ROB'S NEW BLOG

Without any facts to sustain his position, during his first radio commentaries of 2012, Rush Limbaugh continued his series of racial assaults on President Obama.  During the week of January 9, 2012, Limbaugh claimed that the Obama family think they are “owed” a lavish lifestyle “because of what’s been done” to them and their “ancestors,” that President Obama’s “plan” is “payback” against the “white Europeans” who “illegitimately founded” the United States, and Limbaugh claimed that President Obama believes the United States was “immoral in its founding” in part due to slavery.  Naturally, Limbaugh ended his 2011 show with the following racially tinged comment:

From the Rush Limbaugh Show, December 9, 2011

LIMBAUGH: “Snerdley, what do you think the odds are that Obama got confused Hanukkah and Kwanzaa?  When was Kwanzaa invented? No, ’66.  I looked it up.  Kwanzaa was invented 1966. Close enough. It was invented by a guy named Ron Karenga. Yeah. Yeah. His name was Ron Karenga but he had an alias, Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga.  So he was a doctor. And he invented Kwanzaa, which is a seven-day feast, runs December 26 to January 1. In 1966 he branded it a black alternative to Christmas. The idea was to celebrate the end of what Ron Karenga considered the Christmas season exploitation of African Americans. Now, what was that? What was the Christmas season exploitation of African Americans? Was it all the black Santa Clauses that were out there in the department stores? What was it then? What was the exploitation of African Americans at Christmastime? According to the official Kwanzaa website, as opposed to the Hallmark Cards Kwanzaa site, the celebration was designed to foster conditions that would enhance the revolutionary social change for the — anyway it also has a candelabra. It was seven days, seven candles instead of eight for Hanukkah, and you light ‘em all at once. So Obama had a menorah there and he lit ‘em all. I’m sure he thought it was Kwanzaa while talking about loyalty to Israel.”

From the Rush Limbaugh Show, January 9, 2012

LIMBAUGH: “Now, I believe that in addition to whatever drives Obama and his party ideologically, also near the top of the list is the pursuit of money without having to work for it. Being able to pass it out to their friends and set their friends up to be wealthy for the rest of their lives. I think there’s all kinds of that going on, too. And I think if you look at the way the Obamas live, with Michelle and her separate vacations and not being concerned about how much it costs to take separate airplanes — there’s no question in my mind that they view this as — whatever else they view it as, as an opportunity to live high on the hog without having it cost them a dime. And they justify it by thinking, “Well, we deserve this, or we’re owed this because of what’s been done to us and our ancestors all these” — who knows? I think that’s — I think that’s part of it.

From the Rush Limbaugh Show, January 11, 2012

LIMBAUGH:  “Obama has a plan. Obama’s plan is based on his inherent belief that this country was immorally and illegitimately founded by a very small minority of white Europeans who screwed everybody else since the founding to get all the money and all the goodies, and it’s about time that the scales were made even. And that’s what’s going on here. And that’s why the president is lawless, and that’s why there is no prosecution of the Black Panthers for voter intimidation, because it’s not possible for a minority to intimidate the white majority. It’s not possible. It’s always been the other way around. This is just payback. This is “how does it feel” time. That’s how he seems himself, pure and simple. He doesn’t see himself as a capitalist reformer saving a stupid automobile company. He sees this is his opportunity to take it away from the people who founded it and give it to the people he thinks have a moral right to it because somehow they have been taken advantage of, used, exploited, paid unfairly, what have you. Yeah, it’s socialist. “

From the Rush Limbaugh Show, January 12, 2012

LIMBAUGH: “I think Obama — and Giuliani’s right: [Obama's] an Alinskyite. He has been taught, he’s been raised, educated, whatever. He’s got a deep resentment for this country. You know me. I have told you. I’m willfully naïve, I guess. I can’t get my arms around the fact that there are people born in this country who hate it. I know they do, they can explain to me the differences in ideology and so forth, I just — I’m never going to intellectually or emotionally understand it, even though I can explain it, it still makes no sense to me. Yet I know those people exist and I know that they are the people that taught Obama. They are among those who educated him, both in his family and at the institutions of higher learning and academe that he attended. I know that he thinks this is an unjust country that it was immoral in its founding for reasons including but greater than slavery. He thinks it was economically unjust and immoral. He thinks a bunch of rich white guys — this one percent versus 99 percent stuff, that’s how he thinks the country was founded and that the one percent has maintained themselves in total control of all the wealth since the days of the founding and that they take purposeful steps to keep everybody out of that club. He believes it. He thinks the only remedy for it is to take everything the one percent has and give it away to everybody else. Now the ulterior motives to that are entrenching his own power. I don’t think there’s benevolence in this. I don’t think Obama runs around every day feeling genuinely sorry for the 99 percent. I don’t think he’s motivated by altruism. I think he’s motivated by anger. He’s got a chip on his shoulder, a number of them.”

Although protected by the First Amendment, it continues to astonish me why Limbaugh is still on the air after spewing years of racially provoked commentary based on stuff he just makes up.  If a minority American engaged in such despicable behavior, I believe that some in the white community would “pull out all of the stops” to get that person taken off the air.  I fully expect Limbaugh to provide more race-baiting rhetoric against President Obama during 2012, 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

Racism during the 2012 presidential election will be an issue because there is a group of racially-motivated white people who voted against Obama because he is Black and who opposes his presidency solely because he is Black.  That racism nucleus of mad white Americans has never supported racial equality.  In fact, their political representatives voted against both the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965.  The loudest voices of right-wing talk radio and cable television such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Fox News commentators, appeal directly to that core with racially tinted messages as the right-wing of the Republican Party continues to do.  You may recall that there were blatant signs of racism at the most heated town hall meetings during the summers of 2008 and 2009 including many Tea Party signs that carried overtly racial messages.

In addition, the radical “voter suppression laws” enacted by Republican Governors in Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New Jersey, Maine, Minnesota and Missouri is yet another example of overt racism because it primarily affects African Americans, young voters, working poor, elderly and the disabled.  The Republican Party knows that this segment of the American people helped to elect President Obama and other Democrats in 2008, and the Party is working very hard to stop them from voting in 2012.  Before this year, most states allowed voters to use all kinds of identification, even utility bills, to get a ballot.  Not anymore.  Now a non-expired, state-issued photo ID is necessary.

Many African-Americans believe that President Barack Obama is being disrespected by a racist White America.  The continued involvement of the “birther” movement that raises doubts about Obama’s citizenship, the uproar over President Obama speaking to the nation’s school children about studying and working hard and, of course, the disrespect shown toward the President by a white Congressman from the South, Joe Miller, who yelled “you lie” during the President’s State of the Union address in September 2009 and whose pathetic apology catapulted him in becoming a fund-raising icon.  Recent examples of overt racism include Newt Gingrich’s frequent attacks on President Obama as a “food stamp president” and his claim that African Americans are content to collect welfare benefits rather than pursue employment.  Campaigning in Iowa, Rick Santorum’s statement, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money” is yet another example of a remark characterized by blatant racism by another Republican presidential candidate.  These comments were so “over the top” that it prompted 45 Catholic leaders to issue a letter this past Friday to Gingrich and Santorum, themselves Catholics, urging them “to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail.”

John Gehring, the Catholic outreach coordinator at Faith in Public Life, highlights the idea of “intrinsic evil,” adding that “a lot of people look at Catholic teaching and think about abortion as being a preeminent political issue, and that is true, but the bishops are also very clear that racism and torture — where Santorum is very bad on, Santorum has been an apologist for enhanced interrogation — are an intrinsic evil.”  Gehring also stated that Gingrich and Santorum’s “rhetoric around class and racial issues is in many ways out of line with Catholic social teaching.” “That is something Catholic voters will be concerned about,” Gehring says, “particularly given that both Santorum and Gingrich have not been shy about talking about the importance of their faith from a personal perspective and also how it shapes their political views as well.”

Color Lines, which reports on racial justice issues, reported this past Thursday that, “Gingrich argues that the reason so many people are on food stamps is not that the economy has thrown millions into poverty, but rather that lazy black families are getting on the dole and don’t want to work.”  Earlier this month, Gingrich told an audience in New Hampshire, “If the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.’”  Color Lines added, “Gingrich’s attack on the food stamp program is not surprising; it’s the kind of politics that he’s been helping to perfect for over 30 years.”

Although much progress has been made in attempting to eliminate racism, many believe that there was a significant set-back when President Obama was inaugurated as the first African American President.  Twenty-first century racism at its finest has emerged.  The rage during the campaign and over the past 3-1/2 years have been unprecedented especially when you hear emotionally charged members of the white community say that they want to “take their country back” as though it has disappeared because there is an African American President in the White House.  Many of us know that there are racist white Americans who will never accept a black or brown brother or sister in the White House and although we cannot call every disagreement an issue of racism, there is no question that racism still exists.

As we continue to embrace the 2012 Presidential election, there is no doubt in my mind that both subtle and obvious racism behavior will be displayed.  President Obama will not play the race card and his only expectation is to be judged as a president and not as an “African-American president.  However, Republican right-wing white voters have so much hatred for President Obama that they are more interested in trying to remove him from office rather than be concerned about the radical policies that will definitely be implemented under a Republican administration, 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.

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires

Republican presidential candidates and other right-wing pundits, continue to use the Reagan presidency as the conservative model for fiscal discipline; however, according to his legacy, Reagan served as a poor example for future Republican presidential hopefuls.  We all know that Reagan’s massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced massive annual budget deficits. Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised during his campaign, but record-setting debt.

Forced to raise taxes eleven times to avert financial disaster, Reagan, affectionately referred to as “the Gipper,” nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It’s no wonder his former Budget Director, David Stockman, lamented: “[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.” It is clear why the Gipper cited the skyrocketing deficits he bequeathed to America as his greatest regret.

George W. Bush buried the myth of Republican fiscal discipline.  Inheriting a 236 Billion Dollar federal budget surplus and CBO forecast for a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years, this Republican President quickly set about dismantling the progress made under President Clinton.  Bush’s $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a $550 billion second round in 2003, accounted for the bulk of the deep budget deficits he produced. (It is more than a little ironic that Paul Ryan eleven years ago called the tax cuts “too small” because he believed the estimated surplus Bush eviscerated would be even larger.)

Like Reagan, Bush resorted to a rosy state of affairs to claim he would halve the budget deficit by 2009.  Before the financial system meltdown in 2008, Bush’s deficit had already reached $490 billion. (And even before the passage of the Wall Street bailout, Bush had presided over a $4 trillion increase in the national debt, a staggering 71% jump.) By January 2009, the mind-numbing deficit figure reached $1.2 trillion, forcing President Bush to raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion.

As it turned out, Congressional Republican majorities voted to raise the U.S. debt ceiling seven times while George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office.  “Reagan,” Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, “proved deficits don’t matter.” Unless, of course, there is a Democrat in the White House.

It is interesting to note that during the Bush presidency, the current Republican congressional leadership team voted 19 times to increase the debt limit.  Fueled by the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the Medicare prescription drug plan and the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US national debt doubled during the Bush presidency.  Mitch McConnell and John Boehner voted for all of it and the debt which ensued because, as Orrin Hatch later explained:  “It was standard practice not to pay for things.”  That Republican intransigence persists despite the complete debunking of two of their favorite myths.

The first tried and untrue Republican talking point is that “tax cuts pay for themselves.” Sadly, that right-wing myth-making is contradicted by the massive Bush deficits, half of which were the result of the Bush tax cuts.  As a percentage of the American economy, tax revenues peaked in 2000; before the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Despite President Bush’s bogus claim that, “you cut taxes and the tax revenues increase,” Uncle Sam’s cash flow from individual income taxes did not return to its pre-dot com bust level until 2006.

