THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW

Obama Ignores Challenge to His Presidential Eligibility in Georgia

2012-01-30T01:17:00.041-06:00

Obama Ignores Challenge to His Presidential Eligibility in Georgia

President Obama

Here's an interesting article from the New American website regarding President Obama's eligibility. Judge Michael Mahili for the Office of State Administrative Hearings for the State of Georgia. He asked them to file briefs with him on their positions regarding the eligibility issue no later than Sunday, February 5. The complaints originated on October 25 of last year with a lawsuit filed by the Liberty Legal Foundation requesting an injunction against the Democratic Party that would prohibit the party from certifying that Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for office in 2012. Without that certification, Obama wouldn't be placed on any ballot in the general election.

The Liberty Legal Foundation explains that the Supreme Court has defined 'natural born' citizen as person born to parents where both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. President Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States, but his father, Barack Obama, Sr. never was a U.S. citizen. I predict this case won't go anywhere. President Obama isn't going to pay any attention to the subpoena issued for him to appear in court. Why would he? He's the anointed one. What do the laws mean to him? He's been in the process of radically transforming this nation the last three years. He's not going to stop now when the process if almost complete.

Click on the above linke from the New American to read the full story.

The Final GOP Debate in Florida

2012-01-30T00:00:00.015-06:00

Florida GOP debate: Gingrich and Romney clash on immigration, taxes - The Washington Post

This was the final GOP debate held between candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. The debate was held on Thursday January 26, 2012. The Florida primary will be held on Tuesday January 31, 2012. I want to encourage all voters in Florida to vote tomorrow.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Dottie Rambo: The Gifted Songwriter of the Twentieth Century (Part 15)

2012-01-29T00:00:00.101-06:00

The First Time I Heard About Heaven

Who's Gonna Teach My Children's Children (Dottie Rambo)

You've Never Mentioned Jesus to Me

This Little Sheep's Coming Home

A Hymn From Way Back Home

It's Me Again Lord

Lord Do it Again

Naaman

A Brand New Feeling

Things Are Going to be Better Afterwhile

Tiny

Dottie Rambo on Television

Dottie Rambo started making appearances on television starting around 1965 with the Gospel Singing Jubilee. She sang with the group who was known as The Singing Rambos. The group consisted of Buck, Dottie, Reba, and Pat Jones. The syndicated show was a major production from coast to coast. The Rambos sang on the Gospel Singing Jubilee for a number of years performing such gospel greats as "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need", "Build My Mansion", "The Holy Hills of Heaven Call Me", "The Church Triumphant", "Prisoner of Love", and many others. That was the first television exposure the Rambos received for their music.

At the time the Rambos were invited to sing on the Gospel Singing Jubilee, they were members of the United Pentecostal Church. Buck conferred with eight ministers, whom he considered to be his best preacher friends. At the time, the United Pentecostal Church preached against Christians owning a television in their home. However, there wasn't a rule at the time against Christians appearing on television. The eight ministers advised Buck to accept the TV offer. Consequently, there was some controversy over that issue once when the Rambos made their first appearance on the Gospel Singing Jubilee. The same men who had advised Buck to accept the TV offer called and cancelled all the Rambo meetings. Some United Pentecostal Churches held Rambo record-burning parties in which all church members brought their Rambo records and tossed them into a bonfire. (Source: The Legacy of Buck and Dottie Rambo) The Rambos were openly condemned and blackballed from the pulpits of the United Pentecostal Churches. Their reasoning was that no Christian would display his ministry before the world on television. As a result they didn't have many meetings scheduled due to the United Pentecostal Church boycotting the Rambos. Nevertheless, they found a different venue for their singing after their 1964 appearance at the National Quartet Convention. Their performance so successful at the National Quartet Convention that they were booked to sing in concerts and they would sing in concerts for a number of years to come.

A number of years later when they moved to California in 1981, they involved themselves with TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network.) They developed a long-term friendship with both Paul and Jan Crouch, founders of TBN. Over the years they would sing on the network and participate in telethons. As a result of their appearances on TBN, Dottie was awarded with her own program called, "The Dottie Rambo Magazine." The Dottie Rambo Magazine ran for six years and was the no. 1 rated program for six years on the network. The old program is still shown in repeats off and on today. Throughout the years Dottie has made other television appearances such as Rex Humbard, PTL with Jim and Tammy Bakker, and the 700 Club, for example. She has appeared on numerous television programs from virtually every Christian network as well as the TNN, PAX, and Women's entertainment channels. She has also appeared on a number of Gaither Homecoming video series. Her last Gaither Homecoming appearance was in 2008 when she sang one of her old songs entitled, "I Just Came to Talk With You Lord." Dottie Rambo has also been the subject of a number of television biographic specials such as TBN's Portrait of Grace, INSP's Inspirational Groundbreakers, BBC's White Gospel, and GMC's Faith and Fame. Faith and Fame was her last television interview prior to her death. As a result of all the television appearances on Christian television, Dottie Rambo has become a household name in Christian television.

Hillary Clinton Says She Won't be Serving in a Second Obama Term

2012-01-28T11:01:00.000-06:00

Hillary Clinton – She won’t be serving in a second Obama term TruthDive

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this past week made the announcement that she won't be serving in a second Obama term if he happens to win re-election this November. Clinton also declared that she won't be serving a second term as Secretary of State if Obama wins this November. She said she is enjoying every moment of her 20 year political career. There had been rumors that she might replace Vice-President Joe Biden as President Obama's running mate this year. "I have made it clear that I will certainly stay on until the president nominates someone and that transition can occur," she stated at a town hall meeting. "But I think after 20 years, and it will be 20 years, of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am." According to ABC News, Clinton hasn't stated what she would do once she retired from public life. Once her tenure ends as Secretary of State, it will mark the end of the 20 year dynasty of the Clintons--Bill Clinton's two terms as president, Hillary's eight years as Senator and four years as Secretary of State.

I can imagine some people are stunned when Clinton supposedly made the announcement last year she was going to depart from public life. I heard some people say that they thought Hillary would challenge Obama in this year's Democratic primary due to Obama's low approval ratings. I didn't think she would challenge Obama. What's the deal with Hillary? Does she have health or some type of personal issue in her life? Probably not. Anyone that's paid attention to the political scene for the last decade or better know that Hillary had presidential aspirations. She ran a spirited campaign for the party's nomination for president in 2008. Personally, I still think she would like to be president of the United States. However, her stock appears to have fallen with the Democratic Party since the 2008 presidential election. She's no longer the most-wanted candidate in the Democratic Party, or at least that's the way it appears. President Obama was the new kid on the block in 2008, so the primary was "rigged" in favor of Obama. I personally believe it was set up for Obama to win the Democratic primary in 2008.

I don't have any way to prove this but I'm going to give you my point of view in this scenario. I believe the forces of Nimrod, whomever the characters are, don't have any place for Hillary now in politics. Could that change in a few years? Possibly but she's definitely not on the most-wanted list, at least for now. For whatever reason the forces of Nimrod wanted Obama to be the one to assume the office of the presidency. I believe it was set up for Obama to be president with the crumbling economy that year and the support of the liberal media such as MSNBC, for example. Will Hillary fade into obscurity? I'm sure we will hear from her from time to time. All I can surmise is that for the time being the powers-that-be don't need her in the political arena. Hillary has probably served her useful in politics and now it's time for a younger generation to make their mark.

The Money Masters (Full Documentary)

2012-01-28T01:54:00.003-06:00

The Money Masters

Gingrich Dismisses Pelosi Claim She Knows 'Something'

2012-01-28T00:00:00.055-06:00

Gingrich Dismisses Pelosi Claim She Knows 'something' Fox News

Former House Speaker and GOP candidate for President Newt Gingrich and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi on Speaker Gingrich

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in a CNN appearance with John King that Newt Gingrich will not be president. "That's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it--it isn't going to happen." She says she knows something about Gingrich. Gingrich, on the other hand, told Fox News on Wednesday, "I think if she knows something, she ought to say it, and if she doesn't know something, she ought to quit saying it." Does she know something? Or is she bluffing? As Fox News anchors always say, "we'll let you decide."

I don't have a very high opinion of Pelosi. To tell you the truth, I have a very low opinion of her. However, I wouldn't be surprised that Nancy Pelosi knows something about Newt Gingrich. She's served with Gingrich in Congress for 12 years. I don't believe the public has seen all of Newt's dirty laundry. If we were to see all his dirty laundry, it would probably astound us. I'm not insinuating that I want to see all his dirty laundry. I don't. If Gingrich becomes the GOP nominee to face President Obama in the fall, I believe we haven't seen everything yet. I can recall Newt Gingrich back in the 90's when he was Speaker of the House. During that time, the mention of Gingrich evoked negative images to the public. He had a very high negative ranking when he was House Speaker. He was involved in a House ethics charge in 1997. He also had a mistress named Callista Bisek, who is now his current wife. Gingrich is also a globalist. He voted for NAFTA and GATT in 1993 and 1994. He supports amnesty for illegal aliens. He's made stupid comments such as the Paul Ryan plan for Medicare amounts to "right-wing social engineering". He's also made a global warming ad with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2008. The John Birch Society says that Newt Gingrich is a globalist and isn't a conservative.

I hope Newt Gingrich isn't the GOP nominee to face President Obama in the Fall. As of right now, I wouldn't count that out. His poll numbers are favorable in Florida and Rasmussen Reports has Newt Gingrich ahead of Mitt Romney nationally. The Obama political machine will have a heyday airing negative ads against Gingrich for this Fall's election. They will roast Gingrich. Let me make a prediction with all candor: If Newt is the Republican nominee in the Fall, he will lose handily to Obama. Make no mistake about it. He has too much baggage.

Romney Adviser Norm Coleman Predicts GOP President Won't Repeal Health Law

2012-01-27T01:00:00.117-06:00

Romney adviser Norm Coleman predicts GOP president won't repeal health law - The Hill's Healthwatch

Former Minnesota Senator and Romney adviser Norm Coleman

Former Minnesota Senator and Mitt Romney adviser Norm Coleman predicts that the GOP won't repeal the Democrats' healthcare reform law even if a Republican is elected president this Fall. Coleman, who lost to Al Franken in a protracted recount battle for a second term in the Senate in 2008, said they won't be able to throw out the entire healthcare law whole-cloth. That's what he told BioCentury, which is a television talk show. Coleman said that they can substantially change what's been done. Coleman's remarks are interesting given the fact that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal Obamacare if he's elected president. The repeal of Obamacare, or the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010, has been at the forefront of the GOP primary the past two years. These past two years all the GOP candidates have stated they intend to repeal Obamacare if elected president. Coleman also made the statement that the recent healthcare law could collapse on its own if the Supreme Court strikes down the requirement that every American has health insurance. I'm not sure the Supreme Court will strike down the requirement that every American has health insurance.

Mitt Romney wants to persuade voters that if elected president, he'll repeal Obamacare. Consequently, the healthcare law that was passed in Massachusetts in 2006 is a smaller version of the nationalized Affordable Healthcare Act which was passed by both Houses of Congress in March 2010. Some time back I read in a Newsmax article that the advisers who advised Romney on Massachusetts healthcare law also advised President Obama on the national healthcare law which passed nearly two years ago. I have a very difficult time believing Mitt Romney is going to repeal Obamacare. First it will have to be repealed by both houses of Congress. That's won't be easy since there are all sorts of interest groups that will bribe our elected elite to not repeal Obamacare. Secondly, I don't trust Romney. I believe he's a candidate of political expediency. He'll say whatever he has to win elections, if he has a desire to win the presidency, which is questionable. I know Romney makes the argument that it's not the perogative of the federal government to pass national healthcare. Romney argues it's a state issue. However, the healthcare law that was passed in Massachusetts in 2006 has driven up healthcare costs. It's not been good for the citizens of Massachusetts. On top of that, Romney knows Romneycare is disastrous for Massachusetts. He knows how to operate a business. He knows Romneycare will be too costly for the citizens of Massachusetts. The math doesn't add up. Would you think he knew how to run a business knowing he pushed for a statewide healthcare law in Massachusetts? Romney knows how to run a business better than any of the current GOP candidates still in contention for the presidency. Consequently he's another flip-flop politician who points his nose in the air checking to see which way the wind blows.

The repeal of healthcare is a campaign issue all the GOP candidates are trying to monopolize when running for president. As I've stated in older posts, all these candidates want the issue, but they have no intention to solve the problem. That includes Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN). Why do I say that? Since the Republicans are in charge of the House of Representatives, they have the constitutional authority to stop wasteful spending by means of defunding. They can defund spending measures that are unconstitutional. If Bachmann was serious about repealing healthcare, she would be organizing a group of Republicans in the House to remove funding from Obamacare. Has she done so? No. It's all about the issue. Instead of defunding Obamacare, they will hold a symbolic vote to repeal Obamacare (as they did last year) knowing that it won't be repealed with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president. However, the Republicans can use their majority in the House (since they chair all the various committees in the House), to stop funding unconstitutional spending. Since they won't do so I'm going to assume they're not serious about repealing Obamacare. To go a step further, the GOP House isn't serious at all about eliminating wasteful spending. They didn't reduce the size of government during the last fiscal year and I guarantee you the 112th Congress won't reduce the size of government this fiscal year either. Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum can say repeatedly they're going to repeal Obamacare if elected president. Sadly, it's nothing but campaign rhetoric. They can't repeal Obamacare singlehandedly. There's no genuine commitment upon any of our elected elite (Congress included) to repeal Obamacare.

Rep.Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) Resigns From Congress to Concentrate on Her Recovery

2012-01-27T00:00:00.049-06:00

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' resignation met with cheers, applause NJ.com

This past Sunday January 22, 2012, Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, made the announcement that she will resign from Congress this week. She said haltingly in a video on her website that she needs to focus her time on trying to fully recover from the brain injury that resulted from the gunshot to her head over a year ago. She said she thanked her constituents in Arizona for their support. She felt she couldn't give the time and energy she needed while trying to recover. On January 8, 2011, she met with her constituents in Tucson, which is in the 8th Congressional District in Arizona. She held a "Congress on Your Corner" to meet with her constituents to discuss issues important to them. While she conducted the event, she was shot in the head by Jared Lee Loughner. Six were killed and several others were wounded on that dreadful day.

On Tuesday she attended the State of the Union Address. President Obama and several members of Congress paid her tribute for her service to Congress and her bravery in the strong recovery she's made thus far. Members of Congress such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Congresswoman and head of the Democratic Party Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, (Gabby's best friend) gave their accolades. Giffords submitted her resignation to Boehner and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Brewer will be setting a date for a special election to replace Giffords sometime this Spring. On Wednesday, October 25, 2012, Giffords submitted a bill concerning the U.S.-Mexico border. She cast her last vote on this piece of legislation. The vote was unanimous 408-0. She introduced this bill with fellow colleague Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Even though I didn't agree with many of Congresswoman Giffords political views while in Congress, I do admire how well she's recovered and the spirit she has to recover. I also applaud her in thinking about the well-being of her constituents in deciding to step aside so she can recover. That's more than I can say for many career politicians. We've had career politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Strom Thurmond that stayed in the Senate far longer than what they should have. I give Giffords credit for that. I wish Giffords the best in a full and speedy recovery.

The U.S. Desperately Needs a Second American Revolution (Part 3)

2012-01-26T01:38:00.000-06:00

As I mentioned in part 2 on January 8th's post, when I was speaking about America needing a second American revolution, I wasn't making reference to reforming government nor Americans taking up arms with one another. When we think of a revolution, we think of drastically changing government or changing the political atmosphere in Washington. We are not going to be able to change government. At least not through carnal means. As much as I support voting out fraudulent incumbents, that's not going to revolutionize Washington. Why? Because Washington is controlled by the globalists or the forces of Nimrod. Our politicians are bought and co-opted by the forces of Nimrod. Whether it's a Democrat or a Republican who occupies the White House, America's march to socialism still continues. Former president George W. Bush, pushed America to the brink of socialism prior to the presidency of Barack Obama. All president Obama did was pick up the baton from George W. Bush and pushed the pedal to the metal. America's transformation is almost complete. We need to recognize that all our efforts in trying to reform government will be almost impossible. The forces that control our politicians are scattered across the globe. There's no one single group we can take out that would turn our country in the right direction. If America is to be saved, it won't be through the efforts of Washington, D.C. Politics is not the solution.

When Glenn Beck, a radio talk show host and a host of GBTV online streaming, used to host a program on Fox News, I used to watch him on copious occasions on Fox. He would speak about the actors involved in bringing down America such as George Soros, and other elitist groups, for example. Glenn Beck said that politics isn't the solution to America's problems. Beck recognizes that the greatness of America lies in its people, not the federal government. Even though I disagree with Beck's solutions on how to turn America around, he does recognize that the hope of this great nation doesn't lie in our elected elite. I will echo the same words. Washington isn't America's answer. The greatness of America lies in its people who fear God. Notice the first line of the preamble says, "We the people", not "We the government of the United States." The elected officials are comprised from "we the people." It's not the government that makes a great nation. It's a people who recognize that righteousness exalts a nation (Proverbs 34:14) A country who fails to recognize and honor God is a nation that's doomed for destruction.

What kind of revolution does America need? There are various definitions of "revolution." One definition involves a sudden, tumultuous, and radical transformation of an entire system of government, including its legal and political components. This is already happening under the presidency of Barack Obama. It's not happening in the way most Americans desire. President Obama and his minions are transforming this nation into a fascist country in which Americans will have to be dependent upon the government in some fashion. They are fixing it where the average American can't be independent form the government when it comes to providing their own living. Also, government is increasingly dictating to Americans how we show walk, talk, eat, and breathe. We're witnessing that on an increasing scale.

The second definition of revolution is a revolution that encompasses society as a whole, bringing fundamental change to a culture's economic, religious, and institutional framework. (The source for the definition comes from the online free dictionary). The kind of revolution America needs is a spiritual revolution. This kind of revolution will only come through God's people. Psalms 85:6 says, "Will thou not revive us again, that thy people may rejoice in thee?" America needs a revolution involving God's people who are revived. Jesus told his disciples in Matthew that they are the salt and light of this world. A salt that has lost its savour is worthless. That's the problem with the church in today's society. It's worthless. The moral and spiritual standard of America has become so worldly and compromised that it has no positive effect on this generation of people. The late evangelist Dr. J. Harold Smith preached a message years ago entitled, "A Sick Church." He mentioned that today's church is sick. That's so very true. Compare the church to the world. What's the difference? What's the difference between those who claim to be born again and know God vs. those who make no profession of faith? There's scarcely little difference, for the most part. We wonder why America is sinking into the abyss. The reason is because the church is no longer salt and light to this great land that has sent missionaries into the foreign fields. As a result of the worldliness that has pervaded America's churches today, there's very little manifestation of the power of God in our churches today. If you were to speak to the average church member today, they couldn't even begin to tell you what the power of God is. That's tragic.

The only way America can have a true revolution is for God's people to repent. Jesus told the Church of Laodecia in Revelation 3 to repent. Today's churches in America models that of the Laodecian Church which was increased with goods and needed nothing. I've heard many evangelicals encourage Christians to involve themselves in the local communities and run for the school boards, for example. We need Christians to involve themselves in the public school system, no doubt. The best thing Christian parents can do for their children is to not send them to the public school system if it can be helped. It would be best for parents to send their children to a Christian school or to homeschool their children. The public school system in this hour is nothing more than a "government school system." The state government (and federal government to a small degree) controls our schools today. There's not as much local control in the public school system like it once was.

