that it had received more than 100,000 emails demanding prosecution that the office’s servers shut down.  The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has opened an investigation on this case.  In addition, Republican Governor Rick Scott sent a letter to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement requesting the Department to provide any assistance necessary to fully investigate this matter.

Zimmerman told police that it was him crying for help and that Trayvon started the fight. He claimed self-defense and was not charged.  Witnesses told ABC News a fistfight broke out and, at one point, Zimmerman, who outweighed Trayvon by more than 100 pounds, was on the ground and that Trayvon was on top.  Austin Brown, 13, was walking his dog during the time of the altercation and saw both men on the ground but separated. Brown, along with several other residents, heard someone cry for help just before hearing a gunshot.  Police arrived 60 seconds later and Trayvon was quickly pronounced dead. According to the police, Zimmerman, was found bleeding from the nose and the back of the head, standing over Martin. An officer at the scene overheard Zimmerman saying, “I was yelling for someone to help me but no one would help me.” Witnesses told ABC News they heard Zimmerman say that “It was self-defense,” and place the gun on the ground.  After the 911 tapes were released, Trayvon’s mother recognized the voice yelling as her son, not Zimmerman.

On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old African American high-school junior, was visiting his father in a gated community in Sanford Florida, making his way home from the 7-11 with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea when Zimmerman saw him.  Zimmerman called a non-emergency dispatch number to report that Trayvon looked intoxicated, followed him, and then minutes later after an altercation, shot him.  To me, the facts do not support Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense and investigators should ask Zimmerman the following questions:  Did you observe Mr. Martin committing a crime?  Why did you leave the safety of your SUV and not wait for the police to arrive?  Why did you follow Mr. Martin after the Police Dispatcher told you not to?

It is difficult to understand how a teen weighing approximately 140 pounds armed only with a bag of Skittles and a can of Arizona Tea become a threat to a 200+ pound man holding a loaded semi-automatic weapon who engaged him without provocation.  Zimmerman’s actions, his lie about yelling for help, and his obsession with wanting to play “police officer,” seem to suggest that he deliberately and with pre-meditation pursued Trayvon Martin with the intent on murdering him, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

INCREASED DRILLING

Over the past several weeks, the American people have experience huge increases in gasoline prices.  Republican conservatives, including their presidential candidates, blame the gasoline increases on President Obama supposedly because of his so-called “anti-drilling policies.”  The fact is that oil prices soared despite both record drilling and the highest domestic oil production levels in almost a decade.  The U. S. Energy Information Administration continues to report that more drilling do not have any significant impact on oil prices.  Yet, under the Obama presidency, U. S. oil drilling is up nearly 60% in the past year and at its highest total since 1987.  The above chart illustrates this increase in oil production.

Republicans have consistently been lying to the American people by telling them, among other things, that President Obama is over regulating the energy and their presidential candidates want to abolish EPA.  However, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and the Federal Reserve of St. Louis, employment in the oil and gas community has reached a 20-year high with 186,000 employees, the highest since 1992.  Even the coal industry has experienced a significant employment increase in 2011, with over 87,000 employees not seen since 1998.  In 2009, the Obama administration approved 4,487 oil drilling permits to drill on federal land; in 2010 there were 4,090 permits issued; and by the end of 2011, 4,244 permits issued, equaling President’s Bush’s oil record in his first term.

Fox News and the right-wing radical part of the Republican Party has engaged in an orchestrated effort to blame the Obama administration for high gasoline prices (a claimed that has consistently been debunked.)  However, during the summer of 2008 when gasoline prices hit an all time high of $4.11 per gallon, Fox said that, “no President has the power to increase or to lower gas prices.” Fox also said that, “expanding domestic oil drilling will not significantly lower prices, and the only way to reduce our vulnerability to gas price spikes is to use less oil.”

Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly also blames President Obama for his energy policy and increased gasoline prices; however, O’Reilly had a completely different position during the Bush administration and O’Reilly is now upset with Media Matters for calling him out. Media Matters used a verbatim clip from Bill O’Reilly to illustrate his claim that politicians (without regard to party) have very little control over gas prices, but supply and speculation are much larger factors.  O’Reilly does not deny what he said during a Republican administration but now claims that it is entirely Obama’s fault that gas prices have increased.  O’Reilly says that Media Matters was lying (although they quoted O’Reilly verbatim).  Here is why O’Reilly is upset with Media Matters and you be the judge:

O’REILLY: “As you know, I’ve been very critical of the oil companies jacking up gas prices when there is plenty of supply available in the USA. I’ve criticized President Obama for doing nothing about it when he could call the oil chieftains and get behind legislation to limit oil speculation.  Those would be the same oil chieftains that spoke to the President through their puppet, Petroleum Institute Jack Gerard, telling him to “approve Keystone XL pipeline or else?”

O’REILLY: Enter Media Matters, who calls me a hypocrite because they say I didn’t hammer President Bush when gas prices rose during his tenure.  

O’REILLY: When you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices, understand its complete BS. If Americans want lower gas prices, cut back.

O’REILLY: Now Media Matters posted that clip nine days ago, but they dishonestly edited it. Here’s the full clip:

O’REILLY: The Republican Party pretty much lets big oil do whatever it wants and refuses to rein in corrupt speculators who drive up the price of oil. So the next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices, understand it’s complete BS. If Americans want lower gas prices, cut back.

Unless it’s in O’Reilly’s mind, there are no contradictions in the Media Matters reporting and it continues to support the right-wing radical lies against this President.  In addition, O’Reilly may not have realized it, but his comments were a direct slam against Newt Gingrich who said that if elected President, he would ‘bring gas down to $2.50 a gallon.”  However, I wouldn’t place too much stock in Gingrich’s comments; after all, he wants to build a colony on the moon.

Although speculation contributes to high gasoline prices, the single biggest factor in the price of gasoline is the cost of crude oil. In recent years, the world’s appetite for gasoline and diesel fuel grew so quickly that suppliers of these fuels had a difficult time keeping up with demand.  This demand growth is a key reason why prices of both crude oil and gasoline reached record levels in mid-2008. By the fall of 2008, crude oil prices began to fall due to the weakening economy and collapse of global petroleum demand. These factors helped gasoline prices to drop below $2 per gallon of Regular gasoline in late 2008 and early 2009. The gradual improvement in the U.S. and world economies in 2010 and the political events in the Middle East and North Africa in early 2011, the source of about one third of world oil production, contributed to the increases in crude oil and gasoline prices in 2010 and 2011.  History informs us that gasoline prices rise and fall depending on a variety of factors usually not in the control of Republican or Democratic administrations. Let’s hope by summer they fall again.

 CLICK HERE FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK HERE FOR COLOR BROCHURE ABOUT LAMININE

CLICK TO SIGN-UP IN LAMININE FREE

In a bizarre attempt to rescue Rush Limbaugh who recently made those hateful verbal attacks on Georgetown Law Center Student, Sandra Fluke, O’Reilly, along with Fox News host Eric Bolling, has invented a new conspiracy theory that Ms. Fluke was actually a White House and Democratic plant.  O’Reilly bases his odd premise on the fact that Ms. Fluke is being represented by former White House communications director Anita Dunn’s Public Relations agency.

O’Reilly: “As we reported last night (March 7, 2012), the (O’Reilly) Factor believes the Sandra Fluke contraception controversy was manufactured to divert attention away from the Obama administration’s disastrous decision to force Catholic non-profit organizations to provide insurance coverage for birth control and the morning after pill.”

O’Reilly: “Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom. So it seems there is a powerful presence behind Sandra Fluke.”