The second Republican fairy tale, as expressed by Republican House Speaker Boehner, is that, “The top one percent of wage earners in the United States…pay forty percent of the income taxes…The people he’s [President Obama] is talking about taxing are the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy.” If true, the Republican’s so-called “Job Creators” failed to meet those expectations under George W. Bush. After all, the last time the top tax rate was 39.6% during the Clinton administration, the United States enjoyed rising incomes, 23 million new jobs and budget surpluses. Under Bush, not so much.

On January 9, 2009, the Republican-friendly Wall Street Journal summed it up with an article titled simply, “Bush on Jobs: the Worst Track Record on Record.” (The Journal’s interactive table quantifies his staggering failure relative to every post-World War II president.) The dismal 3 million jobs created under President Bush didn’t merely pale in comparison to the 23 million produced during Bill Clinton’s tenure. In September 2009, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee charted Bush’s job creation disaster the worst since Hoover:

As David Leonhardt of the New York Times aptly concluded:

 “Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7.Ryan Budget Delivers Another Tax Cut Windfall for Wealthy Looking at that dismal performance, Leonhardt rightly asked, “Why should we believe that extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a big lift to growth?” At a time of record income inequality which saw the incomes of the richest 400 Americans taxpayers double even as their tax rates were halved, that’s a fair question to say the least.”

As Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman and Steve Benen among others noted, the House Republicans “Plan for America’s Job Creators” is simply a repackaging of years of previous proposals and GOP bromides. (As Klein pointed out, the 10 page document “looks like the staffer in charge forgot the assignment was due on Thursday rather than Friday, and so cranked the font up to 24 and began dumping clip art to pad out the plan.”) At the center of it is the same plan from the Ryan House passed budget to cut the top individual and corporate tax rates to 25%.  The price tag for the Republican proposal is a jaw- dropping $4.2 trillion.

Largely overlooked in the media coverage of the Republican debt ceiling hostage drama last summer is that the 235 House Republicans and 40 GOP Senators who supported Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget bill voted to add $6 trillion to the U.S. national debt over the next decade. As Speaker John Boehner acknowledged, Republicans now and in the future would have to increase the debt ceiling – repeatedly.

“President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt explained in 2009, adding, “The economic growth under George W. Bush did not generate nearly enough tax revenue to pay for his agenda, which included tax cuts, the Iraq war, and Medicare prescription drug coverage.” That fall, former Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett offered just that kind of honesty to the born again deficit virgins of his Republican Party. Noting that the FY2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion was solely due to lower tax revenues and not increased spending, Bartlett concluded:

“I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration’s anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending – real spending on things like public works – has been grossly inadequate.  The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts.”

Thanks to the steep recession, as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and others have documented time and again, the overall federal tax burden as a percentage of GDP is now down to levels not seen since Harry Truman was in the White House.  The two-year tax cut compromise didn’t help any, adding $400 billion to the current deficit. But it’s the Bush tax cuts themselves which Republicans want to make permanent and then (as the Ryan budget mandates) lower further, that will account for much of the revenue drain into the future.

We should be careful not to buy into the “distortions, myths and outright lies” spewed out of the mouth of Republican politicians especially those that are more interested in bringing down this President rather than doing their best for our 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.

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires

The Christian Bible teaches that salvation, which is forgiveness of sin and receiving of eternal life, is a free gift of God, and it is not obtained by “works” as practiced by Mormon teachings:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Romans 4:5, says, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

As previously noted, the Mormon Church has several definitions of salvation and several degrees of glory. However, the Bible has only one definition of salvation and that is receiving by faith, God’s grace, apart from a man’s works.  The true Gospel is recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4:

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”

True Christians believe that the real Jesus Christ is the only way a man can receive forgiveness of sin and eternal life. The Mormon Church rejects God’s truth and substitutes another Jesus who does not exist and cannot save. The Bible teaches that those who put their trust in a false Christ will be eternally lost.

Here is what the Bible tells us:

“For there shall arise false Christ, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”  (Matthew24:24)

“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”(Acts 4:10-12)

One of the most egregious teachings of the Mormon Church concerns the “marriage” of Jesus Christ.  Although it does not appear to be the Mormon Church’s official doctrine that Jesus Christ was married and practiced polygamy, it was apparently taught by church officials and believed by the Mormon people.  For example, the following quotes by certain Mormon Church officials clearly show that the Mormon god and Jesus Christ are not the God and Jesus Christ that Christians believe in.

Jedediah M. Grant, Second Counselor to Brigham Young the Second Prophet of the Mormon Church:  ”Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, the ‘grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because He had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed Him.’ After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. . . The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, casing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy,. . .a belief in the doctrine of plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus, and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons’ ” (Journal of Discourses, Vol 1. ppl 345-346)

Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde made these statements:

“It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; . . .no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the least of it.”

“I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass thought the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, . . .he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on as ass, but on a rail.”

“At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! . . . Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ.” (All the above statements: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 259-260)

“When Mary of old came to the sepulcher. . .she saw two angels in white. and they said unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She said unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, OR HUSBAND, and I know not where they have laid him.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 210)

Statement by Brigham Young, second prophet of the Mormon Church:

“The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with “HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children;” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13. page 309)

The Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt:

“…it will be seen that the GREAT MESSIAH who was the founder of the Christian religion, WAS A POLYGAMIST, . . .the MESSIAH chose. . .by marrying honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that HE approbated the plurality of wives under the Christian dispensation, as well as under the dispensation in which His polygamist ancestors lived. . . .We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives. . .” (The Seer, page 172)

The above quotes from the writings of Mormon officials exemplify their teachings and belief that Jesus was married to Mary, Martha and the other Mary and that God was once a man and now lives in heaven practicing polygamy.

Additionally, according to Mormon teachings, to obtain the celestial glory, which means to obtain godhood, a couple must have a temple marriage referred to as the sealing ceremony or endowments. This marriage is referred to as for all time and eternity and means an eternal marriage. In answering the question about Mormon couples who are not married in the temple, Joseph Fielding Smith gave this answer, “Unless young people who marry outside the temple speedily repent, they cut them-selves off from exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God. If they should prove themselves worthy, notwithstanding that great error, to enter into the celestial kingdom, they go in that kingdom as servants. [Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4 vols. (Salt Lake: Deseret Books, 1957-66), p. 196.]

As ridiculous as it may seem the above teachings suggest that unless Jesus Christ was married he would not be allowed to go the Celestial Heaven nor could he become a god.  Based on my research as presented in the previous parts to this article, there is absolutely no credible evidence to conclude that Mormons are “Christians” as God defines in His Word and I believe that Willard Mitt Romney is selling a “bill of goods” especially to Christian conservatives in a frail attempt to capture their support, 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.

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires

According to Mormon teachings, the Mormon Jesus is the brother of all men on earth and also the brother of Lucifer and not the Jesus “incarnate” who means God came to earth as a man as the Bible plainly states. (Matt. 1:23) The Mormon teaching that Jesus and Satan are brothers is based on their concept of God being the Father of all pre-existent spirits. This idea has been part of Mormon teaching from the time of Joseph Smith and continues today.

In the Discourses of Mormon Brigham Young, on Pg.53-54, he states that Lucifer is the second son, the one known as “Son of the Morning.”

“Who will redeem the earth, who will go forth and make the sacrifice for the earth and all things it contains?” The Eldest Son said: “Here am I”; and then he added, “Send me.” But the second one, which was “Lucifer, Son of the Morning,” said, “Lord, here am I, send me, I will redeem every son and daughter of Adam and Eve that lives on the earth, or that ever goes on the earth.”

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Pg.67, AUTHOR OF SALVATION

“Thus when the Father presented his own plan in the pre-existent council, he asked for volunteers from whom he could choose a Redeemer to be born into mortality as the Son of God. Lucifer offered to become the Son of God on condition that the terms of the Father’s plan were modified to deny men their agency and to heap inordinate reward upon the one working out the redemption. Christ, on the other hand, accepted the Father’s plan in full, saying, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.” Our Lord was then foreordained to a mission which in due course he fulfilled, which mission enabled him to make salvation available to all men. (Moses 4:1-4; Abra. 3:22-28.)”

Here is what God’s Word says:

John 1:14, ” And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

John 1:18, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

John 3:18, ” He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Hebrews 11:17, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,”

1John 4:9, “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.”

The above scriptures seriously contradict Mormon teachings concerning who Jesus Christ is.

As previously noted, Mormon teaching state that Jesus married several Marys of the New Testament. For example, Orson Hyde, the Mormon Apostle said, “We say it was Jesus Christ who was married in the marriage of Cana of Galilee.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 80)

Brigham Young contradicted God’s word as recorded in Luke 1:35 and said, “When the Virgin Mary conceived the Child Jesus…He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is His father? He is the first of the human family.” (Journal of Discourses, Pages 50-51).

However, the Word of God says:  “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35) “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Matthew 1:23)

Mormon teachings also state that Jesus Christ suffered for sin in the Garden of Gethsemane when He sweated “as it were” great drops of blood and completely avoid the Biblical teaching of Christ’s atonement for sin being accomplished on the Cross. However, the Bible clearly teaches that the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ was done on the cross.  For example:

1 Corinthians 1:18 “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

 Ephesians 2:16 “And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”

Colossians 1:20 “And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.”

Colossians 2:14 “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

Note the following quote from, “What Mormons Think of Christ.”(Mormon Publication pages 32-34:

“Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much is believed and taught on this subject, however, it is utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one’s salvation.” It goes further to say that salvation is conditional on faith, and repentance, and baptism and keeping the commands of God. ”

It is true that Christians do speak much of the blood of Christ because that is what the Bible says. Note the emphasis the Bible places on the blood of Christ:

 ”But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7)

“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrew 9:14)

“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,” (Revelation 1:5)

The rejection of this Biblical truth by the Mormon Church again shows it is not a Christian church and its teachings are contrary to God’s word.

 CONTINUED IN PART V

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.

The Mormon Church declares they are Christians and their church bears the name of Jesus Christ; however, it appears that they believe in a different Jesus and god and not Jesus Christ who is our Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). This was confirmed by Mormon Prophet Gordan B. Hinckley on June 4, 1998, in a speech in Paris, France, when he stated that those outside the Mormon Church who say that Latter-day Saints “do not believe in the traditional Christ” were correct. He further stated:

“The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the matters of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.” (Church News, June 20, 1998, p70)

The word “Christian” is the Greek word, “christianos” and it means a believer of Jesus Christ. It literally means “Christ ones.” (Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16) The correct definition of the word is one who is a follower of the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Never in two thousand years has the word “Christian” had any other meaning or reference to anyone other than the historical Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

The Mormon Church apparently does not follow or believe in the historic Jesus Christ of the Bible, but rather a different Jesus. Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the first born son of an exalted “man” who became the god of this world.  According to Mormon teachings, their god was first a man who became a god. The man-god of Mormonism was then made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the Universe. He “earned” godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man like all men on earth. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. Mormon men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they too shall one day will become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of “their” world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of “eternal progression.”

Note the following quote from the Mormon Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 123, made by the Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde:  “Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He is.”

The God of the Bible is not an exalted man. The God and Creator according to His word is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. The Bible says He is the only God and there are no other Gods. He has no beginning or end and he is a Spirit being and never was a man. God’s Word authenticates His status:

Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”

Psalms 102:26-17, “They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.”

Isaiah 43:10-11, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.”

Isaiah 44:6, “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

John 1:16-18, “And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

Colossians 1:15, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and  him:”

Clearly, the Mormon god is not the God of Christianity who is God revealed to us in the Bible. The Mormon god is a god apparently formed from the imaginations of Joseph Smith and does not exist. He is completely different from the God of the Bible our Creator.

CONTINUED IN PART IV

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.