I remember reading Dr. Francis Schaeffer in one of his books years ago stating that Christians should involve themselves in every facet of society. He stated the Lordship of Christ should be involved in all aspects of society such as politics, education, the arts, sciences, and the list continues. As important as Christian involvement is to the community, what would that amount to if the church isn't salt and light to this generation of unregenerate people? There was a time in years past when it meant something to say you are a Christian. Today a person professing themeselves to be a Christian has no more meaning to it than saying you belong to the Rotary Club. Why? Because God's people have set a poor standard in this world. There's very little resemblance between the world and the church when it comes to its speech, conduct, lifestyle, and appearance. America is no more stronger morally and spiritually than it's churches and "Christian" homes are. When the homes and churches are spiritually anemic, then you have a nation that's spiritually bankrupt. In today's "Christian" homes, the divorce rate is similar to the divorce rate in the homes of those who don't proclaim themselves to be Christians. In order for Christians to be effective in their communities, they need a Heaven sent revival. The things of God need to be real once again to the child of God. Faithfulness to God, church, family, and community is of paramount importance. There needs to be a distinct difference between those who are saved and those who are lost. The world should be able to identify a Christian by the way he/she walk, talks, and conducts himself/herself. That's what's missing today. America's only hope is the church who is on fire for God.

America will never have a second revolution unless God's people are revived and the church once again regains the influence that it once had in this society. Unless the church repents and once again becomes geniune salt and light, then America will cease to be the nation it once was. Unless God's power is manifested in a magnificent way in this country once again, America will be doomed. God's people must be the leaders of the second American revolution. Nobody else can do it. Only a revived church can bring about a revolution in this country. Nothing else will suffice.

Joe Paterno, Former Penn State Football Coach, Dies at 85

2012-01-26T00:00:00.002-06:00

Joe Paterno, former Penn State football coach, dies at 85 - The Washington Post

Former Penn State Head Football Coach Joe Paterno

Former legendary Penn State Head Coach Joe Paterno, who won more football games than any college coach, died this past Sunday January 22, 2012 at the age of 85. Prior to his death, he was fired amid a child sex abuse scandal that marred his reputation and legacy as the winningest football coach for the university. The Pennsylvania hospital where Paterno died confirmed the death as a spreading lung cancer. Mount Nittany Medical Center said in a statement that Paterno died at 9:25 a.m. Sunday of "metastic small cell carcinoma of the lung." Paterno built his program on the credo "Success With Honor" and he found both. The man known as "JoPa" won 409 games and took the Nittany Lions to 37 bowl games and 2 national championships. More than 250 players he coached went to the NFL. He coached at Penn State for 46 years.

According to Reuters, Joe Paterno was buried yesterday in a private ceremony after thousands of mourners paid their vigil in frigid weather as his hearse was carried from a closed funeral. Paterno was fired in November 2011 after his former assistant, Jerry Sandusky, was charged with serial sex abuse. Paterno was fired because he didn't tell police what he had been told about the alleged abuse. To read more about the former head football coach's death, click on the above link from The Washington Post.

President Obama Delivers State of the Union Address

2012-01-25T17:59:00.000-06:00

President Obama delivers State of the Union address: Keeping the American dream alive is 'the defining issue of our time' - NY Daily News

Last night as I was listening to excerpts of President Obama's State of the Union Address, I heard President Obama invoking class warfare when he was speaking of millionaires and what percentage they should pay in taxes. Anybody that listens to Obama needs to recognize that when he was speaking of hope and change four years ago, he wasn't speaking of the kind of change many Americans were yearning for. When he was speaking of change, he meant transforming this society into a full-blown socialist country, which in turn leads to fascism. He believes in the redistribution of wealth. He told "Joe the Plumber" in 2008 that he believes in taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have-nots." If a person can't recognize that's socialism, then they're blind. President Obama is a socialist. He and the Democrats are always busy attacking the wealthy saying they aren't paying their fair share of taxes. Obama said any wealthy person making at least a million should be paying 30%. Where did Obama come up with that arbitrary figure? If Obama and the Democrats who claim the rich aren't paying their fair share really believe that, then why don't they (the President and Democrats in Congress) lead by example and contribute 30% above what they already contribute in taxes? That would sound reasonable. I guarantee President Obama and the Democrats wouldn't miss it. I guarantee you Nancy Pelosi could give over half of her earnings in taxes and still be fine. She's very wealthy. The hypocrisy is ridiculous. I guarantee you taxes will be raised on the rich before too long. Just wait and see.

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich Clash Sharply in Presidential Debate

2012-01-25T17:40:00.001-06:00

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich clash sharply in Republican presidential debate - The Washington Post

On Monday's debate in Tampa Florida, GOP candidates Newt Gingrich go after each other very sharply. Romney painted Gingrich as a failed leader, a K Street influence peddler, and a candidate who would place the party at risk in the general election. Gingrich accused the former governor of getting the facts and making distorted charges, and he rejected the voters would reject such politics. According to Monday's Rasmussen Poll, Gingrich holds a 41% to 32% lead over Romney. Less than two weeks ago, Romney held a 22% lead over Gingrich. Since Gingrich's resurgence last weekend, Romney's lead is now Gone and now Newt is at the top of the pack.

Mitt Romney Will Not Impose Mormonism on the United States if Elected President

2012-01-24T00:00:00.073-06:00

Mitt Romney's Mormon "Faith" an Issue Again

Mitt Romney and Mormonism

Within the last several years there have been growing concerns amongst evangelicals over the possibility of a Mitt Romney presidency. Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, is a Mormon. Romney is once again seeking the GOP nomination for the presidency of the United States this year. Romney ran for the office of the presidency for the very first time in 2008 but lost to eventual nominee John McCain. Many evangelicals worry what a Romney president would entail. If Romney were to be elected president, he would be the first Mormon ever to occupy the oval office. Romney's daddy, the late George Romney was a former Michigan Governor from 1963-69 and ran for the GOP nomination in 1968. Romney's religion was no issue in 1968. He didn't progress very far in the GOP primary that year. The probable reason for his not faring well in the polls that year was his "brainwashing" comment he gave on television about his trip to Vietnam when being interviewed by Detroit television host Lou Gordon.

There are many evangelicals who rightly criticize Mormonism as being a cult. Texas Governor Rick Perry's pastor made the comment that Mormonism is a religion and he took some flack for that. To be very candid with you, Mormonism is a cult. It's inspiration doesn't lie in the sacred King James Bible. Instead they have their own canon of scripture called, "The Book of Mormon." The founder of Mormonism was Joseph Smith. The Mormon church is also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They have practiced polygamy, the practice of being married to more than one wife at a time. There are some notable Mormons in the government and the media such as former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and GBTV host Glenn Beck. Jim Sumpter, who isn't a well-known talk show host but is a syndicated radio talk show host, is also Mormon. I for one am opposed to the religion of Mormonism.

I'm going to make a statement that will sound shocking to some conservatives, but this is where I stand on the issue. I'm going to make a very dogmatic statement. I don't believe if elected president Mitt Romney will impose or coerce Americans to accept Mormonism in this country. I don't believe that Romney will make America a Mormon country. I believe that's the least of our worries. I know the title of this post sounds very dogmatic, but this is where I stand. I'm not liberal in my thinking. I am a conservative thinker. I try to be realistic in my thinking. From what I've witnessed concerning the American culture within the last 50 years, the trend has been toward the secularization of our country. There aren't any forces out there trying to establish a church-state entity like it was so common in Europe from centuries past. Instead, we've seen forces from the ACLU, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way, and other organizations working to expunge any mention of Christianity and Jesus Christ from the public arena. So, I'm not concerned about Romney trying to transform America into a Mormon country. I don't see Romney pushing Mormonism down the throats of the American people any more than John F. Kennedy tried to impose Catholicism upon the American people when he was president from 1961-63. Kennedy was the very first president ever to enter the oval office as a Roman Catholic. Many Americans were worried that he would receive orders from the Pope or would push the mandate of the Catholic Church upon the American people. Kennedy never did that. Nor do I believe Romney will coerce Americans to become Mormons. Romney's Mormonism is the least of our concern. I'm not saying this to endorse Romney for president. I won't vote for Romney in the primary because I don't trust him. He's flip-flopped on issues such as abortion, for example, and he passed a state-run health care which is a miniature version of Obamacare.

What we should be concerned about is knowingly voting for a Muslim to the highest office. Even though I can't prove it, it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is a closet Muslim. He had a Muslim background when he lived in Indonesia during his youth. Also, he's been very sympathetic to Islam as well which makes me wonder. Regardless, I think it would be dangerous having a Muslim as president, esp. if he were a believer in jihad. I've heard radio talk show host Bill Cunningham mention on Sunday night a number of times that he would rather have a conservative Muslim as president than a liberal Catholic such as John Kerry. The question I have to ask is how do you define a conservative Muslim? Would a conservative Muslim support Sharia Law being implemented in the United States? There's a good possibility. Since 9/11 the government along with the Muslim organization CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations) has tried to brainwash the American people and make them think Islam is a peaceful religion. The government is trying to force the American people to be tolerant and accept Islam. I believe in the future it will become a federal crime to speak out against Muslims or Islam. I see that coming. If we're going to be fearful of a particular religion to be forced upon America someday, we should be fearful of Islam--not Mormonism.

Newt Gingrich Wins the South Carolina Primary

2012-01-23T00:00:00.044-06:00

Gingrich: S.C. 'decided to be with us in changing Washington' - CNN.com

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich won Saturday's South Carolina primary in convincing fashion. After having finishing fourth place in Iowa and New Hampshire and whose campaign appeared to be all but dead again, has now received new momentum. With at least 95% of polling places reporting, Gingrich won with 40% of the vote with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney receiving 27% of the vote. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum received 17% of the vote, and Rep. Ron Paul received 13% of the vote. Based on early returns and exit polls, CNN projected Gingrich the winner.

After having placed fourth in the last two contests, Newt came out ahead in the South Carolina primary with a revived campaign. I guarantee much of the credit for Newt's resurgence in South Carolina will be due to his debate performances on both Monday night at the Fox News/Wall Street Journal Debate and the CNN Debate on Thursday night. On Monday night Fox News Analyst Juan Williams asked Gingrich a question about poor black children lacking a work ethic and Newt told Williams that poor children need to work in their schools as a janitor. He also said that President Obma was a food stamp president. That would enable them to earn money and it would teach them a strong work ethic as well. His response undoubtedly reinvigorated Gingrich's campaign. On Thursday evening John King, the moderator of the debate asked Gingrich to comment on his wife's interview with ABC when she told them that Gingrich wanted an "open marriage" when they were married years ago. Newt told them he thought it was ridiculous that CNN would open the debate with that kind of question and that what his wife told them was false. There are sources which say what Newt said about his ex-wife is false. Click on the above link from CNN.com to read the story about Gingrich's victory.

Dottie Rambo: The Gifted Songwriter of the Twentieth Century (Part 14)

2012-01-22T00:00:00.135-06:00

Dottie Rambo Speaks About Her Marital Problems With Buck Rambo (Part 1)

Dottie Rambo Speaks About Her Marital Problems With Buck Rambo (Part 2)

He Changed My Tears to Showers of Blessings

Love Letters

I'll Only Love Him Forever

Home Never Looked So Good to Me

By and By the Night Will Vanish

Home's Where the Heart Is

I've Never Been This Homesick Before

I Go to the Rock

As I mentioned in last Sunday's post, Buck and Dottie Rambo had marital problems for a number of years. That started surfacing in the late 60's in the midst of their successful singing career. When she found out about Buck's unfaithfulness to her the first time, she retreated to a coastline and it resulted in the creation of one of her most popular songs, "Sheltered in the Arms of God." I don't know how many times Buck was unfaithful to Dottie, nor is it necessary for us to know. I'm certain there were numerous things that took place in their marriage that the public will never know about. It's not even necessary that the whole public knows all the details about their failed marriage. The reason why I'm mentioning this is because a number of songs were created as as a result of the turmoil Dottie experienced as a result of Buck's unfaithfulness to her. I have heard of at least three accounts of Buck being unfaithful to her. The last incident resulted in divorce in 1994. When asked about the incidents Reba Rambo McGuire said she saw it taking place back when she was a teenager but at the same time she was wrapped up in her own world as well. She said it was traumatizing to see it happen to her mother. She said there were so many issues that it seemed a huge monster was created.

I don't know how many songs were created as a result of Dottie's heartbreak. I am aware of at least three songs which were "Sheltered in the Arms of God", "He Changed My Tears to Showers of Blessings" and "Love Letters". I personally believe many more sings were written resulting from Dottie's heartbreak. Some of the songs I believe that were created through this scenario were "This is My Valley", "I Go to the Rock", "I've Never Been This Homesick Before", "Home's Where the Heart Is", and "Home Never Looked So Good to Me." I don't have any documentation to prove my point but I'm just surmising. I've watched a number of YouTube videos about Dottie Rambo for the last three years so I've had time to contemplate her whole life story. I could be wrong but that's just my opinion.

Back in the 1970's, Buck was unfaithful to Dottie again. I don't know the background behind all of the heartbreaks each time Buck was unfaithful. However, on this particular occasion Dottie went to the Ozark Mountains for a week in Missouri. She spent a week there. She was in a cabin for an entire week. She had been crying incessantly. The doctor had prescribed her some pills to deal with her nerves. She had brought her Bible and guitar to the mountains. She was in huge despair. She became so bitter through this ordeal that she was having trouble forgiving Buck. She had intended to take her life at the cabin. She said in her words that she hadn't felt the Holy Spirit for such a long time. She said without the Holy Spirit's touch there's no purpose for her to continue living. She cried out to the Lord and said she wanted to feel Him one more time. She said through that trial the Lord broke through and spoke to her saying, "I'll change your tears to showers of blessings." She later penned the song, "He Changed My Tears to Showers of Blessings." She also said the Lord forewarned her the road would be rocky but she didn't know when. Another song she wrote as a result of this ordeal was "Love Letters," which would be the name of her new album she recorded in 1977.

There's another incident that took place later where Dottie tried to take her life overdosing on sleeping pills. I believe this took place after Elvis Presley died. Dottie had already filed for divorce from Buck. She was almost at the point of taking the final step to make the divorce final. However, she didn't have the courage to go through with this divorce. Since she felt trapped, she made the decision to end her life. On one particular day, Dottie's family was in the office. She was by herself at the house. She made the decision that day to end her life. So that night she wore her nice silk pajamas, fixed her hair, and took a whole bottle of sleeping pills. She thought she had taken the phone off the hook, but there was still enough connection for it to ring. As the pills were taking their effect, she felt herself descending down a dark tunnel, according to her words. All of a sudden the phone rang and it was her friend whom she led to the Lord in 1968. Her friend noticed something was wrong when she spoke on the phone and her speech was slurred. Dottie wasn't supposed to answer the phone but in her stupor she forgot she was to leave the phone alone. Startled at Dottie's slurred speech, her friend called the ambulance and the ambulance rushed to the Rambo's home. Dottie was transported to the hospital and her stomach was pumped. Dottie's doctor, who was the one who prescribed sleeping pills to her and had been counseling with her some, was weeping. He said, "Dottie, you promised not to do this." Dottie said, "If you and the Lord could get me out of this hospital, then I'll run all the way to Heaven." I'm paraphrasing somewhat. It was through that statement that I believe she might have been inspired to pen the song, "I've Never Been This Homesick Before." I don't know if that's true, but it sounds plausible.

In the aftermath of Dottie's suicide attempt, she was determined she wasn't going to try to take her life anymore. This will all end eventually, but she was going to spend the remainder of her life serving the Lord. She would never attempt suicide again. Dottie finally made the decision to save her marriage and refocus her efforts on the Lord. Buck had placed a gun to his head and Dottie took the gun from him. They had a heart-to-heart talk and they would renew their focus on Christ. So for the next several years she and Buck would sing together as a duet and make many appearances on TBN in the early 1980's, when they moved to California. She would continue writing her songs as well.

Dottie and Elvis

Dottie Rambo had known Elvis Presley for at least 18 years. She and Buck Rambo had both been friends with Elvis, as well as several other gospel performers. J.D. Sumner, formerly of the Blackwood Brothers and the Stamps Quartet, was good friends with Elvis. Elvis, who was dubbed as "The King of Rock 'n' Roll", also sang gospel music on the side. He would travel to Los Vegas and sing with J.D. Sumner and the Stamps Quartet on a number of occasions, even up to his death. I believe Buck and Dottie met Elvis around 1959. I think it was at a Wally Fowler all-night singing. Elvis would attend some of those gospel singings and sit in the audience. Dottie and Buck over the years would travel to Los Vegas to visit with Elvis as well. It was said Elvis liked Dottie's songs. Dottie said that Elvis was like a physical brother to her. Elvis's mother Gladys died in 1958 and Dottie had a lot of similar qualities that his mother had, according to sources. Whenever Dottie was having trouble in her marriage to Buck, she would call Elvis and tell lhim about the problems she was having, they would pray, and read poetry. Right before he died, Elvis had agreed to record an album of twelve of her songs to help out with her finances at the time. However, he only recorded one of her songs which was "If That Isn't Love." He died shortly thereafter. On the day that Elvis died, she was in her studio recording her latest album "Love Letters."

Dottie said that Elvis made the statement that if he could do it all over again he would just sing gospel music. However, the entertainment world had elevated him on a pedastal and he couldn't come off of it. Elvis would later die a tragic death.

Santorum won January 3 Iowa presidential caucuses

2012-01-21T11:45:00.000-06:00

Santorum won January 3 Iowa presidential caucuses Reuters

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on the night of the Iowa caucus.

In a turning twist of events, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has supposedly won the Iowa caucus on January 3rd. According to Reuters, Santorum won the Iowa caucus by a razon margin tally of 34 votes, according to the Iowa Republican Party. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was declared the winner there that night by 8 votes, but Romney now falls to second place. Santorum receive 29,839 votes compared to Romney's 29,805 votes. That's according to the newest figures.

What's the reason for the apparent mixup? I don't know. It doesn't make sense. You wouldn't think there should be a mixup with the small number of votes. That's anybody's guess.

Congress Puts Anti-piracy Bill On Backburner Amid Uproar

2012-01-21T10:31:00.000-06:00

Congress Puts Anti-piracy Bill On Backburner Amid Uproar Fox News

SOPA- Stop Online Piracy Act

This past Wednesday on January 18, 2012, Google, the internet search engine, and Wikipedia, both protested the actions of Congress which have decided to place this controversial piece on the back burner. Many others in the tech community have protested Congress's recent actions to vote for legislation which would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites outside of U.S. jurisdiction accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. This legislation has support from organizations which rely on copyright such as the Motion Picture Asociation of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, MacMillan US, Viacom, and various other companies and unions in the cable, movie, and music industries. Earlier this past week, Wikipedia blacked out its website for a day while Google circulated a petition which generated more than seven million signatures in protest.

Alex Jones: SOPA/PIPA/Internet 2 (Part 1)

Part 2

Part 3

SOPA's Wicked Censorship

I have posted four YouTube clips with Alex Jones discussing the dangers of SOPA. Also, you can click on the latest link above from FoxNews.com. to read the story.