Some in the radical right-wing component of the Republican Party applaud O’Reilly for coming up with such a “brilliant” theory attempting to prove that Limbaugh was “set up” by the Democratic Party.  Clearly Limbaugh had to be part of the conspiracy to make it work; otherwise, he would never have attacked Ms. Fluke which started the controversy in the first place.  Since Limbaugh willingly participated, he apparently considered loosing hundreds of sponsors on his radio program as mere “French fries” falling out of its box.  So let’s consider how the conspiracy theory probably came together to benefit President Obama as O’Reilly has observed through his prolific intelligence.

For the O’Reilly conspiracy theory to take root, the Obama administration had to know well in advance that Republican Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, would hold a hearing on February 16, 2012, about women’s reproductive health.  The Obama administration also had to know that Issa would only permit males to testify and refusing to tolerate any females proposed by Democrats to offer testimony.

Once the Obama administration obtained the Issa hearing plan through some kind of divine intervention, the administration apparently began to search diligently for a woman from the Georgetown Law Center who had a story to tell about a friend loosing an ovary because her insurance would not cover needed contraception medication.  As a result, Sandra Fluke was offered this delicate assignment.  In addition to agreeing to this unprecedented diabolical scheme, Ms. Fluke had to know that Issa would not let her testify and subsequently allow herself to be subjected to the appalling Limbaugh comments about her.  In addition, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi must also have known in advance that the Democrats would hold their own hearing since Ms. Fluke would not be permitted to share her story at the Issa hearing.

Based on the O’Reilly conspiracy theory, Ms. Fluke must also be a brilliant law student since she somehow invented a successful technique to pressure Issa in refusing to let her testify at the hearing so that she could trap Limbaugh into launching a verbal attack on her apparently using some kind of thought transference power.  After all, Ms. Fluke and Limbaugh didn’t know each other.  I don’t believe any of Limbaugh’s wives ever had this much power over him.  Way to go Ms. Fluke.

To further embellish his conspiracy theory, O’Reilly believes that there had to be some kind of collusion that existed between Ms. Fluke and the Obama White House since Ms. Fluke is now represented by the Public Relations firm of Anita Dunn, former White House Communications Director.  Even though Ms. Fluke’s PR relationship began only after the controversy started, that apparently didn’t matter to O’Reilly; why confuse the facts with his theory?  It is also interesting to note that Anita Dunn is not even involved in assisting Ms. Fluke.

O’Reilly continued his conspiracy theory that the Fluke controversy was “manufactured to divert attention away from the Obama administration’s disastrous decision to force Catholic non-profit organizations to provide insurance coverage for birth control and the morning-after pill.”  Of course, O’Reilly has yet to explain how the Obama Administration convinced Limbaugh to go on a 3-day negative rant about Ms. Flute.  O’Reilly also called it “very strange” that he was having trouble tracking down “just who is sending Sandra around to the media.”  O’Reilly also found it “very unusual” that Ms. Fluke would not respond to a telephone call inviting her on his show.  Her lack of response could have been characterized by the fact that O’Reilly implied that Ms. Fluke was a “slut” rather than calling her that outright.

Over the years, the radical right-wing element of the Republican Party including many of the Fox News commentators, have come up with a series of novel practices and fabricated rhetoric to blame democrats on everything from high employment to Limbaugh’s attempted defilement of Sandra Fluke.  To come up with such an asinine conspiracy theory, Bill O’Reilly is just plain stupid or he believes that the American people are, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

This is a follow-up to my article on Arpaio’s quest to de-legitimize President Obama.  In response to that article published today, one of my commenters said that I “make a lot of noise,” but “haven’t answered or disputed the facts that have been found.” The commenter went on to say that the “official long form posted on the White House website is said to be a forgery.”  That along “with the other evidence,” I “ignore it all and are just shouting louder instead of answering the question” where is a legal document that will pass scrutiny? The commenter said that my “article is very hollow.”