Mormons teach things that promote wholesome family life and they are good at organizing family and community events in such a way as to create a tremendous support network for their members. Even so, lovers of truth need to look at the foundations of the Mormon movement, for what shall it profit a man if he has a great family life, if he loses his soul?  Here are some of the strange doctrines that Mormons teach:

God was once a man – Brigham Young said, “If our Father and God should be disposed to walk through these aisles, we should not know Him from one of the congregation. You would see a man and that is all you would know about Him.” (Journal of Discourse, Vol II, pg 40). Mormons believe that through faithfulness to the Mormon doctrine they too may one day become gods with a planet of their own.

God the Father has many wives – God the Father, according to the Mormons’ “Pearl of Great Price” in “Abraham 3:9,16″, is said to be living on a planet near the star Koleb with his wives having spiritual children.

Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer -According to Mormon doctrine Jesus became the Savior because he came up with a better plan than Lucifer concerning how to get the people on earth to worship God (see The Kingdom of God, by Oscar McConkie Jr pg 46; Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses, 4:1-3).

Black-skinned people are of inferior origin – Mormons teach that the spirit beings that did not fight valiantly for God come to earth as blacks, while those who fought valiantly come to earth as whites. Until very recently blacks could not become priests in the Mormon system of worship for reasons related to this and other demeaning doctrines.   For example, in the March 1863 Journal of Discourses 10:110, Brigham Young said: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

We are saved by grace, after we have done all we can – Is there anyone that has done “all they can” in following any given religious system?  This is double-talk. Mormonism is a system of religious works and merit from start to finish. It is all about earning merit and a state of worthiness by obedience to the Mormons’ religious system.

Joseph Smith will judge who may or may not enter into heaven. See Brigham Young, Oct 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:282

Jesus Christ practiced Polygamy during His ministry on earth -President Orson Hyde, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, General Conference, October 1854, Journal of Discourses 2:210 wrote: “I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.’”

Only recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations that Joseph Smith said were, “. . .all wrong…all their creeds were an abomination in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt.” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19).  Historically, Mormons have preferred to be called “saints” but the Mormon Church has spent millions in an intense public relations campaign aimed at moving their church into the mainstream of Christianity. The political and economic benefits of Mormons being included in the mainstream of Christianity are obvious.  This is why the Mormon Church is trying so hard to present themselves as Christians attempting to avoid the stigma of being a cult.  Although the Constitution provides the right of freedom of religion and people have the right to believe as they desire, Christians also have the right to defend their faith and expose those who misuse the Christianity name.

 CONTINUED ON PART III

 Click Here to learn about the only government approved way to make money on Facebook. (You will need to authorize the app to view the presentation.)

The current Republican front-runner for President of the United States is Willard Mitt Romney who says that as a Mormon, he is a Christian who espouses Christian values.  One of the most significant freedoms Americans have is the freedom of religion and I don’t believe that religious beliefs should necessarily disqualify any American for public office including the presidency.  Romney has every right to seek the Republican nomination for President; however, are there rituals within the Mormon faith that contradict their Christian claims?

The Mormon religion was founded by Joseph Smith around 1830 in the United States of America. It is a fast growing religious movement which claims more than 12 million worldwide as of 2006. Mormons teach that historical Christianity is totally apostate, and God raised up Joseph Smith as a prophet to restore it. In addition to using the Bible (which they believe is totally inadequate), Mormons believe that the “revelations” “discovered” by Joseph Smith which came to be written down as the “Book of Mormon” are Scripture. They also base their religious structure on two other books: “Doctrines and Covenants” and “The Pearl of Great Price” as well as the pronouncements of their “living prophets”, which they teach are Scripture and binding on all true believers.

Mormonism spreads primarily through its worldwide missionary efforts – good young unmarried Mormon men are required to do two years missionary service. There are other recommendations for women and for those who have finished with child rearing responsibilities. Mormonism appeals to many on the basis of its appeal to strong family values. But a deeper look into this mysterious and fascinating religion reveals all kinds of peculiar practices and beliefs.

Mormons teach that God was once a man and that man may become a God. Mormons are taught that God the Father is now on a planet near the star Kolob with his wives having spiritual children. They believe that Jesus and Lucifer (Satan) were once spirit brothers. They once taught that Jesus was married to more than one wife.  More on these teachings later in this article.

At some point, a number of Mormons get involved in strange secret rites that are practiced at special Mormon temples. These rites include baptism for the dead. Mormons believe that by being baptized “in proxy” for their departed relatives and for others, they can release their souls to be able to enter a higher paradise. Mormons also believe in the importance of wearing a special kind of magic underwear, which is supposed to protect them somehow. This underwear is supposed to be worn at all times except when washing. The underwear has on it certain images from the occult-ed religion of freemasonry. Mormon temples are reputedly full of Masonic imagery – apparently Joseph Smith was a freemason also at one stage. The temple rituals are supposed to be totally secret. However some former temple workers who left the Mormon Church have revealed the rituals as they were and probably are still practiced.

The Mormon publication, “The Doctrine of Salvation, V.1.” on page 188 states that “Mormonism so-called stands or falls on the history of Joseph Smith. For either he was a prophet, with divine calling, name and empowerment, or he was one of the greatest charlatans the world has ever known”.

If Joseph Smith was a true prophet from God, then his prophecies should have come to pass. However, there are plenty of instances where they did not. For example, Joseph Smith claimed that before 1891, and before he reached the age of 85, Jesus Christ would return. Well, Joseph Smith did not reach the age of 85 – he was murdered on the 27th of July 1844. And we know that Jesus Christ didn’t return before 1891 bringing an end to the present world order.

Smith prophesied in 1832 concerning the American civil war that the British would get involved and the war would extend to all nations. This is just one of his false prophecies concerning the American civil war. Smith also predicted the demise of the government of the state of Missouri which had displeased him – this never happened. He prophesied that the civil war would not result in the freedom of ‘Ham’ – this could not happen until the millennium according to Smith. Here again Smith was demonstrating just what a false prophet he was.

As to the character of Joseph Smith Jr., the historical record is clear that he was a man who sneaked off and took multiple wives, including the wives of other men, to be his own wives. He justified this with special revelations, claiming God told him to do it. Brigham Young, one of the early “apostles” of Mormonism apparently had 19 or more wives. Although the Mormon Church today does not advocate polygamy or polyandry, why shouldn’t they be willing to follow the leadership of their own Prophets? Could it be that those Prophets were in error, or did God actually command them to do these things?

(CONTINUED IN PART II)

 CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaire

The New York Times recently published a fascinating story on Mitt Romney. The article examines Romney’s time at Harvard University in the 1970s when he simultaneously earned business and law degrees. The article basically concludes that Romney is an incredibly able and intelligent man who is focused on achieving that sets him up as an ideal presidential candidate in an age of economic uncertainty.  However, what also surfaces is that Romney comes across as a person without strong ideological convictions other than family and his Mormon faith.  According to Romney’s  former classmates and friends interviewed in the article, that approach perfectly suited Romney’s personality and is exactly what scares conservative Republicans who see him as a shape-shifting, flip-flopping technocrat who cares nothing for the principles that guide their party.

In addition to his abilities to shift from one position to another depending on which way the wind is blowing, he consistently demonstrates that he will say anything that he needs to say to play to the Tea Party and extreme right-wing conservatives regardless of how asinine, false or just plain ignorant it may be.  For example, Romney recently said that corporations are people and that he was “unemployed” too.  In addition to his constant flip-flopping that suggests he lacks credibility, I believe that the main reason that he will not be elected is because he lacks integrity.

For example, Romney said recently that: “President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes. In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others.” In an interview the same day, Romney stated that the President “is going to put free enterprise on trial.” We all know that President Obama never said anything suggesting that was his view.  In fact, he has gone out of his way to praise free enterprise and stated that there was nothing wrong with getting rich.  The President is a strong supporter for increasing taxes on high-income Americans, but only to their 1990s levels.  In addition, no matter how much Romney denies it, the Affordable Care Act (Romney calls Obamacare) is essentially identical to the one he established as Governor of Massachusetts in 2006.  Romney recently said that the Obama administration has not created jobs, yet according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus created as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs which in part has caused the employment level to move from over 9% to 8.6%.  Regardless of the extent of his fabrications and outright lies, Romney seems confident that he will pay no price for making stuff up.

Romney appears to have gotten away with a multitude of fraudulent attacks on President Obama and has based his whole campaign on attacking the President for doing things that he hasn’t done and believing things that he doesn’t believe. This past October, Romney said that as president, “I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts,” placating the Republican base.  However, the President has never cut defense spending and the defense budget has continued to grow since the President was elected.  In addition Romney continues to suggest that the President goes around the world “apologizing for America” which is a total fabrication justified by taking quotes out of context.  According to Greg Sargent of The Washington Post, the Romney strategy is to portray the President as a suspect character, someone who doesn’t share American values.

Because of his economic savvy and intellectual capacity, some believe that he is the most electable Republican in 2012; however, his complete lack of conservative principles makes many conservatives horrified of a Romney president.  In the absence of a more credible conservative, Republicans will probably have to take a deep breath and swallow hard and endorse Romney as their candidate.

As a Mormon, Romney claims to be a Christian.  However, since the start of his presidential campaign, he has become one of the Republican’s chief liars and apparently has forgotten what Proverbs 6:16 says.  This Proverb discusses seven things the Lord hates including “a false witness that speaks lies, and he that sows discord among brethren” (KJV).  Romney’s non-Christian actions render his Christian claims as “suspect.”

I believe that Willard Mitt Romney will continue to lie and invent stuff to attempt to make his case that President Obama is “different,” and although he may not pay a price now, if he gets the Republican nomination, he will pay the biggest price of all in making his concession speech acknowledging the second term presidency of Barack Obama, but that’s just my take.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

A king who did not believe in the goodness of God, had a slave who, in all circumstances, said, “My king, do not be discouraged, because everything God does is perfect, no mistakes!”

One day they went hunting and along the way a wild animal attacked the King. His slave managed to kill the animal, but could not prevent his majesty losing a finger.  Furious and without showing his gratitude for being saved, the nobleman said, “Is God good? If He was good, I would not have been attacked and lost my finger.”  The slave replied, “My king, despite all these things, I can only tell you that God is
good, and he knows “why” of all these things. What God does is perfect. He is never wrong!”

Outraged by the response, the king ordered the arrest of his slave.  Later, he left for another hunt and was captured by savages who make human sacrifices. On the altar, ready to sacrifice the nobleman, the savages found that the victim was missing one of his fingers, so he was released. According to them, he was imperfect, not to be offered to the gods.

Upon his return to the palace, he authorized the release of his slave
that he received very affectionately.  “My dear, God was really good to me! I was almost killed by the wild men, but for lack of a single finger, I was let go! But I have a
question: if God is so good, why did he allow me to put you in jail?”

“My King, if I had gone with you in this hunt, I would have been
sacrificed for you, because I have no missing finger, therefore,
remember everything God does is perfect. He is never wrong.”

Often we complain about life, and negative things that happen to us,
forgetting that nothing is random and that everything has a purpose.  Every morning, offer your day to God, don’t be in a rush.  Ask God to inspire your thoughts, guide your actions, and ease your feelings, and do not be afraid. God is never wrong!

You know why this message is for you? I do not know, but God knows,
because he never makes mistakes…….

The path of God and his word is perfect, without impurities. He is the
way of all those who trust in Him, as He says in 2 Samuel 22: 31.

What you do with this message is up to you. May God put in your heart
the desire to send it to someone. God knows why He choose you to
receive this message. Please bless someone else with it.

God is never wrong!!!  (Never forget it)

HAVE A BLESSED AND MERRY CHRISTMAS!

 CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaire

During his visit to Fort Bragg, President Barack Obama, with first lady Michelle Obama, saluted troops returning from Iraq and stating that the nearly nine-year conflict was ending, “not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home.”  The President highlighted the human side of the Iraq war, particularly noting the bravery and sacrifices of U.S. forces now on their way back home.  “We knew this day would come. We have known it for some time now,” he said. “But still, there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long.”  “It is harder to end a war, than to begin one,” the President said about a war that has cost nearly 4,500 American lives and more than 100,000 Iraqi lives.  “The war in Iraq will soon belong to history, and your service belongs to the ages,” he said, applauding their “extraordinary achievement.”

Although all U.S. troops are to be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011, the President pledged that the U.S. will continue civilian assistance to Iraq as it faces an uncertain future in a volatile region of the world.  Even as majorities of the U.S. public who favor ending the Iraq war, it is stunning to hear the “nasty” rhetoric by some Republicans criticizing the troop withdrawal, arguing that President Obama is leaving behind an unstable Iraq that could hurt U.S. interests and fall subject to influence from neighboring Iran.

Sen. John McCain issued a particularly harsh verdict on the President’s handling of Iraq. “I believe that history will judge this president’s leadership with the scorn and disdain it deserves,” McCain said on the Senate floor.  McCain accused President Obama of making a political decision, arguing that the U.S. should have left troops in Iraq to help secure the country. He said Obama was able to bring the Iraq war to a conclusion thanks to a troop surge in 2007 that Obama, as a U.S. senator, had opposed.  “For three years, the president has been harvesting the successes of the very strategy that he consistently dismissed as a failure,” McCain said.

Seventy-seven percent of Americans, including 63% of Republicans, think ending the Iraq war is a good idea.  However, every leading Republican thinks ending the Iraq war is a bad idea, except Ron Paul and Mitt Romney who thinks it’s both a bad idea and a good idea.  The consistent Republican rhetoric lamenting the end of death and destruction is astonishing.

Appearing on the Rachael Maddow Show on Tuesday, December 14, 2011, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Republican), former Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, had some interesting comments:  “The preposterous protest being made my members of my political party, like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and others, just boggle my mind.”  ”It’s absurd that we were mired in Iraq so long.”   ”…nationalism in Iraq is their best defense against Iran, not US forces on the ground, unless of course your plan is to go on to Syria or to go on to Iran from Afghanistan and Iraq, and of course that was the plan of George Bush and Dick Cheney.”   ”The only way I can explain (Republican statements) is their hatred for Obama.”  ”With any issue you want to pick, my Republicans seem intent on suicide.”   Colonel Wilkerson was talking about the end of the Iraq War and the shameful response coming from Republicans including those running for president.

Colonel Wilkerson said that Republicans “want to defeat this man. They want to bring this man out of the White House. They want to embarrass this man. They want to put this man through every kind of turmoil they can possibly put him through politically. So, they will take almost any stand even — and this is what really grates on me as a Republican — even if it is not in the interest of this country, they will take a stand and have repeatedly taken stands that oppose the president simply because they oppose the president. It’s not America. It`s not the United States. It’s not our best interests. It’s certainly not our national security interests. It’s getting rid of this president.”  Colonel Wilkerson went on to say, “That is political opportunism and political blindness of the first order.  And it may cause me to leave this party eventually.”

On Fox News Sunday in June 2011, Bret Baier asked Mitch McConnell if he stands by his previous statement that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” McConnell confirmed that his goal remains unchanged.  No matter what President Obama does, whether taking out Osama Bin Laden or responsibly ending the war in Iraq, Republicans continue to say and do whatever comes to mind to help this President to fail.  These tactics are despicable, wicked and shameful, and further evidence that leading Republicans care more about bringing President Obama down rather than trying to resolve the economic problems of our country, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE  FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires

Voter suppression and intimidation are still very much alive in our nation.  From misleading and fraudulent information about elections to voter intimidation and robocalls designed to suppress the vote, deceptive voting practices are often aimed at depriving minority communities of their voice in our democracy.  The U.S. Constitution guarantees and protects the right of every American citizen to vote, and we have a duty to protect and ensure that right.

Unfortunately, we have seen a resurgence of deceptive voter practices in recent years. In 2006, during my own election to the U.S. Senate, thousands of minority voters in Maryland were targeted for misleading information designed to suppress their vote.   Nationwide, there have been numerous reports of efforts to suppress the minority vote by putting out wrong information about election dates and location of polling places, along with suggestions that voters who had outstanding parking tickets would be arrested if they tried to vote.

To put an end to this type of deceptive voter practice, I have joined with U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) in re-introducing the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2011.  This bill is designed to protect voters across the nation from election fraud and voter intimidation by creating criminal penalties for deceptive voting practices and by giving individual voters the right to take action.

My bill would specifically allow for criminal penalties of up to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment for those found guilty of deceptive campaign practices. If deceptive practices are found to have occurred before Election Day, the U.S. Attorney General can take corrective action to halt distribution of such information and to set the record straight.  After federal elections, the Attorney General also would be required to report to Congress on the allegations of deceptive practices and the actions taken to correct such practices.

Deceptive voter practices are not pranks and they threaten our democracy.  Since the end of the Civil War, there have been numerous efforts to ensure the right to vote for all citizens. In 1870, Congress ratified the 15th Amendment to the Constitution stating “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race [or] color. …”  The Amendment also gave Congress power to enforce the article by “appropriate” legislative action.

Unfortunately, for another 100 years African Americans faced poll taxes, literacy tests and outright harassment and violence when they attempted to vote.  It took the passage of the 24^th Amendment in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to end the discrimination of Jim Crow laws and regulations denying African Americans their full voting rights.

Deceptive voting practices are not a matter of free speech or a First Amendment right.  In reality, such practices threaten the very integrity of our electoral process by attempting to rob voters of their right to vote.  It is time for Congress to act once again to put an end to tactics that are deliberately intended to suppress or mislead voters.

Sincerely,

SENATOR BEN CARDIN

CLICK HERE FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires

From time to time, pastors have something called an “anointing service” primarily using olive oil.  While there are examples in the Old Testament where oil was used to anoint Kings and Priests, is there evidence of its use in the New Testament?  What is the purpose of an anointing service anyway?  Is it for healing as discussed in James 5 or for some other reason?  According to my research, theologians seem to have varied opinions on the application of James 5:14-15.  Some reject it as a practice for today. Some try to obey it exactly as detailed in James and do it only when someone specifically calls for the elders of the church.  Others go much further than James and make the use of oil a regular part of an anointing service.

James 5:14-15 says, “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.“

Could it be that some pastors’ actions become a mockery by setting up healing lines at anointing services and use James 5 to support their actions even though this passage does not support healing services?  I can find no reference that the New Testament church was ever commanded to have anointing services.  However, there does not appear to be any serious opposition to those who practice anointing of the sick when they call for the elders of the church according to the instructions in James.

Anointing with oil was a Jewish practice and apparently never mentioned among the Gentiles. I can only find references to anointing with oil for the purpose of healing only two times in the New Testament—James 5:14 and Mark 6:13.  Mark 6:13 states, “And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.”  This scripture seems to refer to the time Jesus sent His disciples out two by two (v7)–”And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits.”  One of His commands was that they go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:5-6).  Obviously, it was a Jewish practice.  Although James has practical instruction for all of us, it was written to Jewish believers. For example, James 1.2 states, “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.” The “twelve tribes” refer to the Jewish people. Anointing with oil for healing is never mentioned in any other context in the New Testament.

Anointing with oil was an early practice that was never mentioned during the age of grace.  Even speaking in tongues was mentioned much later than anointing with oil and there were different practices for the sick in later times.  For example, Paul prayed for the removal of the thorn in the flesh (2Corinthians 12:7-9).  He gave a medical prescription to Timothy (1Timothy 5:23).  He often kept Luke the physician close to him (2Timothy 4:11); and he had to leave Trophimus at Miletum sick (2Timothy 4:20).  If Paul had to ability to heal by anointing with oil, why didn’t he use that ability?

The early healings were confirmations that the spoken words of Christ and His apostles were truly from God.  Mark 16:20 says, “And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”  The signs (miracles) referred to were for the purpose of confirming the word and they provided absolute deliverance from physical illness.

James states that, “the prayer of faith shall save the sick.”  This is a promise of healing and means that all who sought the elders and received the prayer of faith would be healed.  Jesus went about “healing every sickness and every disease among the people” (Matthew 9:3-5).  Jesus sent out His apostles with power “to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease” (Matthew 10:1).  Even after His resurrection, the apostles received sick folks and “healed every one” (Acts 5:16).  It was only later that Paul prayed for deliverance and was refused (2Corinthians 12:7-9) or had to leave a co-worker behind because he was sick (2Timothy 4:20).  When they first started, all who came to be healed were healed. Now, God shows us that He sometimes fulfills His will through sickness.

What is the purpose of an oil anointing service today?  Oil was considered very valuable during biblical times. It was so valuable that God required a tithe of it to be given (Deuteronomy 12:17, 14:22-23) (Nehemiah 13:12).  In the Bible, oil is generally considered to be a symbol for the Holy Spirit.  As such, it could not be used when making an offering for sin (Leviticus 5:11; Numbers 5:15).  People were anointed with oil to set them apart for service to the Lord.  Mainly this was done for priests and for kings.  The Tabernacle and all of the items associated with it were also anointed with oil (Exodus 30:22-29, 40:9-11).  This was done with a special kind of oil that was mixed with different spices and ingredients, and it was not to be used for any other purpose (Exodus 30:22-23).

Why, then, are a few pastors today anxious to implement the anointing of oil into modern church practice? It could be that some are very sincere, wanting to do God’s will, yet misunderstanding the nature of the passage in James.  On the other hand, it may be the case that a few in the church today are simply looking for a new experience of some sort.

Anointing people to set them apart for God’s service appears to have ended in the Old Testament.  I could find no example of any person who was anointed with oil in the New Testament to set them apart for service to the Lord.  While there does not appear to be any evidence that we should be anointing people today, I don’t believe there is any harm in doing so.  However, we should keep in mind the reason why oil was used in the Bible. In the end, anointing with oil is never simply about healing the sick. It is chiefly about God getting the glory for being God, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires

According to recent polls, Newt Gingrich has become the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President.  If Gingrich becomes the nominee, he will never become President since he lacks credibility, has no honor, establishment Republicans don’t like him, some Republicans would rather vote for Obama and he has more baggage than any other candidate.  However, the Democratic Party would be ecstatic if Gingrich is the nominee.

Gingrich was elected to the House of Representatives in 1978 and he quickly moved up the ranks within the House GOP caucus.  Democrats accused him of practicing “skinhead politics” and a 1989 Washington Post profile declared him “notorious” and “defiant.”  Gingrich’s political tactics worked as he led the Republican Party in their remarkable retaking of the House and became the speaker.  Gingrich did not last long in the post and his demise was marked by a government shutdown, the Republican Party’s “sex-and-lies” impeachment campaign against President Clinton, and several ethics controversies involving Gingrich; therefore, the GOP lost seats and their majority in the 1998 election.  Gingrich later resigned as speaker and left the House basically in disgrace.  He may have gotten distracted during this time as Speaker since he was having an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who eventually became his third wife.

Just prior to his election to the House in 1978, in an address to College Republicans, Gingrich said, “I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words.” He added, “Richard Nixon…Gerald Ford…They have done a terrible job, a pathetic job. In my lifetime, in my lifetime—I was born in 1943—we have not had a competent national Republican leader. Not ever.”  Gingrich became a “nasty” politician.

Republican candidates and other Republicans have already began launching attack ads against Gingrich showing how he worked with Hillary Clinton on health care issues and how he sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to highlight their joint support for climate change action.  After the 2008 election, Gingrich called for policymaking to unite Democrats, Republicans, and independents and he even blasted a candidate for GOP chairman who circulated a distortion song called “Barack the Magic Negro.” Still, Newt wasn’t able to escape the alarm bell of impassioned rhetoric. He repeatedly bashed the “secular left” for attempting to destroy the country and returned to his pathetic tactics of his past.

When Gingrich was far behind in the polls, the other Republican candidates basically ignored him.  That has changed and his liabilities are catching up with him.  We all know that Gingrich is best known for serving his wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer surgery so he could marry his mistress whom he later divorced to marry a staffer.  Gingrich is the only House Speaker in American history to be disciplined by Congress for ethics violations.  In 1998, he paid a $300,000 fine after he was found to have been misusing his tax-exempt foundations for political gain.  Can you imagine having a President who committed ethics violations?

Gingrich was also responsible for shutting down the government in 1995 partly because President Clinton allegedly snubbed him by seating him in the rear of Air Force One on a flight home from Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral.  Gingrich also advocated that the children of welfare recipients should be taken away from their parents and raised in orphanages, he led the charge to impeach President  Clinton while lying about an adulterous affair with a staffer whom he eventually married, he insists that President Obama suffers from “a Kenyan anti-colonial mindset” like his Kenyan father even though Obama barely knew his father, he denounced Paul Ryan’s radical budget as “right-wing social engineering,” then flip-flopped and warned that “any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood,” and he rallied against President Obama’s alleged “class warfare” as he ran up a $500,000 jewelry tab at Tiffany’s.

One of Gingrich’s most egregious statements was when he blamed the Susan Smith case (the South Carolina mother who murdered her young sons in 1994) on Democrats.  Prior to the 1994 election, Gingrich said: “I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things.  The only way you get change is to vote Republican.”   Gingrich defended his comments by stating that Democratic rule had frayed the moral fabric of the country: “We need very deep change if we’re going to turn this country around.” Asked directly if he was saying electing Republicans could stop killings like Smith’s, he said flatly: “Yes. In my judgment, there’s no question.”

Gingrich recently said that poor kids should work as janitors, commenting that they have “no habits of working” nor getting paid for their endeavors “unless it’s illegal.”  “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday,” Gingrich told more than 500 employees inside the Nationwide Insurance lunchroom as reported by NBC News. Adding that he thought child labor laws to be “truly stupid,” he continued: “And let me get into the janitor thing. What if they became assistant janitors and their job was to mop the floor and clean the bathroom?”

Most Americans are a caring and compassionate people and would never elect anyone as President with the baggage that Gingrich carries.  He left Congress in disgrace after misusing foundation funds, he denies being a lobbyist after receiving at least 1.3 million dollars from Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae, he wants to get rid of US child labor laws, and he cheated on both of his wives.  Gingrich is unfit to serve in the highest office in the land, but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE FOR INFO ON COLLECTING VALUABLE ASSETS

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires

At your job, one of the most important things will be that you understand how to do the things you need to do in order to score high praise; of course, one reason why you want to do this is because high praise from those above you is a great indication that you are doing the job you are supposed to be doing, but the other reason why scoring high praise is an important part of your job is that this can give you the energy and the drive you need in order to keep doing great work!

Being willing to take on challenging assignments is one of the first things you need to do in order to score high praise at work; many people try to avoid the assignments that will be more difficult, but your higher-ups at work know which are the more difficult projects and assignments, and they will certainly notice if you are always the person volunteering to tackle these projects as others shy away from them.

You should also be willing to work harder than what is expected of you when you are looking to score high praise at work, as going over and above expectations will catch the eye of those above you – and even if you do not do a perfect job on a project or assignment, you will be given a bit more room for error if they see that you are always working as hard as you can to go over and above

And as you wait for your hard work to pay off, it will be important that you have a bit of patience; you will not always see the fruits of your labors right away, but as you continue plugging away and working hard, this will certainly be noticed in time, and you will be rewarded accordingly – with high praise, and with all the other things that come with this.

Of course, in the end, you should truly be working as hard as you can at work simply for yourself, always knowing that you are doing the best job possible – but scoring high praise at work is certainly an added benefit of this hard work, and in taking this approach, you will reach this desired end result.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires

Fox News is probably the largest cable news network but how credible is their news?  Recently, Fairleigh Dickinson University conducted a Public Mind Poll.  The poll asked New Jersey residents about current events at home and abroad and from which sources they got their information.  According to the survey results, Sunday morning news shows do the most to help people learn about current events, while news outlets, especially Fox News, lead people to be even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all.

The New Jersey respondents were asked about a variety of topics including the outcome of the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East this past year. While 53% of respondents knew that Egyptians were successful in overthrowing Mubarak’s government, 21% said that the uprisings were unsuccessful while 26% admitted that they didn’t know.  Additionally, 48% knew that the Syrian uprising has thus far been unsuccessful, while 36% said they don’t know, and 16% said the Syrians had already toppled their government. But the real finding was that the results depended on which media sources people turned to for their news. For example, people who watched Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, were 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watched no news at all.  Fox News watchers were also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians had not overthrown their government than those who watched no news.

“Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News,” said Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the Public Mind Poll. “Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.”

By contrast, some news media sources have a positive effect on political knowledge. For example, people who reported reading a national newspaper like The New York Times or USA Today were 12-points more likely to know that Egyptians had overthrown their government than those who had not looked at any news source. And those who listened to NPR radio were 11-points more likely to know the outcome of the revolt against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. However, the best informed respondents were those that watched Sunday morning news programs leading to a 16-point increase in the likelihood of knowing what happened in Egypt and an 8-point increase in the likelihood of knowing what happened in Syria.

“Sunday morning news shows tend to spend a lot more time on a single issue than other news broadcasts, and they are less likely to degenerate into people shouting at each other,” said Cassino. “Viewers pick up more information from this sort of calm discussion than from other formats. Unfortunately, these shows have a much smaller audience than the shouters.”

This isn’t the first study that found that Fox News viewers were more misinformed in comparison to others.  Last year, a study from the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe false information about politics.  This study judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign.  However, while consumers of just about every news outlet believed some information that was false, the study found that Fox News viewers, regardless of political information, were “significantly more likely” to believe that:

–Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

–Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)

–The economy is getting worse (26 points)

–Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)

–The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

–Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

–The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)

–When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

–And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

“Almost daily” viewers of Fox News, the authors said, were 31 points more likely to mistakenly believe that “most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit”; were 30 points more likely to believe that “most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring”; and were 14 points more likely to believe that “the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts.”

They were also 13 points more likely to mistakenly believe “the auto bailout only occurred under Obama”; 12 points more likely to believe that “when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it”; and 31 points more likely to believe that “it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States.”

The study’s authors continued, “These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it — though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.”

Asked for comment on the study, Fox News seemingly dismissed the findings. In a statement, Michael Clemente, the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: “The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.’”

For the record, the Princeton Review says the University of Maryland ranks among the “Best Northeastern Colleges.” It was No. 19 on the Review’s list of “Best Party Schools.”The study was backed by two parts of the University of Maryland, the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies.

I guess with the false information consistently passed on by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, Brian Kilmeade, Greta van susteren, and others at Fox, I can understand why many of their viewers are “news ignorant” but that’s just my take.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Internet Riches The Simple Money Making Secrets of Online Millionaires

In a previous blog, I wrote that during an interview on CNN, Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain stated that “African American voters have been brainwashed” into not being open minded about voting for the GOP.  What is most stunning about Cain’s comment is what came to light when he recently appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”  During that appearance, Cain talked about a range of issues including the sexual harassment accusations against him.  He also revealed that his wife of 43 years, Gloria Cain, has voted in Democratic primaries and runoff elections since 2000.  I guess Mrs. Cain is also one of the brainwashed African American voters especially since she voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

In addition to Cain’s brainwashing comment, possible campaign funding irregularities, and sexual harassment allegations, now Ms. Ginger White has surfaced claiming that she carried on a 13 year affair with him.  White says they met in the late 1990s, while Cain was on a business trip for the National Restaurant Association.  During that trip, she ended up in Cain’s hotel room and from there, he began flying her around the country to meet him at speaking engagements and that they often stayed at a hotel in Atlanta.  White also said that the physical relationship ended about eight months ago just before Cain announced he was running for president.  As proof of the affair, her cell phone contained dozens of calls and texts from a number she said was Cain’s private cell phone, the last one as recent as September 2011.  White said that she came forward because she saw how Cain ridiculed other women who have accused Cain of sexual harassment while he was at the National Restaurant Association, saying that “[I]t bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of, they were treated as if they were automatically lying, and the burden of proof was on them.” “I felt bad for them,” she said.

Cain’s polling numbers have taken a significant drop in the middle of a series of allegations of sexual impropriety and he tried to get out in front of Ginger White’s allegations to deny any wrongdoing ahead of the airing of the new claim.  White described her relationship with Cain as ”pretty simple”. ”It wasn’t complicated,” she said. ”I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware that I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.” ”He made it very intriguing, very fun,” Ms White said. ”It was something that took me away from my humdrum life at the time.”

What seemed to me as an authentication of White’s allegations occurred when Cain’s lawyer issued a statement that stopped short of denying the relationship, saying Ms White’s claim ”appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults.”  ”No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life,” Cain’s lawyer said.

Of course Cain denied he had had an extramarital affair.  Asked if he had a sexual relationship with Ms White, he replied ”No.”  Cain also denied accusations that he sexually harassed women during his time as an executive of the Restaurant Association in the late 1990s.  We all know that at least two women received payouts to leave the association after complaining of unwanted sexual advances by Cain, one of whom was Karen Kraushaar. Harassment accusations were also made by a third woman connected to the association and a fourth woman, Sharon Bialek, went public soon after.  Ms Bialek accused Cain of sexual misconduct by groping her in a car after she sought his help seeking a job.  It is unfortunate that all of the “Herman Cain drama” has undoubtedly taken its toll on the Cain family especially his wife, Gloria.

With the recent allegation of the affair with Ms. White, Cain is reportedly reassessing whether to stay in the Republican race for the nomination.  In fact, Cain’s chief of staff, Mark Block, confirmed to ABC News that Cain was evaluating whether to stay in the race.  Frankly, I don’t think it matters whether or not Cain withdraws from the race.  Because of the sheer number of sexual allegation complaints, marital infidelity, ignorance of National security issues, and depleting poll numbers, the Cain presidential run is dead, but that’s just my take.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

When it comes to selling jewelry, selecting a business model that is well suited to your own personal strengths and interests can help ensure your success. Before deciding how you want to focus your business, consider each of the following popular jewelry business models. You may decide that you want to incorporate a few different strategies instead of just one.

Online auctions are here to stay. With eBay and various other marketplaces, you are sure to find a niche if you wish to sell through online auctions. You can create multiple accounts on various sites, creating a huge online presence. This will enable you to maximize income as well. Auctions sometimes fetch a cheaper price, but they are going on twenty-four hours a day. They are a great way to either enhance your income or be the complete picture. It is totally up to you.

There are many venues where you can set up a booth and display all of your fine jewelry for sale. You can visit various shows, or you can set up at major events. This is something you might want to do in conjunction with other different strategies. This can help you create a larger presence in the market.

You can also choose to sell your jewelry wholesale directly to merchants. Depending on how you do this, it is evident that you might need a substantial inventory or at least major access to it. You must also be able to handle the price cut. When selling jewelry wholesale, it can give you access to a much larger market. However, you must be able to handle selling your jewelry at a cheaper price. Your profits will stem from the amount of jewelry you sell more than each individual piece at retail value.

Craft fairs and art shows are a great way to sell your jewelry. You can opt to sell them locally or you can travel to both nearby and far away locations to do this. This can be your whole business model if you choose to do it this way. It is completely up to you. It can be a very exciting adventure for sure. Maybe you can use this method to offset your online marketing routine. Either way, the people at these shows will be looking for things you offer, and it is a great place to sell your jewelry.

Selling jewelry through home parties can be much fun. It can introduce you to more people locally and nearby, and it is an avenue you may want to consider to expand your business model as well as your income. It can also be fun to do something like this in person to offset the routine of online marketing and selling.

Choosing a business model that is well suited to your personal strengths can help you find success with your jewelry business. Before starting your business, carefully consider each of the business models outlined above, and select the one that is the best suited for you.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Michele Bachmann founded the Congressional Tea Party Republican Caucus.  Besides her numerous and patent lies, she voted for the Ryan budget that would end Medicare as we know it, and has said that we need to “wean” Americans off of Social Security.  Michele wants to deny women the right to choose, would repeal health care reform, and reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t tell.

Rick Perry has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and suggested that it is unconstitutional.  Perry is proud that he holds the record as the Republican Governor of a state that has executed the most people since the death penalty was reinstated.  His job creation policies have widened the gap between the rich and the poor in Texas.  Perry wants to repeal health care reform and once again allow insurance companies to ration health care and deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions while health care premiums in Texas doubled under his watch.

Mitt Romney is a staunch supporter of corporate America, going as far as to claim that corporations are people.  To gain favor with the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, he has flip-flopped on health care reform and a woman’s right to choose.  Once a supporter of both issues while Governor of Massachusetts, he now says he would work to repeal health care reform and supports restricting women’s reproductive freedoms.  He wants to privatize Social Security and end Medicare as we know it.  Romney also says that he is part of the “middle-class.”

Rick Santorum was an extreme right-wing Republican Senator until he was defeated in the 2006 congressional elections.  He remains a staunch, far-right conservative, and he is battling Bachmann, Perry and Cain for Tea Party votes.  He favors tax breaks for the rich, doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose, or that gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military.

Newt Gingrich is best known for the obstructionist tactics he introduced to a Republican majority in Congress in 1995 that shut down the government and blocked progressive advances during his time as Speaker.  He has gone on record to say that the President is “fundamentally out of touch with how the world works.”  Newt has also pledged to reinstate policies that endanger poor women overseas, and that would deny women seeking reproductive health care certain health care services.

Herman Cain is an ultra-staunch right-wing Republican.  He told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, “I think that they’re over this first African American President thing,”  Also a Tea Party favorite, Cain has been criticized for his complete ignorance on crucial foreign policy issues.  Cain won a Florida straw poll in September, which brought national attention to his campaign.  Cain vehemently denies that he engaged in four cases of sexual harassment charges as alleged.

Jon Huntsman left his position in the Obama Administration as U. S. Ambassador to China to pursue the Republican Presidential Nomination.  Although he has warned his rivals that the Party cannot move to the far-right, he has embraced the Tea Party and wholeheartedly endorsed Paul Ryan’s budget that would end Medicare as we know it.  Huntsman reversed his support for reducing carbon emissions standards to defend our environment against climate change.

Ron Paul has been described as the “intellectual grandfather” of the Tea Party movement.  In his third attempt at the Oval Office, Paul has called for harsh spending cuts, and the elimination of Social Security and Medicare, which he believes are unconstitutional programs.  Ron Paul also said it could be a “positive thing” for the U.S. to default on its debt.

It is difficult for me to understand how anyone in this pathetic” group of Republican presidential candidates could ever become the nominee let alone President of the United States, but that’s just my take.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right of peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.  Freedom of assembly is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.  The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil liberty.  Thus, the United States Constitution explicitly provides for the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The African-American Civil Rights Movement between 1955-1968 was aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans and restoring voting rights in the south. This movement was characterized by major campaigns of nonviolent protest and civil rights disobedience that produced crisis situations between activists and government authorities. Several major pieces of legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement including passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination based on “race, color, religion, or national origin” in employment practices and public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.  A remarkable civil rights achievement that exercised the right to demonstrate.

Occupy Wall Street (referred to as “the 99%”) is a resistance rights movement consisting of people of all races, genders and political persuasions who have decided that they will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%.  According to their website, this movement parallels the “Arab Spring” movement that was a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests occurring in the Arab world that began on Saturday, December 18, 2010.  The concept of “Arab Spring” is to develop a “Strategy of Tension” to change public opinion, using shared techniques of civil resistance in sustained campaigns involving strikes, demonstrations, marches and rallies, as well as the use of social media to organize, communicate, and raise awareness in the face of repression attempts.  The current demonstrations consist of organized workers, business leaders, veterans, students, clergy personnel, civil rights fighters, women’s rights advocates and many, many more, and continue to expand with over 60 cities being affected.

In a recent interview on CNN, former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell said that demonstrations are “as American as apple pie” and there is plenty of justification for the movement’s outrage, but also some reason for concern over its direction.  “What you’re seeing with Occupy Wall Street and the others are people who are unhappy and they’re directing their unhappiness now toward Wall Street and toward those they think are doing too well in our society.”  While Powell went on to suggest that the growing wealth gap was worrisome and in need of addressing, he also cautioned the Occupy movement not to give in to divisive forces of violence and nihilism.  “It isn’t enough just to scream at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. We need our political system to start reflecting this anger back into, ‘How do we fix it? How do we get the economy going again?’” Powell said.  Of course, Secretary Powell is one of a very few Republicans who support the demonstrations.

Based on how wealth is distributed in our country, it is apparent that the rights of the 99 percent are not being protected. The financial gap between the 99% and 1% continues to expand.  The rich get richer and the middle-class is quickly transitioning to the poor.  The Wall Street Movement is all about economics.  Millions of homeowners have lost their homes to foreclosure and millions more homes are underwater.  Republican politicians continue to give tax breaks to the rich while slashing vital public services.  As evidenced in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states, rather than protecting the middle class during these difficult economic times, they’re trying to eliminate the rights of workers.

“Who are we? Well, who are you? If you’re reading this, there’s a 99 percent chance that you’re one of us.

You’re someone who doesn’t know whether there’s going to be enough money to make this month’s rent. You’re someone who gets sick and toughs it out because you’ll never afford the hospital bills. You’re someone who’s trying to move a mountain of debt that never seems to get any smaller no matter how hard you try. You do all the things you’re supposed to do. You buy store brands. You get a second job. You take classes to improve your skills. But it’s not enough. It’s never enough. The anxiety, the frustration, the powerlessness is still there, hovering like a storm crow. Every month you make it is a victory, but a Pyrrhic one — once you’re over the hump, all you can do is think about the next one and how much harder it’s all going to be.

They say it’s because you’re lazy. They say it’s because you make poor choices. They say it’s because you’re spoiled. If you’d only apply yourself a little more, worked a little harder, planned a little better, things would go well for you. Why do you need more help? Haven’t they helped you enough? They say you have no one to blame but yourself. They say it’s all your fault.

They are the 1 percent. They are the banks, the mortgage industry, the insurance industry. They are the important ones. They need help and get bailed out and are praised as job creators. We need help and get nothing and are called entitled. We live in a society made for them, not for us. It’s their world, not ours. If we’re lucky, they’ll let us work in it so long as we don’t question the extent of their charity.

We are the 99 percent. We are everyone else. And we will no longer be silent. It’s time the 1 percent got to know us a little better. On Sept. 17, 2011, the 99 percent will converge on Wall Street to let the 1 percent know just how frustrated they are with living in a world made for someone else. Let us know why you’ll be there. Let us know how you are the 99 percent.”

Bill Riley of Fox News said that the Wall Street Movement “is dead, and that’s a good thing.” New York Republican Congressman Peter King said,”These are people who were living in dirt, these were people who were involved with drugs, there was violence, there was rape. You’re talking about a small number of people — you could probably get more people in a Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Sunday than you’ve got in Zuccotti Park.”  “They’re mad that other people are making money? They’re mad that there are no jobs in this country? Or not enough jobs? All of us believe that. We’re trying to find a way to do it. You don’t do it by living in dirt. You don’t do it by carrying out rapes. You don’t do it by carrying out anti-American slogans,” King said.  Not too long ago, I recall the Tea Party folks carrying anti-American slogans as well as “hate” signs yet King never made one negative comment about the Tea Party.

As noted during the Civil Rights demonstrations, history teaches us that peaceful protests and demonstrations are very effective as long as the objectives are clear. Only time will tell if the 99% will achieve their objective and influence change.  I do believe, however, that its impact will affect the 2012 presidential election in a powerful and dramatic way, but that’s just my take.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Additional examples of Gingrich’s history of flip-flops through the years:

Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan:

• Flip: “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.” — May 15, 2011
• Flop: “I made a mistake. And I called Paul Ryan today, who’s a very close personal friend and I said that. The fact is that I have supported what Ryan has tried to do on the budget.” — May 17, 2011

Libya:

• Flip: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening … Provide help to the rebels to replace [Qaddafi] … All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.” — March 7, 2011
• Flop: “I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi…I would not have used American and European forces.” — March 23, 2011

Criminal Court Trials for Suspected Terrorists:

• Flip: “Well, I think if [members of the Bush administration] believe they have enough evidence to convict [Jose Padilla], going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, may be for the rest of his life without parole would not be — would hardly be seen as a loss. I think this administration is still wrestling with what are the real ground rules for dealing with people who are clearly outside of normal warfare? They’re not wearing a uniform. They’re not part of an army. They are openly threatening to kill thousands or even millions of people.” — November 22, 2005
• Flop: “Why would you take a Nigerian national who just tried to blow up a plane over Detroit … Why would you take that person, put them in the American criminal justice system, give them an attorney, read them their Miranda rights? — January 4, 2010

Since ending his relationship with Freddie Mac in 2008, Gingrich has become a major critic of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  However, according to a recent article in Bloomberg News, Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with Freddie Mac.  This amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during the Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse. When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, Gingrich said he “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” and warned the company that its lending practices were “insane,” a comment disputed by former Freddie Mac executives. Gingrich also said that the payments were for “strategic advice over a long period of time” and that his fees were sent to his consulting firm, not to him personally.  Gingrich’s first contract with Freddie Mac was in 1999, five months after he resigned from Congress and as House speaker and he was paid a monthly retainer of well over $25,000.

Personally, because of Newt’s baggage, I believe that his favorable explosion in the polls is temporary and as quickly as it started, that’s how quickly it will end, but that’s just my take.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Recent polls show that Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich has soared ahead of previous front runner, Herman Cain, in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.  Cain’s “awkward” performance in interviews especially concerning his absolute lack of knowledge about Libya, has gone from arrogance to ignorance.  With the additional sexual harassment claims against him, Cain is probably finished as a presidential and vice presidential candidate.  Although many of the Republican presidential candidates come with some baggage, will Newt become the “chosen one” instead of Romney?  Frankly, I don’t think so.

On March 3, 2011, Gingrich officially announced a website entitled “Newt Exploratory 2012″ of a potential presidential run.  On May 11, 2011, Gingrich officially announced his intention to seek the GOP nomination in 2012.  However, on June 9, 2011, many of Gingrich’s senior campaign aides quit leading to concerns about the viability of his presidential run.  On June 21, 2011, two additional aides left but Gingrich stated that he had no intention to quit the race for the Republican nomination.  So, even Gingrich’s staffers questioned his viability as a presidential candidate.  But what about the personal image he projects as a presidential candidate?

Gingrich has been married three times.  In 1962, when he was 19, he married 26 year old Jackie Battley.  In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther.  Six months after the divorce from Battley, Gingrich married Ginther in 1981.  In the 1990s, Gingrich began an affair with Callista Bisek, a very young staffer in the House of Representatives. They continued their affair during the Lewinsky scandal when Gingrich became a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with his alleged affair.  In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce from Ginther and they are currently together, at least for now.  So his history of marital infidelity will undoubtedly be further exposed and may not set well with many women voters.

Gingrich also has a history of flip-flops.  For example:

Health-Insurance Mandate:

• Flip: “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” — June 2007
• Flop: “I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional.” — May 16, 2011

Cap-and-Trade:

• Flip: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” — February 2007
• Flop: “A carbon cap and trade system … would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy.” — April 21, 2008

Climate Change:

• Flip: “I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere.” — April 10, 2007
• Flop: “I actually don’t know whether global warming is occurring.” — November 8, 2011

PART II TOMORROW

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

TAX QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Christ Himself was tempted by the Devil, and was definitely led into the wilderness by the Spirit for that very end (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12). Not all temptations are evil, regardless of the aspect in which we view them: their nature, their design, or their outcome. It is from the evil of temptations that we pray to be spared, yet even in that we pray submissively and with qualification. We are to pray that we may not be led into temptation; or, if God sees fit that we should be tempted, that we may not yield thereto; or if we yield, that we be not totally overcome by the sin. Nor may we pray for a total exemption from trials, but only for a removal of the judgment of them.

Old Testament Scriptures

GENESIS 22:1-2, “Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham. And He said, Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering.”

EXODUS 16:4, “Then the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not.”

DEUTERONOMY 8:2-3, “And you shall remember that the Lord your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.”

DEUTERONOMY 13:3, “You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

JUDGES 3:1,4, “Now these are the nations which the Lord left, that He might test Israel by them . (4) And they were left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey.”

2 CHRONICLES 32:31, “God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.”

ECCLESIASTES 3:18, “the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like beasts.”

ISAIAH 48:10, “Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.”

JEREMIAH 17:10, “I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.”

 New Testament Scriptures

JOHN 6:5-6, “Then Jesus lifted up His eyes, and seeing a great multitude coming toward Him, He said to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat? But this He said to test him, for He Himself knew what He would do.”

2 CORINTHIANS 2:9, “For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things.”

JAMES 1:2-3, “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials,
3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.”

God often permits Satan to assault and harass us, in order to humble us, to drive us to Himself, and to glorify Himself by manifesting more fully to us His preserving power. My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience” (James. 1:2, 3), but that’s just my take.

CLICK HERE TO PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY   

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

Being tempted describes an act with negative connotations and as such, tends to lead a person to regret such actions and it also describes the coaxing or inducing a person into committing such an act.  Over forty years ago, NBC aired the Flip Wilson Show.  Wilson was most famous for creating the role of Geraldine Jones, a sassy, modern woman who had a boyfriend named Killer.  Wilson popularized such catchphrases as “What You See is What You Get” and the “Devil made me do it.”  While many Christians believe that the Devil is a powerful supernatural entity that causes humans to be tempted to sin or commit evil deeds, is there any Biblical evidence where God temped His people?

James 1:13 tells us that, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.” It is important to understand that the word tempt has a twofold significance in Scripture, though it is not always easy to determine which of the two applies in a particular passage: (1) to try (the strength of), to put to the test; and (2) to entice to do evil. When it is said that “God did tempt Abraham” (Genesis. 22:1), it means that He tried him, putting to the test his faith and fidelity. But when we read that Satan tempted Christ, it signifies that Satan sought to bring about His downfall, morally impossible though it was. To tempt is to make trial of a person, in order to find out what he is and what he will do. We may tempt God in a legitimate and good way by putting Him to the test in a way of duty, as when we await the fulfillment of His promises. But, as is recorded for our admonition in Psalm 78:41, Israel tempted God in a way of sin, acting in such a manner as to provoke His displeasure.

How does God lead us into temptation? First, He does so objectively when His providences, though good in themselves, offer occasions for sin. When we manifest self-righteousness, He may lead us into circumstances something like Job experienced. When we are self-confident, He may be pleased to suffer us to be tempted as Peter was. When we are self-complacent, He may bring us into a situation similar to the one Hezekiah encountered (2 Chronicles. 32:27-31). God leads many into poverty, which though a sore trial is yet, under His blessing, often enriching to the soul. God leads some into prosperity, which is a great snare to many. Yet if sanctified by Him, prosperity enlarges ones capacity for usefulness. Second, God tempts permissively when He does not restrain Satan. Sometimes God suffers him to sift us as wheat, just as a strong wind snaps off dead boughs from living trees. Third, God tempts some men judicially, punishing their sins by allowing the Devil to lead them into further sin, to the ultimate destruction of their souls.

But why does God tempt His people, either objectively by His providences, or subjectively and permissively by Satan? He does so for various reasons. First, He tries us in order to reveal to us our weakness and our deep need of His grace. God withdrew His sustaining arm from Hezekiah in order “that he might know all that was in his heart” (2 Chronicles. 32:31). When God leaves us to ourselves, it is a most painful and humiliating discovery that we make. Yet it is needful if we are to pray from the heart, “Hold Thou me up, and I shall be safe” (Psalm. 119:117). Second, He tests us in order to teach us the need of watchfulness and prayer. Most of us are so unbelieving that we learn only in the hard school of experience, and even its lessons have to be knocked into us. Little by little we discover how dearly we have to pay for rashness, carelessness, and presumption. Third, our Father subjects us to trials in order to cure our slothfulness. God calls out, “Awake thou that sleepest” (Ephesians. 5:14), but we heed Him not; and therefore He often employs rough servants to rudely arouse us. Fourth, God puts us to the test in order to reveal to us the importance and value of the armor He has appointed (Ephesians. 6:11-18). If we heedlessly go forth to battle without our spiritual panoply, then we must not be surprised at the wounds we receive; but they shall have the salutary effect of making us more careful for the future!

PART II TOMORROW

CLICK HERE TO PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY   

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

Under the Kasich Administration, on February 1, 2011, Senate Bill 5 was introduced in the Ohio Senate by Republican Senator Shannon Jones.  On March 30, 2011, the bill passed both houses and was signed into law by Governor Kasich on March 31, 2011.  Although this radical “union stripping” legislation was scheduled to become effective on July 1, 2011, the “We Are Ohio” referendum coalition delivered two versions of S.B. 5 repeal summary, with about 3,000 signatures each, to the Ohio Secretary of State on Monday April 4, 2011. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Secretary of State Jon Husted certified the proposed summary language for the S.B. 5 referendum. The group then needed to obtain the required 231,147 valid signatures to place the measure on the November 8 general election ballot. On June 29 the group delivered 1.2 million signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office. Thus, the bill was placed on the ballot for November 8, 2011 election.

Republican Gov. John Kasich had previously warned Democrats that they needed to support a hard-edged anti-union law or get run over by “the bus,” but on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, Ohio voters seriously damaged Kasich’s agenda by defeating the measure by an overwhelming 63% of the vote.  Unions brought a humbling defeat on Kasich, who had become his party’s super boy for conservative overreach, by soundly defeating Senate Bill 5.  This new collective bargaining law barred public sector strikes, virtually eliminated bargaining rights for 360,000 public employees and eliminating binding arbitration of management-labor disputes.

While we cannot determine the impact of the Ohio elections on 2012, according to the recent polls, Republican governors’ favorability in several swing states are very low.  For example, Kasich’s approval is 38%; Florida’s Governor Rick Scott’s approval is 32%; Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is 33%; and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker approval is 37%.  It could be that Republicans may “self destruct” by November 2012 as they continue their radical agenda, but that’s just my take.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

As we look forward to the 2012 elections, regardless of political affiliation, we should vote for a President, Senator and Representative who can best serve the interests and needs of the American people including resolving our economic situation and creating jobs.  Based on the facts noted in Part I of this posting and the history of Democratic President fiscal responsibility, leadership and unprecedented job creation, it is obvious to me that the Democratic Party including its President can best serve the American people and get this country back on track the way Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton did.

If we elect a Republican President and the Republicans control the Congress in 2012, in addition to implementing Tea Party influenced initiatives, here are a few of the major initiatives they will implement and a Republican President will support:

• Legislation to abolish the Health Care Law that provides coverage to 32 million Americans, removes pre-existing condition restrictions, allows students to remain on parents policy until they are 26, saves Medicare 418 Billion by 2019 and much more;
• Legislation  to undermine our ability to provide a healthier environment for our children, eliminating every tool EPA has to address serious public health threats from carbon pollution, including increased childhood asthma;
• Continued  taxpayer subsidies for big oil companies and speculators;
• Approving additional tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, protect tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas  and continue to supplement big oil companies;
• Eliminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood devastating the primary source of health care, especially preventive services like contraception, cancer screenings, breast exams, and HIV testing, for millions of women;
• Conducting an unprecedented, radical assault on women’s health care restricting, for the first time, how women with private insurance can spend private dollars in purchasing health insurance;
• Passing the Paul Ryan Budget Bill that will kill Medicare the way we know it and  increase the National debt in five years to $16 trillion dollars;
• Crippling public radio stations, particularly in rural areas, while not saving taxpayers one dime; and
• Compromising National Security by provoking a war with Iran.

If, however, the Democrats control Congress with its President in 2012, here are a few major initiatives that the President and his party will continue or implement:

•  End tax loopholes that let corporations hide profits overseas, and investing those dollars in small businesses that create jobs in America;
• Provide tax cuts to small businesses and expanding lending so that businesses can create new jobs;
• Invest in a clean-energy economy, and providing tax credits to spark manufacturing of windmills, solar panels, and electric cars here at home;
• Pass infrastructure legislation that will put Americans to work rebuilding roads, bridges, rails, and ports, strengthening our economy and our infrastructure across all 50 states;
• Extend unemployment benefits as necessary;
• Pass major infrastructure legislation to put millions of people back to work;
• Abolish the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy;
• Reform Wall Street through the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to prevent another melt-down;
• Eliminate subsidies for big oil companies;
• Close Guantanamo Bay; and
• Bring American military personnel home from Afghanistan.

The 2012 elections are all about choice and the current Republican Presidential candidates have given us a glimpse of their radical agenda.  Do we choose to endorse new Tea Party controlled initiatives that will undoubtedly set our country back at least 50 years, virtually eliminate the middle-class while ensuring another economic meltdown, or do we choose to continue the current course under President Obama and the Democrats that will restore our economic sanity, as well as continue to enhance America’s National security (remember, it was the Obama Administration that captured Bin Laden)?

As noted in a previous blog, thirty-eight (38) states with Republican majority legislatures have  introduced legislation to impede democratic voters.  More than 10 percent of U.S. citizens lack the required state identification resulting from this drastic legislation and the numbers are even higher among constituencies that traditionally vote Democratic including 18 percent of young voters and 25 percent of African-Americans.  Republicans are terrified that there will be a repeat of the landslide Democratic victory that occurred in 2008 and that’s the reason they are using every radical trick to prevent that from happening.  It is projected that billions of dollars will be spent by right-wing billionaire groups to purchase a Republican election.

To prohibit continued Republican obstructionism in Congress and overcome the unprecedented state voter registration laws enacted by Republicans, if you are in agreement, President Obama needs our help to guarantee Democratic majorities in Congress as well as his reelection.  We need to make sure that our friends, neighbors, family and others understand the seriousness of the 2012 elections and the necessity of an overwhelming voter turnout. The future economic stability and National Security interests of the United States of America is in our hands in 2012, how will we respond?

Feel free to distribute all or any part of this blog posting as may be appropriate.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

When we consider the facts on the Republican and Democratic President legacies, I believe that reasonable people would conclude that it was Republican administrations that “tanked” the US economy both times, and propelled our country into two unfunded wars contributing to a huge national debt.  Without further discussion on the Bush administration’s so called “war on terror” that caused over 4,500 Americans to lose their lives in Iraq, the biggest problem facing our country today that will impact the 2012 election is the economy.  Before I discuss the “what if” factor, let’s review the historical achievements of past administrations on the US economy.

It was under Republican President Herbert Hoover that the Great Depression began with the Stock Market Crash of October 1929 that rapidly spread worldwide. The market crash marked the beginning of a decade of high unemployment, poverty, low profits, deflation, plunging farm incomes, and lost opportunities for economic growth and personal advancement.  Although its causes are still uncertain and controversial, the net effect was a sudden and general loss of confidence in the economic future of the United States.  The usual explanations include numerous factors especially high consumer debt, ill-regulated markets that permitted overoptimistic loans by banks and investors, the lack of high-growth new industries,  and growing wealth inequality, all interacting to create a downward economic spiral of reduced spending, falling confidence, and lowered production.  Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

The Hoover depression caused major political changes in America. Three years into the depression, Herbert Hoover lost the 1932 presidential election to Democrat Franklin Roosevelt in a sweeping landslide. Roosevelt’s economic recovery plan, the “New Deal,” instituted unprecedented programs for relief, recovery and reform and provided four years of very rapid economic growth.

Following the death of President Roosevelt, Democrat Harry Truman became President.  Truman took office just as World War II entered its final stages. With Japan’s surrender in August 1945, he now led a nation that, for the first time in nearly two decades, was not wracked by the traumas of economic depression or world war. President Truman’s chief task, then, was to lay out to Americans his vision for the country’s future. Two related issues—the future of New Deal liberalism and the reconversion of the American economy from a war-time to a peace-time footing—topped his agenda.

New Deal liberalism committed the federal government to managing the nation’s economy and to guarding the welfare of needy Americans.  During the war the Roosevelt administration had geared the US economy to meet the nation’s war needs, implementing price and wage controls, rationing and allocating resources, and setting production targets for American industry.  In short, the federal government regulated the American economy to an unprecedented degree.  With the war’s end, however, President Truman needed to reorient the nation’s financial system towards consumer production and clarify the government’s future role in the economy.  We all know that the unprecedented actions taken by President Roosevelt were necessary to pull our country out of the Great Depression.

In September 1945, President Truman presented to Congress a twenty-one point message that called for new public works programs, legislation guaranteeing “full employment,” a higher minimum wage, extension of the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC), a war-time agency that monitored discrimination against African Americans in hiring practices of government agencies and defense industries, a larger Social Security System, and a national health insurance system. Taken together, these requests demonstrated an interest in maintaining and building upon the New Deal.  Under President Truman, the unemployment rate dropped from 3.4% to 2.9%.

After President Truman, Republican Dwight Eisenhower became President in 1953 and inherited an unemployment rate of 2.9%. When President Eisenhower left office, the unemployment rate had more than doubled, rising to 6.6%.  Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson inherited a 6.6% unemployment rate and during their terms, reduced unemployment to 3.4%.  Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford inherited an unemployment rate of 3.4% and at the end of their term managed to increase unemployment to 7.5%.  Democratic President Carter inherited 7.5% unemployment that remained the same after he left office.  Republican President Reagan inherited 7.5% unemployment and reduced the rate to 5.4% when leaving office, keeping in mind that Reagan raised taxes eleven times during his administration.  Republican President George H.W. Bush raised the unemployment rate from 5.4% to 7.3% upon leaving office.  Democratic President Clinton reduced the unemployment rate from 7.3% to 4.2% upon leaving office.  Republican President George W. Bush increased the unemployment from 4.2% to 7.7% that continued to rise during the Obama administration because of the 2008 Wall Street fiasco promulgated mainly because of the flawed Bush economic policies.

Although Reagan reduced the unemployment rate to 5.4%, we all know that “supply side economics” referred to as “Reaganomics” didn’t work and added 2 trillion dollars to the National debt.  President George Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and added 5 trillion dollars more to the National debt while creating only 3 million jobs in eight years compared to President Clinton’s 23 million jobs. President George H. W. Bush created 2.5 million jobs; Reagan created 16 million jobs; President Carter created 10.5 million jobs; Ford created 1.8 million jobs; President Nixon created 9.4 million jobs; President Johnson created 11.9 million jobs; President Kennedy created 57.3 million jobs; President Eisenhower created 3.5 million jobs; and President Truman created 8.4 million jobs.

Even if you don’t consider the approximately 3 million jobs saved or created because of the President Obama stimulus package, since the Eisenhower Presidency, Republicans created 36.2 million jobs while the Democrats created 111.1 million jobs.  In addition, since Eisenhower, there has only been one President who produced a balanced budget and a budget surplus.  To sum it up, President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a balanced budget and federal budget surplus of $236 billion.  President George Bush ran a budget deficit of $319 billion by 2005.

PART II TOMORROW

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

This is Part II of, “Is Herman Cain In Trouble?” I concluded Part I discussing Cain‘s  interview on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren’s show on what led to the sexual harassment accusation.

When van Susteren further asked about “the financial settlement,” Cain said, “My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement.  I don’t remember a number.  But then he said because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement.” When asked how much money was involved, Cain said, “Maybe three months’ salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.”  Within hours, Herman Cain and his campaign went from denial and a refusal to comment to admitting there was a problem while consistently declining to respond directly about whether or not he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the NRA and whether there were financial settlements in two cases in which women filed complaints.

Politico has stated that in one case, they have seen documentation describing the allegations about Cain and showing that NRA formally resolved the matter with both women receiving separation financial packages in the five-figure range.  Politico has also stated that they have a half-dozen sources shedding light on Cain’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two women.  According to Politico, the incidents included conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

There are now apparently four (4) women who have allegedly been the subjects of inappropriate comments by Herman Cain.  Two of the women worked for Cain when he was head of NRA and settled with the organization after filing a complaint.  A third woman who worked there at the same time told the Associated Press that she didn’t file a complaint but believed that Cain acted inappropriately and made her uncomfortable. The woman, who did not want to be identified, said Cain invited her to his corporate apartment.  A fourth claim came from pollster Chris Wilson, a Perry supporter and former NRA employee, who said Cain had made inappropriate comments to a woman while at a group dinner in Arlington, Va.  Cain continues to say that he is only aware of one sexual harassment complaint, that he was falsely accused, and blames his opponents and the media for stirring the pot.

On Wednesday, November 2, 2011, Mark Block, Cain’s Campaign Manager, accused Perry’s campaign of being behind the release of the stories. “This is one of the actions in America that is the reason why people don’t get involved in politics,” Block said in an exclusive interview with Fox News.”  “The actions of the Perry campaign are despicable.”  “Rick Perry and his campaign owe Herman Cain and his family an apology,” Block added.  The Perry campaign disavows any connection to the story, calling Block’s charge “reckless and false.”

“For a candidate and campaign that claim to be the victims of unfounded and unproven accusations, they are awfully quick to hurl unfounded accusations themselves,” Perry campaign spokesman Ray Sullivan said in email. “Contrary to the Cain campaign’s false accusations, there is not one shred of evidence that any member of the Perry team had anything to do with the recent stories regarding Herman Cain — because it isn’t true.”  Sullivan also noted that supporters of Mitt Romney’s campaign are connected to the NRA although the Romney campaign responded simply that any suggestion it pushed the Cain story is “not true.”

Although the Cain campaign has been dealing with the sexual harassment charges since they were first released, their problems are further exacerbated by possible violations of campaign finance and tax implications.   Cain’s campaign also faces questions about tens of thousands of dollars in expenses that were paid by Prosperity USA, an organization claiming 501(c)(3) charity status with the IRS that is barred by law from political activities.   Prosperity USA apparently paid $40,000 in expenses, including bills for chartered planes, iPads and other items, according to financial documents exposed by the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.  Cain’s campaign disclosure reports failed to list these payments as debts or in-kind contributions. The newspaper said the financial documents of the charity indicate that $37,372 is “due from FOH” which stands for Friends of Herman Cain, the campaign committee for the candidate. It is not known if the campaign repaid the money.

Prosperity USA was established in 2010 by Mark Block, Cain’s campaign chief of staff and Linda Hansen, the deputy chief of staff.  The organization paid approximately $17,000 for chartered flights and $15,000 for a trip to Atlanta, according to records cited by the Milwaukee paper.  Block was the Wisconsin state leader of Americans for Prosperity; the grassroots conservative advocacy group started in 2004 with donations from the billionaire Koch brothers. It has 501(c)(4) status and can accept unlimited contributions from donors without disclosure, as long as the funds are not spent primarily on politics.

Cain says that he is an associate minister at Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta, Georgia.  Sexual harassment is a despicable action by anyone especially ministers because we look up to them as role models.  As a Christian, minister of the gospel and Presidential candidate, Herman Cain should be held accountable for his actions, but that’s just my take.

If you are interested in acquiring silver click here for free information.

A few months ago, Conservative African American, Herman Cain, came from obscurity to become the front-runner in the Republican Party’s list of candidates for President of the United States.  Cain’s popularity soared after the GOP presidential debate in Florida winning the Florida GOP Presidential straw poll.

Recently, Politico broke the news that during Herman Cain’s tenure as President of the National Restaurant Association (NRA) in the 90s, at least two female employees complained to association officials of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable.  According to the reporting, the two female employees signed an agreement and received financial settlements to leave their jobs at NRA.  The agreement apparently contained language barring the women from discussing their reasons for leaving NRA.

In response to the allegations initially, Cain said that they were “unsubstantiated personal attacks” and “thinly sourced allegations.”  During an interview with Chuck Todd on MSNBC, Mark Block, Cain’s Campaign Manager, said that Cain had “never sexually-harassed anybody.”  Block said that he was “not personally aware of any settlement dealing with Mr. Cain.”  At that time, according to Politico, Cain refused to comment on any settlement involving any former employee of NRA.

Cain subsequently appeared on Fox News and in response to a question on whether he had ever been accused of sexual harassment, Cain said: “I have never sexually harassed anyone, let me say that….Yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association, and I say ‘falsely’ because it turned out after the investigation to be baseless.”  Cain also stated during that interview that, “If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn’t aware of it and I hope it was not for much because nothing happened. If it was a settlement it was handled by some of the other officers of the association that worked for me. So the answer is, absolutely not.” When asked whether or not there would be other such allegations in the future, Cain responded, “Absolutely not. If other allegations come people will simply make them up. I think that’s clear, no? No.”  So initially, Cain stated that he was “not aware” if the NRA paid off any female staffer who accused him of sexual harassment, and if it did, he hoped it wasn’t for much.”  Later during the day, however, NBC News confirmed that one woman received a settlement from NRA after complaining about inappropriate sexual conduct by Herman Cain although not disclosing who she was.

Since this story wouldn’t go away, the Cain campaign followed the no comment phase with the “blame game.”  There was the ‘blame-the-media’ position including a statement that, “a prominent conservative targeted by liberals simply because they disagree with his politics.”  (Actually, it would be ludicrous for liberals to disrupt Cain’s campaign because if the truth be told, they are hoping that Cain secures the Republican nomination.)  Subsequently, there was somewhat of a denial of the allegations by Cain’s Campaign Chairman and by Cain, both stating that Cain had been “falsely accused” while not denying that the NRA and the victims had reached a financial settlement.  Subsequently, Cain backtracked and stated that the NRA’s general counsel and the human resources department did conduct an investigation into allegations about his conduct in the late-90s.  In a later interview with Bloomberg News, Cain said that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did investigate allegations he sexually harassed an employee and found “no basis” to pursue the case. This has not yet been confirmed at this writing.

NRA released the following statement regarding allegations against Herman Cain while he was President during the 1990s:

“The incidents in question relate to personnel matters that allegedly took place nearly fifteen years ago. Consistent with our longstanding policy, we don’t comment on personnel issues relating to current or former employees,” said Sue Hensley, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs Communications for the National Restaurant Association.”

For Cain not to have known that NRA had settled sexual harassment complaints against him “would be highly unusual, extremely unlikely, and I would be shocked if that were the case,” says Patricia Barasch, President of the National Employment Lawyers Association.

In an interview on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren’s show, Cain was asked what led to the accusation.  Although there were reportedly more than one complaint,  Cain said he recalled just one incident. “She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying – and I was standing close to her – and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, ‘My wife comes up to my chin.’” At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. “And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable,” Cain said, “something that was in the sexual harassment charge.”  Cain couldn’t recall whether or not the woman complained at that time.  Why was Cain standing so close to that employee?

PART II TOMORROW

If you are interested in developing a silver portfolio click here for free information.