Romney Must Release His Tax Returns Immediately, According to Newsmax

2012-01-21T00:29:00.000-06:00

Romney Must Release His Tax Returns Immediately

2012 GOP candidate Mitt Romney

For the past few weeks there has been pressure on former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to release his tax returns. He's been under fire over this issue the past week when it was revealed that he payed a tax rate of 15%. The marginal rate for millionaires is 35%. Also, it's been revealed that some of his income is invested offshore at the Cayman Islands, which has no direct taxation. In other words, his income that's invested in the Cayman Islands wouldn't be taxed. I can understand Romney investing money in shelters where it won't be taxed. Who wants to see the income they've earned be taxed at a very high rate because they're rich? Nobody, not even the Democrats in Washington. The Democrats want to complain about the richest few not paying their fair share in taxes. I wonder if the Democrats on Capitol Hill pay their "fair share" in taxes?

This past week Romney has relucantly agreed to release his tax returns in April. Some are questioning why April? Who knows? Maybe so he can manipulate the numbers when he files taxes for last year. Just for trivial purposes the very first presidential candidate to release tax returns was none other than Mitt Romney's father, George in 1968. George Romney, who briefly ran for president in 1968, released dozens of tax returns that year. Newsmax asserts that Mitt Romney needs to release his tax returns. I happen to agree he needs to release his tax returns, if for no other reason than accountability purposes. If Romney will immediately release his tax returns, he's showing the American people that he desires to be the opposite of President Obama--that is transparent. I know one can argue that the government's taxation policy is ridiculous and that it's none of the government's business how much income an individual generates. I agree with that. Nevertheless, Romney should be explicit that the government's tax code is ludicrous and it does nothing but punish those who are successful in the realm of business. Also, high taxes discourage investment as well. There are plenty of reasons for being opposed to the present tax code.

We need to revamp the tax code and replace it with a flat tax. All Americans will pay the same tax rate regardless of income category. That way there would be no need for any American to file personal income taxes on a federal level. Until the tax code is changed, it would be wise for transparency sake that Romney release his tax returns to show that he's being transparent to the American people. Could it hurt his chances in winning the GOP primary? Only time will tell. As it stands right now, all polls are indicating that Newt Gingrich might be the winner in today's South Carolina primary. If Romney wants to be the GOP nominee, he would help his case by releasing his tax returns ASAP.

The CNN GOP Debate in Charleston, South Carolina

2012-01-21T00:00:00.008-06:00

Gingrich delivers show-stopper at beginning of South Carolina debate - CNN.com

The CNN GOP Debate in South Carolina on January 19, 2012

This GOP debate is in Charleston, South Carolina. This is the last GOP debate in South Carolina before the primary today. I want to remind all voters in South Carolina to vote today. It's very important!

Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline Permit

2012-01-20T22:26:00.000-06:00

Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline Permit Fox News

President Obama announced Wednesday that he will deny a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline, blaming Republicans for imposing a "rushed and arbitrary" deadline which he said didn't give officials enough time. The decision doesn't necessarily kill the project. The State Department says the denial "does not preclude any subsequent permit application" and within hours pipeline company TransCanada announced that it would reapply for a permit. The initial proposal for this project calls for a pipeline to run from Canada down to Texas through a sensitive Nebraska aquifer. The pipeline has been through several federal, state, and local approvals, but the department backed away from signing off the plan last year after environmentalists and local lawmakers complained.

President Obama's decision to deny a permit for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline has nothing to do with environmental concerns. It's all about controlling the economy. There are ways to construct the pipeline to make it environmentally safe. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline hasn't had any problems since it was completed in the 70's. We have the means through modern technological and engineering standards to construct pipelines that will endure regardless of external conditions. President Obama and his minions are implementing socialism in this country. There are enough sources of oil that the U.S. can tap into that will last for at least over 200 years. One example is the Bakken Oil Reserves in the Midwest. I've heard it said there's more oil in the Bakkan Reserves, which covers Nebraska and Montana, than all the Middle East. However, our elected elite choose to import oil from the Middle East. All the talk I've heard from Republicans about energy independence is bogus. I don't see any of the GOP candidates for president serious about utilizing our natural resources to produce oil so the U.S. can stop importing oil from the Middle East. Our politicians are manipulated by the forces of Nimrod, who are in the process of establishing a new world order. In this new world order, the U.S. will no longer be sovereign and independent. That's where our nation's headed. We need this pipeline. This is no time to be importing oil from the Middle East.

Juan Williams and Newt Gingrich Have Intriguing Exchange at the Debate

2012-01-20T00:00:00.004-06:00

Gingrich Comes Out Swinging In South Carolina Debate Fox News

I'm going to say at the outset that I'm not a Newt Gingrich fan. I don't want Newt Gingrich to secure the GOP nomination for the presidential race this Fall. I believe if he were to win the nod for the GOP nomination, he would lose badly to President Obama in the Fall. However, I possess the objectivity to grant credit where credit is due. Newt Gingrich did a superb job in answering the questions that Fox News analyst Juan Williams asked him during one point in the debate. Williams stated that Gingrich said that black Americans should demand jobs instead of food stamps. He also purported that poor children lack a work ethic and should work as janitors. Williams asked, "Can you see that this at a minimum is insulting to all Americans, esp. black Americans." Gingrich replied, "No, I didn't see it that way." On hiring kids to work odd jobs at schools, Gingrich explained that it was practical and good for the children to work odd jobs after school. He also said, "Only the elites despise earning money." Gingrich cited his daughter as an example. Jackie Gingrich Cushman obtained her first job at First Baptist Church in Carrolton, Georgia doing janitorial work at age 13. She enjoyed it because she was able to earn money and she learned responsibility as well.

Gingrich was speaking of the importance of poor young people obtaining a job for themselves so they can develop a work ethic and learn to make some money. I concur with Gingrich's notion entirely. The only thing I have to add is that not all children that lack a work ethic come from poor families. There are some children who lack a work ethic come from affluent families. The problem is we live in a generation where we're handed so many things. Consequently, many parents don't instill a strong work ethic in their children, which is to their detriment. Young people who aren't taught how to work will have major problems in finding a job as they enter the work force. Our young people won't be able to compete in the work force unless they are taught work skills. Take a look at the millions of jobs that are leaving our borders going into other countries. I, myself like many other Americans am disappointed to see that happen. However, if we don't turn things around in America and start inculcating a work ethic in our young people, then we won't have enough laborers in years to come to fill the manufacturing jobs. Not only do we needs jobs for Americans, but we also need people who are willing to work as well. Newt Gingrich is right on target about poor children needing to perform janitorial work in the schools. It's a good thing for them and it enable them to earn money. As a result, young people will develop a sense of accomplishment and self-esteem.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Facing Recall

2012-01-19T00:00:00.053-06:00

Wisconsin governor facing recall after workers collect 1m petition signatures World news guardian.co.uk

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker faces recall after more than one million signatures were gathered to recall the governor by Tuesday's deadline, which is roughly double the 540, 208 signatures required. Last year he favored a bill which would change how much public sector workers would contribute toward their health insurance. Last year there was a swarm of protests in Wisconsin over Scott Walker's proposal to make federal workers contribute more to their health insurance and pensions. The capital of Wisconsin was the target of protests last year.

A group called United Wisconsin said it gathered more than one million signatures to recall the governor by this past Tuesday's deadline. The group opposes the collective bargaining changes made in last year's bill that Governor Walker signed as a first-term governor. The filing of petitions won't automatically remove Walker from the governor's seat this year. Instead, it will force Walker to face a special election recall sometime later this year.

Last year I wrote a post concerning this incident stating that "When times are lean, concessions must be made." With the unemployment rate being very high in Wisconsin, there has to be changes made in regards to federal workers salaries and benefits. With many Wiscsonsin workers being unemployed, it means a shrinking tax base for Wisconsin, which means there are fewer dollars going towards paying for the federal workers' salary, healthcare, and pension coverage. Even though I don't relish the thought of federal workers having to take cuts in their benefits, it's no different for federal workers having to make concessions vs. the private sector workers making concessions with their employer. I don't think it's fair to the taxpayers of Wisconsin to have to continue paying the same percentage of their incomes for federal workers benefits when many Wisconsin residents lost their jobs due to the condition of the economy. It's sad that Governor Walker is having to face a recall because of that. However, the residents of Wisconsin have that right to file petitions to recall Governor Walker if they so desire. I'm fearful if a recall vote is held this year, Governor Walker will be recalled. However, if that happens, at least Governor Walker stood making the right decision for Wisconsin even if it costs him his seat. To read the full story, click on the above link.

The 2012 GOP Debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

2012-01-18T00:00:00.012-06:00

Romney Put On Defense At South Carolina Debate, As GOP Rivals Fight For Edge In State Primary Fox News

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

The GOP Presidential Debate at College of Charleston, South Carolina

2012-01-17T01:26:00.002-06:00

U.S. Religious Leaders Back Santorum as Alternative to Romney - Businessweek

This past weekend evangelical leaders endorsed former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum on the eve of the final Sunday worship services before the January 21 primary in South Carolina, where 60% of the 2008 Republican primary voters polled stated they consider themselves "born again" or evangelical Christians. Santorum received 85 of the 114 votes on the third ballot at a gathering of religious leaders on a ranch near Bleiblerville, Texas, defeating former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, according to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. Click on the above link to read the story.

I'm also posting Saturday's debate (January 14, 2012) from the College of Charleston, South Carolina. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee moderates this debate where members of the audience asks prospective GOP candidates questions starting with GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

The Common Thread That Binds People of Diverse Backgrounds Together is What Makes America Strong

2012-01-16T23:45:00.093-06:00

Martin Luther King, Jr. George Washington Carver

Dr. Charles Drew Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

Miguel Estrada Dr. Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell: Diversity

One of the phrases I've heard used by those in academia and even in the media is the phrase is "There is strength in diversity." That statement in and of itself is false. One could make the case that you could learn from people who come from all backgrounds and walks of life. That part is true. However, diversity in and of itself isn't what has made America a strong and great country. Diversity can be a detriment to a country. Take a trip to Iraq and witness the ethnic and cultural divisions between the Kurds, Shiites, and the Sunnis. Are they living in harmony due to their diversity? No. Take a trip to Eastern Europe and visit some of the Balkanized countries in those regions. They're torn apart. Why? Because there's no unity amongst the races. What is special about a multiracial country that possesses no unity? There is none. There has to be a unifying factor or some type of common ground that binds different races together in a country. America's greatness isn't because of its diversity. America's greatness is due to the element that binds people of diverse backgrounds together. I've mentioned numerous times there are two things that's made America great over the 235 years of its existence. The first thing is the Judeo Christian foundation that placed this country on a solid footing. This country was built on preaching. We've had people who loved God that immigrated to this country so they could have a place to worship the Lord. Our Founding Fathers, while many weren't individually Christians, had a great respect for the Christian traditions in our society. They recognized that a nation that forgot God couldn't endure long. The second thing that built this country was the entrepreneurial spirit surrounding this country. Millions of immigrants would come to our shores to search for better opportunities for themselves and their families. They didn't mind hard work. They believed in the Protestant work ethic that if you didn't work you shouldn't eat. There was a time in generations past that Americans didn't believe it was the responsibility of the federal government to take care of them. They believed if they were to survive, they would have to labor for their bread. That mindset is what molded the character of generations of Americans.

Today as America has celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, we need to remember the words of the late Dr. King where he said that it's not the color of a person's skin but the content of the person's character that counts. That statement is so very true. Even though Dr. King is not my hero, he couldn't have been more right when he made that statement. America's greatness doesn't like in multiculturalism or multiracial diversity. It lies in the fact that we are Americans and that America has been a beacon of liberty and hope throughout the ages. Over the last few decades, America has become more of a polarized nation due to charges of racism leveled against whites by so-called civil rights activists Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Also the media, Congress, and the President of the United States have played a major role in dividing America by playing the race card. Why do I say that? Because our politicians are always pandering to minorities all the time. If minorities are Americans, then what's the need for our elected elite to pander to them? They know they need to rely upon the minority vote to remain in power. I'm thankful for the diverse races that are represented in America today. However, multiracial diversity alone isn't what's great about America. It's the common thread that binds all Americans together regardless of race is what makes America special. How can diverse groups of people live in harmony with one another if there's no common ground? Common ground is essential. I wrote a post back on July 7, 2009 entitled, "Let's Be Clear--No Common Ground." I was emphasizing that unless there's agreement between various groups of people, then there's no common ground. In order for there to be a bond amongst people of diverse backgrounds, there has to be agreement on certain key issues. There has to be an element that bonds people of diverse backgrounds together. There's no way to escape that.

One of the wrongest things that some in the evangelical community try to do is to place an emphasis upon racial representation within the body of Christ. When it comes to the church, the emphasis should be on preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost and dying church. It's God's business to add to the church. There's nothing special about a multiracial church if there's no common ground amongst the laity, regardless of race. Am I opposed to a multiracial church? No. But we shouldn't possess the same attitude as the government does and be preoccupied with racial representation. The key should be the new birth. What makes a church unique is members who are truly born again and have common ground when it comes to scripture and worship regardless of race. If you have a church where the nucleus of people love God and have a desire to worship and serve Him, then that church can live in harmony even if its multiracial. However, a church isn't special due to its racial composition. It's special because it's built upon the solid rock. I believe Christians of diverse races can have Biblical fellowship together if they're born again. The gospel of Jesus Christ transcends all races and creeds. It's the new birth that binds a congregation together, regardless of their race or creed. It's not diversity.

I know some of the statements I made won't bode well with some people, but racial diversity alone doesn't make America a great country, like the media and our politicians would like for us to believe. It's the common thread that binds diverse groups of people together that makes America great. Our strength is in the element that binds diverse groups of people together, not our diversity. Without that common thread, then America could become another Balkanized country. There has to be something that unifies people of diverse backgrounds together if America is to live in harmony. Otherwise, our differences could separate us.

Huntsman Withdraws From Race For Republican Presidential Nomination

2012-01-16T12:13:00.000-06:00

Huntsman Withdraws From Race For Republican Presidential Nomination Fox News

Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman announces he's withdrawing from presidential race.

Former Utah Governor and 2012 Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman made his annoucement today that he's withdrawing from the presidential race this year. In doing so he threw his support behind GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney. Huntsman made the announcement in the Mrytle Beach Convention Center in South Carolina. He announced he was withdrawing from the presidential race on the eve of the Fox News/Wall Street Journal/South Carolina Republican Party debate which was to be held less than 10 hours later. Word of the Huntsman withdrawal came on the same day with the endorsement of South Carolina's largest newspaper, called The State.

"Today I am suspending my campaign for the presidency. I believe it is now time for our party to unite around the candidate best equipped to defeat Barack Obama. Despite our differences and the space between us on some of the issues, I believe that candidate is Governor Mitt Romney." Huntsman said. Prior to his endorsement of Romney today, he bitterly criticized Romney throughout the race for president.

Huntsman's explanation for dropping out of the race was the "toxic" and "negative" environment in the presidential race which was hindering the common goal of getting a president in the White House who can reignite the economy. Mr. Huntsman, are you telling me you can't arise above all the foolish bickering and rhetoric taking place among your Republican colleagues and define yourself and your vision for America? What kind of vision do you have for America? Which direction would you lead this country if you were elected president? The sad truth is that you have nothing to offer as president. Many of your stances on issues such as cap and trade for example, mirror President Obama's positions. This race is just a game and you're part of of this foolishness. Huntsman's departure will strengthen Romney's chances of obtaining the GOP nomination. The latest Fox News poll states that Romney hits new higher. Fox News also says that a potential matchup between Romney and Obama will be very tight. Just like I project. Click on the above link from FoxNews.com to read the latest story.

Dottie Rambo: The Gifted Songwriter of the Twentieth Century (Part 13)

2012-01-15T00:18:00.083-06:00

Dottie Rambo "Faith and Fame" (discusses marital problems between Buck and Dottie)

Sheltered in the Arms of God (Background behind the song)

This is My Valley

Tears Will Never Stain the Streets of That City

He Knows Just When to Give a Song

The 1960's were a very successful decade for Buck and Dottie Rambo in the gospel singing business. Ever since the early 60's when former Louisiana Governor Jimmie Davis paid Dottie to publish her songs, Dottie start receiving attention in the gospel music world. Many southern gospel groups started recording her songs on their albums. In 1964 after the Singing Rambos appearance at the National Quartet Convention in Memphis, Tennessee, the Rambos started singing on the concert trail. Prior to their appearance at the convention, the Rambos primarily sang in churches, with a few exceptions. They did sang in concert with the Goodmans and the Statesman. Otherwise, they traveled and sang in churches. Once they started singing on the concert trail, they started accumulating wealth. Never before had they made the kind of money they did once they were heavy on the concert trail. They were making dollar upon dollar. Prior to the mid-60's, they barely made enough to pay their bills. When the Rambos moved to Nashville in 1964, they hauled their trailer there. They lived in a trailer until probably 1966 or 1967 until they bought a nice antebellum home. In 1972 they bought some farm land to build a house. That land they bought helped afford them some solitude. According to material standards, they were living "the good life."

Buck and Dottie Rambo's Marital Problems

In the midst of the success of the Singing Rambos, there were problems in the horizon. There were internal problems in Buck and Dottie's marriage. There were rumors circulating around that Buck was having an adulterous affair. When Dottie first heard about it, she refused to believe it at first. When she finally confronted Buck about it, he admitted it nearly five hours later. Buck's confession had brought Dottie to deep despair. On top of that, they were right in the middle of a concert tour. Devastated, Dottie retreated into an ocean coastline. I don't know which state it was in but I'm assuming it was in Florida. The evening before a major storm had taken place. Dottie was seeking refuge there to sort through her feelings. She was at the coastline barefoot with her guitar. In the midst of her heartache, Dottie knew that a song would result from her heartbreak. According to Dottie, the ocean was gorgeous. As she viewed the waves of the ocean, she saw all kinds of debris washing up on the coastline as a result of the previous night's storm. Dottie was struggling with the opening words of the song. Finally, she felt the touch of five fingers on her shoulder. She said, "Thank you Jesus for I feel the touch." Hence the song begins, "I feel the touch of hands so kind and gentle . . ." It was through that experience that she composed one of the greatest songs ever in gospel music. It has been one of the top gospel hits since 1969. Numerous southern gospel groups have recorded that song on their albums over the years. I believe this song was divinely inspired. Millions of people have been touched listening to this song in the midst of the trials they were experiencing. It's great to know regardless of the trials you may go through, we're still sheltered in the arms of God.

Dottie's Father in a Major Car Accident

It was probably sometime in the late 1960's that Dottie had received a call about her father. He was in a tragic car accident. He had broken nearly every bone in his body. He had a punctured lung and he suffered a concussion. He wasn't expected to survive. Some twenty years before Dottie was driven from home by her unsaved father. Since that time Dottie was busy writing and singing gospel music and never looked back. But this time Dottie knew that she needed to see her father. So she went to visit her father in the hospital. When she arrived there he asked, "Is that you, Dottie?". Dottie replied that it was her and she stated she came because she heard about his accident. Vernon Luttrell replied, "I would sure like to meet your God." As a result of that he gave his heart to the Lord. The rift between Dottie and her father had finally been healed. Prior to her being saved at 12 years of age, Dottie and her father had been close. Now the rift had been healed since he became saved. The greatest miracle that took place was God saving her father. As great as that was, God also performed another miracle and allowed Dottie's father to live for another nine years. That accident was supposed to have been fatal but God allowed Vernon to live for several more years. For the remainder of his life, Vernon would take every opportunity he could to listen to Dottie sing the gospel wherever she sang.

Next week I'm going to elaborate further on Buck and Dottie's marital difficulties and two of the songs that were inspired as a result.

Official: Marines In Afghanistan Video Identified, Expected To Face Charges

2012-01-14T19:51:00.081-06:00

Official: Marines In Afghanistan Video Identified, Expected To Face Charges Fox News

This image posted above was posted on YouTube. The image depicts four Marines attempting to urinate on on dead Taliban members in Afghanistan. The four have been identified and will face charges soon, according to a senior military official. The Marines are from the 3rd battalion, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force out of Camp LeJeune, N.C. A fifth individual, who was the camera operator, supposedly hasn't been identified. In a short note the person who shot this picture needs to be identified as well. In the time being, the Marine Corps has decided to appoint a three-star general to decide what disciplinary action to take against the four Marine snipers, according to Fox News.

I find it very outrageous that members of the media and politicians are so quick to criticize the United States military when something like this takes place. I'm not supportive of U.S. Marine snipers urinating on dead soldiers from Afghanistan, for no other reason than the negative publicity this generates. I know the enemy will use it to ignite the Muslim world in the Middle East. I find it tragic that the U.S. media wants to so quickly criticize any inappropriate actions taken by our military, such as Abu Ghraib in Iraq in 2004, for example, but they don't criticize the terrorists from Afghanistan and Iraq for the beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, for example. It's always one-sided. I find it upsetting that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will condemn the actions of the four Marines in Afghanistan while they continue keeping troops in the Middle East. Our soldiers have been put through the wringer in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with the ridiculous rules of engagement that have been placed upon him. Our elected elite have no right to criticize our troops when they're the ones that sent our troops to war without a winning and exiting strategy. Most of our troops have finally left Iraq which I say it's about time. Who's making all these decisions concerning the war in Afghanistan? It appears nobody is in control. Somebody's in control but they're secluded from the public eye.

I listened to the Alan Colmes Show on radio last Thursday evening and he was speaking of this subject and he expressed his disdain for the actions of the four Marines. That's not surprising for a media pundit who's a committed liberal. I'm not placing my approval upon the actions of the sniper Marines, but I do try to empathize with those who fight in war. I've never been in the millitary nor have I ever fought in a war. I do know that war isn't pretty. We need to be cautious before we criticize or point our finger at our soldiers because of incidents like this. The three star general should be responsible in determining how to handle this situation. A criminal charge shouldn't be levied against them. Most of all, the military brass shouldn't make a public spectacle out of this. This is ridiculous. The actions of the four Marines pale in comparison to the acts of atrocity committed against our soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. And there's no media outrage over that. I'm tired of the media and the politicans trying to blackball the U.S. military. The U.S. has some of the finest soldiers serving in its military. I'm very proud of them. They're performed against all odds, esp. when you consider the ridiculous rules of engagement they've been under.

Mitt Romney: 'I Like Firing People" Draws Criticism From GOP Opponents

2012-01-14T00:00:00.104-06:00

Mitt Romney: 'I Like Being Able To Fire People' Who Don't Provide Adequate Services

"I like Being Able to Fire People" Mitt Romney

Rivals Jump on Romney's Fire Comment

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney drew fire from his Republican opponents because of the statement he made saying "I like firing people." In order to understand that statement, you have to place that statement in its proper context. When making that statement, Romney was making reference to insurance companies. Romney was stating that he likes to fire people who don't provide services that would be satisfactory to him. I feel the same way. If I wasn't satisified with the coverage of my own health insurance from Company "A", for example, then I would stop conducting business with them and go to Company "X" or whomever provides health insurance. Just because I do business with somebody, it doesn't mean I will perpetually do business with them. If a particular business doesn't satisfy me with the service they provide me, then I'll "fire" them and find another provider. That's part of the free market. There was nothing wrong with the statement Mitt Romney made.

Consequently, Romney's Republican opponents such as Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Perry have been taking Romney to task over those comments. They're acting like political opportunists, even though they don't have much of a chance in securing the GOP nomination. It's ridiculous. Jared Law, who writes articles for the 9/12 Project Network, said it appears that Gingrich, Huntsman, and Perry are all working for Obama's re-election campaign. Maybe they are. You never know. This presidential race is a joke anyway. Even Rush Limbaugh said it sounds like Newt is using left-wing social engineering. Gingrich knows better. These internal political attacks against Romney for his business ventures from his GOP opponents is ludicrous. I guarantee you President Obama will probably use that line off the GOP playbook when he faces Mitt Romney in the Fall.

Mitt Romney has been questioned by his Republican rivals over how successful he really has been in turning small businesses into major job-creating enterprises. Romney was a venture capitalist from Bain Capital, who invested money into tiny businesses, which grew over time. Some of the companies Romney invested in that grew into large enterprises are Dominoes Pizza, Staples, Sealy, Sports Authority, Dunkin' Donuts, Burger King, and the list continues. There also have been businesses that Bain invested capital into have failed as well. That's a part of capitalism. There are times when a venture capitalist will take a risk investing in some company that doesn't survive. In a capitalistic economy, some businesses will succeed and others will fail. That's part of the free market. Newt has been alleging that Romney chose business investments that failed and in turn profited handsomely from them such as the case with a Kansas City steel mill which failed. In other words, Gingrich was saying that Romney was a predatory capitalist who is out to destroy capitalism, which isn't accurate. "You would certainly have to say that Bain, at times, engaged in behavior where they looted a company, leaving behind 1700 unemployed people," Mr. Gingrich said during Sunday's January 8th candidate debate on "Meet the Press." It's ironic that Gingrich would make such a statement when you consider he profited from Freddie Mac, the federally-funded home mortgage giant who was bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of $153 billion. Newt Gingrich was paid nearly $2 million by Freddie Mac. What a hypocrite! When Freddie Mac was going bankrupt, Gingrich was profiting handsomely from the failing mortgage giant. Gingrich was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac who was trying to connect the agency with key members of Congress to protect the home loan mortgage giant.

For 25 years, Romney pursued a very successful career in business before plunging into politics. He pooled venture capital into the private sector. There's nothing wrong or illegal about that. Some of them failed and some of them succeeded. Newt Gingrich doesn't have a leg to stand on criticizing Romney. One thing that is apparent is that Romney knew how to invest in business. When you engage in venture capitalism, there is an element of risk to it, which is part of capital investment.

Some of the information I obtained was from the headline from the Washington Times. The headline was Romney Rivals Sound Like Democrats. The link I posted to this blog is from the Huffington Post. You can click on the above link to read that story.

Gabrielle Giffords Shooting One-Year Anniversary: Congresswoman Leads Remembrance

2012-01-13T00:00:00.056-06:00

Gabrielle Giffords Shooting One-Year Anniversary: Congresswoman Leads Remembrance

Raw video: Giffords leads in Pledge of Allegiance

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords attends January 8 vigil at the University of Arizona

Gabrielle Giffords Attends Vigil after Shooting

A year after the horrible shooting took place in Tuscon, Arizona, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) attended the vigil at the University of Arizona, which marked the day exactly one year ago on Saturday January 8, 2011 where Jared Lee Loughner murdered six people and injured a number of others in a shooting rampage where Giffords held a "Congress at Your Corner" event which was a periodic gathering where Giffords would meet with her constituents in the 8th Congressional District of Arizona. Giffords was accompanied by her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly at the vigil. Kelly aided Giffords up to the podium as she climbed up the stage to lead in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

The crowd chanted, "Gabby, Gabby" as she limped to the podium. After months of intensive speech therapy, she smiled and held her head high and she gave all she could when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. By all odds, Giffords probably shouldn't be alive, much less a vegetable. However, she's defying the odds and has made a miraculous recovery. Does that mean she will ever be able to fully regain her abilities in the aftermath of the shooting? Barring a miracle, probably not. However, I don't underestimate the progress she's made. It's nothing short of miraculous. It's a travesty what happened to her last January. Loughner should face the death penalty following his shooting rampage last January with the revolver he used.

There's been questions asked when she will return to Congress. I believe she needs to fully concentrate on recovering for the time being. She doesn't need to consider running for the U.S. Senate this year. She probably shouldn't make another Congressional run this year, unless she full regains her motor skills and her cognitive abilities. I don't say that as a means of degrading her. She's went far beyond what an average person could expect. Right now the most important thing for her is to concentrate on recovering from last year's shooting. It's tragic this happened to her. Even though I disagree with many of her political positions, I do appreciate her spirit and determination in regards to her recovery.

Click on the above link from the Huffington Post to read the full story.

The National Debt Now Exceeds Economic Output

2012-01-12T00:00:00.062-06:00

Republicans Blast Obama After National Debt Surpasses Economic Output Fox News

Jack Lew, the administration's current budget director along with President Obama

In some not-so-surprising news, the Bureau of Economic Analysis stated the U.S. gross domestic product reached $15.7 trillion at the end of the third quarter in 2011. That number is higher today, but the formal report for the fourth quarter hasn't been released yet. What is tragic is the national debt is currently at $15.23 trillion and is expected to spiral upward with the president's latest debt-ceiling increase, the 100% GDP-to-debt threshold has finally been reached. Republican lawmakers such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio have been complaining about how the deficit is out of control. Rubio says it's like watching a horror movie. It increasingly grows worse with no end in sight. Is America headed in the same pathway as Greece? I say so. How soon it will be before we default on our debt I don't know. The thing we must recognize is we are beholden to China and other countries who hold our debt. If China were to decide to stop purchasing our treasury bills, our nation would probably already default on its debt. It's China agreeing to purchase our debt is why our deficit isn't higher than what it already is. The debt level should've already exceeded the total economic output in a given year some time ago. With China purchasing our debt, we're becoming enslaved to that country. China's not going to continually purchasing our treasury bills without requiring some kind of collateral.

We can point our fingers in a number of directions. Here's the truth of the matter: Both political parties (Democrats and Republicans) are at fault with the spiraling national debt. That includes former president George W. Bush and the Republican Congress who was in charge during most of his administration. This also includes the Democrats who took charge in 2007 and President Obama throughout his presidency from 2009 to present. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and the Republican House are also at fault. There hasn't been any significant budget cuts from 2011 if even that. I know conservatives will argue that President Obama and Senate Democrats have made it impossible for budget cuts to take place. However, the Republican House has the power to choke off funding for wasteful spending such as Obamacare, much of government bureaucracy, and other types of wasteful spending that takes places in Washington on a continual basis. The House hasn't utilized their power to eliminate wasteful, unconstitutional spending. Therefore, they're worthless and deserve the blame for the climbing deficit. The interest on the debt alone is astounding. I believe the interest on the national debt is in the billions. It doesn't appear there's anyway to turn this economy around. If there is, it will have to be done within the next couple of years or its over with for the United States as a sovereign country.

To read the full story, click on the above link from the FoxNews.com website.

White House Chief of Staff William Daley Resigns; Budget Director Jacob Lew Fills Post

2012-01-11T00:14:00.000-06:00

White House Chief of Staff William Daley quits; budget chief Jacob Lew fills post - The Washington Post

President Obama with former White House Chief of Staff William Daley

Chicago, Chicago, I love you Chicago, you're only a few states away.

It appears that William M. Daley is homesick for Chicago. It's understandable since his family has dominated Chicago politics. Both his father and brother were mayors of Chicago. White House Chief of Staff William M. Daley resigned Monday, a year after taking the job at the White House. Last January, Obama tapped Daley to replace former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who resigned in 2010 to run for mayor of Chicago. Daley, a former banker who was Commerce Secretary during the Clinton administration, was expected to help the White House to improve its relations with Wall Street as it implemented a series of so-called financial reforms during the wake of the recession.

Daley never appeared comfortable in the job, drawing major criticism for the wide and protracted legislative battles between the White House and Congress for much of 2011. He came to the post as Republicans took over the leadership helm in the House of Representatives. He struggled to develop relations with members of both Houses of Congress, after relinquishing day-to-day operations to senior adviser Pete Rouse in the Fall, with his role being significantly reduced.

In a brief appearance at the White House on Monday, Obama announced that Daley would be replaced by budget director Jacob J. Lew, which will be effective at the end of the month. Daley will stay until the end of the month to aid in the transition process. He will stay through the president's State of the Union Address on January 24 to make the transition process smoother. To read the full story, click on the above link from the Washington Post.

Mitt Romney Wins a Commanding Victory in New Hampshire

2012-01-11T00:01:00.000-06:00

Romney Secures Front-Runner Status With New Hampshire Win Fox News

Mitt Romney greets supporters at ehis New Hampshire primary night victory party in Manchester, N.H.

Mitt Romney scored a decisive victory in New Hampshire last night. He secured his second victory in a week's time. Now he's hoping the presidential primary will be a cakewalk. His performance in New Hampshire places him in a strong position going into the South Carolina primary, which has historically been the key to the GOP presidential nomination. Romney is the first Republican to win both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary since 1976, with the last GOP candidate to do so was incumbent president Gerald R. Ford. However, Romney still has a fight on his hands as the five other GOP contenders press on to the Palmetto State.

Ron Paul placed second in the New Hampshire with 23% of the vote. With 81% of the precincts already having reported, Romney was leading with 38% of the vote. Paul has 23% of the vote and Huntsman has 17% of the vote. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry placed in single digits. To read the full story, click on the link from FoxNews.com.

Sunday New Hampshire GOP Debate

2012-01-10T00:00:00.008-06:00

Sunday New Hampshire GOP Debate – Sleep Deprivation and the GOP Race ConservativeHQ.com

MSNBC hosted Sunday's GOP debate in Concord, New Hampshire. This is the last debate until the New Hampshire Primary. It was broadcast from the Chubb Theatre at the Capitol Center for the Arts. I want to remind voters in New Hampshire to remember to vote today in the primary.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

The 2012 GOP Debate in New Hampshire (St. Anselm College)

2012-01-09T21:51:00.015-06:00

GOP debate quickly gets personal - CNN.com

Mitt Romney listens to Rick Santorum during the GOP debate in New Hampshire on Saturday

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Saturday January 7, 2012 the GOP candidates debate at Saint Anselm College in preparation for the New Hampshire Primary tomorrow.

President Obama Defies Congress With "Recess Picks"

2012-01-09T00:00:00.081-06:00

Obama defies Congress with 'recess' picks - Washington Times

President Obama with Richard Cordray, the man Obama appointed to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Last Wednesday, January 4, 2012, President Obama defied the Senate with his latest controversial recess appointment by installing three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which amounted to an unconstitutional power grab. The reason why it amounted to an unconstitutional power grab is because the president acted a day after the Senate held a pro forma (without any business transacted) session. Senators from both parties have stated that it takes three days of recess before a president can use his appointment powers. I don't know for sure how many days the Senate has to not be in recess before a president can act. It probably depends upon Senate rules. I should know but I haven't checked it out. However, a president can't make recess appointment unless Congress truly is in recess for a length of time.

Last year President Obama tapped Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordary to head the consumer protection agency and three others (two Democrats and one Republican) to the labor board. Those nominations have been stymied by Congressional Republicans, who stated that Obama was accruing too much power from these agencies. One of the problems with bureau is it leaves the agency with too much power concentrated in the hands of its director along with the fact that its budget isn't approved by Congress. This is in violation of the Constitution of the United States because Congress is to approve of spending measures. No government agency should function if Congress doesn't approve its budget. Instead the president or the director of the bureau can determine how much money it wants appropriated to that particular agency. It's also adding another layer to the bloated bureaucracy of government.

Even though Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been complaining that Obama's move "arrogantly circumvented the American people", he hasn't done anything to stop this recess appointment from going through. I have another question: What has Senator McConnell done to stop President Obama's socialist agenda? He never staged a filibuster to stop Obamacare from being passed. They speak of how bad Obamacare is but they never did anyting to prevent it from being passed in the Senate. Since McConnell didn't stop Obamacare he isn't going to do anything to stop this latest move by Obama to allow Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Protection bureau. It's a dog-and-pony show. We no longer have a Congress that's relevant anymore. President Obama or any president after him could commit acts of tyranny and neither Democrats or Republicans will stop the president. Why have a Congress? It's unconstitutional for the president to create a government bureaucracy out of thin air without Congressional approval regardless who's in charge as president. No wonder why the government is in such debt. The president can do what he desires and he won't be held accountable for it from Congress. It's another agency that will probably cost billions of dollars and it will be worthless.

Cllick on the link above from the "Washington Times" to read the full story.

The U.S. Desperately Needs a Second American Revolution (Part 2)

2012-01-08T00:00:00.149-06:00

Last Sunday when I ended this post I mentioned that since the Roe vs. Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, the evengelical community started their involvement in the political arena. The late Jerry Falwell started the Moral Majority in 1979 trying to raise money to support Christian candidates for Congress and the presidency. Their purpose was to encourage Christian candidates to run for Congress to stop the moral cesspool that is taking place in Washington. They wanted candidates that would change the moral atmosphere in Washington and transform it into a "family-friendly" institution by legislating against abortion and bringing back prayer and Bible reading in the public schools. That continued under another organization called the Christian Coalition which started in 1987, led by Ralph Reed. The question I want to pose is after all the years of promoting "Christian" candidates to public office, what have these organizations accomplished? Nothing. Even those that claimed to be Christian when running for public office didn't stand by all their principles in regards to conservatism when they served in office. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not opposed to Christians participating in politics. They should. They should be informed and become involved. Christians should vote, participate in local community events, and make their voices heard. However, we must be realistic of what the Bible says that in the last days perilous times will come and things will wax worse and worse. We've always had the spirit of the antichrist in this world since the fall of man. And this world will have the spirit of the antichrist until Jesus comes to this earth again for the second time. As long as sin abounds in this world, there will be the spirit of the antichrist pervading this world. I've sadly come to the conclusion (in my mind) that there's no way to reform Washington. I believe it's went too far down the road. The globalist forces, which I refer to as the "forces of Nimrod" have their grip upon our government and the world's system. The problem isn't just Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court. It's those that control and manipulate our politicians. As much as I'm for throwing out the incumbents, we'll raise up a new crop of elected officials that will follow the same path as the previous incumbents. Our politicians are controlled by the forces of Nimrod and I don't know of any way to stop them. These forces are scattered throughout the globe and they control our world's system. They control the banking industry, the media, the universities, and our politicians. These forces who control our politicians are satanic. When you're dealing with the new world order crowd, you're dealing with the forces of darkness. Ephesians 6:12 says, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." The battle that America is fighting is a spiritual battle. The problems that you find in government is spiritual. We have bureaucrats, Congress, and President Obama doing everything in their power to fundamentally change this country in a way that no longer represents the Christian ethos that permeated this nation in the last two centuries. We have government officials that support sodomy, abortion, Islam, socialism, and numerous other things that the Bible speaks against. Instead of focusing all our time and energy on the government of the United States, we need to focus upon ourselves.

The theme of this post is the United States desperately needs a second American revolution. When I speak of a second American revolution, I'm not making reference to the government. I'm fearful we're past that. We need a revolution amongst ourselves. When I make that statement, I'm not making reference to taking up arms and fighting one another. I don't believe we should fight one another with carnal weapons. The battle we face is spiritual. We need a revolution that begins with God's people. Matthew 5:13 says, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under the foot of men." This country was built upon Judeo Christian principles. We had Christians of old that immigrated to this country to seek religious freedom such as the Pilgrims and Puritans, for example. People came to America so they would have the opportunity to worship God according to their conscience without the government dictating how they worship, hence the First Amendment which says that Congress isn't to establish nor prohibit the free exercise of religion in America.

We as Americans need a revolution in regards to our lifestyle, our way of thinking, and our relationship regarding God and the Bible. That can only happen with God's people because God's people are the only ones that can lead the way. The world can't do that. Christians are to be the standard in this world. And when God's people fail to set this standard in this sin-cursed world, then the world will decay and crumble. That's what's happening in America. I wrote a few posts last year entitled, "We Get the Government We Deserve." That is a true statement. I'm aware of the fact that it no longer makes a difference who's in office because both political parties are taking this country in the same direction. It's true that both parties are doing things that the average American wouldn't approve of such as loose immigration policies, the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and ridiculous deficit spending. I recongize it's difficult to know who to vote for given such lack of quality candidates in this hour. I know because I face the same dilemma. The problem is for decades upon decades the American people have continually voted for incumbent career politicians who have taken this country down the path of socialism. Why have politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Jon Dingell, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid been continually re-elected year after year? It's because many voters don't care. It's called "voter apathy." It's because they believe they will provide them government benefits. The problem is the mindset of some Americans. There are some Americans who have this "gimme" attitude. They want what the government can provide for them. They don't want to labor for their own living. We have people who vote on the basis of what the politicans can give them in the form of government handouts and benefits. I've listened to senior citizens over the years and their mind is continually upon voting for politicians who will protect their Social Security, provide health care, etc. I recognize that they've paid into Social Security. Consequently, when you leave the government in charge of your retirement fund, there's always a deficit. The Social Security system has been depleted of its funds by our elected elite for decades. They should be thrown in prison for tampering with an off-budget item such as Social Security.

We have the mindset in America among certain groups of people that the government owes them something. Some think the government owes them a living, a house, college education, a car, etc. That couldn't be further from the truth. When the earliest ancestors came to America's shores in 1607, for example, they weren't coming looking for a government handout. They were looking for freedom to worship God, work, and enjoy the fruit of their labors. They were looking for a better land to raise their own families. It wasn't about government providing them something. There was nothing for government to provide them. At the time there were colonies in North America under the control of the British monarchy. It was a hardship for those that came to America. America was a wilderness. There was nothing appealing or physically attractive about America. It was the concept of freedom that brought our earliest settlers to America. It was the freedom to live without government encroachment. This generation of Americans have lost sight of that. That's why we're in the mess we're in.

I stated last Sunday I was going to conclude this post today. Instead I will bring the conclusion to this post on Thursday, January 26, 2012.

Many of Rick Santorum's Positions While in the Senate Didn't Line up With the Constitution

2012-01-07T00:00:00.065-06:00

Santorum Lures Iowa Voters with False Premise

Rick Santorum during the Iowa caucus on Tuesday

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is making a showing with his near win in the Iowa caucus on Tuesday. He lost the vote to Mitt Romney by eight percentage points. Since his near victory Tuesday, the other GOP hopefuls such as Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and others will more than likely be focusing on Santorum, even though that probably won't matter because the momentum is in for Romney this year. With Santorum's impressive showing in Iowa, I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to make another GOP run for president in a future primary. That's just my opinion. I'm not saying that to insinuate Santorum is the right candidate to lead this nation. Rick Santorum brands himself as a "conservative" when it comes to issues. When it comes to issues such as the right-to-life and gay marriage, Santorum is on the right side, which I don't make light of. When it comes to other issues dealing with the Constitution, Santorum doesn't fare as well.

I've linked up an article from Newsmax entitled, "Santorum Lures Iowa Voters With False Premise." It mentions many of the "big-government" positions Santorum has held which doesn't hold in line with true conservatism. Most importantly, many of Santorum's positions while he was in the Senate didn't hold up to the Constitution. He played both sides of the issue. First of all, Santorum supported the prescription drug provision under Medicare while George W. Bush was president. That did nothing but expand the role of Medicare and it has costed hundreds of billions of dollars. Also, Santorum supported former Senator Arlen Specter's bid for a fifth Senate term in 2004 over primary rival Pat Toomey. Santorum told Sean Hannity on Hannity's radio program he supported Specter in 2004 because Specter would be needed when it came to approving Bush's selection of judges for the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. That may sound plausible but Specter was an absolute RINO when he was in the Senate. Specter supported numerous positions that were contrary to the Constitution. It's been said that Santorum's support of Specter in the 2004 GOP primary probably played a role in Santorum losing in 2006.

Santorum also sought after billions of dollars in wasteful earmarks when he was Senator. He speaks against much of the wasteful spending taking place in Washington under President Obama. However, he also voted for many of the spending bills that were wasteful when George W. Bush was president and when the GOP was in control of both the House and Senate. He also voted for the No Child Left Behind, which was introduced by George W. Bush. It didn't solve the problems with our nation's schools concerning student achievement. As one can see, Santorum played a role himself when it came to growing the federal government. He's not the type of conservative he portrays himself to be.

Some of the infomation in this post came from the website TheNewAmerican.com. The name of the article is "Rick Santorum's Take on Libertarianism vs. Conservatism". (January 6, 2012)

GOP Candidates Stepping up Campaign in South Carolina

2012-01-06T23:10:00.000-06:00

GOP Candidates Step Up South Carolina Push As Polls Show New Leaderboard Fox News

Presidential candidate speaking in South Carolina. Accompanied with her are (1) South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (2) Ann Romney, Mitt's wife (3) Cindy McCain (4) John McCain

Since the polls show that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has a very comfortable lead over all the GOP candidates in New Hampshire, Romney has been campaigning in South Carolina to convince voters he's the right candidate for voters in the Palmetto State. (South Carolina has an open primary system so you can cross over to another political party to vote for that candidate.) Accompanied by South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Senator John McCain and his wife Cindy, Romney spoke at a campaign event in Conway, South Carolina. Governor Haley has drawn fire from the state Tea Party due to her endorsement of Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner. Three polls show Mitt Romney reclaiming the lead from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich since Romney's narrow win from the Iowa caucus on Tuesday. Right now Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are battling for second place in South Carolina. South Carolina's election results have historically been the most accurate gauge in determining the GOP nominee.

A Rasmussen Reports poll today showed Mitt Romney with the edge with 27% of the support in South Carolina followed by Santorum with 24% and Gingrich with 18%. A CNN/Time poll later showed Romney with 37%, followed by Santorum at 19% and Gingrich with 18%. In both polls I just mentioned, the results for Gingrich was the same. Romney is devoting a lot of time in South Carolina, whose primary doesn't occur for another two weeks.

My prediction is that Mitt Romney will win both the New Hampshire and the South Carolina primaries. I believe Romney will secure the GOP nomination very quickly. How long that will take I don't know for sure. However, I feel confident that around the time of Super Tuesday, Romney will secure the GOP nomination. I do believe Rick Santorum will make his mark in the race, but he doesn't have the votes to beat Romney. He could cast himself as a national candidate in preparation for the next GOP primary, whichever year that is. Both Gingrich and Santorum are trying to convince GOP voters that they are the true "conservative" candidate. However, both candidates have voted for legislation that expands the growth of the federal government. Santorum is right on the abortion issue, and I'm thankful for that. However, he was a Bushpot when he was the Senator from Pennsylvania. How am I to trust Santorum to govern according to the Constitution through and through? I can't. I'm not certain that if he sent this nation into a war, he would utilize all the means necessary to obtain victory in the time it should take for that to happen. He would follow orders from the forces of Nimrod if he were president, just like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney would do. Neither Santorum nor Gingrich are the conservative alternative to Romney, except Santorum would take the right stand on abortion, which is something I can't trust Mitt Romney to do. Romney has flip-flopped on abortion in the past. I believe he did that for political expendiency. That's my opinion.

The truth of the matter is, the Republican elites desire for Mitt Romney to be the GOP nominee for president this Fall. Even many in the conservative media are preparing the American people to accept Romney as the GOP nominee. Romney doesn't generate much enthusiasm. I have some advice for Mr. Romney: Run like you desire to be president. Run with excitement and enthusiasm. You should campaign like America's survival depends upon voting out Barack Obama this November. That's what you need to do.

Click on the above link from FoxNews.com to read the full story.

Alex Jones: President Obama Signs Martial Law Bill/Outlook for 2012

2012-01-06T08:07:00.000-06:00

President Obama Signs Martial Law Bill

Outlook for 2012 (Part 1)

Part 2

Part 3

Mitt Romney Wins Iowa Caucus By an 8-Vote Margin

2012-01-05T00:00:00.001-06:00

Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Votes - NYTimes.com

Mitt Romney, the victor in the Iowa caucus, heads to New Hampshire

In the slimmest of margins, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney pulled off a very close victory in a hard-fought contest over former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Santorum had been surging in the Iowa polls the last few days prior to Tuesday's caucus. The two candidates were separated during much of the night only by a sliver of votes. Romney was declared the victor early Wednesday morning. Now that the election's over with, Romney is off to New Hampshire campaigning for the nation's first primary which is Tuesday January 10th. With the close showing Rick Santorum had in the caucus, he could play the same role that Mike Huckabee did who was the victor in the 2008 Iowa caucus. In 2008 then presidential candidate Mike Huckabee remained in the race until it was near certain that John McCain would be the GOP candidate that year. Huckabee and Mitt Romney split votes which ensured McCain the primary victory in 2008. I could foresee Santorum splitting votes with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich which could in turn ensure a Romney victory in the nation's primary. I am still predicting a Romney victory and I believe he will secure the nomination long before the primary is over with.

To read the full story of the results of the Iowa caucus, click on the above link from the New York Times to read the full story.

On one other important note, Michelle Bachmann has dropped out of the GOP race due to her poor showing in the Iowa caucus.

President Obama Signs National Defense Authorization Act into Law

2012-01-04T02:11:00.063-06:00

President Obama Signs National Defense Authorization Act into Law

President Obama signing National Defense Authorization Act into law.

National Defense Authorization Act: Tyranny vs. Liberty

You are an enemy combatant with no rights

Speaking of fascism, the United States is inching closer towards fascism as the result of President Obama signing the National Defense Authorization Act into law on Saturday December 31, 2011. On New Year's Eve President Obama signed a law granting himself absolute power to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected by him of being belligerents. He claims he won't use it. Am I supposed to believe that? Even if President Obama never uses that power to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected by him of being belligerents, what would prevent the next president from using that power? What's the purpose of the president granting himself the power to detain citizens being suspected of belligerency or whatever the case might be? What is the definition of belligerent? Could it be pastors who wilfully refuse to perform "gay" marriage ceremonies in their churches because of their Biblical convictions against sodomy? Would that qualify as a belligerent? How about the Christian doctor who refuses to perform abortions because of his religious convictions? Would he be classified as a belligerent? Would those who oppose Islam be classified as belligerents? What is the government's definition of a belligerent? That could be subject to change from time to time. The definition will be arbitary according to the whims of the chief executive in the White House. It's very scary when the government grants itself that kind of power to control people. This is what it's all about. This is just a step closer to tyranny.

The signing of this law will void the writ of habeus corpus, which is a a civil right fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that predates the Magna Carta of 1215. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel can also be revoked at the will of the president. The endowment by Congress of such a power to the president will make void the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which is a law forbidding the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.

I've heard about this on the news for the last few weeks, but I've never taken time to mention this on the blog and now I'm doing so. On Friday, I'll have an Alex Jones special from January 2, 2012 posted and he'll explain the meaning behind the president's signing this bill. This bill gives power to the executive branch which is unconstitutional. If a dicator ever wins the presidency, he'll possess powers that are far reaching and unconstitutional. Under this provision, a citizen could be detained indefinitely and never have a trial. That's totally contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the American system of law. Click on the above link from the New American to read the latest story.

The United States Shouldn't Involve Itself in Foreign Disputes Unless National Security is at Stake

2012-01-03T00:00:00.092-06:00

Ron Paul: Sanctions against Iran are 'acts of war' - latimes.com

Texas Congressman and 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul at an event honoring veterans at the Iowa State fairgrounds.

Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has generated some heat by neoconservatives and from his opposition in the GOP presidential field because of his stance that America should mind its own business and not involve itself in the Middle East and in foreign disputes. He's been charged as being an "isolationist" because he's been critical of the U.S.'s involvement in the Iraq War and Libya. He's also been opposed to all the nation-building that's taken place in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've watched some of the GOP debates from Fox News and have seen Rick Santorum, another GOP presidential contender, dispute some of Paul's claims, especially when it deals with rogue nations such as Iran. I won't address Iran right at the moment, but for the most part I concur with Paul that the United States needs to mind its own business when it comes for foreign affairs. I also concur with Paul that anytime our leaders are contemplating sending U.S. troops into war, there needs to be a Congressional declaration of war. The last time that America officially declared war on another country was on December 8, 1941 against Japan as the result of the Pearl Harbor strike and on December 11, 1941 against Germany and Hitler's Nazi Regime. Ever since that time Congress has never declared war against another country. That's not the way it should be. What if Iran was to launch a surprise attack upon the United States, does Congress have to declare war before it strikes back against Iran? Of course not. If the United States were in imminent danger and they needed to defend themselves, they should do so. That's common sense. The Constitution grants the U.S. that right to defend themselves if the U.S. is in imminent danger. However, there's a major difference between striking back when in imminent danger vs. taking military action against Iraq, who posed no imminent threat to the U.S. If the U.S. is going to take the offensive against another country and there's no immediate need to strike back, then a Congressional declaration of war is to be utilized. Why is it important for a declaration of war to be made? When Congress declares war against another country or possibly terrorist organization, for example, it's telling the world that the U.S. stands united to stopping whatever threat looms our way in the Western Hemisphere and acts of aggression won't be tolerated. It also prepares the citizenry of the United States to do whatever it takes to win the war, as was the case during World War I and World War II. Anyone that lived during those years remember America's manufacturing hub producing war materials so our soldiers would have weapons to fight the enemy in World War II. Also, the American media was involved in promoting the war effort as well. War movies were also made. It was a totally different atmosphere in America during that time vs. today. Americans even bought war bonds to help finance the war so the federal government wouldn't be financially insolvent as a result of the costly war. Consequently, there hasn't been any war bonds to help finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and as a result, they've proven to be the most costly wars the U.S. has ever fought to the tune of over a trillion dollars.

Even though charges of "isolationism" have been leveled at Ron Paul, he is correct when he says repeatedly during the GOP debates that the U.S. needs to mind its own business and stay out of the Middle East and other countries. I totally disagree with him that U.S. sanctions against Iran are an "act of war." Sanctions are to send a message to the aggressor country if they cause damage to the stability of the world, then they will face consequences. That's good and proper. It's to keep a check on the aggressor country. It's also proper to use diplomacy to prevent a military action from taking place, if at all possible. There does come a time when it's necessary to use military action against another country. That time approaches when all efforts at diplomacy have failed and if military action isn't taken to stop a country with a potentate "leader", that can cause havoc around the world possibly triggering a nuclear war. In regards to Iran, I don't think we need to authorize a strike at the present, but if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is determined to wipe Israel off the face of the map and start a nuclear showdown with the U.S. and other countries around the world, then military action will be necessary. We don't need a repeat of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We don't need to be in the business of rebuilding Iran and trying to implement democracy in that country. Democracy will never take root in Iran. But the State Department needs to keep a watch on Ahmadinejad in case sanctions fail against Iran, especially with Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, which will make it difficult for other countries to ship oil to the Persian Gulf.

Ever since World War II, the United States has involved itelf in conflicts around the world for the reason to "detain communism". Those efforts failed. The military brass started sending troops to Korea and then later to Vietnam to fight a "no-win" war. That's haunted us ever since the 60's. The latest wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are no-win wars. What are the positive results of U.S. troops being in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 8-10 years. Consequently, it hasn't helped much. I don't say that in reference to our soldiers. Our soldiers have done a masterful job in those wars. Our soldiers have performed well when you consider their hands have been tied behind their backs. I blame our political leadership in the White House (both Bush and Obama) Congress, and the Pentagon for the no-win wars in the countries I just mentioned. There's no excuse. I believe this is no accident. I believe the globalists desire to tear this nation apart both economically and militarily speaking. The United States is losing its sovereignty. It's a tragedy.

In closing, the U.S. should stay out of foreign affairs unless it's vital to the interests of the U.S. and the Western Hemisphere. Otherwise, we need to mind our own business as Ron Paul mentions so often. I know the neoconservatives call that isolationism, but it just makes sense. What business do we have in intermingling with foreign affairs when there's no security risk at stake for the U.S.? It's stupid and it's time we pull our military from many of these countries around the world where our presence isn't necessary. We need to go back to the Constitution once again when it comes to fighting wars.

Mitt Romney Leads Barack Obama in a Hypothetical Rasmussen Poll

2012-01-02T11:36:00.000-06:00

2012 Presidential Matchups - Rasmussen Reports™

2012 GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (L) and President Barack Obama (R)

According to Rasmussen Reports, former Massachusetts Governor and the GOP's leading candidate Mitt Romney presently leads President Barack Obama in a hypothetical poll 45% - 39%. In a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup Mitt Romney has jumped out to his biggest lead over the incumbent president. According to this report, President Obama would lose the election to GOP candidate Mitt Romney if the election were held today. A week ago Romney trailed Obama 44% - 41%. The week before that Romney held a slight edge over President Obama by a margin of 43% - 42%. It's a close contest between the two. As it now stands, Mitt Romney is the only GOP candidate who leads President Obama in a hypothetical poll. The rest of the GOP candidates trail the president in the latest hypothetical polls from Rasmussen.

The latest poll results from Rasmussen sound like welcome news so far to those who desire to see President Obama defeated this November in his re-election attempts for president. The poll numbers shouldn't even be that close. President Obama should be behind by 50+ points. The problem is none of the Republican candidates are formidable opponents against the president. When they debate together, they don't say a whole lot. You consistently hear the same talking points from them regardless of what the issue is in these debates. We need candidates that will espouse the theme of God, Country, and the Constitution. Anything that's unconstitutional they won't support. We need to hear these candidates say they will build a triple-tiered border fence from Texas to California to protect our borders. They need to stand against amnesty for illegals and reinforce our immigration laws. We need presidential candidates that are willing to put the axe to wasteful spending and ineffective government bureaucracy. We need a candidate that will unhook the United States from the Federal Reserve and the United Nations. We also need candidates that won't allow themselves to be manipulated and controlled by the puppetmasters. We don't have any GOP candidates like that. That's the reason why there's a great possibility that President Obama could be re-elected this year. I hope not. It just depends whether the forces of Nimrod still want him to be in charge of the office of the president for another four years.

One of the biggest concerns I have in this year's race is the possibility of a third party candidate giving voice to conservative causes such as Donald Trump. If we have a third-party candidate that says what's important concerning the future of America, then it could split the conservative vote in November and hand the election to Barack Obama. I'm fearful that could happen. Donald Trump has been stating that he's keeping the door open for a possible presidential bid as in independent this year. He's already changed his registration to "independent." If Mitt Romney or some of the other GOP candidates win the nomination, then I think there's a strong possibility for a "conservative" third-party candidate. If Donald Trump's that candidate, then it will change the dynamics of the race more than likely resulting in President Obama winning re-election this November. I hope I'm wrong. Only time will tell.

The Making of Mitt Romney

2012-01-02T00:00:00.014-06:00

This is a political documentary of the making of former Massachusetts governor and 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney. This video speaks about the life of Mitt Romney from boyhood all the way to running for the presidency of the United States.

From Boyhood to Man

Mormonism and Politics

The Businessman

The Romney Family

The Olympics Turnaround

Evolution of a Politician

The U.S. Desperately Needs a Second American Revolution (Part 1)

2012-01-01T00:00:00.141-06:00

(II Chronicles 7:14) "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Happy New Year to everyone. I pray that 2012 will be the best year ever in your own personal life. When an old year passes and a new year begins, I always look forward to the opportunity of what another year can bring. This year the primary focus that will be directed to the attention of Americans this year is the upcoming presidential election in November. For the last several months, the news media has been extensively covering the GOP debates that took place from the Spring of 2011 until present. Our attention will be focused on the primaries and who will be the GOP nominee to face incumbent President Barack Obama in November. Those who are saved and have any type of spiritual discernment know that the upcoming presidential election isn't the most pressing issue at stake. I'm not trying to belittle the presidential election this year but the truth of the matter is that it doesn't make much difference who the GOP nominee will be (I predict Mitt Romney) or will Barack Obama be re-elected this November? I know this will astound some people but it really doesn't make much difference who is elected this November. I agree that Obama has fundamentally changed this country in a way the last three years that has never been done in the history of this nation. I know that if he's re-elected, this nation will be over with as a sovereign country. The problem is electing Mitt Romney or another GOP presidential contender isn't going to change the equation in the United States. I asked in my post yesterday in regards to Mitt Romney if he's elected president, will he use common business sense in running the government or will he cast aside all the common sense he knows in regards to running a business and be Mr. Politician? Will Romney do what he knows in his heart is right or will he jump on the bandwagon of political correctness? It has come to the point it no longer makes any difference (just about) about a person's credentials concerning prior experience they've had in government or the private sector. Regardless of the experience they've had in this walk of life, they will cast it aside and bow at the feet of the puppetmasters or the forces of Nimrod. I wholeheartedly believe the agenda that's been brought forth to American within the last 20+ years weren't an accident. Anyone that's a keen observer of politics should recognize that regardless of political party the country continues sliding down the same direction regardless who is president. From Bush '41 to Barack Obama, the United States has been steadily downfalling into fascism. All these presidents played a role into making that happen. President Obama has brought that about quicker than any of the three presidents prior to him. If Mitt Romney were to become president in January 2013, I expect him to pick up the baton and continue the march of destroying America's sovereignty. I sure some would say, "I don't believe you." When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he passed a state mandated healthcare plan that's a smaller version of Obamacare. If nobody knew that Mitt Romney had an excellent business background, would you have believed he knew how to run a business when he passed Romneycare in 2006? It doesn't make any difference what a political candidates' credentials are. The country will continue sliding into the abyss. I don't expect Mitt Romney to repeal Obamacare or roll back any of the legislation passed in the Obama administration. He'll continue taking this country down the abyss, even if he were to do it in a more subtle way. You can't trust politicians on a national level. I don't trust Mitt Romney or any of the other presidential contenders to steer this country in the right path once again.

I recall nearly 20 years ago reading a book authored by John Whitehead, who is the founder of the Rutherford Institute entitled, The Second American Revolution. It was a good book. Much of the focus was on the government and how the United States has become secularized. I'm not disputing the fact that there needs to be a second American revolution when it comes to our government. We need to vote out incumbents in the droves regardless of party affiliation. There are major changes that need to take place within Congress, the presidency, and the court system. Consequently, many evangelical leaders have invested years trying to reform Washington and elect "Christian" candidates. Ever since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision which legalized abortion, evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell have been involved in the political realm trying to repeal Roe vs. Wade and change the anti-God and anti-family atmosphere in Washington. In 1976, Jerry Falwell conducted "I love America" rallies to speak on social issues that were important to him. That predated the Moral Majority which was founded in 1979. The Moral Majority played an active role in pushing for political candidates (primarily Republican) that would support traditional family values and recognize the role that God played in the early founding of our country. That organization was disbanded in 1989 and a couple of years prior to that the Christian Coalition was formed by Ralph Reed. The organization was incorporated in 1987. The goals of the Christian Coalition were to promote Christian candidates to public office. Like the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition promoted Republican candidates because the Republican party catered to the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority for votes. After 33 years of "Christian" political activity to turn this nation to God, what has it accomplished? I haven't seen it accomplish anything. We don't have Godlier politicians in the White House nor Capitol Hill. Instead, they tend to be more corrupt than ever before. We're fighting our battles in the wrong arena. I'm not opposed to Christians participating in politics. Christians should participate in politics. However, the battle for the heart and soul of America isn't in the political arena.

As I've stated earlier, I'm not opposed to Christians involving themselves in politics. Christians do have civic responsibilities such as vote and make their voices heard. Consequently, I believe our government has went too far into the dunghill in order to save it. Our politicians are bought and paid for. Their voices aren't to the American people. Their loyalties are to the puppetmasters that contribute to their political coffers. Our politicians are owned by the forces of Nimrod, or the new world order crowd. I refer to them as the new world order crowd because you read about Nimrod in the book of Genesis in connection to the Tower of Babel, which is the first mention in the Bible about an attempt to create a new world order. I believe the forces of Nimrod has such a fierce hold upon our politicians and our political system that I don't know of any way to straighten out the political system. If the political system were to be straighten out, it would probably require a World War III to do so. And I don't even know how successful that would be. As the book of Ephesians points out, we don't fight flesh and blood but principalities in high places. We're fighting a spiritual battle. When I speak of the new world order crowd, I'm speaking of the forces of darkness. The new world order is satanic. I don't know of any way to shake off the globalists who control our politicians. I know that sounds cynical or gloom and doom, but that's the way I view it and I have to be honest about that.

I will conclude with my thought in part 2 on next Sunday's post.

Which of These GOP Candidates do You Think is the Most Qualified to Become the Next President?

2011-12-31T00:00:00.093-06:00

Undecided Voters Make For 'Wide Open' Iowa Race Fox News

Mitt Romney Newt Gingrich

Ron Paul
Rick Santorum Michelle Bachmann Jon Huntsman
Rick Perry

In just three days, the first presidential race will be underway with the Iowa caucus. As of right now, polls show former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman neck-in-neck with one another. Many polls show Romney with a slight lead over Paul. A few days later New Hampshire will host its first primary with Mitt Romney leading in that race. Who will be the candidate that will emerge as the GOP frontrunner? On different occasions various candidates have seen a surge in their poll numbers. At one time Texas Governor Rick Perry was one of the top candidates. Later it was former GOP candidate Herman Cain. Then Newt Gingrich took the lead as far as the GOP candidates were concerned. As of right now, many pollsters are projecting that Mitt Romney will receive the Republican nomination next year to face Barack Obama as president of the United States.

This past year, the GOP candidates have participated in numerous debates. I have many of the GOP debates posted on this blog. Consequently, I don't see a GOP candidate that appears to be presidential material. They don't want to solve the real issues concerning trade amongst nations such as China and they don't want to install a border fence from Texas to California which replicates the border fence that was built from San Diego California, to Tijuana, Mexico. It's a tragedy that we have the low-quality candidates that we do running against Barack Obama. Some of them say the right things but they aren't electable. Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann says that when she wins the presidency, she will repeal Obamacare? However, she hasn't shown leadership in compiling a group of Republicans in the House of Representatives to defund Obamacare. If she won't utilize the means at her disposal to defund Obamacare, how am I suppose to expect her to repeal Obamacare as president? I don't. She doesn't show leadership to stop Obama's radical socialist agenda. Former Pennsylvania Senator is right on the moral issues in regards to abortion, but he was a bushpot when George W. Bush was president. He was very supportive of the Iraq War and didn't call out Bush on how the Iraqi War was prosecuted. The candidate which I agree with the most overall is Ron Paul, even though I didn't agree with his statement concerning sanctions against Iran. Paul says that sanctions against Iran are an act of war, which he's wrong about. I do agree with him about Congress declaring war because the U.S. goes to another country to wage war. I also agree with him the U.S. needs to mind its own business in regards to the Middle East and other countries in general. I don't agree with him about Iran. I do think we need to have tight sanctions against Iran. There could be a time when the U.S. might need to declare war on Iran. If the U.S. declares war against Iran, it needs to be a quick and decisive war and troops need to exit Iran as soon as possible. We don't need another land invasion with troops staying for 10 years. As far as Paul's statements concerning Congress auditing the Federal Reserve, the appropriate action to take would be for the U.S. to unhook itself from the U.N. and follow the Constitution in regards to the printing of our currency. Who would audit the FED? Would the "audit" against the FED be accurate and unbiased?

One of the top issues in America today is the massive deficit and the growth and size of government. If there's anybody that knows how to operate a business, it's Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has had several successful business ventures with Bain Capital for example and he played a major role in the turnaround of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. Romney knows all the intricate details revolving around business. However, the question that needs to be asked in regards to Romney is this: Will Mitt Romney govern using business sense or will he cast all his business knowledge aside and be Mr. Politician? Will Romney be his own man if elected president or will he be a tool of the puppetmasters or the forces of Nimrod? I've witnessed politicians casting aside common sense when they enter office to jump on the bandwagon of political correctness. One of the major problems I have with Romney is the fact he's flip-flopped on positions such as abortion for example. In the 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy, he was supportive of abortion but since he's been governor of Massachusetts he says he's pro-life. Which side of the abortion debate does he stand? He appears to be the candidate who's all about pointing his finger in the wind to determine which way the wind blows in regards to the positions he takes. Another issue that I have with Romney is the fact he passed Romneycare in 2006, which is a state version of government-run healthcare which has proven to be costly to the citizens of Massachusetts. If you didn't know anything about Mitt Romney's background, would you have believed he knew how to run a business?

What's startling is that political party affiliation or your personal credentials don't seem to matter anymore. Regardless of their political affiliation, they all still are supportive of bloated government. They will go against the grain of common sense and seek to be politically correct. We don't need another president who will be controlled and manipulated by the forces of Nimrod. We need a candidate who will stand for the values our Founders held dear. I haven't yet found the candidate we need to guide this nation for the next four years.

Iran Warns Of Closing Strategic Hormuz Oil Route

2011-12-30T19:14:00.000-06:00

Iran Warns Of Closing Strategic Hormuz Oil Route Fox News

Iran's Navy chief on Wednesday warned that his country can close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf where a sixth of the world's oil supply travels to. Within the last few days, it was the second such warning. Iranian Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait, cutting off oil exports, if the West imposes sanctions on Iran's oil shipments. With the concern of a drop in Iranian oil supplies, a senior Saudi official stated Gulf Arab nations are ready to offset any loss of Iranian crude. That reassurance led to a drop in world oil prices. Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV "Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces." "Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway."

The U.S. Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank and President Obama stated he would sign it despite its misgivings. Critics warned it could impose hardships on U.S. allies and drive up oil prices. The bill could impose penalties on foreign firms that conduct business with Iran's Central Bank. European and Asians import Iranian oil and use its central bank for the transactions. Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer, with an output of about four million barrels of oil a day. It relies on public exports for 80% of its public revenues.

Within the last six years, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been threatening to obtain uranium to build nuclear weapons. Ahamdinejad stated that he desired to see Israel wiped off the face of the map. With Iraq being unstable since the last vestiges of U.S. troops having just left recently, the Shiites in Iraq could merge with the Shiites in Iran which could produce a stronger Iran that could become an even more dangerous presence in the Middle East and around the world. Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul stated that sanctions against Iran are "acts" of war. That's not true. Sanctions are actions taken against a country by another country or groups of countries to influence a particular policy over another country. Sanctions should be imposed on Iran to keep them in check. Sanctions should be used as a means to inform rogue countries that if they get out of line, sanctions will be imposed to put them back in their place. If we don't keep a check on Iran, they could be a major nuclear threat.

Let me tell you what the U.S. needs to do in response to Iran threatening to close the strategic Hormuz Oil route. First of all, we need to be determined as a country that we won't be dependent on oil from the Middle East. The United States has an abundance of resources. There's no excuse for us to be dependent upon the Middle East for our oil supplies. The United States needs to marginalize the Middle East so they can be irrelevant to our energy needs. We don't want to be dependent upon the Middle East for anything given how unstable that region of the world is. The Middle East is a hotbed for terrorism. There's always violence that takes place. Islam is the religion of the Middle East. Islam believes in killing the infidel. Many of our politicians in the U.S. make mention they would like to see democracy take root in the Middle East. Democracy won't take root in a country where it's religion is Islam. None of the Middle Eastern countries dominated by Islam are democratic. Also democracy leads to mob rule, which in turn will lead to a dictator being elected to take control of that particular country. So what's the benefit of democracy in the Middle East when the people know nothing about the concept of freedom?

Another point I need to make mention is we need to stay out of the affairs of the Middle East as much as possible. Even Iran as much as possible. I know that type of thinking wouldn't fit well with Republican candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, for example. However, the United States shouldn't involve themselves in the Middle East unless it's absolutely in the national interests of our country and the Western hemisphere. I do believe there's a possibility the U.S. might have to involve itself in a military conflict with Iran in the near future. If we do strike Iran, we need to strike down their nuclear capacity and depose their dictator Ahmadinejad. We don't need to involve ourselves in a bloody battle like we did with Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't need to involve ourselves in nation building in the hopes of bringing democracy to Iran. That will never happen. If we go to war there it's for the purpose for removing a threat that could be perilous to the security interests of our world. We don't go to war with Iran so we can occupy that country for ten years. I know Santorum and Gingrich would call me isolationist, but you don't go to war with other countries unless it's absolutely necessary and if Congress declares war then there needs to be an agenda carried out by our military. Once that agenda is completed, the United States needs to exit Iran as quick as possible. We don't need to maintain a long-term presence in Iran.

And the Spending Continues . . .

2011-12-30T09:56:00.000-06:00

Obama to ask for debt limit hike: Treasury official Reuters

In spite of all the rhetoric we hear from our elected officials about government reining in Congressional spending, the spending continues. There's no stopping place when it comes to spending money we don't have. Of course, I don't have a difficult time understanding President Obama and the Democratic Congress spending money like crazy. You expect that from a Democrat party that's socialistic in their thinking. That's no surprise. What's surprising (which shouldn't be surprising) are the Republican leadership in the House who are supposed to rein in government spending. Even the Tea Party Republicans haven't made a dent in this area. The Republican leadership and those Tea Party Republicans have been worthless since they gained control of Congress this past year. House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor have done nothing but cave into President Obama making compromises. They caved in when it came to raising the debt ceiling this past August and they caved in concerning the latest payroll tax budget last week. There hasn't been any type of cuts which have been significant. If any cuts have been made, they're only cuts to the rate of the growth of spending. But there haven't been any significant cuts. There's no excuse for this. The House has jursidiction when it comes to spending bills. The House has the authority to cut off funding for unconstitutional spending such as Obamacare, for example. Yet, there hasn't been any effort to do so. Congress held a symbolic vote in January to repeal Obamacare. However, the Republicans knew that there wasn't a Republican majority in the Senate to repeal Obamacare. Why doesn't the House defund Obamacare and any type of spending that's unconstitutional? I believe it's because it's not part of the agenda. The Republicans love to claim to be the party of fiscal control. They love the issue when it comes to campaigning for the next election. Consequently, they're aren't about solving problems. They just go along with the flow. The Republican party, including the Tea Party freshmen for the most part, are content with the growth of government. That's tragic but true.

According to Reuters, the White House plans to ask Congress by the end of this week for an increase in the government's debt ceiling to allow the United States to pay its bills on time. The approval is expected to go through without a challenge, given the fact that Congress is in recess until January. The debt is projected to fall within $100 billion of the current tap by December 30, when the United States has $82 billion in interest on its debt and payments on its Social Security coming due. President Obama is expected to ask for authority to increase the borrowing limit by $1.2 trillion, part of the spending authority that was negotiated between Congress and the White House this summer.

This is a joke. The Republicans should say "no" without any reservation. They won't because they don't care about greatly reducing spending. I can say that with confidence because the Republicans in the House won't use the power they have to defund wasteful spending. I know that Obamacare can't be repealed in the 112th Congress, but it could've already been defunded. Why hasn't it been defunded? All I can say it's not part of the agenda. The Republicans are phony. They're part of the problem. That's why I say there's no difference between the two parties on a national level. The Republicans aren't going to make the tough decision to slash spending, even when the House has the power to control the spending bills. Instead of another debt ceiling increase, the House automatically should defund any spending that's unconstitional and not needful. There's so much spending that can be eliminated it's not even funny. Why don't talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity call out the Republicans in the House for not defunding Obamacare and other spending that's unconstitutional? Probably because the Republican politicians won't came back on their programs if they're asked questions of accountability. Hannity and Limbaugh are Republican hacks. I'm not interested in electing Republicans that refuse to tackle the nations' problems. If they're content with the growth of big government, they need to be voted out. We need to vote out a whole array of Republicans in the 2012 elections. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and a host of House Republicans need to be voted out next year. They're worthless and they're perpetuating the problem. Any Republican in the Senate who's up for re-election next year needs to be voted out in the Republican primary. I have no patience for Republicans that refuse to do what is necessary to halt and eliminate the size of government.

Click on the above link from Reuters to read the full story.

Jesus Was Born Into This World to Die For the Sins of Mankind (Part 4)

2011-12-29T05:00:00.036-06:00

Whenever you read about the life of Christ in the Gospels, you will read a number of accounts where Jesus speaks to his disciples concerning his purpose for coming to this earth: that is to one day die upon an old rugged cross to die for the sins of mankind. The Jews wanted to crown Him king. They were looking for a man to come to deliver the Jews from the oppressive Roman Empire. However, that wasn't what Jesus' purpose was in his first coming. There will come a day when Jesus returns to this world and when he does he will be crowned king. When he is crowned king, he will rule the nations with a rod of iron (Revelation 19:15). There will be justice upon this earth during the Millennial Reign of Christ. There will be no sin, nor sorrow. All will be tranquility.

Jesus came to this earth as a lowly man. He humbled himself before man. Phillippians 2:8 said he was obedient unto death. He lived a perfect, sinless life. He knew no sin. He was the spotless lamb that was needed to pay the debt for our sin. No other person could pay that debt. Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world was laid to be that spotless lamb for mankind. (I Peter 1:20) Jesus had a very distinct purpose. He wasn't deterred from that purpose. Even though he was tempted by Satan in the wilderness (Matthew 4), he still didn't sin. He fulfilled his purpose. Even when he was praying in agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and sweat drops of great blood (Luke 22:44), he still partook of that bitter cup on Calvary's cross.

In closing, the reason why we celebrate Christmas is because of the fact that Christ died upon Calvary's cross so man might be redeemed from the plagues of sin. That's why we can rejoice in His birth. If Christ was born into this world and never went to an old rugged cross, then his birth wouldn't be very significant for mankind. However, the story of Christ doesn't end at the manger scene. He paid the price for our sins in full on Calvary and on the third day He arose again. Thank God, for Christ's birth, which led to His death, burial, and resurrection. I wish everybody a blessed holiday!

Ben Nelson, Nebraska Senator, Will Not Seek Re-election

2011-12-29T00:23:00.000-06:00

Ben Nelson, Nebraska Senator, Will Not Seek Re-election - NYTimes.com

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) the embattled two term Senator, has decided not to seek re-election in 2012. Nelson's refusal to seek a third term in the U.S. gives Republicans a chance to capture his seat in 2012 and it could help the GOP regain control of the Senate next year. "Simply put," said Mr. Nelson, "It's time to move on." Senator Nelson was considered a Midwestern political moderate. The 70 year old former insurance executive also spent two terms as Nebraska governor. He spent the better part of the fall pondering the decision whether or not to run for re-election or simply retire. Democrats had already spent considerable money in his defense and to encourage him to run for Senator again. Senator Ben Nelson won his first Senate seat in 2000, replacing retiring Senator Bob Kerrey, a former Vietnam veteran.

Senator Nelson is the seventh member of the Democratic caucus to announce his decision to retire next year. Other Senators tht have announced they were stepping down next year are Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, and Jim Webb of Virginia, to name a few. Senator Nelson, the only Democrat to hold a statewide office in Nebraska, enjoyed immense popularity there until he was one of the last Democratic senators to cast his vote for President Obama's health care overhaul. Since then, he's endured intense criticism for backing Obamacare.

Click on the above link from the New York Times to read the full story of Senator Ben Nelson's decision to not run for re-election in 2012.

Christ was Foreordained to be the Perfect Sacrifice For Mankind

2011-12-28T00:43:00.017-06:00

(I Peter 1:19-20) "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you."

This past month I've been writing a series of posts entitled, "Jesus Was Born Into This World to Die For the Sins of Mankind." As I was writing these posts I was thinking about the scripture from I Peter 1:19, 20. I presented a historical background from the second and third chapters from the book of Genesis. I was giving the example of Adam and Eve who partook of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In order to understand why Jesus came into this world to die for the sins of mankind, you must go to the very beginning in the book of Genesis. It was the sin of Adam that plunged the whole human race into sin. As a result, there was the need for a Savior to come into this world to be the perfect, spotless sacrifice to die upon Calvary's cross in order that man might be redeemed.

When I was reading this verse of scripture several days ago, I was thinking about the love of God that was manifested to man. One thing you will never be able to explain is the love of God towards mankind. Why would God, in his foreknowledge, choose for Christ to be the perfect, spotless sacrifice to die upon Calvary's cross for the sins of mankind prior to the creation of man? Why would God do that? That's a mystery that the most keen intellect will never be able to comprehend. One could understand God creating Adam and then Adam, unbeknowst to God, sin and God making the decision to send the Lamb of God from Heaven to atone for the sins of mankind. You could see God making the decision after the fact to one day send Jesus to this world to redeem makind. However, one cannot fathom with his own mortal mind God, in his infinite wisdom, deciding before the foundation of the earth was laid to send Christ to be the perfect sacrifice for man. That doesn't make sense. Who in their right mind would ever create something if they knew ahead of time that creation would be more costly than it ever would be profitable? In the business realm what entrepreneur would create a product to place on the market if they knew it would generate no sales? Nobody would. Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple who died recently was known for creating such technological devices as the Apple Mac, the i-pad, the i-pod, etc. They've all been successful on the market. Would Steve Jobs have created those products if he knew prior to inventing them that they would never sell? Would Steve Jobs have created those products if he knew he would spend far more money and time into creating those products than what the dividends would generate? No, he wouldn't. No entrepreneur in their right mind would invest money into something if they knew it would fail. Would Thomas Edison have created the light bulb if he knew he wouldn't make a profit from it? I highly doubt it. In the business world, you invest money into things that you believe will make you profitable. In the business world, you have to think in terms of what will make money. The purpose of a business is to make money. Any type of endeavor that doesn't generate a profit is money lost.

When we ponder the fact that God had foreordained Christ to one day come to this earth to die on Calvary's cross, that should cause us to rejoice. I'm very thankful that God didn't have the mindset of a businessman when he made the decision in his infinite wisdom to choose Christ to be that perfect sacrifice. God knew that Adam would sin and plunge the whole human race into sin. God knew the heartache that man would cause him. God knew the price Jesus would pay for the sins of mankind on Calvary. God was not looking into the numbers game when he created man. The creation of man wasn't profitable to God. What was profitable about the creation of man when God knew that man would one day reject God and live according to his own will. The Bible says that God's angry with the wicked every day. Why would God create man that would one day choose the path of sin and mock his creator? That doesn't make sense to the human mind. God doesn't need man. God doesn't need us. He has both Jesus and the Holy Spirit to fellowship with. God also has the angels he can fellowship with. To top it all off God could've annihilated man and created another race to worship and serve him. What's so special about man to God, other than the fact he created man in his likeness? When you consider the depths of the love of God toward man, you can't explain it. There was nothing profitable about the creation of mankind to God. It caused Jesus everything upon Calvary's cross to redeem man. Just for depraved man. God even knew that only a few would ever accept the free gift given by God. Matthew 7:13, 14 speaks of the strait and narrow gate and only a few would ever find eternal life. Most people on this earth will choose the broad path instead of the strait path that leads to eternal life. In the midst of that God still foreordained Christ before the foundation of the earth was laid to be the perfect sacrifice for mankind. That's a mystery man will never understand. It doesn't make sense to man that Jesus would've died if only one person got saved. It doesn't make sense to mortal man because we think of things in terms of numbers. God was thinking in terms of numbers when he sent Christ to this earth. We have so much to thank him for and rejoice in.

When you consider the fact that God doesn't need man, it should cause us to desire to worship and serve him. He went out of his way for us so that one day we could inherit eternal life. Of all people he chose for Christ to die for sinful man. That's love one can't begin to comprehend. I'm thankful that God doesn't value man in the way mankind values people. God didn't think in terms of utilitarianism, or that which is profitable when creating man. The creation of mankind wasn't profitable to God. Not only those that choose to reject Christ, but even those that are his children. Those of us that are saved have been a disappointment to God. Read about the men in the Bible who loved God but yet disappointed him at times such as Samson, Lot, or King David, who was a man after God's own heart. King David disappointed God when he had ordered Uriah the Hittite to be killed and committed adultery with Bathsheba. David also sinned when he numbered the people of Israel. God's people at time go astray and that brings heartache to God. When you considered how disappointing God's people are to him at times, it's amazing he would've sent Jesus to Calvary. According to man's thinking, it would've been natural for God to decide to not create man at all because of man's rejection toward God throughout the ages as well as the fact even God's children have disappointed God. In spite of the fact that God knew before the creation of man that man would choose the path of sin and that even those that are redeemed would disappoint him at times, he made the choice to send Christ to this earth to redeem man before the foundation of this earth was laid. We can't even begin to comprehend the love of God towards man. I'm glad he loves us in spite of us or he would've destroyed man a long time ago. The love of God should compel us to desire to serve him. God's good. You'll never be able to explain or comprehend the love of God in a thousand lifetimes.

Perry Shifts Views On Abortion, Opposes Exceptions

2011-12-27T22:31:00.032-06:00

Perry Shifts Views On Abortion, Opposes Exceptions Fox News

Texas Governor and 2012 presidential candidate speaking during a campaign stop at the Glenn Miller Museum in Clarinda, Iowa

As the Iowa Caucus is only seven days away, Texas Governor and presidential candidate Rick Perry has shifted his position on abortion. Not only is he "opposed" to abortion, he's opposed to abortion--no exceptions!. At least that's what he now says since he's trying to drum up support in Iowa during the closing days of the Iowa campaign. Perry says he's now opposed to abortion even in cases of rape, incest, and even if a woman's life is in danger. Perry says his change of heart is the result of a meeting he had with a woman whose mother was raped and whose story was part of an abortion documentary screened by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Perry claims the encounter caused him to think about abortion and now he opposes abortion in all forms--at least to the voters in Iowa anyway. Once the Iowa caucus is over with, Perry may alter his position on abortion when he tries to sway voters in New Hampshire, the nation's first presidential primary each election cycle. Social conservatives play a vital role in this state so Perry's trying to win the hearts of voters. In 2008, Mike Huckabee scored a surprising win in the Iowa caucus.

It's difficult for me to take these GOP candidates seriously. They'll say whatever it takes to win an election. They want the issue for campaign purposes, but they don't have any intention to solve the problem. As of right now, Texas Congressman Ron Paul has the lead in Iowa as of right now. The Iowa caucus is a week from today.

House GOP Passes 2-Month Extension of Payroll Tax Cut

2011-12-26T09:52:00.000-06:00

House GOP Eats Humble Pie, Passes 2-Month Extension of Payroll Tax Cut CNSnews.com

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) surrounded by reporters after exiting a House vote on the payroll tax cut on Friday December 23, 2011.

After weeks of so-called partisan bickering, the GOP House along with the Democratic-controlled Senate, extended the payroll tax cut extension to 160 million workers along with unemployment benefits to those who are laid off. After the extension was passed, President Obama and his family finally traveled to Hawaii for his Christmas vacation. This extension will keep in place a 2 percentage point cut in the payroll tax. It's a salary boost of about $20 a week for an average worker making $50,000 a year along with preventing laid off workers from losing their jobless benefits averaging $300 a week. What a deal! Why just settle for a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut. How about abolishing the current tax code and drastically revamping it. This is a joke. There's no excuse in the amount of tax dollars that's paid to Washington every year when you recognize all the waste and fraud that takes place with our tax dollars. The reason for these stupid "debates" over the tax-cut extension is because they're all about controlling the American people when it comes to their money. Congress can't take away enough of our money. All these partisan squabblings are phony.

Voters who live in the 8th district in the state of Ohio need to vote out House Speaker John Boehner in next year's election. Republicans need to find a strong candidate to challenge Boehner next year in the primary. Boehner is a RINO who does nothing but roll over for Obama. His loyalties aren't to the American people. Last year he was putting on a facade when he was crying before Leslie Stahl in a 60 Minutes interview last year stating that he wants young people to have a chance to live the American dream and be successful in their walk of life. I'm not trying to sound harsh or judgmental toward Boehner but he hasn't stood for the American people in Congress. He hasn't pushed Congress to defund Obamacare or all the socialist programs from the Obama administration. He's just a go-along-to-get-along politician. Boehner's not doing anything in Congress which will help the next few generations of Americans in years to come. He's part of the problem in Washington. Next year we need to vote out these Washington politicians in droves in next year's election.

Click on the article CNS News.com to read the full story.

Jesus--The Greatest Gift

2011-12-25T01:16:00.089-06:00

(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." I want to extend this time to wish all the bloggers and blog readers a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope your Christmas is a very joyous time today as we remember the birth of our saviour and Lord Jesus Christ. Even though Christmas is on a Sunday this year, it's still very important to be in attendance at the House of God. What a better way to celebrate Christmas than to celebrate it in the House of God today. Even though many people will be gathering at their families' houses today, it's still important to be faithful to church.

During the Christmas season many people go shopping to and fro to retail stores to purchase Christmas gifts for their loved ones. One of the busiest times of years in the retail market is during the Christmas season starting with Black Friday the day after Thanksgiving all the way to December 26, the day after Christmas. Christmas is a very commercialized time of year. There's so much emphasis upon gifts and what we desire for Christmas that we don't take time to ponder the most important gift ever given to us in this world. That gift is none other than Jesus coming down to this earth in a robe of flesh to be born of a Virgin named Mary. There's no greater gift. Jesus came to this earth as God incarnate--both God and man without sin. That's a mystery because there's no way that man can be born naturally without sin. That's why Jesus' birth wasn't natural. Mary wasn't impregnated through the means of mortal man. Mary was impregnated through the Holy Ghost, which isn't naturally possible. However, with God all things are possible. Jesus couldn't have been born as a spotless lamb had he been born through natural means. That's why he was born through the Holy Ghost. This process of conception is known as the Immaculate Conception. Jesus would've been a sinner had he been born through Joseph or any other mortal man. Ever since the fall of the human race, the seed of sin is passed down through man every time a woman conceives. The Psalmist David says that in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalms 51:5). Every child is born in sin through conception. However, Christ's conception was supernatural and as a result he was no natural man. He was robed in flesh and understood the temptation that man had undergone but yet he was without sin. That made him the perfect candidate to walk up Calvary's hill and die upon a cross so man could be redeemed from sin.

I've heard preachers preach for a number of years that Jesus is the gift that keeps on giving. That is very true. He is the gift that keeps on giving. Out of all the gifts that mankind has received throughout the ages, there's no greater gift than God sending his Son Jesus to this world so that one day mankind would be redeemed from sin. There's not a greater gift given than Jesus laying down his life for mankind. He willingly gave his life for us so that we might one day know the free pardon from sin. As a result of the fall of Adam, mankind was plunged into sin and for four thousand years the high priest had to offer animal sacrifices in the Holy of Holies as a means to cover the sins of mankind. However, animal sacrifices weren't meant to be a permanent solution to atone for the sins of mankind. Animal sacrifices only covered the sins of man. They were sacrificed once a year. This process had to be offered continually. However, when Jesus died, he paid the price for our sins only once (I Peter 3:18). Jesus doesn't have to continually go upon Calvary's cross to die on a yearly basis for the sins of mankind. Once was enough for Christ. His sacrifice is sufficient for time and eternity. Jesus will never again have to come down to this earth as a mortal man to die for the sins of mankind. That's what Christ did at his first appearing. When Jesus comes the second time, he will be crowned the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He will be king the second time he comes. Those that are saved will live with Christ forever and ever. What a blessing!

There's no greater gift than you can receive than Jesus. All the material goods of this world will one day fade away. However, the gift of Jesus still stands. It's still just as good today as it was when he died on Calvary. Jesus still today saves sinners and any man that will come to him, he will in no wise cast out (John 6:37). The gift never grows old. Most of the gifts we receive today in a materialistic form will one day be worthless. The gifts in this world pale in comparison to the gift that God gave to this world over two thousand years ago. The gift of God is still good today. Jesus is still as relevant today as he was yesterday. Jesus will never grow old and He will still be just as sufficient a thousand years from now as He is today. There's no greater gift that has ever been given to mankind than Jesus. Nothing compares to Jesus. The gift of God will endure for eternity.

The Real Story of Christmas

2011-12-25T01:12:00.008-06:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Handel's Messiah

2011-12-24T07:54:00.000-06:00

Handel's Messiah

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Christmas Traditions: Christmas Trees

2011-12-23T07:37:00.000-06:00

History of Christmas Trees — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

an outdoor Christmas tree

Two years ago I wrote a post about the Christmas tree. One of things I enjoy about the Christmas holiday is the tradition of the Christmas tree. Since I was a young boy I've always looked forward to the opportunity to set up the Christmas tree during the Christmas tree each season. That tradition hasn't left me. I still enjoy the opportunity setting up the Christmas tree today like I did several years ago. I have a post from History.com that explains the origin and history of the Christmas tree. Germany is noted with starting the Christmas tree tradition as we know it in the 16th century when "Christians" brought decorated trees into their homes. Some built Christmas pyramids of wood and decorated them with evergreens and candles if wood was scarce. It was widely held that Martin Luther, the sixteenth century Protestant reformer, added lighted candles to a tree. Walking toward home one winter evening while composing a sermon, Luther was awed by the brilliance of the stars twinkling by the amidst evergreens. To capture the scene for his family, he erected a tree in the main room and wired its branches with lighted candles.

To read the details about the history of Christmas trees, click on the above link at History.com.

O Christmas Tree

O Christmas Tree and its history

O Tannenbaum

Christmas Tree

Jesus Was Born Into This World to Die For the Sins of Mankind (Part 3)

2011-12-23T07:03:00.002-06:00

Ever since the fall of man, there have been several prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming and the ministry of trhe Messiah. Those prophecies were realized in the New Testament. Every prophecy that was made was correct. There were many women in the Old Testament who were hoping they would be the ones that would give birth to the Christ child. As it turned out, it was Mary who was chosen to give birth to the Christ child. I'm going to list several prophecies in the Old Testament which foretold Christ's coming.

* He was the "seed of a woman" -- prophecy (Genesis 3:15) and fulfilled: (Galatians 4:4)

* He was a descendent of Abraham -- prophecy (Genesis 12:3) and fulfilled (Matthew 1:1)

* He was from the tribe of Judah -- prophecy (Genesis 49:10) and fulfilled: (Luke 1:32-33)

* He was the heir to the throne of David --prophecy: (Isaiah 9:7) and fulfilled (Luke 1:32-33)

* His birthplace in Bethlehem -- prophecy (Micah 5:2) and fulfilled (John 1:2) (Luke 2:4-5, 7)

* Born of a virgin -- prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) and fulfilled (Luke 1:26-27, 30-31)

* Taken to Egypt -- prophecy (Hosea 11:1) and fulfilled (Matthew 2:14-15)

* Herod's killing of the infants -- prophecy (Jeremiah 31:15) and fulfilled (Matthew 2:16-18)

* Anointed by the Holy Spirit -- prophecy (Isaiah 11:2) and fulfilled (Matthew 3:16-17)

* Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) -- prophecy (Isaiah 40:3-5); (Malachi 3:1) and fulfilled (Matthew 3:1-3)

* Would perform miracles -- prophecy (Isaiah 35:5-6) and fulfilled (Matthew 9:35)

* Would preach good news -- prophecy (Isaiah 61:1) and fulfilled (Luke 4:14-21)

* Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey -- prophecy (Zechariah 9:9) and fulfilled (Matthew 21:4-9)

* Would be rejected by Jews --prophecy (Psalm 118:22) and fulfilled (I Peter 2:7)

* Die a humiliating death --prophecy (Psalm 22) (Isaiah 53) involving:
   1. rejection (Isaiah 53:3) (John 1:10-11; 7:5, 48)
   2. betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9) (Luke 22:3-4) (John 13:18)
   3. sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12) (Matthew 26:14-15)
   4. silence before his accusers (Isaiah 53:7) (Matthew 27:12-14)
   5. being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8) (Mathew 27:31)
   6. beaten (Isaiah 52:14) (Matthew 27:26)
   7. spit upon (Isaiah 50:6) (Matthew 27:30)
   8. piercing his hands and feet (Psalm 22:16) (Matthew 27:31)
   9. being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12) (Matthew 27:38)
10. praying for his persecutors (Isaiah 53:12) (Luke 23:34)
11. piercing his side (Zechariah 12:10) (John 19:34)
  12. given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21) (Matthew 27:34) (Luke 23:36)
13. no broken bones (Psalm 34:20) (John 19:32-36)
14. buried in a rich man's tomb (Isaiah 53:9) (Matthew 27:57-60)
15. casting lots for his garments (Psalm 22:18) (John 19:23-24)

* Would rise from the dead! -- prophecy (Psalm 16:10) and fulfilled (Mark 16:6) (Acts 2:31)

*Ascend into Heaven -- (Psalm 68:18) (Acts 1:9)

* Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1) (Hebrews 1:3)

The Newt Gingrich 'Baggage' Ad:

2011-12-23T07:02:00.000-06:00

Newt Gingrich 'Baggage' Ad: Restore Our Future Explains Why Barack Obama Is 'Happy' (VIDEO)

The Newt Gingrich 'Baggage" Ad

Mitt Romney, in his most recent attack ad against Newt Gingrich speaks about all the personal baggage Newt has carried with him during his twenty years as a Georgia Congressman and his career since Capitol Hill. The ad was released Tuesday December 20, 2011 by "Restore Our Future". The Super PAC, which backs former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, lists a stream of grievances, casting Newt as a candidate that has more "baggage" than airlines. On the top of the list is Newt Gingrich's dealings with Freddie Mac. The ad demonstrates that the loan mortgage corporation helped caused the economic collapse of 2008 and Newt Gingrich cashed in on it. The clip later shows Gingrich teaming up with Nancy Pelosi producing a global warming ad as well as supporting a bill giving millions to a U.N. program which supports China's brutal "one-child" policy. Gingrich and Pelosi co-sponsored hundreds of bills together while they were in the House together. The ad later strolls down memory lane during Gingrich's days as House Speaker. The ad says that Gingrich was the only House speaker ever reprimanded in U.S. history. He was fined $300,000 by the Republican Congress at the time.

Gingrich also has his own personal baggage with the divorce of his two previous wives. It was said that he served divorce papers to his first wife while she was in the hospital, even though this narrative was denied by Gingrich and his daughter Jackie Gingrich Cushman. He told his second wife Marianne that she was a Jaguar and that "all I want is a Chevrolet." That eventually led him to his third wife Callista, whom he had an affair with when she was a House staffer. Also Gingrich has been inconsistent with his comments when he criticized Paul Ryan's budget plan as "right-wing" social engineering. He pretends to be conservative but some of his comments say otherwise. In 2009 Gingrich supported an absolute RINO in Dede Scozzafava when she ran for the open seat in New York's 23rd Congressional District over a more conservative independent candidate named Doug Hoffman. He claims to be a firebrand conservative but some of his statements say something else.

The ad Mitt Romney unleashed concerning Newt's baggage is true. He does bring a lot of baggage to the campaign. And I do agree President Obama would be happy if Newt's the candidate because the Gingrich camp would give the Obama camp plenty of ammunition to aim against them. Newt Gingrich is a Washington insider who was part of the problem when he was in Congress. It's true that there were some good things that happened while he was House Speaker such as the House passing a budget amendment and the welfare reform bill being passed. However, he also played a role in the Clinton administration giving nuclear secrets to China. Gingrich is wishy-washy and you can't trust him. If he is the Republican nominee next year, President Obama will win re-election handily.

Christmas--The History Channel

2011-12-23T01:05:00.000-06:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Il Dies

2011-12-22T00:00:00.037-06:00

News from The Associated Press

Kim Jong Il, the longtime dictator of North Korea, has died of heart failure at age 69. In a "special broadcast" Monday from the North Korean capital, state media said that Kim died of a heart ailment on a train due to a "great mental and physical strain" on December 17 during a high intensity field inspection. An autopsy was done on December 18 and "fully confirmed" the diagnosis. Kim was believed to have suffered a stroke in 2008, but appeared relatively vigorous in photos and video from recent trips to China and Russia and in numerous trips around the country carefully documented by the state media.

Kim Jong Il inherited power from his father in 1994 after his father, North Korean founder Kim Il Sung, died in 1994. North Korea is preparing for a hereditary succession. In September 2010, Kim Jong Il had prepared for his third son, the twenty-something Kim Jong Un to be in high ranking posts so he could succeed his father. To read the remainder of the story, click on the above link.

USA: The People That Killed Kennedy are Still Running America

2011-12-21T04:01:00.001-06:00

Part 1

JFK Documentary: The Day the Dream Died

Live Christmas Tree Celebrations

2011-12-20T04:54:00.002-06:00

Giant Singing Christmas Tree

Singing Christmas Trees (O Holy Night)

I Have Seen the Light

More From America's Tallest Christmas Tree

Living Christmas Tree--Emannuel Medley

The Sounds of Christmas

The GOP Debate in Manchester, New Hampshire

2011-12-20T00:51:00.019-06:00

Gingrich, Huntsman Play Nice in NH Debate

The GOP debate in New Hampshire was held on December 12, 2011. It was held at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. I overlooked this particular debate so I'm posting this debate now.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

This particular debate featured former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman. This was a Lincoln-Douglas style debate.

Iraqis celebrate impending US withdrawal - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

2011-12-19T00:00:00.037-06:00

Iraqis celebrate impending US withdrawal - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Iraqi protesters burning the U.S. and Israeli flags in Fallujah

As the remaining vestiges of U.S. troops are scheduled to leave Iraq at the end of this year, thousands of protesters in the Iraqi city of Fallujah have taken to the streets to celebrate the impending U.S. withdrawal from Iraq at the end of this year, after more than 8.5 years since the Operate Iraqi Freedom began. Demonstrators rallied across the streets Wednesday, shouting slogans in support of the resistance, a reference to the campaign by Iraqi fighters in Fallujah which was a bastion of opposition against the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. That shows you the kind of "thanks" we are receiving from the Iraqis after having liberated them from the throes of Saddam Hussein almost nine years ago. It doesn't make sense that the U.S. would spend as much time as they have in Iraq. What has the U.S. accomplished remaining in Iraq for that long? Nothing. I guarantee you the situation will grow worse once the complete removal of U.S. troops takes place. All our efforts to impose democracy in Iraq has failed. They may have free elections in Iraq, but what does it amount to? The people don't know how to rule their own country. Ever since Saddam's departure, Iraq has experienced all kinds of civil unrest between the Sunnis, Shia's, and the Kurds. There's too much ethnic division in Iraq. You can't bring democracy to a Muslim-dominated country. Democracy is another term for mob rule. It's the elite mobs that rule. The Iraqis will never experience true freedom in their country. They don't consider the U.S. as their allies. Over the last several years we've spend untolds billions in treausre and lost numerous U.S. soldiers in the name of freedom for the Iraqis. They're no more secure and safe today than they were five years ago as far as I'm concerned. The Iraqis don't even approve the sacrifice the U.S. soldiers have made on their behalf. The U.S. should've withdrawn from Iraq years ago. There was no reason for us to be in Iraq. It had nothing to do with 9/11. We've made billions of dollars for the U.S. defense contractors while fighting in Iraq. It was no benefit for the U.S. We can't fight and police the whole world.

Click on the above link to read about the Iraqis in Fallujah celebrating the impending U.S. withdrawal.

Jesus Was Born Into This World to Die For the Sins of Mankind (Part 2)

2011-12-18T00:00:00.121-06:00

In the last post we were giving an introduction to this series of posts about Jesus being born into this world to die for the sins of mankind. During the Christmas season, we set aside this time to remember Christ being born into this world in a manger scene. We read about the Wise Men searching for Jesus to bring gifts to him. I'm very thankful for the blessed day when Jesus came into this world for the very first time. Even though there is some dispute among some in the religious world concerning the celebration of Christmas on December 25, Christ was still born into this world and that's worth commemorating regardless when we celebrate it. If Jesus was never born, then Jesus would've never went to Calvary's cross to die for the sins of mankind. As I've stated repeatedly over the years, there had to be a birth in order for there to be a death, burial, and resurrection. It's proper and fitting to celebrate the birth of Christ. Christ's birth fulfills the various prophecies in the Old Testament which states there would be a Messiah to come into this world to deliver mankind from the threshold of sin.

I want to now focus our attention in Genesis chapters 2 and 3 concerning the fall of mankind. In Genesis 2:7 we read where God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. He took Adam to put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and keep it. The reason why Jesus had to come into this world to die for the sins of mankind is because of Adam's sin when he and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit, which God told Adam in Genesis 2 he wasn't to touch. God told Adam that before God took a rib from Adam's side to form Eve. God had told Adam in Genesis 2:17 about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and he told Adam not to partake of it. The day he did so, he would surely die. In Genesis 2:21-25 we read the account where God caused Adam to be put into a deep sleep and he took a rib out of Adam to form Eve. Adam had called her a woman because she was taken out of man. Adam said this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh (Genesis 2:23). Anybody in liberal religious circles that want to dispute the subject of "gay marriage" need to read the last few verses in Genesis. God instituted the family unit in these verses and his intention was for man and woman to be joined together. It's Adam and Eve--not Adam and Steve.

In Genesis 3:1-3:7, we read, "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, let ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day that ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." It's amazing how tricky the Devil is. He twisted the statement God told Adam and that was the day ye eat of the tree ye shall surely die. The Devil told them that it wasn't so and that the day they ate of the fruit their eyes would be opened and they shall be as gods. The Devil is sly in the sense he uses half-truths to twist statements around. It was true when he said their eyes would be opened if they partook of the fruit. What wasn't true was when the Devil told them they should be as gods. They weren't as gods. Their eyes were opened in the sense they no longer were in the state of innocence. They learned what sin was when they partook of the forbidden fruit.

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God and partook of the forbidden fruit, they plunged the whole human race into sin. They were to learn what the curse of sin was. When they first partook of the fruit, they were embarrassed of their nakedness and as a result they sewed themselves fig leaves together to make aprons. Also, they were afraid of God when he called on them. Adam also tried to hide himself from the presence of the Lord. Why would he do that? He did that because sin had separated him from God. Adam no longer was able to have sweet communion with God because of disobedience. The fellowship he had with God was no longer the same. Another thing that took place as a result of their sin was God told them that he would curse the ground and thorns and thistles would grow (Genesis 3:17-19). The beasts of the field also would be cursed. Adam would also return to the dust of the ground as a result of his sin before God. The sting of sin is death, not only spiritually but physically. If Adam hadn't partaken of the fruit, he would've lived forever. God didn't create man to die. It was the curse of sin that brought death to man. Another result from the curse of sin was that there would be great pain in childbearing whenever Eve would conceive (Genesis 3:16). God also said that Eve's desire would be to her husband and he would rule over her. Finally, God drove both Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. God placed Cherubims there, with a flaming sword turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

In the midst of their sin, God made a promise to Eve in Genesis 3:15 where God would put enmity between the serpent and the woman. There would come a day when a Saviour would come into this world to die upon Calvary's cross to reclaim man and save him from sin. One of these days Satan would be defeated as a result of Christ's dying upon Calvary's cross. God would redeem man so that one day man could have fellowship with God once again and that man would go to Heaven for eternity when he dies. What a promise!

Senate Passes Short-Term Payroll Tax Cut Extension

2011-12-17T11:10:00.000-06:00

Senate Passes Short-Term Payroll Tax Cut Extension Fox News

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, accompanied by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) They speak to reports about extending the payroll tax cut in Washington, D.C.

The Senate approved this morning by a vote of 89-10 a short-term payroll tax cut extension, which means the American people will still enjoy a two percentage point cut from their Social Security tax. The Democrats wanted to add a millionaire surtax to finance the measure but abandoned that provision because of the possibility of deepening gridlock on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers had decided on a two-month extension after they were unable to agree on how to finance the tax cut through the next election. The $40 billion two-month package uses fee hikes on new mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Also, the jobless benefits payments average $300 to millions of Americans out of work six months or more will still be continued.

One of the key provisions that the Republicans were able to secure was a provision to force President Obama to make a decision within the next 60 days on the fate of the Canada-to-Texas Keystone pipeline. The administration had earlier delayed the project because of "supposed" concerns over environmental issues and safety, although the unions support it and it could create thousands of jobs. Truthfully speaking, the issue has nothing to do with the environment as much as it does with the government controlling America's choices of energy to run the country. The Obama administration is trying to control the American people through energy and in turn force the prices of oil to climb even higher. They don't want the American people to be energy-independent. They want America to be dependent upon oil from overseas.

As far as the payroll tax cut issue is concerned, theoretically there shouldn't be a payroll tax. Social Security is nothing but a Ponzi scheme as Texas Governor Rick Perry rightfully pointed out in a previous presidential debate. I'm not opposed to a Social Security trust fund for Americans, but the federal government shouldn't be in charge of it. The American people shouldn't be paying that much in payroll taxes. The problem's not there isn't enough money to finance Social Security. The problem is our elected elite has stolen that money and used it for other projects over the last several decades. Social Security's a fraud the way the government has administered it. No sane American would invest more money into an IRA than what they draw from it. However, we as Americans pay far more into the system than what we're reaping from it. It's a fraud and we need to take Social Security away from the federal government. WE can't trust them with our dollars.

We need the Canada-to-Texas Keystone pipeline in order to not only create new jobs for workers, but also so Americans can use their own energy resources to finance our lifestyle. There's no excuse for America to be purchasing our oil from the Middle East when we can produce our own oil. It's nothing but a means for the government to dictate to the American public what they can and can't use for their energy resources. It's nothing but fascism.

Michael Savage Offers Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich $1 Million to Drop Out of Race

2011-12-17T09:58:00.001-06:00

Michael Savage offers Gingrich $1 million to drop out of race

GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich in a debate on December 12, 2011

I read an interesting article from World Net Daily just a few minutes ago that I think is worth sharing. You can click on the link above to read the details of the story. Earlier this past week radio talk show host Michael Savage offered former House Speaker and 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich $1 million dollars to drop out of the presidential race within 72 hours. That was from the time Savage made this comment which was earlier in the week. Savage rightly noted that Americans can't stand another four years of Barack Obama and that Newt Gingrich needs to step aside from the 2012 presidential race. Savage stated that if Gingrich loves this country then he needs to set his ego aside and accept Savage's offer. He also stated while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney isn't a strong conservative himself, Gingrich doesn't stand a chance to beat President Obama. Savage said, "His (Gingrich) continued candidacy spells nothing but ruin for conservatives, Republicans, and all true American patriots," he continued. "One million dollars in exchange for preserving the nation, Newt. I say take the money... and don't run." Savage noted that the most pressing issue for next year's presidential race is to defeat President Obama, and that's something Newt Gingrich cannot do."

I say "amen" to Savage's assessment of Newt Gingrich's candidacy. Newt doesn't stand a chance of beating Obama. On top of that Gingrich is a RINO himself. You can't trust him. He's content with big-government himself. Early this morning I was listening to a repeat radio program of Glenn Beck's from earlier this week. He was interviewing Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich told Glenn that his philosophy paralleled that of former president Theodore Roosevelt, who was a Progressive Republican early in the 20th century. Beck properly noted that Progressives are in both parties: both Democrat and Republican. The Progressive movement back in the early 20th century believed in the philosophy of big government and massive government intervention. Newt Gingrich is content with the growth of big government. He won't decrease the size of government. It will continue growing under him as president as it did under former president George W. Bush. Gingrich has been very wishy-washy on certain issues. He speaks against Obamacare, but favors the mandate that Americans should be required to purchase healthcare. Newt also appeared in a global warming ad with former house speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2008. Gingrich suppors amnesty for illegal aliens and he called the Republican plan, crafted by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) as "right-wing social engineering." What a reliable candidate for president of the United States!

I've already predicted that Barack Obama will be re-elected as president of the United States next November. I will guarantee you that will be a given if Gingrich is the GOP nominee next year. Gingrich is an imposter. He took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are two of the most corrupt financial institutions in America. I guarantee you if he's the nominee, the Democrats will feature all sorts of attack ads exposing some of Gingrich's dirty dealings. Gingrich is a Washington insider who's part of the problem. We don't need another RINO for president. I hope he doesn't get chosen to face Obama next November. As much as I don't care for Mitt Romney, I'll vote for Romney before I vote for Gingrich. On the other hand, there's no question that Newt Gingrich is an intellectually brilliant man. He's written numerous books. He's taught college courses on history. He's done a great job heading up the organization "American Solutions for Winning the Future." He can better serve American by involving himself with that organization than running for president. Newt Gingrich and politics don't mix. He would be a disaster. I will echo Savage's comment: Gingrich needs to step aside for the sake of the country. He will not beat President Obama next November.

The Fox News Presidential Debate

2011-12-17T09:13:00.000-06:00

Newt Leads GOP Out Of Debate Wilderness Fox News

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

This particular Fox News GOP debate was held in Sioux City, Iowa on December 15, 2011

Donald Trump Pulls Out of Moderating Iowa Debate

2011-12-16T17:43:00.008-06:00

Donald Trump pulls out of moderating Iowa debate, leaves door open to run as independent candidate - NYPOST.com

Real Estate Mogul Donald Trump

Real estate mogul Donald Trump has decided to pull out of a Republican debate he had agreed to moderate in Iowa later this month after most of the candidates turned down his invitation to participate, according to sources from Fox News Channel Tuesday. The only Republican candidates that agreed to participate in the Iowa debate are former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The other Republican candidates declined to participate. In a statement to Fox News, Trump attributed the low attendance to the possibility that he might launch his own independent run for the White House. Trump declared since he wasn't willing to give up his right to run as independent candidate, he decided to pull out of moderating the debate so there wouldn't be "a conflict of interest within the Republican party." He also stated that the American people are embarrassed by the gridlock that's taking place within Washington and that he must leave all his options open because above all else we must make America a great nation again.

Donald Trump was supposed to be the moderate of a Newsmax debate held on Tuesday December 27, 2011. As of right now, Newsmax, a conservative publication, has determined to postpone the debate originally scheduled December 27th until an undetermined date. I personally believe the reason why most of the Republican presidential candidates declined to participate in the Newsmax debate is because they don't want to have to answer questions that Trump would bring to the debate. Trump asks the questions that need to be asked such as the birth certificate issue he mentioned earlier this past Spring. I've questioned whether or not Trump is an Obama operative designed to spoil next year's presidential election, but regardless whether he does or doesn't, he'll ask the questions that need to be asked such as the subject of "free trade" and the loss of numerous manufacturing jobs to other countries. He'll also ask questions about illegal immigration that the Republican candidates probably don't desire to be asked. There have been questions that the mainstream media (including Fox News) refuse to ask. I'm not surprised that most of the GOP candidates have declined to participate in the debate on December 27, 2011. They don't want any questions of accountability and these candidates aren't about winning next year's election. They're are running as a filler candidate for the Republican opposition next year. These debates are nothing but a joke.

A Charlie Brown Christmas

2011-12-16T05:29:00.013-06:00

A Charlie Brown Christmas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Meaning of Christmas

I know I've already shown this Charlie Brown Christmas twice, but I strongly feel it bears repeating. What is so special about this particular Christmas production? The story is centered around Charlie Brown trying to learn what the true meaning of Christmas is all about. Charlie Brown was trying to discover the true meaning of Christmas despite all the commercialization involved with the Christmas season. In this segment, Linus explains what the true meaning of Christmas is all about by reciting the Christmas story in Luke 2. What's fascinating about the story of this particular show is that network executives didn't want the recitation of Jesus birth aired on the Charlie Brown Christmas special. However, Charles Schultz, the creator of the Peanuts gang, felt it was crucial that the true meaning of Christmas to be presented so that viewers can know that Christmas centers around the birth of Jesus. I've always enjoyed this Christmas special every since I was a young boy

Christmas Songs by Kate Smith

2011-12-15T05:16:00.015-06:00

Kate Smith, who popularized the song, "God Bless America" will be featured in this post singing some of your favorite Christmas songs.

O Holy Night

Silver Bells

White Christmas

Kate Smith the Christmas Song 1960

Christmas Songs by Burl Ives

2011-12-14T05:52:00.012-06:00

White Christmas

A Holly Jolly Christmas

Happy Birthday Jesus- Christmas Prayer

Christmas is a Birthday

Christmas Can't be Far Away

The GOP Debate in Des Moines Iowa

2011-12-13T17:10:00.001-06:00

Iowa Debate: Republican Candidates Clash Amidst Newt Gingrich Surge, Mitt Romney Attacks - ABC News

The GOP candidates clashed again in Des Moines, Iowa on Saturday, December 10, 2011. The Iowa Caucus is only a month away. It will be held on January 3, 2012.