While each of us is entitled to our views and opinions, concerning the authenticity of President Obama‘s birth certificate, either some are naïve, misinformed or have bought into that ridiculous and debunked theory that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.  Here are the facts for their benefit although the facts probably won’t matter:

On October 31, 2008, the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu.  The Associated Press quoted Dr. Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.  According to the Honolulu Advertiser, Dr. Fukino was also quoted as saying that the agency had been bombarded by requests and the registrar of statistics had even been called at her home in the middle of the night.  Fukino also said that she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

The White House released the long-form version of President Obama’s birth certificate confirming (yet again) that he was born in the United States.  The Hawaii Department of Health made an exception in Obama’s case and issued copies of the “Certificate of Live Birth.”  But speculation on his citizenship continued. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate on his Web page.

As part of its research, Fact Check representatives got a chance to spend some time with Obama’s birth certificate, they attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. They have assured readers that the certificate bears a raised seal and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). According to Fact Check, the certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version and you can see the seal above.  They went on to say that the document is a “certification of birth,” also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of the long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. Fact Check tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.  In case you were not aware, Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a Republican organization.  Walter Annenberg’s served in Richard Nixon’s cabinet as Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and the Annenberg’s are personal friends of the Reagans.

Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama’s birth certificate are very imaginative. One conservative blogger has suggested that the Obama campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama’s information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn’t have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible “scenario” without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible. It should also be noted that none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect.

PolitiFact.com also dug into some of the loopy theories and said, “It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over.”  The conspiracy would need to be even deeper than realized. In fact in July 2008, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, August 13, 1961.  Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents “may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday.” The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

On May 13, 2010, Hawaiian Governor Linda Lingle signed a law allowing state agencies to ignore requests for information if they determine the requests duplicate or are substantially similar to earlier ones. The law targets the birthers who contend Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. Hawaii officials tell requesters the same thing over and over: State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who doesn’t have a tangible interest in the matter. Obama requested and obtained a copy of his own birth certificate and released it publicly in 2008. That document is legal proof of citizenship, and it’s the only type of birth record the state issues. Nevertheless, some wanted more.  So under the direction of Governor Lingle, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Hawaiian State Health Director, issued a statement on July 27, 2009, that she has seen the original vital records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii and “is a natural-born American citizen.”  Governor Lingle is a Republican who stumped for John McCain in 2008, and she is a Republican senatorial candidate from Hawaii.

The Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a $20,000 sanction against Queen Birther, Orly Taitz, the most visible of those pressing the Obama-as-foreigner theory.  As the court wrote, a lower court judge imposed the fine to punish Taitz’ “misconduct” in filing “frivolous” legal claims on behalf of an Army officer who didn’t want to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that Obama’s presidency was illegitimate.  On October 13, 2009, Judge Clay D. Land wrote:  “While the Court derives no pleasure from its imposition of sanctions upon counsel Orly Taitz, it likewise has no reservations about the necessity of doing so. A clearer case could not exist; a weaker message would not suffice.”  Judge Land was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush.

Hawaiian officials continue to say that the certification is, in fact, only one piece of abundant evidence of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department’s Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named “Obama II, Barack Hussein” as having been born in the state. In addition, as Factcheck.org and other media organizations have repeatedly pointed out, both of Honolulu’s newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and the Honolulu Star Bulletin, on Aug. 14, 1961, both ran birth announcements listing Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961.

Even Fukino accepts that her comments are not likely to end the matter for the die-hard birthers. Arpaio, Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released. But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

“It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said. But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.

The people who are saying that the President’s long form posted on the White House website is a forgery are the very people guilty of carrying on this bizarre theory.  No matter what Donald Trump, Joe Arpaio or other birthers say, President Obama was born in the United States.  Obviously, the right-wing radicals and birthers choose not to believe the Republican Governor of Hawaii that Obama’s birth certificate is authentic and will continue this charade of nonsensical idiosity.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

Conservative Republican Joseph M. “Joe” Arpaio was first voted into office in 1992 in Maricopa County, Arizona.  Arpaio styles himself as “America’s Toughest Sheriff” and is well known for his outspoken stance against illegal immigration.  The problem, however, is that Arpaio has been accused of everything from racial profiling to abuse of power.  To avert some of his negative attention, Arpaio has revisited the discredited “birther” conspiracy.  Let’s first discuss a few of his legal problems.

In June 2008, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department began investigating Arpaio along with accusations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures. This investigation was conducted under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlaws discrimination related to programs that receive federal funds.  In 2009, Arpaio announced at a press conference that he would not cooperate with the Federal investigation and in September 2010, the Justice Department filed suit against Arpaio to compel his cooperation.  The suit was settled in June, 2011, after Arpaio agreed to allow federal investigators to interview his employees and access thousands of documents.  Following this 3-year investigation, the Justice Department released its report that concluded that the Sheriff’s Office has “a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos” that “reaches the highest levels of the agency.”  The report accused Arpaio of engaging in “unconstitutional policing” by unfairly targeting Latinos for detention and arrest and retaliating against critics and was the worst pattern of racial profiling in U. S. History.  As a result of the Justice Department report, this past December 2011, the Department of Homeland Security revoked Arpaio’s authority to identify and detain illegal immigrants.  In a separate action on December 23, 2011, a federal judge enjoined Arpaio’s office from “detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States,” substantially putting an end to his anti-illegal immigration enforcement.

In 2008 a federal grand jury began an inquiry of Arpaio for abuse of power.  He is being investigated for politically motivated and “bogus” prosecutions which Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has called “a reign of terror.” The targets of Arpaio’s alleged abuse of power have included Mayor Gordon, a Democrat, and a long list of other state, county and judicial officials.  If you got in Arpaio’s way, whether Democrat or Republican, he was coming after you.

In July 2010, Arpaio established the “Campaign to Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012,” to fund ads critical of Rick Romley, a candidate in the Republican Primary for Maricopa County Attorney and Arizona Attorney General candidate Republican Tom Horne even though Arpaio was not running for re-election since his term does not expire until the end of 2012.  One of the ads, a direct mailer, promoted the defeat of Romley and was an in-kind contribution to Bill Montgomery, Romley’s opponent, in violation of Arizona election laws.  Although the “Campaign to Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012” was fined $153,978, the ads apparently worked because Montgomery defeated Romley.

An analysis by the Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget found Arpaio misspent almost $100 million in taxpayer dollars.  The analysis showed that money from a restricted detention fund only to be used to pay for jail items such as food, detention officers’ salaries and equipment, was used by Arpaio to pay employees to patrol Maricopa County.  The analysis also showed that many Sheriff’s Office employees, whose salaries were paid from the restricted detention fund, were working job assignments different from those recorded in their personnel records.  Arpaio’s office apparently kept a separate set of personnel books detailing actual work assignments that were different from information kept on the county’s official human-resources records.  Arpaio also used the detention fund to pay for investigations of political rivals and activities involving his human-smuggling unit.  In addition, the analysis showed a number of inappropriate spending items including a trip to Alaska where deputies stayed at a fishing resort, and trips to Disneyland.

After receiving a copy of an internal memo written by Maricopa Deputy Chief Frank Munnell alleging misconduct and mismanagement by Arpaio’s second in command and his top officers, in October 2010, the US Attorney for Arizona confirmed that the FBI and Department of Justice were conducting criminal investigations into its allegations.

Apparently to move the publicity of the Justice Department’s criminal investigation away from him, Arpaio claimed that after receiving a petition of 300 signatures from the Tea Party, he decided to launch an investigation into President Obama’s birth place, something that has been debunked on numerous occasions.  (You may recall that Donald Trump claimed that his “investigators” uncovered evidence that the President was not born in the United States, but Trump never released anything supporting his claim.)

We all know that Tea Party conspiracy theories allege that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore not eligible to be President.  Some theories even contend that President Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, or that his birth certificate is a forgery.  Still others claim that because his father was from Kenya, that means he held dual citizenship at birth (British and American), and the dual citizenship means Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. These bizarre theories have been characterized by some commentators as racist or a racial reaction to the first African American president of the United States.  I agree with their characterization.

Belief in the conspiracy theories has persisted despite Obama’s pre-election release of his official birth certificate from Hawaii in 2008.  There was also confirmation by the Hawaii Department of Health, concurred in by its Republican Governor based on the original documents, and the April 2011 release of a certified copy of Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth. Other evidence of Obama’s Hawaiian birth also surfaced such as birth announcements published in August 1961 in two Hawaii newspapers.  Of course, the Tea Party and other right-wing radical folks will not let the facts get in the way of their theories.

Other than the baseless claim that Obama’s birth certificate was a “forgery,” Arapaio didn’t give any hints as to what his birther “Cold Case Posse” had found, but insisted his press conference was not driven by a desire to gain media attention. “I don’t have press conferences just to get my name on television,” he said.

“What should I do, throw it in the waste basket and forget about it, like everyone else is this country has done?” Arpaio said. “But once again, I take my elected sheriff’s status very serious, and when the people ask me to do something I try to do it regardless of the repercussions, the politics and the media.”

Arpaio knows he is in trouble with the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation and is also trying to “rally the birthers” for support.  To say that Arpaio is “America’s Toughest Sheriff” does not mean that he has integrity.  On the contrary, based on his narcissistic, unscrupulous and devious behavior over the years, Arpaio should be in prison.  Depending on the results of the Justice Department’s investigation, that may very well be the outcome, but that’s just my take.

The most extreme radical right-wing Conservative Republican talk show host is Rush Limbaugh who has been at the forefront in spewing racist comments and bigoted remarks especially concerning President Obama.  A couple of weeks ago, I published an article entitled, “Rush Limbaugh Continues His Race-Baiting Attacks on President Obama.”  Although many of Limbaugh’s comments have been “over the top,” none have been as reprehensible as the recent comments he made when he called Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student, a “slut” and a “prostitute” for publicly advocating that employers cover contraception in their health plans.  Rather than apologize for his hateful comments, Limbaugh “doubled-down.”  Limbaugh said that he would “happily buy [Sandra Fluke] all the aspirin she wants “to put between her knees in lieu of contraception.  He then expanded his offer to the entire university:

“A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi’s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they’re going broke, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control. So what would you call that? I called it what it is,” he said. “So, I’m offering a compromise today: I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want.”

Fluke’s testimony at the House Democratic hearing was certainly not as Limbaugh claimed that she’s “having so much sex she’s going broke buying contraceptives.” She told the story of her friend who had an ovary removed because the insurance company wouldn’t cover the prescription birth control medication she needed to stop the growth of ovarian cysts.  Limbaugh is accustomed to making up his own “facts” but his disgusting tirade continued to accelerate insisting that if women want their contraception covered, they should post pornographic videos of themselves online. “So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal,” he said. “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”  Limbaugh might have a passion for pornographic materials to go with his repulsive thought process.

Limbaugh has a huge listening audience estimated at about 20 million people, many of them women.  Although he placates to the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party, it is a mystery to me why any sane Republican woman would tolerate such condescending remarks from a man.  I imagine that most of Limbaugh’s audience either use or have used contraceptive devices.  Since he is now on his fourth wife and apparently has no children, he has probably been a candidate for contraceptive devices unless, of course, he practices abstinence or simply “can’t man up.”

Seventy-five members of Congress sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner expressing their anger at Limbaugh’s remarks and calling for Republican leaders to speak out.  None have.  I guess the leaders in the Republican Party are just too cowardly to speak out or basically not interested in defending women’s health issues especially regarding contraception.  House Speaker John Boehner within the past few hours has repudiated Limbaugh’s comments.”  Repudiation is good, but attacking the sources of his revenue has greater implication.

Limbaugh’s comments elicited such fierce condemnation that a campaign began on Twitter to ask Sleep Train to pull its commercials from Limbaugh’s show.  Sleep Train, one of the biggest mattress retailers in the country, has been targeted in the past for advertising on Limbaugh’s show.

Several advertisers announced today that they were pulling their commercials from Limbaugh’s radio show because of his inflammatory comments.  Mattress store Sleep Train said that it would no longer advertise during Limbaugh’s top-rated show following days of outrage over Limbaugh’s statements about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown student who was denied a chance to speak at a Congressional hearing about birth control.

“We are pulling our ads with Rush Limbaugh and appreciate the community’s feedback,” the company tweeted.

Also today, another mattress company, Sleep Number, tweeted through a spokeswoman that it had also pulled its ads from Limbaugh’s show.  “Recent comments by Rush Limbaugh do not align w/our values, so we made decision to immediately suspend all advertising on that program.”

Quicken Loans also pulled its advertising by tweeting, “Due to continued inflammatory comments– along w/valuable feedback from clients & team members– QL has suspended ads on Rush Limbaugh program.”

Other advertisers including ProFlowers are also fielding angry messages on Twitter. “Rest assured, your feedback is heard. We heard about the comments and we will reevaluate our marketing plan.” –Cori.  “We would like to assure you that we do not endorse the views expressed by Rush Limbaugh. We understand your concerns and value your feedback.”  According to Think Progress, eHarmony has also been fielding complaints and have said they are considering taking action as well.

Rush Limbaugh is by far one of the most disgusting and vile radio talk show hosts and should be fired.  His racist rants and disgraceful commentary over the years has been extreme and I believe has adversely affected the Republican Party.  One can readily understand why his first three wives dumped him.  Before long, his fourth wife, Kathryn, will probably realize the despicable personality Limbaugh is and will probably do what the previous three did, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE FOR THE EASIEST REAL ESTATE GUIDE ON THE INTERNET

CLICK HERE TO LEARN HOW TO USE WEIGHT FAST

  CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

 If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires

According to recent polls, Conservative Republican Rick Santorum is the new leader among Republican presidential candidates.  Over the years, Santorum has alienated people from just about every political constituency.  For example, here is what Santorum says about Gay Americans:  “Gay relationships destabilize society” and that he (Santorum) “wouldn’t offer any legal protections to gay relationships.”  If elected President, Santorum has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages.  (Not sure how he will accomplish this since marriages are legislated by the states.)  Santorum also said that, “the ultimate homeland security issue” is making sure sodomites and homosexuals cannot marry each other.  In a 2003 interview, Santorum likened sodomy to adultery, polygamy, and incest as “antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family”.  Santorum has compared the idea of homosexual marriage to “man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be,” and said, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

During his recent campaign tour in Iowa, Santorum frequently compared same-sex relationships to inanimate objects like trees, basketballs, beer and paper towels and even tried to blame the economic crisis on Gay Americans.  Santorum said last August that religious people have a constitutional right to discriminate against gays:  “We have a right, the Constitution of religious liberty but now the courts have created a super-right that’s above a right that’s actually in the Constitution, and that’s of sexual liberty. And I think that’s a wrong, that’s a destructive element.”

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday last October, Santorum defended his support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by saying that gay soldiers would disrupt the military because, “they’re in close quarters, they live with people, they obviously shower with people.” He also suggested that “there are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore.”  Santorum is apparently saying that being gay is a “choice” that can be overcome.

Santorum has also alienated African Americans with his racist rhetoric and his obvious hatred for President Obama.  During an appearance on Christian television in January 2012, Santorum said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.”

Also in January 2012, Santorum told an Iowa audience that, “Diversity creates conflict. If we celebrate diversity, we create conflict.”  He went on to say that, “Having that strong foundation of the faith and family allows America to be in a position where we can be more free. We can be free because we are good decent moral people.”  Although it’s difficult to understand the basis of Santorum’s comment, it appears that his concept of a “more free” America includes making Americans less dependent on government assistance such as food stamps, Medicaid and other forms of aid, especially African Americans.  After all, Santorum singled out African-Americans by saying, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families,” a comment he denies.  The number of Medicaid recipients has surged in recent years because of high unemployment and a weak economy, but the majority of recipients are white. Nationally, 43 percent of those who received Medicaid in 2009-2010 were non-elderly white Americans.  African-Americans make up only about 12 percent of that total population.  It is not surprising that Santorum routinely associates programs like food stamps and Medicaid with “black people” and as President, he will improve “American lives” presumably by making it harder for low-income families to eat and get necessary medical care.  A rather subtle form of racism.

Santorum has also alienated women, one of the largest electorate constituencies.  He says that he would repeal all federal funding for contraception, and he supports states laws to outlaw birth control, insisting that, “it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”  Santorum also said that, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”  Santorum would repeal federal funding for women’s contraception devices yet would not repeal federal funding for male vasectomies.  Since Santorum is so adamantly opposed to female contraceptive devices, I wonder what his stance is on condoms!

Santorum’s blatant attack on women with life-threatening pregnancies is disgusting.  During his time as a Senator in the 90s, the debate was not on banning abortion procedures but on what exceptions would be allowed under the law.  Santorum and some of his cronies “refused to allow an exception even to protect the woman from serious harm to her health,” but President Clinton refused to sign the bill without one.  Last June while discussing his record as a defender of partial birth abortion, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to include to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony.” “They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective,” he said.

Although there are a number of serious medical emergencies that might require a woman to terminate a pregnancy to protect her own health, Santorum and his allies said that “health is nothing but a loophole for women who would abort a pregnancy to fit into a prom dress.”  An outraged Santorum screamed that this procedure “is killing a little baby that hasn’t hurt anybody!”  But the whole point of a vote about a health exception is that this fetus — however unintentionally well or deformed — is hurting someone – the pregnant woman.

Given Santorum’s deep-seated opposition to women’s reproductive rights, he probably supports the proposed bill in Virginia that requires every woman seeking an abortion to undergo an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound medical procedure whether she wants to or not.

Santorum claims that he is a Christian and espouses Christian principles, but given his extreme right-wing radical lies, hypocrisy and negative comments, his spirituality must be entwined with a different theology.  For example, Proverbs 6:16 talks about the things the Lord hates and include a lying tongue, a heart that devises wicked schemes, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.  While many of these characteristics can be applied to others in the Republican Party, Santorum continuously brings his religious beliefs into the campaign.  In recent remarks on the Glenn Beck show, Santorum’s wife, Karen, apparently received a revelation from God that husband Rick has been ordained by God to “save our nation from President Obama.”  And I thought Michelle Bachmann was the fanatical one.

Rick Santorum has such extreme radical views that less than 38% of the electorate views him favorably.  His overall “hatred” for and vilification of President Obama, his drastic position on Nation security including launching an attack on Iran, his position on education that kids shouldn’t go to college because they are being indoctrinated by liberal teachers that he blames on President Obama, his irrefutable desire to force his religious beliefs on all Americans, and his disgraceful comments on Gays, African Americans, and Women make him an undesirable choice.  Santorum’s rhetoric borders “craziness” and it’s frightening.  Consequently, there is no way that sensible Americans will ever elect Santorum President of the United States, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE FOR THE EASIEST REAL ESTATE GUIDE ON THE INTERNET

CLICK HERE TO LEARN HOW TO USE WEIGHT FAST

CLICK HERE TO LEARN HOW TO CATCH A CHEATING SPOUSE

  CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

 If you want a simple step by step way to build a list in online presence and make money from social media, Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook.

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires