Posts Tagged ‘charity’

Why Hillary Clinton Installed A Private Server And Purged Half Her Emails

May 20, 2015

This line from CNN’s coverage of Obama being “funny” says a lot:

“Think about how things have changed since 2008. Back then, I was the young tech-savvy candidate of the future,” Obama said. “Now I’m yesterday’s news and Hillary has got a server in her house.”

“I didn’t even know you could have one of those in your house,” he continued. “I am so far behind. Did you know that? I would have gotten one.”

As Obama’s joke rather crystal-clearly demonstrates, it’s not NORMAL to have a private server in your home.  It’s way, WAY, WAY beyond abnormal.  It takes world-class chutzpah to do something like this when you’re masquerading as a senor-level “public servant” (which under Obama means another way to say “lord and master”).

Hillary Clinton isn’t “tech-savvy.”  She’s just an old pathologically dishonest and corrupt political shrew with a multi-multiMULTI-million dollar slush fund to buy tech-savvy people to pull this crap for her so she can wheel and deal with your money using the very latest in criminal thug technology.

Of course, what this also proves is that as corrupt and as dishonest as Barack Obama has proven himself to be, even our current resident Liar-in-Chief is just no Slick Willy.  As giant of a liar and cheat as Barack Obama’s cancerous presidency has been, even HE can only dream of attaining the level of corruption that the Clinton’s have degenerated into in their forty-plus years as political whores.

You can’t blame Obama for not ever thinking of installing a private server to hide your internet tracks.  I mean, How many of us ever thought of that?  Because in the entire history of the republic, NO public official has EVER had their own email server in his/her home before.  Rather, previous Secretary’s of State have used private email accounts such as provided by Yahoo or AOL.  Which of course had control over and preserved all emails.  Simply far too much transparency for a pathologically dishonest shrew like Hillary Clinton.

The Democrat Party are to dishonesty, deceit, corruption, and crony-capitalist fascist quid pro quos what the Wright Brothers are to flying.  I mean, maybe they didn’t invent political corruption in the same manner that the Wright Brothers didn’t really invent the first airplane, but they sure somehow ended up owning all the rights to political corruption on a level that no human being has ever seen before.

A recent article shows us why Hillary installed her very own personal email server and then purged a massive percentage of her emails and ONLY released the rest after YEARS of vetting by her handpicked staff of priestesses.  The following article ran in the print edition of the California Section of the Los Angeles Times under the title, “Emails tie Sony, Ridley-Thomas” (for the official record, Ridley-Thomas is a career Democrat).  Hillary Clinton set up her own private server and purged tens of thousands of her emails so she wouldn’t open the newspaper to see this sort of story about HER criminality:

LACMA expansion, Ridley-Thomas, ‘super PAC’ intersect in email trail
By Robert Faturechi and Jack Dolan  contact the reporters
▼ LACMA Director Michael Govan needed Mark Ridley-Thomas’ support for LACMA expansion
▼ Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas sought help from Sony Chairman Michael Lynton for a PAC
May 20, 2015, 3:00 AM

When Michael Lynton, chairman and chief executive of Sony Pictures Entertainment, sat down for lunch last July with L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, each wanted something.

Lynton is a trustee of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, which needed Ridley-Thomas’ support to secure $125 million in county funding for a major expansion.

Ridley-Thomas wanted Sony to donate to a “super PAC” he had founded, which was supporting an aide’s campaign for a seat on the Los Angeles school board.

In September, Sony wrote a check to the PAC for $25,000. Two months later, Ridley-Thomas joined in a unanimous vote by the county supervisors to fund the LACMA expansion.

The lunch meeting, the PAC donation and discussions surrounding them are described in internal Sony emails, which were stolen by hackers and recently posted online by WikiLeaks. The Times reviewed the emails in collaboration with ProPublica, the nonprofit investigative newsroom.

The messages show how LACMA’s leadership courted Ridley-Thomas and how Sony, concerned about appearances, delayed the PAC contribution until a few weeks after the school board election.

A Sony official, Ridley-Thomas’ top aide and LACMA Director Michael Govan all said there was no connection between the contribution and the vote on county funding.

“We would never conduct ourselves in such a manner,” said Keith Weaver, Sony’s executive vice president for worldwide government affairs.

At the time, the museum was lobbying county officials for $125 million to help pay for a $600-million renovation and expansion of its Mid-Wilshire campus.

Govan, in an interview, recalled that in the months before the vote, he was confident he had the support of one county supervisor, Zev Yaroslavsky, but said he was “nervous” about the other four.

Among those, Ridley-Thomas was considered critical, Govan said. Other supervisors could be expected to defer to him because the new building would jut into his district.

Lynton also had a role to play in promoting the museum project. Sony’s studio complex in Culver City is in Ridley-Thomas’ district, and Lynton is “the only person on my board who had regular dealings with the supervisor,” Govan said.

According to the emails, Lynton held a meeting on May 21, 2014, with Weaver and Govan. The subject was Ridley-Thomas; the emails provide no further detail on the meeting.

Weeks later, Sony gave $5,000 to the PAC founded by the supervisor, campaign records show. Sony had made five previous contributions in the same amount since 2007.

In July, Lynton, Ridley-Thomas and two of their aides scheduled a lunch.

When Govan learned of the lunch, he sent two emails to Sony urging Lynton to press the LACMA matter.

The first message, sent to Weaver on July 16, the day before the lunch, and forwarded to Lynton, listed points to be made in support of the museum expansion and said that “this won’t happen if the Supervisor doesn’t support it.”

In the second message, Govan said the timing of the lunch was “perfect and critical.”

In separate emails to Lynton, Weaver noted that the Ridley-Thomas-founded PAC was spending heavily in support of the supervisor’s education advisor, Alex Johnson, in the Los Angeles school board race.

The PAC — the African American Voter Registration, Education and Participation Project — spent nearly $600,000 in support of Johnson’s campaign, according to state records. Johnson was seeking to represent District 1 on the L.A. Unified School District board.

There are no dollar limits on contributions to super PACs as there are for direct donations to candidates.

Vincent Harris, Ridley-Thomas’ chief deputy, said in an interview that the supervisor asked Lynton for a PAC contribution during the July 17 lunch. Harris said the LACMA funding was not discussed, adding that Ridley-Thomas knows better than to “mix fundraising with any public policy-related work.”

Weaver said he wasn’t sure if the group discussed the museum expansion.

After the lunch, Lynton had reservations about making another contribution to the PAC. According to emails between Lynton and Weaver, the Sony chief executive worried that a donation might create the appearance of a conflict because his wife, Jamie Alter Lynton, is executive editor of LA School Report, a news website that covers L.A. Unified.

Weaver wrote that he had talked with Ridley-Thomas’ office and asked for “options” for addressing Lynton’s concern. A few hours later, Weaver wrote Lynton outlining how to make “a direct contribution in a way that helps the effort, but avoids the perception/conflict issues.”

“You could contribute $25k AFTER the election,” he wrote in a message dated July 31.

That’s what Sony did, writing a $25,000 check that landed in the PAC’s coffers on Sept. 10, nearly a month after a school board runoff, which Johnson lost.

Campaign finance experts said that promising to make a donation and then timing it to delay public disclosure until after an election could be illegal, if there was an enforceable agreement between the two sides.

Stephen Kaufman, an attorney for the PAC, said that there was no such agreement, and that the PAC did not increase its spending during the school board race in anticipation of receiving a donation from Sony later.

Jim Sutton, a San Francisco-based attorney who has represented a number of prominent California politicians, said that even if the contribution doesn’t violate the letter of the law, it appears to violate the spirit of state statutes. “The purpose of the law is giving voters information about supporters before the election,” Sutton said.

Weaver declined to comment on the timing of the donation.

Asked why Sony gave the PAC more money than usual last fall, Weaver said: “There’s always a push for a year-over-year increase. This year we felt inclined to do so.”

Govan said he doesn’t believe there was any connection between the contribution and the supervisor’s support: “I know I’m being romantic, but I believe in politicians.”

In November, two days before the county supervisors were scheduled to vote on the LACMA project, Govan emailed Lynton with some good news.

“Just got an email from MRT,” he wrote, referring to Ridley-Thomas. “I think we’re good! Thank you Michael.”

jack.dolan@latimes.com

Twitter: @jackdolanLAT

This article was prepared in collaboration with ProPublica, where Faturechi is a reporter. Dolan is a Los Angeles Times staff writer

You see, Hillary avoided the mistake of Sony.  She 1) installed her own personal server in her home; 2) purged all the emails that would have criminally convicted her; 3) had THE most dishonest and secretive and frankly thuggish administration in history run constant interference for her wrongdoing.  I mean, there’s “not a shred of evidence” if all the actual evidence has been shredded.  Which is EXACTLY what Hillary Clinton did with HER incriminating emails that she set up to have complete control over in spite of every rule of government accountability and oversight and appearance of wrongdoing and appearance of conflict of interests to the contrary.

We just had four cancer charities that are easily documented to be abject scams.  James T. Reynolds II, the leader of one of these along with his scumbag dad, issued the following statement that really reminds of the Clinton excuse:

[…]

While the organization, its officers and directors have not been found guilty of any allegations of wrong doing, and the government has not proven otherwise, our Board of Directors has decided that it does not help those who we seek to serve, and those who remain in need, for us to engage in a highly publicized, expensive, and distracting legal battle around our fundraising practices.

The silver lining in all of this is that the organization has the ability to continue operating our most valued and popular program, the Hope Supply. Our Board will work tirelessly to maintain the Hope Supply program services that have benefitted our many patients for years – initially under the TBCS banner as it transitions under a different organization – all with the goal of seamlessly providing services to you. I take solace in the fact that this wonderful program has the chance to continue operating.

I have loved leading TBCS and being part of a team that engaged heart and soul in helping to serve the mission of the charity selflessly, tirelessly, and honorably.

On behalf of TBCS, I want to thank you for allowing us to be a part of your lives. It is my hope that you will continue to find the resources and assistance you need through the soon-to-be revamped Hope Supply Program.

Giving back to the community is a mission that drives me. You will forever and always been in our hearts.

This from a guy who from all accounts only gave 2.7% of the millions he took in to the actual cancer patients.  The rest went to himself, his family, his friends, and those he paid off to keep playing his games.

Excuse me while I fill the toilet bowl up to the rim with puke.

The Clinton, Inc. denials are about as hollow.

Here are some facts about the Clinton Foundation as a “charity” that Hillary Clinton was full-time pimping while simultaneously falsely serving America as Secretary of State:

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’
By Isabel Vincent
April 26, 2015 | 7:47am

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

Gosh, the Clinton Foundation is exactly the same as the above cancer “charities.”  The Clinton Foundation exists to benefit the Clintons, their family members (example, their daughter Chelsea and Hillary’s low-life brother), their friends (such as long-term Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal), and those they paid off in exchange for more influence.

Well over a thousand foreign donors weren’t even LISTED as having given to this slush fund that, among other things, sold America’s uranium to our historically worst enemy in exchange for $500,000 for a Bill Clinton speech (paid directly to the Clintons) and a $2.35 million “donation” (read “kickback”) to the Clinton Foundation Slush Fund that was never disclosed by the Clintons in spite of their agreement with the Obama Administration when Hillary took her job as Secretary of Swindle.

And there are literally DOZENS of corrupt deals like this that Hillary purged the details of from her private server.

We are just now learning that Hillary Clinton failed to report $26 MILLION is speaking fees that came from banks and foreign governments and leftist universities (you know, the kind of “free-thinking institutions” that purge all conservative speakers or shout them down if they’re invited).

At best, this woman wants to be president and run the economy of the nation and the planet and she’s clearly not even competent to run a damn foundation.  That if she’s NOT an outright criminal – which she sure is – who belongs in THE BIG HOUSE rather than the White House for her crimes.

It took Hillary Clinton TWO YEARS after leaving as Secretary of State to comply with ANY release of her emails from her private server.  Because it took that long for her acolytes to purge all the thousands of criminal emails.  If there’s not a shred of evidence, it is ONLY because she SHREDDED all the evidence.

And all the while, as she was serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s Temple Priestesses kept a fascistically Nazi-tight reign over public documents that should have been required to be released by law.

While we now learn that the Clinton Foundation has played fast and loose with the law and concealed foreign donations to the tune of MILLIONS that they are now having to acknowledge by amending previous tax returns.

Hillary Clinton has been exposed as a liar for her pathetic “reason” why she elected to go with a private server-grounded private email account so she would only need to use one device (she regularly used at least four).

She’s been caught lying about the fact that she actually used AT LEAST TWO private email accounts rather than what she first claimed through her liars I mean lawyers.

But what can we do?  Our national media is dominated by obvious propagandist hacks like George Stephanopoulos, incredibly a.k.a. ABC News’ chief political anchor when it was beyond obvious twenty freaking years ago that this guy was a biased turd rather than any kind of legitimate journalist.  As one example all the media are falling all over themselves like a dozen puppies all trying to get to the food bowl at once whether Republicans would have still gone to war in Iraq “knowing what we know now.”  How about asking every Democrat, “Would you still have cut-and-ran from Iraq and abandoned everything our troops sacrificed so much to win the way Obama did “knowing what you know now” about Islamic State now OWNING what we surrendered to them???

Maybe James T. Reynolds, Sr. or his corrupt kid should run for president and vice president on the Democrat ticket, given the Democrats love of fascist crooks.

Here’s the thing: just because Obama is keeping the American people from seeing what kind of a crook his successor-thug is doesn’t mean that foreign governments won’t be able to blackmail a President Hillary Clinton.  The fact of the matter is that foreign governments – including all of our very most dangerous enemies – were able to easily penetrate Hillary Clinton’s private server upon which she stored so many vital American national secrets, says the CIA.  And says the Defense Intelligence Agency.  And they’ve got the dirty laundry on Hillary that Obama and his lawthugs like Eric Holder have been doing their best to keep from the American people.

So if you vote for Hillary in 2016 and later wonder why your Traitor-in-Chief betrayed you for the obvious interests of a foreign government, well, you just should have known, fool.

Advertisements

‘Non-Stop’ Liberal Fascism And The Vileness Of Liberalism Which ALWAYS Twists Truth And Reality

April 15, 2014

What the hell – and I DO mean “hell” because hell is IN these people – is wrong with liberals?

Here’s the latest outrage in which liberals “twist” truth and reality by making the real-life villains the victims and the heroes while making the real-life victims and heroes the villains:

On Saturday, Breitbart.com reported that the villain in Liam Neeson’s new action thriller, “Non-Stop,” is a 9/11 family member who also served in the military.

“‘Non-Stop’ is a good movie,” John Nolte wrote. “Heck, it is darn near very good. But the left-wing sucker punch at the end is a new low, even for Hollywood.”

Nolte said the villain joined the military after losing a loved on in the terror attack on the World Trade Center, but became disillusioned by the ongoing wars.

So, the veteran decides to blow everyone up on a plane so the air marshal can get blamed, causing airport security to be tightened even further.

Worse yet, Nolte added, the villain’s sidekick turns out to be an American military member willing to murder 150 innocent people for money.

Moreover, Nolte said the “one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.”

Glenn Beck also excoriated the movie, according to a post at The Blaze.

“It is really great, until you find out that the killer is U.S. military and a guy who believes in the Constitution,” he said sarcastically. “Oh, darn it. Did I just wreck that movie for everybody? Oh, I didn’t mean to…”

Beck said that even in liberal New York, the ending was met with groans.

“I’m not going to say anymore, except the killer is … a schoolteacher and so you completely dismiss him,” he added. “And there’s a little hole in the bathroom where they do a blow-dart, and they kill the pilot.”

The Blaze added:

Beck said the killer’s rationale was something “nonsensical” along the lines of: “It’s the government that has been putting people like you, you drunkard, on planes and allowing you to be our TSA. And that’s just wrong. So I’m going to blow everything up and take the money. I’ve got a parachute here, so I’m going to live. And I’m going to take all the money, and I’m going to get away with it. A-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha.”

He also said the movie shows that “no amount of research … can help these people in Hollywood,” because they simply do not understand what a “wildly, wildly insulting movie” they made.

Beck’s advise: “Don’t go see Non-Stop.”

Nolte had even harsher words: “Sc**w you, Hollywood.”

“Non-Stop” is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America for “intense sequences of action and violence, some language, sensuality and drug references,” and was given two out of four stars by the Associated Press‘ Jake Coyle.

That’s right.  It doesn’t matter if in REALITY Muslims are responsible for 99.99999% of all terrorist attacks and 9/11 victims’ families and the heroes who served are responsible for 0.0000001%.  Because to be “liberal” means to think just the opposite of reality and piss on the truth.

Liberals are the people who constantly assure us that Nazis are “right-wing” because everybody apparently just knows that if there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party” the way Nazi stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” it would be a conservative Republican Party.  Because you know how we conservatives adore “socialism” and “workers parties” and how much the left despises them.

Oh, wait.  It’s the other way around.  Not that lying liberals give a damn.

Liberals have managed to assure us that women who want to murder their own babies are heroes and victims and the babies they kill are worthless things that have no right to life.  Babies, liberals assure us, have the duty to die for the convenience of their mommies much the same way that Jews had the duty to die for the convenience of Adolf.

Liberals have managed to assure us that homosexual men who lust after being bending over and being sodomized by another man after sucking him to orgasm are “normal” and the people who recognize that these people are depraved, unnatural perverts are the weirdos.

LIberals have managed to assure us that snarling black men who join the Black Panthers with the following message –

We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

– aren’t racist at all.  They aren’t racist – morally depraved jackass liberal pseudo-intellectuals tell us – because black people are people who hold both the presidency and the attorney generalship and are therefore victims forever and thus incapable of “racism.”  Do you know who IS racist?  Republicans.  Not ALL Republicans, they tell us out of their fairness and decency.  Just ALMOST all of them:

WASHINGTON — “Not all” Republicans are racist, said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) on Sunday, but “to a significant extent, the Republican base has elements that are animated by racism, and that’s unfortunate.”

Israel’s comment was in response to a question from CNN’s Candy Crowley, who asked the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder this week. In a speech to a civil rights group, Holder questioned his treatment by Republican lawmakers at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, and implied that race may have played a role.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also suggested this past week that racism was a factor in the Republican party’s opposition to immigration reform. “I think race has something to do with the fact that they’re not bringing up an immigration bill,” Pelosi told reporters, adding, “I’ve heard them say to the Irish, if it were just you, this would be easy.”

Which of course means that the same “almost” all of the 54% of Americans who voted to have that Republican majority are clearly “racist,” too.

And of course, liberals have assured us that it is “racist” to try to limit or reduce illegal voting in any way, shape or form.  But that it is most definitely NOT “racist” to stand outside a voting place with clubs threatening and mocking voters of the other political party (and see here and here).

Liberals have assured us that Jesus was a socialist who demanded that King Herod and Pontius Pilate be empowered to radically expand big government to “help” the poor with institutionalized welfare rather than saying to His disciples, “YOU feed them.”  In the same vein, liberals have assured us that Barack Obama and Joe Biden – who gave poor people VIRTUALLY NOTHING from their own wealth are “generous” and that men like Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney – who gave 28% and 78% of their respective incomes to charity – are “selfish.”

Democrats and liberals are people who pathologically pervert the truth and slander reality.

I am so sick to my soul of twisted and perverted liberal “morality” that makes a mockery of everything the Word of God declares it is beyond unreal.

 

 

Why The More Democrats Destroy The American Economy, The Better It Will Be For Them Politically

April 9, 2013

In my student years and then in my working years, I have met many women whose boyfriends, live-in boyfriends or husbands treated them worse than I would treat dog crap.

It worked beautifully for the guys: they so destroyed these women’s self-esteem that they stayed with the men who abused them.

Why?  Their spirits were so crushed that they had been convinced that the low-life scum who abused them were the best they could ever hope to get.

And so they foolishly and self-destructively remained in abusive relationships.  If they had the crap beat out of them, they made sure to tell the police a story about some accident that hadn’t happened.

They sustained and protected and nurtured a “relationship” that was literally worse than cancer.

The national economic equivalent of the man I just described is Barack Hussein Obama.

He has so completely crushed so many desperate people – after selling them lie after lie after lie after lie – while holding out his socialist welfare state as the only solution for his massive economic failure – that many Americans believe Obama’s welfare society is their only hope.

Americans discouraged by economic recovery leave labor force
Published April 07, 2013
Associated Press

WASHINGTON –  After a full year of  fruitless job hunting, Natasha Baebler just gave up.

She’d already abandoned hope of getting work in her field, working with the  disabled. But she couldn’t land anything else, either — not even a job interview  at a telephone call center.

Until she feels confident enough to send out resumes again, she’ll get by on  food stamps and disability checks from Social Security and live with her parents  in St. Louis.

“I’m not proud of it,” says Baebler, who is in her mid-30s and is blind. “The  only way I’m able to sustain any semblance of self-preservation is to rely on  government programs that I have no desire to be on.”

Baebler’s frustrating experience has become all too common nearly four years  after the Great Recession ended: Many Americans are still so discouraged that  they’ve given up on the job market.

Older Americans have retired early. Younger ones have enrolled in school.  Others have suspended their job hunt until the employment landscape brightens.  Some, like Baebler, are collecting disability checks.

It isn’t supposed to be this way. After a recession, an improving economy is  supposed to bring people back into the job market.

Instead, the number of Americans in the labor force — those who have a job or  are looking for one — fell by nearly half a million people from February to  March, the government said Friday. And the percentage of working-age adults in  the labor force — what’s called the participation rate — fell to 63.3 percent  last month. It’s the lowest such figure since May 1979.

The falling participation rate tarnished the only apparent good news in the  jobs report the Labor Department released Friday: The unemployment rate dropped  to a four-year low of 7.6 percent in March from 7.7 in February.

People without a job who stop looking for one are no longer counted as  unemployed. That’s why the U.S. unemployment rate dropped in March despite weak  hiring. If the 496,000 who left the labor force last month had still been  looking for jobs, the unemployment rate would have risen to 7.9 percent in  March.

“Unemployment dropped for all the wrong reasons,” says Craig Alexander, chief  economist with TD Bank Financial Group. “It dropped because more workers stopped  looking for jobs. It signaled less confidence and optimism that there are jobs  out there.”

The participation rate peaked at 67.3 percent in 2000, reflecting an influx  of women into the work force. It’s been falling steadily ever since.

Part of the drop reflects the baby boom generation’s gradual move into  retirement. But such demographics aren’t the whole answer.

Even Americans of prime working age — 25 to 54 years old — are dropping out  of the workforce. Their participation rate fell to 81.1 percent last month, tied  with November for the lowest since December 1984.

“It’s the lack of job opportunities — the lack of demand for workers — that  is keeping these workers from working or seeking work,” says Heidi Shierholz, an  economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. The Labor Department says  there are still more than three unemployed people for every job opening.

Cynthia Marriott gave up her job search after an  interview in October for a position as a hotel concierge.

“They never said no,” she says. “They just never called me back.”

Her husband hasn’t worked full time since 2006. She cashed out her 401(k)  after being laid off from a job at a Los Angeles entertainment publicity firm in  2009. The couple owes thousands in taxes for that withdrawal. They have no  health insurance.

She got the maximum 99 weeks’ of unemployment benefits then allowed in  California and then moved to Atlanta.

Now she is looking to receive federal disability benefits for a lung  condition that she said leaves her weak and unable to work a full day. The  application is pending a medical review.

“I feel like I have no choice,” says Marriott, 47. “It’s just really sad and  frightening”

During the peak of her job search, Marriott was filling out 10 applications a  day. She applied for jobs she felt overqualified for, such as those at Home  Depot and Petco but never heard back. Eventually, the disappointment and fatigue  got to her.

“I just wanted a job,” she says. “I couldn’t really go on anymore looking for  a job.”

Young people are leaving the job market, too. The participation rate for  Americans ages 20 to 24 hit a 41-year low 69.6 percent last year before bouncing  back a bit. Many young people have enrolled in community colleges and  universities. That’s one reason a record 63 percent of adults ages 25 to 29 have  spent at least some time in college, according to the Pew Research Center.

Older Americans are returning to school, too. Doug Damato, who lives in  Asheville, N.C., lost his job as an installer at a utility company in February  2012. He stopped looking for work last fall, when he began taking classes in  mechanical engineering at Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College.

Next week, Damato, 40, will accept an academic award for earning top grades.  But one obstacle has emerged: Under a recent change in state law, his  unemployment benefits will now end July 1, six months earlier than he  expected.

He’s planning to work nights, if possible, to support himself once the  benefits run out. Dropping out of school is “out of the question,” he said,  given the time he has already put into the program.

“I don’t want a handout,” he says. “I’m trying to better myself.”

Many older Americans who lost their jobs are finding refuge in Social  Security’s disability program. Nearly 8.9 million Americans are receiving  disability checks, up 1.3 million from when the recession ended in June  2009.

Natasha Baebler’s journey out of the labor force and onto the disability  rolls began when she lost her job serving disabled students and staff members at  Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., in February 2012.

For six months, she sought jobs in her field, brandishing master’s degrees in  social education and counseling. No luck.

Then she just started looking for anything. Still, she had no takers.

“I chose to stop and take a step back for a while … After you’ve seen that  amount of rejection,” she says, “you start thinking, ‘What’s going to make this  time any different?'”

Let’s just call it “Battered Worker Syndrome.”

How did Obama campaign against Mitt Romney?  Well, this rich turd demonized and slandered Mitt Romney as a rich turd who didn’t care about the poor.  Even though while Obama – just a couple years before deciding to run for president – gave virtually NOTHING to the poor or to charity, Mitt Romney was giving tens of millions of dollars to the poor.  Who was the real rich turd who didn’t care about the poor?

Look at the one-percenter vacation-vacation-vacation lifestyle of the Obamas since they got to live off the fat of everybody else.  And then consider that the Romenys never even had a damn MAID.

Republicans are generous people.  In fact they are FAR more generous than Democrats.  But rather than cynically exploiting the desperation of the poor to create wasteful federal bureaucracy after wasteful federal bureaucracy that pisses away other people’s money, Republicans believe that WE as individuals should give, whereas Democrats believe that they are generous because they’re willing to give away other people’s money.

Republicans don’t want tax cuts because they’re greedy or selfish; they want tax cuts because if they are allowed to control more of their own money, they will be able to build a better, bigger economy that will benefit EVERYONE.  They want tax cuts because it is better for both those who give to the needy as well as the needy who receive the gifts when private individuals and organizations control the charitable giving.

Margaret Thatcher put it brilliantly: Under the failed policies of the liberals, Britain had degenerated into “the new sick man of Europe.”  The economy was in shambles when Thatcher took over.  She turned the nation around.  But liberals couldn’t have cared less; what mattered to them was that the rich had become richer along with everyone else in the nation.   And as Margaret Thatcher put it, “Liberals prefer that the poor become poorer so long as the rich become less rich.”

You were lied to by a wicked man.  And on the other side of that coin is the fact that it is bad people who believe lies.  Which means YOU.

But Obama knows how to slander.  He knows how to demonize.  He knows how to fearmonger.  No one but the coming Antichrist will ever be better at it.  And Obama’s new Democrat Party will frame the next election this way: if you vote for Republicans, they’ll end the welfare state that you [thanks to Democrats] now depend on.

It takes courage and selfless integrity to vote outside of yourself and support the policies that will be best for THE COUNTRY and for the country’s longer-term prosperity.  Obama knows that you don’t have either one of those things.  He trusts in your cowardice and in your greed, and he knows how to exploit those pathetic traits that now dominate the American people’s national “character.”

What Obama promised would work we now know DIDN’T.  The average American household lost forty percent of its wealth thanks to Obama’s failed policies.  The median household lost $4,300 under Obama. But – like Hillary Clinton said over the treasonous debacle in Benghazi – “What difference does it make now?”  You know, now that thanks to liberalism you’re dependent on the tit of the federal government and if you can’t keep sucking other people’s money you’ll die because you’ve been reduced to being helpless?

Next presidential election, I believe that people will vote for their welfare check and to hell with the economy.  And I believe that because that’s pretty much what we did in 2008 and in 2012.

The Republican Party is the party of adults who have finally reached the place where they know what will make a business or a household economic plan work.  They are adults who have worked hard to earn something and believe that they  should be able to keep more of what they earn rather than giving it away to a class-warfare system of Marxist redistributionism [in exchange for votes].  And Obma knows that the American people have degenerated into children who want their mommy and daddy – or after mommy and daddy the federal government – to keep treating them like babies forever.

That’s why the worse things get economically, the better off the Democrat Party will be in 2016.

A Christmas Story (Alas, No Carols Were Involved)

December 24, 2012

I had an enjoyable time serving as a volunteer for the Christmas Store program through my church.

It began with my serving as what I termed a “poultry elf” delivering Christmas food packages to the cars of the hundreds of families who were signed up to participate in  our Christmas Store.  Without mentioning any names, it actually began with the daughter of the Christmas Store coordinator coming through the door with a family while serving as a personal shopper.

Oops.  I’d better tell you about the Christmas Store.  It is a wonderful program that seeks to provide a Merry Christmas! to families in need.  As families show up for their appointments, a family photo is taken with Santa, which is printed out and ultimately given to the family as a nice card.  This year we had The Best Santa Ever.  The man was a giant teddy bear who towered over 6’6″ and didn’t need a pillow with his Santa Suit.  This volunteer was there every single day for 12 hours a day during the four days the “store” was open and never missed a single family (again, out of HUNDREDS of families).  Little boys would stare up at this giant in sheer amazement.  The Best Santa Ever.  I had one of those “ahhhhhhh” moments when Santa got up during a short break in the action to cool down outside in his red “They don’t call it the North Pole for nothin'” suit: half a dozen children sitting in the foyer immediately sat at attention and waved and waved shouting, “Hi Santa!  Hi Santa!”  I said he’d be back: he just had to check on some reindeer.  Mind you, our Santa looked like he could have wrestled down and saddled up a polar bear and ridden IT.  Best. Santa. Ever.

After the picture, children go into rooms according to age to wait while their parents “shop” for their gifts.  The Christmas store has one “big gift” and “two small gifts” for every single child.  Last year the coordinator cried describing a miracle to the congregation because they had been OUT of gifts and suddenly nearly a dozen enormous bags of presents showed up in a locked room in which only she and the church staff had the key.  It was ALWAYS kept locked because lots of presents were in there that were yet to be brough out onto the floor and we didn’t want them stolen for the sake of the children to come.  And the coordinator knew there were no more presents because she’d gone in there minutes earlier and freaked out to find an empty room with families still coming through.  And then whammo, suddenly there were awesome presents!  Those presents got the store through the rest of that final day.  She is to this day convinced that God beamed those presents into that room.  I don’t know who – or Who – put those huge bags in there, but to me it is every bit as much a miracle that God could move someone to buy that many presents and then smuggle them into that locked room at just that right moment.  Either way, it’s always amazing to see how God works, isn’t it?

Anyway, a “personal shopper” escorts each parent, guardian or couple through the rooms that the appropriate gifts for the children’s ages are displayed.  The personal shopper gets an opportunity to talk with and pray with the parents as they go through.  After the parents pick out the gifts for their children, they go to the wrapping room to wrap the gifts while the children are waiting in classrooms with volunteers.  They aren’t just “waiting,” mind you; they get to hear about Jesus Christ.

After the gifts are wrapped so the children can’t see them, the parents pick up their children and proceed outside – where a food package is waiting for them.  Each family gets a 13 lb. turkey and a large box of canned and dry goods.

So anyway, the daughter of the Christmas Store coordinator comes out while I’m helping as a “poultry elf” and tells me that this family gets two packages because she’s signed up to go through the store (she’s a young, poor, single mother herself) and she wants this family to have her food package.

Well, that’s neat, I thought.

Anyway, I was serving for a couple of hours bringing the food to the families’ cars when I came upon one particular family.  The mother was so surprised and so delighted about the food that it lit me up.  They had five kids and she told me both sets of grandparents were going to be there.  Well, I did the math and came up with the decision to give this family another food package.  And watched momma’s face light up with joy again when I came out to their old car with it.

I interrupt my narrative to add the fact that this family was black and that the people who provided all the food were rich old white people who are clearly greedy by liberal definition.  Because greedy rich old white people on behalf of the chapel at an incredibly caucasian-populated “snowbird trailer park” common to our area had spent over $5,000 buying those turkeys.  Other rich, greedy white people had bought all those canned and dry goods for these families to have a Merry Christmas dinner regardless of their race, culture or creed.  And a whopping share of families spoke only Spanish.  Which is really quite surprising given the “fact” that rich greedy old white people hate them Mexicans so damn much.

I just wish that the liberals who so frequently slander evangelical Christians had the slightest clue about how much money and time we give to the people they slander us for hating.  I just wish that they knew that Christians in thousands of churches give billions of dollars to the needy; and that maybe they would rather be able to do that than let Obama seize their money so he can give it to political boondoggles like Solyndra.  But as hard as it is for a rich man to enter heaven, the Bible is even more clear that it is even harder for an ignorant fool to ever become anything other than an ignorant fool.

We also gave away lots of toiletries (shampoo, toothpaste, pretty much you name it, we gave it away) to help these families.  One young Hispanic family just had lost everything in an apartment fire.  We found them immeidate housing, and gave them clothes, jackets, blankets and everything we could round up to give them.  And we’re not done with that family yet, either.

But I digress.

I told the coordinator what I’d done knowing that she wouldn’t be happy with me and knowing why she wouldn’t be happy.  Those turkeys had to last for all the families.  And my “generosity” could cost another family such that they didn’t get any food at all.

Well, I thought about it.  The worst people on earth are those who are “generous with other peoples’ money.”  We call them liberals and they are the worst, the most self-righteous, the most sanctimonious people on earth as they seize money from people they demonize in order to cynically redistribute it to people who will vote for them and keep them in power.  And it didn’t take very long to occur to me that if that situation were to arise, well, I owed that family.  After all, I had given that extra food package to that family.  And if anybody needed to “pay his fair share” to take care of the family that may not have received a package because of what I did, it was me with my own money; not the “Other People’s Money” with which liberals “help.”

A figure just popped into my head with crystal clarity: $35.  That was about what each food package cost as I thought about the cost of the turkey (about a dollar a pound at Wal-Mart) and the canned and dry goods.  I made sure I had $35 cash in my billfold and decided to monitor the turkey situation and make sure I would be there for the first family to not get a turkey if that situation occurred and give them $35.  It was worth it; I’d felt led to do it and it felt like the right thing to do.

As it turned out, we had more than enough turkeys.  I was “spared” having to give money to some family I’d deprived.  And I felt further vindicated that I’d done what the Lord had led me to do.

Yea for me.

But it turns out God wasn’t done with that $35 that I now merrily thought was mine again.

You see, there was another issue that was going on at the same time.  The daughter of the coordinator was trying to give away three very cute puppies that she’d brought in her old minivan.  The son of our Santa Claus – a teenager who had ADHD – made it his mission in life to give away those puppies.  And he gave away two of them.  One of them went to a mother who had just lost her dog when it jumped out of her car.  When she heard that these puppies were a mix of the same breed of the dog she lost, she came over and ended up adopting a pup.  Her son was soon holding that dog and utterly refusing to give it up.  But the third puppy was a different story.

It clearly had an eye infection, because it’s eyes were “gooey” and rather painful looking.  And nobody wanted it because they didn’t want to get stuck with the vet bill.

Santa’s son was beside himself worrying about this puppy he’d tried to give away all night.  He had waylaid each family as they came out clutching this puppy to his chest to keep it warm.  He was afraid that nobody would help it and it would die.  He desperately wanted his dad to let him take that puppy home – but it was pretty obvious that this was one Christmas wish Santa was NOT going to grant.

I heard the daughter of the coordinator talking to some other volunteers.  She didn’t know what to do.  Even the shelters wanted to charge her to take the puppy, and she couldn’t afford to pay for a veterinarian’s office charge.

I heard a young man say that the Animal Samaritan’s charges $35 for a vet visit, not counting the cost of the medicine the pup would surely need.  Which was WAY too much for the daughter to afford.

And then I heard God say, “Ahem.”  I didn’t have to look up at the sky and point at myself with a questioning look.  I knew He was talking to me.

And I realized that God had been buttering me up just like the turkeys I was giving away with the notion that I should pay $35 for a food package for a needy family.  Because He’d known that I wouldn’t have otherwise felt very led to give money for the care of somebody else’s puppy problem.  You know, unless He sneaked it in on me.  I love animals, but I generally give my money to charities for PEOPLE.

That’s when I realized that I’d already devoted that money to the Lord, whether I’d thought so or not.  And the Lord had a use for it.

Because I didn’t WANT the Christmas store to run out of turkeys; and why was I “off the hook” to the Lord for money I had already committed to Him simply because the Lord had graciously come through and given me what I wanted?  And I realized I wasn’t giving money to help a puppy; I was giving money to help PEOPLE to help that puppy.

I suddenly blurted out that I would be willing to pay that $35 vet bill – which just somehow happened to be the exact same figure as the figure that had been repeatedly in my head regarding the cost of the food package.  And another guy immediately volunteered another $20 to help that puppy out.

Found out this morning that that sum was exactly the cost of the entire vet bill for that puppy.  And that it will be fine now.

Well, there was another little miracle in this story: that teenage boy was determined to take that puppy home because he was worried about it and wanted to make sure it was okay.  He’d come to love it because he’d held it and watched over it for a good share of the day.  When I came out (this being after the last family had been through the store) there was a rather raging argument going on between that kid and his no-longer-Santa dad.  But I was able to calm the boy down by assuring him that the puppy would get to go to the vet and somebody would surely adopt him when he was recovered from his eye infection.

It’s so often amazing how God works.  He worked for a mother and young boy who had just lost their dog by giving them an adorable puppy of the very same rather rare breed that they had lost; He worked for the coordinator’s daughter who wanted to do the right thing for that little puppy but was daunted by the cost of doing that right thing; He worked in the heart of that ADHD boy who may have been worried about that puppy as an extension of himself (if the puppy was a throwaway because of its eyes, was that boy a throwaway with his ADHD?); and He worked on me, frugality and all.  Because He brought me through a process – as He so often does – to the point where I was able to see things HIS way and then rejoice at the outcome.  I’d started out reluctantly being willing to pay for the consequences of something I’d felt led to do.  I ended up trying to think of how I’d ever spent that same amount of money that had brought me more sheer pleasure than this – and couldn’t think of a single time in my life.

There were scores of people who received Jesus through the Christmas Store, not counting those who were rededicating their lives to Christ.  Over nine hundred Bibles were given away.  God moved, whether any atheist could see it or not.  And He moved in large ways and in small ways through His people.

Merry Christmas!  Celebrate the birth of the King of kings.

Charlie Rangel’s Bogus Attack On Mitt Romney As Some Kind Of Tax Cheat Qualifies Him As A Poster Boy For Abject Democrat Hypocrisy

September 21, 2012

The Democrat Party is THE party of dishonesty, hypocrisy and moral idiocy.  From Hot Air:

Congressionally censured tax cheat tells Romney ‘Americans pay their taxes, unlike you.’
posted at 12:01 pm on September 20, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

Chutzpah, thy name is Charlie Rangel:

“Nothing can be further from the truth than Gov. Romney’s ridiculous remarks that nearly half of American people do not pay federal income taxes, they pay other federal and state taxes. The 47 percent figure cited by the Republican presidential candidate covers only the federal income tax and ignores the fact that people may pay a higher percentage of their income on a wide variety of taxes.

Everyone pays taxes. Lower income persons pay state and local, property, excise and sales taxes. In fact, when all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent. This is higher than what the Governor has paid in income taxes. He has absolutely no moral authority to accuse nearly half of the American people of being irresponsible and freeloaders.”

Speaking of “absolutely no moral authority,” let’s go over Rangel’s record, who was censured by the House of Representatives for a multitude of tax and ethics violations made while he was in charge of writing the nation’s tax policy as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Rep. Charlie Rangel amended his financial disclosure forms under pressure in 2009 to show “that he had omitted an array of assets, business transactions and sources of income. They include a Merrill Lynch Global account valued between $250,000 and $500,000; tens of thousands of dollars in municipal bonds; and $30,000 to $100,000 in rent from a multifamily brownstone building he owned on West 132nd Street.” That wasn’t all. “The latest filings come on top of an amendment to Mr. Rangel’s 2007 disclosure form reported this week showing that he had failed to list at least $500,000 in assets.” The new disclosures doubled Rangel’s net worth.

Rep. Charlie Rangel rented several apartments in Harlem at suspiciously below-market rates from a big campaign donor, combining several to create his home while using one of them as a campaign office. That was a violation of rent-control laws, which require rent-controlled apartments to be used as residences.

Rep. Charlie Rangel parked his Mercedes for free in a Congressional parking space for about five years, never declaring the approximate $300 monthly fee on his taxes, as IRS rules require. Luckily, the House Ethics committee determined that he didn’t violate any rules because they only apply rules about parking to staff, not members.

Rep. Charlie Rangel used Congressional letterhead to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York from companies that might have significant interests in the policy making of his committee, a move ethicists said “crossed the line.” He’d already funneled federal earmarks for the center.

Later, one of the big donors to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service benefitted richly when Rangel changed his position on closing a tax loophole.

Rep. Charlie Rangel failed to report $75,000 in rental income or pay taxes on a Dominican villa he owned, causing the New York Times to call for him to step down from his Ways and Means Chairmanship.

In 2008, Rep. Charlie Rangel was forced to pay back taxes on rental income on his villa in the Dominican Republic— a property he was advised to buy by one of his donors and for which he later received preferential treatment when the interest rate on his mortgage was waived.

Rep. Charlie Rangel took the “Property Homestead Deduction Act” tax break on his Washington, D.C. residence for five years, despite the fact that he maintained his primary residence in New York for electoral reasons. Lawmakers who maintain a residence in D.C. but must also maintain a primary residence in their districts are not eligible for the homestead break, tax lawyers told the NY Post.

Rangel is one of the most demonstrably corrupt manipulators of the tax code in Washington, and his longtime position as the guy who wrote tax code for the rest of us makes the corruption all the more despicable.

The headline on his press release should have been, “Americans pay their fair share in taxes, unlike me.”

H/t Village Voice.

Well, little people and Republicans.

If you take away Mitt Romney’s considerable charitable giving, he’s actually paying a tax rate of 42%.  But it doesn’t matter to Democrats that Mitt Romney has given 15% of his income to charity versus Obama who is the most caring man who ever lived but gave less than one measly percent of his wealth to charity.

There is ZERO evidence that Mitt Romney has failed to pay so much as a DIME of taxes that he has owed.  Versus dishonest cockroach liars like Charlie Rangel.

But being the party of rabid dishonesty and hypocrisy, it is no wonder that the Democrat Party would allow Rangel to make such a complete hypocrite ass out of himself.

Why Do Depraved Democrats Deceitfully Distort Jesus To Demagogue Republicans???

August 29, 2012

This is so par for the course it’s simply beyond unreal:

Look up the term “socialist” in ANY reasonably legitimate source and tell me that a socialist is somebody who wants to force people to give all of their money to the Judeo-Christian God of the Holy Bible. No. Rather, a socialist is somebody who wants to create an all-powerful State in PLACE of God and give that all-powerful State the power to confiscate and redistribute wealth and resources as it wills.

I would first like you to consider what Jesus actually said about taxes, God and government as found in Matthew 22:15-22.  Allow me to set the stage for you.  The Pharisees who DESPISE Jesus are trying to entrap Him.  The come upon a great plan to force Jesus into an impossible dilemma; force Jesus to either say that Jews should pay taxes to Caesar, making Him a religious heretic, or force Him to say that Jews should NOT pay taxes to Caesar, making him a full-fledge traitor against Rome.  Here is the story:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.  And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.  “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”  But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?  “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius.  And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”  And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.

It’s too damn bad we can’t make Democrats go away the same way.

Does Jesus endorse socialism here?  Does Jesus answer the Pharisees by saying, “There is no difference between giving unto Caesar and giving unto God, for God and the State are one and the same such that when you give to Caesar you ARE giving to God”???  Does Jesus say that?

Does Jesus EVER say anything remotely CLOSE to that???

Jesus is telling us that whatever money you give – or are forced to give – to Obama’s regime doesn’t do your soul one tiny bit of good.  Because there is a very real distinction between giving to the State and giving to God according to Jesus.  And it is a wicked, despicable state indeed that forces people to give so much damn money to their government that they don’t have enough left to give to their God.

Liberal states such as New York and California expect you to pay more than HALF of everything you earn to the state if you are in the top income bracket.  And that is immoral.

Let’s look at the passage of Scripture the Democrat alludes to in the cartoon above (Matthew 19:16-21):

And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”  And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”  Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;  HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”  The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?”  Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

A couple of things follow from this passage: first of all, is it not the Democrat Party that appoints the judges and holds that the Ten Commandments that Jesus says from the first we need to inherit eternal life should be BANISHED from our schools and from all public discourse???  It most certainly is – which is already one gigantic strike against any hypocrite Democrat who wants to claim this passage.  But let us go on to the second point: does Jesus instruct this man to go, be taxed for all of his possessions and give it to Obama??? 

Obama and the Democrat Party are wailing in sheer unmitigated RAGE at what Jesus tells the man to do: DON’T give it to Obama; DON’T give it to the government; DON”T give it to the socialist regime.  Whatever you do, do not allow Obama to have one red stinking cent of it; rather, give it to the poor people.  Give it not to the State, but to the CHURCH.

Democrats have so utterly perverted this passage that it is insane.  It is for this reason I point out what “Democrat” truly means: it means, “Demonic Bureaucrat.”

Let’s look at what God thinks about big government as found in 1 Samuel 8:5-19:

and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.  The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day– in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods– so they are doing to you also.  “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.  He said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.  “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.  “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.  “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.  “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.  “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.  “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us…

Now, after reading this, if you still actually believe that high taxation and a king who would take and take and take was what God actually wanted, you are a genuine fool.  Which is another way of saying, “You are a Democrat.”

That king who takes and takes and takes – that’s King Obama.

Jews in Old Testament times paid no more than 25% a year in taxes.  And that was in the perverted system that God had explicitly condemned.

Professor of Old Testament Studies Dr. Claude Mariottini noted about the 1 Samuel passage above:

In the Old Testament, the people had to pay their taxes to the state. In the history of Israel it seems that it was with the establishment of the monarchy that taxation became a permanent obligation for every citizen. With the establishment of the monarchy in Israel, the people were required to pay for the extravagances of the government and many people did not like the demands imposed upon them by the state. There is evidence in the Bible that the people resisted taxation and the compulsory exaction of revenues.

After the return from Babylon, the Jews were required to pay an annual payment of one third of a shekel (Nehemiah 10:32). Soon, the third became a half, an amount of money that was paid by every Jew, in whatever part of the world he might be living.

Under the monarchy, a centralized government was established and with it came luxurious living and a large bureaucracy, two things that required a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxation.

Samuel warned the people about how the king and his government would operate. He told the people that the king would take their sons and make them soldiers. The king would put some of the people to forced labor to work on his farms, plowing and harvesting his crops. The king would conscript some of the people to make either weapons of war or chariots in which he could ride in luxury.

Samuel also said that the kings would conscript some women to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He would conscript their best fields, vineyards, and orchards and give them over to his officials. He would tax their harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. He would take their prize workers and best animals for his own use. He also would lay a tax on their flocks and all their property and in the end the people would be no better than slaves. Then Samuel warned the people that the day would come when they would cry in desperation because of the oppressive burden imposed upon them by their king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). The day came, the people cried, but it was too late.

He also notes a number of Democrats who hypocritically didn’t pay the very high taxes that they themselves demagogued that others be forced to pay – such as Obama appointees Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and Tim Geithner.

H.W. Crocker noted in his book Triumph (page 240):

“The tinder had been laid by the rising nationalism in Europe. That nationalism set out to subordinate the Church—in the eyes of some, an Italian Church (as it had been a French Church while in Avignon)—to the state. This would lead, two hundred years later, to the Protestant doctrine of separation of church and state, and two hundred years after that to the irrelevance of church to state. There was also the resentment of papal taxation, corruption, and luxury. Christendom’s kings followed a low-tax-regimen. No monarchy, from the Middle Ages until the democratic age, ever taxed its subjects by more than 10 percent. Often, as in Catholic England, it taxed them not at all. High taxes are an inventionof democratic, republican, and socialist governments to pay for such services as schools, hospitals, and caring for the poor that under the Catholic monarchies had been the province of the Church, and to pay for things like armies, which had been paid for by the royal families and noblemen out of their own pockets. But the absence of royal taxes meant that the Catholic Church’s demands for money to pay for its social services, or for the monasteries, or for cathedrals, or for rebuilding Rome, or for assembling Crusades, stood out as a burden imposed by a power centered in Italy—a burden that increasingly nationalist nobles and people resented.”

In the Old Testament it was GOD through His Temple who took care of the poor, not the government.  In the New Testament age and the Christendom that followed it, it was GOD through His Church who took care of the poor, not the government.  Now it is Government that takes care of the poor while Obama literally tries to force the Church out of its God-appointed role while Democrats try to marginalize the Church and religion more and more and more.

If in fact you are a Democrat who actually wants to enter the Kingdom of Heaven – which is in HEAVEN and not in Obama’s damn White House, for what it’s worth – the first thing you need to do is fall on your face and confess your sin of throwing out the Ten Commandments which you have thrown out of public life only to then pervert with lies.  And the second thing you need to do is confess your wickedness for your part in erecting a giant State in PLACE of God.  For you have usurped the role of God in caring for the poor and said, “We shall have no God over us!  We shall have a king!  We shall replace God with Government!”

Because the Bible is crystal clear: that is EXACTLY what you Democrats have done.

You depraved people have twisted and perverted and degenerated and warped the Bible even as you have rejected it and banned it from public discourse.  And you DARE to lecture us about your demonic straw man???

I’ve dealt with these themes before.  Note the title of the article I quote from below:  “Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor“:

So when liberals demand the expansion of government they are not being “pro-God”; they are being ANTI-God. And it also turns out to be the case that they are tragically anti-poor, too.

In another article, I wrote the following to document how Democrats have undermined charity in favor of socialism – while being anything butcharitable” in their own lives – while hurting the people they claimed they were helping:

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?” It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function. Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands. Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups. It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity. James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state. They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful. And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter. He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government. He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling. Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger. And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor. And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact. Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

Please note carefully that prior to FDR’s socialist New Deal, “Government as God” did NOT exist in America.  Americans took care of their own and they most certainly did NOT rely on wicked Government masquerading as God to do it.

I also want you to note as we enter the end of August and Obama’s convention that the facts reveal Obama has been an abject and unmitigated DISASTER for the middle class and for black people.  The so-called “Great Recession” that Obama has demagogically laid entirely on George Bush lasted from June 2007 until June 2009; and during that period households lost an average of 2.6% of their wealth.  Well, under Obama’s “wreckovery,” those same households have lost nearly DOUBLE what they lost in the actual recession – 4.8%.  And blacks during that same “wreckovery” have lost a staggering 11.1% of their wealth under Obama’s demonically failed leadership.

Don’t tell me that Barack Obama cares about the poor.  If he gave one damn about the poor he would resign from office.

Democrats demonize conservatives as “greedy” all the time because they are liars.  But the fact of the matter is conservatives are more “liberal” giversConservatives are the ones who are more generousConservatives are more generous givers than liberals.

The year before he announced he was running for president, Barack and Michelle Obama were among the wealthiest two percent in the entire nation.  And how much of their huge wealth did they give?  A stunningly pathetic 0.4 percent of their income.  The filthy rich Obamas gave $1,050 to charity when the AVERAGE AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD with nowhere near the Obamas’ resources gave away $1,872.

Here’s a fact:

“[D]uring a comparable period before Obama and Romney were running for president, Romney’s giving probably was at least ten times Obama’s as a percentage of their incomes, and possibly much more.”

Mitt Romney has given at least 10 percent of his wealth every year to charity.  Which means that Romney’s 10 percent amounts to 2,400 percent more giving out of his wealth than Obama gave out of his wealth at .4%.  And yet this greedy, stingy, wicked, deceitful hypocrite liberal Obama has actually demonized Mitt Romney for his “greed.”  And that is demonic.

I am beyond sick of the demonic lies of the Democrat Party and Barack Obama.  And nothing makes me more sick than when they deprave the Bible and Jesus to sell their lies.

If you are interested in the political left and its abject hostility toward God and religion, you should read this article as well: “Where Economic Marxism – And LIBERALISM -Truly Comes From: Hostility Toward God And Religion

(Hypocrite Alert): Why Is The Democrat Party Of FDR, JFK And John Kerry Attacking Mitt Romney Over His Wealth?

January 24, 2012

I have said it many times – and the reason I keep saying it is because it keeps proving true – that hypocrisy is the quintessential ingredient of a Democrat.  If you took all of the hypocrisy out of a Democrat, he or she would simply cease to exist.

Here’s an interesting headline:

Romney: Said he expected attacks on his wealth from Democrats. ‘.. will not apologize for being successful’

It brings back a flood of memories of the abject hypocrisy of Democrats.

Remember four years ago when Democrats attacked John McCain for not knowing how many houses he owned?  The mainstream media played that “gaffe” all over the airwaves to ensure you would think that John McCain was as out of touch as possible.

It didn’t matter that McCain didn’t actually own ANY houses (his wife owned them, with some of them being in a trust); it was just an opportunity for the media to dishonestly pile on top of a Republican and do what they do best – propaganda to demonize their ideological enemies.

Fast forward back four years prior to that, when John Kerry, the wealthiest man who ever ran for president, was campaigning.  How many damn houses did HE own?  Ooops.  Somehow the media never dredged that up.

The issue of personal wealth never came up with the mainstream media, in spite of the fact that John Kerry was worth $240 million – very nearly as much as Romney.  Ooops again.

Notice that John McCain is nowhere on the list of the ten wealthiest candidates for president.  John Edwards is.  Bill Clinton is.  Hillary Clinton is.  Al Gore is.  And John Kerry – the 2004 Democrat candidate for president – most assuredly is.  But the issue of their wealth and how they got it doesn’t matter; only Mitt Romney’s does.

The Democrat Party and their mainstream media allies are crawling all over Mitt Romney’s tax returns to demagogue his tax rate.  The figure 13.9% is raging; that’s the percentage the media claims Romney paid.  They intentionally omit the fact that if you remove Romney’s charitable donations, he’s actually paying a rate of 42%.

What rate did John Kerry pay at?  Oh, that doesn’t matter and never did because he’s a Democrat and therefore was immune to such inconvenient questions from the media propaganda?  I’m oh-so very sorry for asking. 

The fact that Obama gave less than 1% of his wealth to charity versus the fact that Romney gave 15% of his wealth to charity is also not on the mainstream media radar.  That’s not the kind of discussion the Democrat Party or their media allies want you to have around the water cooler or the coffee pot.

Two of the names that most Democrats would readily say were the greatest American presidents were filthy rich: John F. Kennedy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  But none of that matters.

Here’s what great Democrat President John F. Kennedy said about taxes:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


 “Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill


 “I have asked the secretary of the treasury to report by April 1 on whether present tax laws may be stimulating in undue amounts the flow of American capital to the industrial countries abroad through special preferential treatment.”

– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 6, 1961, message to Congress on gold and the balalnce of payments deficit


“In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment.”

– John F. Kennedy, April 20, 1961, message to Congress on taxation


“Our present tax system … exerts too heavy a drag on growth … It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking … The present tax load … distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference


“The present tax codes … inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform


“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference


“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform


“Expansion and modernization of the nation’s productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry … An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment.”

– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1961, message on economic recovery


 “We must start now to provide additional stimulus to the modernization of American industrial plants … I shall propose to the Congress a new tax incentive for businesses to expand their normal investment in plant and equipment.”

– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 13, 1961, National Industrial Conference Board


 “A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy


“This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes … Next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital … I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

But none of that matters to the media or to the modern Democrat Party – which embraced the communism that JFJK spent his presidency fighting – either.

Our mainstream media that gets to decide what stories get reported and fixated upon are the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.  And they WILL NOT report fairly or add proper context to their stories to communicate the truth.

The beast is coming, and the mainstream media will ignore his personal wealth, too, as he rules over the human race as the man who will fulfill all of liberals and Democrats big government dreams.

Vile Leftwing Professor Pours Hypocritical Hate On Congressman Paul Ryan For Drinking Glass Of Wine

July 11, 2011

It was just last week that I was able to look at Democrats’ personal behavior toward others and show that they as a species were really quite indistinguishable from cockroaches.

And here we are again, with cockroaches I mean Democrats being cockroaches I mean Democrats.

Rep. Ryan was at a restaurant with a dinner party when out of the blue this vile professor comes over and goes ballistic at his table, creating a giant scene until she was thrown out on her ear for being so rude and hateful.

It would probably be better if the management simply asked people at the door what party they belonged to and blocked Democrats as haters BEFORE they barged in and started scenes, in my view.

The following article asks some pretty wonderful questions of this leftwing self-righteous hypocrite.  I then have more piling on to do when Byron York gets done with this liberal turd:

Paul Ryan accuser won’t talk
By:Byron York | Chief Political Correspondent Follow Him @ByronYork | 07/11/11 8:47 AM.

Susan Feinberg, an associate professor of management and global business at  Rutgers University, caused a stir in the left-wing blogosphere over the weekend  with her account of witnessing House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan  drinking a glass of $350-a-bottle wine at an upscale restaurant near the  Capitol.  (Feinberg, who was at the restaurant, Bistro Bis, with her  husband to celebrate her birthday, knew the wine was pricey because she could  make out the name on the label and checked it on the wine list.)  Feinberg  confronted Ryan, accusing him of hypocrisy for drinking an expensive wine while  advocating reduced spending for Medicare and Medicaid.  But she didn’t stop  there.  Feinberg also suggested Ryan might be guilty of ethics violations,  secretly snapped a photo of him and two dinner companions, and then took the  “story” to Talking Points Memo, the lefty site which ran a high-profile  piece suggesting Ryan might be guilty of some sort of wrongdoing.

Ryan told TPM that his two dinner-mates had ordered the wine, and that he,  Ryan, didn’t know what it cost and drank only one glass.  Ryan’s  explanation was supported by TPM’s account, presumably based on Feinberg’s  recollection, which said that when Feinberg confronted Ryan about the cost of  his wine, “Ryan said only: ‘Is that how much it was?'”

Nevertheless, Feinberg and TPM hinted that Ryan might have violated House  ethics rules by accepting an expensive meal from lobbyists.  But it turned  out that the two men with whom Ryan was dining were, as he said, economists and  not lobbyists.  Feinberg and TPM also suggested that Ryan might have  violated House rules against accepting gifts in general.  But it turned out  that Ryan had paid for his meal and wine — Ryan even showed TPM his copy of the  receipt, which TPM then posted on the web.

Having failed to catch Ryan in an act of wrongdoing, Feinberg and TPM accused  him of hypocrisy. Ryan’s dining companions, one of whom was a wealthy hedge-fund  manager, ordered two bottles of the $350 wine.  Ryan, by his own account,  drank one glass but nevertheless paid for one of the bottles.  But the $700  wine bill outraged Feinberg and her husband, who were at the restaurant to  celebrate her birthday.  “We were just stunned,” she told TPM. “I was an  economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out  that those two bottles of wine was more [sic] than two-income working family  making minimum wage earned in a week.” When she had finished her own meal,  Feinberg confronted Ryan and angrily asked him “how he could live with himself”  for drinking expensive wine while advocating cuts in Medicare and  Medicaid.  Feinberg left the restaurant after management intervened.

In one brief and unpleasant moment, Ryan got a taste of 2012-style political  combat in which everyone, everywhere is a potential opposition campaign tracker  and there are plenty of press outlets ready to publish a tracker’s  accusations.

On Saturday, I sent Feinberg an email asking a few questions about the  incident and about her unhappiness with Ryan.  First, the photo she snapped  of Ryan and two men sitting a few tables away appeared to be taken from her own  table, and on that table was a bottle of wine.  (Feinberg told TPM that she  and her husband had shared a “bottle of great wine.”)  A check of the  Bistro Bis wine list — in much the way that Feinberg did at the restaurant —  shows that the wine was a Thierry et Pascale Matrot 2005 Meursault, which is $80  per bottle at Bistro Bis. Was that, in fact, Feinberg’s bottle of wine?

I asked Feinberg, an economist, what price constituted outrageous in her  mind.  Would she have been as upset if Ryan’s wine were $150 a  bottle?  Or $100 a bottle?  Or perhaps $80 a bottle, like her own —  which is, after all, more than a day’s labor for a worker making the minimum  wage.

If the problem was not just the wine’s cost, then what other factors were  involved in Feinberg’s anger? Was it because she thought Rep. Ryan was a  hypocrite for drinking expensive wine while recommending reduced spending on  Medicare and Medicaid?  Was it because she believed Rep. Ryan was corrupt  for drinking with two men she suspected were lobbyists?  And finally, did  Feinberg believe she behaved appropriately in the matter?  Would it be  appropriate for a conservative who felt strongly about, say, Rep. Nancy Pelosi,  or Rep. Barney Frank, to do something similar to them under similar  circumstances?

Feinberg’s response was brief: “I’m sorry.  I have no comment on  this.”

After the TPM story was published, a number of left-leaning websites picked  up the tale.  New York magazine wrote that Ryan has “$350, fiscally  imprudent, fancypants” taste in wine.  The Atlantic wrote that Ryan “is in  the habit of drinking $350-a-bottle wine,” although the publication presented no  evidence to support that contention. The Atlantic also expressed hope that the  wine story would become as much of a political burden on Ryan as the $400  haircut was on former presidential candidate John Edwards.

Ryan himself is downplaying, but not avoiding, the matter.  He answered  questions from TPM, producing the receipt, but has said little else.  When  asked whether incidents like this might happen again in the future, with  Democrats and Republicans engaged in mortal combat over federal spending, a  person close to Ryan said only: “I would hope that it was just one woman who had  a little too much to drink and had a little too much fire in her belly and just  decided to cross a line.  Paul is more than happy to have a debate and  understands that people disagree with him, but there’s a right way and a wrong  way to do that.”

It turns out that this Professor Susan Feinberg worked on John Kerry’s campaign.  The relevant facts about Senator John Kerry and his rich liberal activist wife occur near the end of this very recently written piece (again, Democrats are just hypocrites ALL the time; there’s literally ALWAYS something to prove it constantly going on):

 Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These are the hypocrite vermin who constantly lecture us about how “the rich should pay their fair share.”  And these slime certainly should.  But of course, while they screech the Marxist screed of class warfare, they know that they’ve written the tax laws to benefit themselves and their supporters – to the extent they even bother to follow those tax laws that they demand everybody else follow to begin with.

“The audacity of indifference.”

You think these people don’t know their way around $350 bottles of wine the way you know the way to the bathroom in your own home?

Let’s get back to Susan Feinberg and the guy she thought deserved to be president.  John Kerry’s wife is a filthy rich heiress who inhereited the Heinz fortune.  But guess how much taxes she pays?  She’s structured it so she actually pays less than the median American family.  Did she HAVE to do that?  Oh, no.  She just wanted to screw you, the typical taxpayer, by using every possible gimmick to lessen her tax burden even while she self-righteously lectures everybody else about their “duty to pay more.”  SHE could pay more, but she is a liberal, and ergo sum a hypocrite.

How about John Kerry himself?  Well, John Kerry splurged on himself to buy a $7 million yacht.  Not feeling any need to give American workers jobs, Kerry opted to buy his yacht in New Zealand.  And then, not feeling any need to pay taxes, Kerry opted to moor his yacht in Rhode Island rather than in his own state of Massachusetts, so he could save $1/2 a million in tax.  But that doesn’t stop him from lecturing everybody else.

And, according to garden variety self-righteous liberal hypocrite Susan Feinberg, THIS behavior is just fine.  It’s that Ryan guy who was actually himself rather surprised at how much it costs to have dinner with rich friends (I’ve experienced that myself when I looked at a tab from a restaurant a date or a friend have suggested in the past) who is evil.

A small government free market guy who believes people should be free to keep and spend their own money having a $350 bottle of wine is not hypocritical; a liberal who says the rich should pay more in taxes while welching on his or her own taxes is, by contrast, a quintessential hypocrite.

I’d say I was amazed at the chutzpah of a liberal who goes to dine at a high-end restaurant and then is appalled that a Republican would actually go to the same restautant.  But I have long come to understand that the essential ingredient to liberalism is blatant abject hypocrisy.  To put it in the context of her own story, “When she had finished her own pricey meal, she got up and rudely gave Paul Ryan a facefull of the hell her husband tragically has to live with every night of his life for daring to have a pricey meal.”

Audacity Of Indifference: Obama Believes American People Too Ignorant, Selfish To Understand Truth About His Path To Economic Disaster

July 9, 2011

The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Obama top political advisor David Plouffe said.

That’s good for Obama, given that Obama promised the American people that if his $3.27 TRILLION stimulus porker was passed, unemployment would go down to 7.1% by now, and instead it just rose to 9.2%.

Plouffe’s comment was brought up to White House press secretary Jay Carney, who had even more to say about just how profoundly stupid Obama believes the American people are:

Earlier this week David Plouffe, one of Obama’s senior advisers and an architect of his 2008 campaign, was panned for saying “the average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers.”

In a condescending way, White House press secretary Jay Carney basically told the press corps  the same thing. Carney told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that Americans talk to each other about their feelings of the economic situation rather than “analyze the numbers.”

“I don’t know where, you know, the voters that some other folks might be talking to — but — or — but most people do not sit around their kitchen table and analyze GDP and unemployment numbers,” Carney said. “They do not sit around analyzing The Wall Street Journal or other — or Bloomberg to look at the — you know, analyze the numbers.”

It’s too darn bad we don’t know how to read, analyze or think, or we’d know what a total abject failure Jay Carney’s boss truly is.  If we could just learn to read or count, we’d fix Barry Hussein good in 2012.

Carney began this dissertation on the ignorance of the American people by first saying,

“Well, I understand that we’re engaged in the – or rather, the Republicans are engaged in a primary campaign, trying to get some media attention.”

As though that should somehow insulate Obama to whatever they say (we know that Obama has NEVER campaigned, and transcends politics the way the gods transcend humanity, after all).

I came across someone who did a good chunk of the assessment of Obama’s latest job figures and the reality of the pain that increasing numbers of Americans feel as a result of Obama’s economy for me:

You’re a just bunch of dullards who don’t care about unemployment, or the deplorable state of the U.S. economy, or the out of control spending by a socialist kleptocracy.

Here’s the numbers:

The GDP is the measure of a country’s output at any given time. The nation’s $14 trillion+ debt now equals the TOTAL  U.S. GDP, and exceeds the world’s economic output.

The official unemployment estimate is 9.2%, but when you figure in all of the people who simply stopped looking for work or have run out of unemployment benefits that percentage increases.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, now stands at 16.2%.

I analyze Obama’s abject, deliberate destruction of America’s economy, every day.    Jobs, along with businesses are leaving America thanks to the idiotic regulations, high taxes, the trade deficit, government spending, and unions that price their people and jobs right out of the country.  Tens of thousands of jobs have moved to communist China, which means we’re propping up an enemy of the United States with capitalist dollars.

But the American people are too damn stupid to understand all of that.  How can the ignorant dirty masses possibly understand?  It is better that Obama TELL THEM what to think, is it not?  And no one should listen to Republicans, after all; they’re campaigning, you know.  And Obama would never do anything so crass as that.

Still, Carney’s hand-waving dismissal of the Republicans’ points make it somewhat interesting to find out what those points actually ARE:

Tim Pawlenty pointed out that Obama is “dangerously detached.”  That whole “I feel your pain” thing is simply absent from Obama.  He stands far too far above us to feel or understand our mortal pain.  Our duty is to worship our messiah and have faith in him and in his Marxist ideology come what may.

But Mitt Romney probably most hit the nail on the head:

“Today’s abysmal jobs report confirms what we all know – that President Obama has failed to get this economy moving again. Just this week, President Obama’s closest White House adviser said that ‘unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers’ do not matter to the average American.

“If David Plouffe were working for me, I would fire him and then he could experience firsthand the pain of unemployment. His comments are an insult to the more than 20 million people who are out of work, underemployed or who have simply stopped looking for jobs. With their cavalier attitude about the economy, the White House has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of indifference.”

That opens the door to another thing Obama assumes you are: too selfish to care about other people.

If you have a job, or are getting your welfare check from the government that the government has redistributed from someone who IS lucky enough to have a job, you clearly don’t give a damn about how much millions of Americans are suffering.  That was at the heart of both David Plouffe’s and Jay Carney’s point.  Let me provide the full David Plouffe (did I mention he’s Obama’s TOP political advisor?) statement:

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Mr. Plouffe said. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate; they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’

That’s right: if I’m doing okay, or at least if my family’s getting enough of the welfare pie, screw America.  Who gives a damn if everybody’s out of work?  I’m a DEMOCRAT; I’m getting MINE.  Barry Hussein took somebody else’s money and gave it to me so I’d vote for him.  Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate.

Amity Schlaes made a good point about the Great Depression in her book The Forgotten Man: “The Great Depression wasn’t that bad if you had a job.”  And that was true; particularly if you didn’t give a damn how much other people were suffering as a result of FDR’s terribly failed and immoral policies that kept America suffering for seven full years longer than was necessary.

Obama assumes that a majority of American voters are as selfish and self-centered as he himself has proven to be in his personal life before running for president.  Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These are the hypocrite vermin who constantly lecture us about how “the rich should pay their fair share.”  And these slime certainly should.  But of course, while they screech the Marxist screed of class warfare, they know that they’ve written the tax laws to benefit themselves and their supporters – to the extent they even bother to follow those tax laws that they demand everybody else follow to begin with.

“The audacity of indifference.”

Barack Obama and the Democrat Party don’t care if millions of Americans are out of work and suffering as the result of their policies.  All they frankly cynically care about is whether they can exploit that suffering to their own political advantage.  And whether the American people are ignorant enough and selfish enough to fall for their lies.

The Three Fingers Pointing Back At Atheists When Atheists Point A Finger At Christians About Evil And Judgment

March 24, 2011

You’ve probably heard that expression, “When you point a finger at me, three fingers are pointing back at you.”  Let’s work with that today.

I recently wrote an article with the deliberately provocative title, “Atheist Country Japan Smashed By Tsunami.”

It generated quite a few cross postings to atheist blogs and forums.

One recent example attacked Christians as being “happy” that Japan was stricken by disaster, and, in linking to my blog, said:

Of course, maybe it’s because of all teh gay [sic] in Japan, or because the Japanese are all atheists. Or maybe it’s because they worship demons.

What a nasty, horrible God is the one in which they believe. What nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings. What a nasty, cynical thing they do to promote their own religion by using this tragedy and other recent catastrophic events to “win converts” for Jesus.

Naming them charlatans and hypocrites does not do justice to the utter lack of compassion that resides in their hearts.

And the blogger cites my blog as an example of a fundamentalist who argues that God struck Japan “because the Japanese are all atheists.”

Well, first thing, did I actually even say that?  I quote myself from that article:

But is Japan’s unbelief the reason why Japan just got hit with an awful tsunami?

My answer is, “How on earth should I know?”

I cite passages of Scripture that clearly indicate that a disaster does not necessarily mean that God is judging someone, such as Luke 13:1-5.  I could have just as easily also cited passages such as John 9:1-3 about Jesus’ distinction between suffering and sin.  I could have cited 2 Peter 3:9, describing God’s patience with sinners rather than His haste to judge.  These passages aren’t at all out of tune with what I was saying.  And I actually DO single out by name for criticism men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who have immediately pronounced the wrath of God following some disaster.

I begin my article saying, “That headline is a deliberate provoker.  But please let me explain why I used that headline before you erupt one way or another.”  Then I proceed to state two undisputed facts: that Japan is atheist, and that Japan got hit by a disaster.  I urge someone to actually read the article and reflect on the possibilities.  But Boomantribune is an example of most of the atheists who cross-posted or commented to my article by NOT being someone who wanted to read or reflect; he or she is someone who refused to look beneath atheist ideology and immediately began demonizing the other side to “win converts” for his religion of atheism.  [And let’s get this straight: atheism IS a religion.  “Religion” does not need to depend upon belief in God, or Buddhism would not qualify as a religion.  The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, and it is a simple fact that atheism has every component that any religious system has].

You can’t have a valid argument with someone like Boomantribune, I have learned.  They are either too ignorant, or too dishonest, or both to accurately represent the other side’s position or arguments.  They create straw men and then demolish claims that Christians like me aren’t even making.

Boomantribune viciously attacks me as harboring the “nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings.”  But I end my article on Japan by saying:

You need that gift of divine grace.  I need that gift of divine grace.  And the people of Japan desperately need it today.

I pray for those who are in Japan.  I pray for their deliverance from both the tsunami and from their unbelief.  And I will join with many other Christians who will send relief to the Japanese people, with prayers that they will look not at me, but at the Jesus who changed my heart and my life, and inspired me to give to others.

It is also a simple fact that religious people are FAR more giving than atheists:

In the US, anyway, they don’t. Here’s just one study, done in 2003: The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions…Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so…The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times.

And this is “secular” people who aren’t particularly religious.  A lot of people rarely ever go to church, but still believe in God (basically 90% of Americans belive in God).  Since the evidence is rather straightforward that the more religious one is, the more giving one is, it is justified to conclude that atheists who are less religious than the merely “secular” are even LESS giving.

And, guess what?  My church has already taken its first of several offerings for Japan, and I have already given – and plan to give again.

I would also point out a couple of historical facts:

Christians actually began the first hospitals.

More hospitals have been founded by Christians than by followers of every other religion – including atheism – combined.

That said:

Atheist doctors are more than twice as likely to pull the plug on someone than a doctor who believes in God.

So just who is being “horrible” here?

Here’s another example of an atheist attack on me that backfired, followed by the dishonest atheist “cutting and running” from his own attack:

For what it’s worth, I have never withdrawn a single post:

Also, unlike too many blogs – particularly leftwing blogs, in my experience – I don’t delete anything. When the Daily Kos hatefully attacked Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol and claimed that Bristol Palin had been impregnated by her own father with a baby, and that Sarah Palin faked being pregnant – only to have that hateful and vile lie blown away by Bristol giving birth to a child of her own – they scrubbed it like nothing had happened.

I’m not that despicable. Every single article I have ever written remains on my blog. And with all due respect, I think that gives me more credibility, not less: I don’t hit and run and then scrub the evidence of my lies.

If I post something that turns out to be wrong, I don’t destroy the evidence; I stand up and take responsibility for my words.  I apologize and correct the record.  As I did in the case above.

That, by the way, is the first finger, the finger of moral dishonesty pointing back at these atheists. 

That’s not the way the other side plays.  History is replete with atheist regimes (e.g. ANY of the officially state atheist communist regimes) destroying the record and any debate; history is replete with atheist-warped “science” making one claim after another that turned out to be entirely false.  As examples, consider Java Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man and the various other hoaxes that the “scientific community rushed to embrace in their rush to falsify theism.  In some cases “scientists” created an entire community – or even an entire race of people – around totally bogus evidence in “It takes a village” style.  There was the bogus notion of “uniformitarianism” by which the “scientific community” ridiculed creationists for decades until it was proven wrong by Eugene Shoemaker who documented that the theory of “catastrophism” that they had advanced for millennia had been correct all along.  And then all of a sudden the same evolutionary theory that had depended upon uniformitarianism suddenly morphed into a theory that depended upon catastrophism. It morphed so that it was equally true with both polar opposites.

Then there’s this:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

There is the extremely rare admission:

For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

But those are extremely rare, indeed.  The rest of the atheist-assuming “scientific community” is all about saying, “Move on, folks.  Nothing to see here.  Why don’t you look at our new sleight-of-hand display over in this corner instead?”

Phillip Johnson, in a very good article, points out how the “bait-and-switch” works:

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.”[ 1] Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the “lunatic fringe” of paleontologists who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.”[ 2] Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector.”

[…]

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that “evolution is a fact,” and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

I stand behind a tradition that has stood like an anvil while being pounded by one generation of unbelievers after another.  That tradition remains constant because it is founded upon the unchanging Word of God.  My adversaries constantly change and morph their positions, all the while just as constantly claiming that their latest current iteration is correct.

That is the second finger of intellectual dishonesty which so thoroughly characterizes atheism and anything atheism seems to contaminate with its assumptions.

Lastly, there is the finger of ethical dishonesty that is the ocean that the “walking fish” of atheism swims in.  [Btw, when I see that fish riding a bicycle I’ll buy their “walking fish” concept].

Basically, for all the “moral outrage” of atheists who want to denounce Christians for their God’s “evil judgments,” atheism itself has absolutely no moral foundation to do so whatsoever.  And the bottom line is that they are people who attack the five-thousand year tradition of Scripture with their feet firmly planted in midair.

William Lane Craig provides a devastating existential ethical refutation of atheism in an article I posted entitled, “The Absurdity of Life without God.”

To put it simply, William Lane Craig demolishes any shred of a claim that atheism can offer any ultimate meaning, any ultimate value, or any ultimate purpose whatsoever.  And so atheism denounces Christianity and religion from the foundation of an entirely empty and profoundly worthless worldview.  Everyone should read this incredibly powerful article.  I guarantee you will learn something, whatever your perspective on religion.

The thing I would say is that atheists denounce God and Christians from some moral sort of moral posture.  Which comes from what, exactly?  Darwinism, or more precisely, social Darwinism?  The survival of the fittest?  A foundation that comes from the “secure” footing of a random, meaningless, purposeless, valueless and entirely accidental existence?

As atheists tee off on God and at Christians for being “nasty” and “horrible,” what is their foundation from which to judge?

First of all, what precisely would make one a “nasty” or “horrible” atheist? 

Joseph Stalin was an atheist:

“God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just… I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.”

Mao Tse Tung was an atheist:

“Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?”  [Mao Tse Tung, Little Red Book, “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21”].

Hitler was an atheist:

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels, a top member of Hitler’s inner circle, noted in his personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 that “The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”  Now, one may easily lie to others, but why lie to your own private diary?

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Albert Speer, another Nazi in Hitler’s intimate inner circle, stated that Hitler said, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion… Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Now, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao were terrible, despicable, evil people.  But what made them ” bad atheists,” precisely?

When Mao infamously expressed this attitude

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

– or when Joseph Stalin was similarly quoted as having said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

– were these men who were responsible for some 100 million deaths of their own people during peacetime expressing anything that violated some principle of Darwinian evolution, or the morality that derives from the ethic of survival of the fittest?

Mao put his disregard for human life and the lives of his own people to terrible work:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

Did that somehow disqualify him from being an atheist?  How?  Based on what foundation?

Let me simply point out that the most evil human beings in human history and the most murderous and oppressive political regimes in human history have the strange tendency to be atheist.  It would seem to me that these atheists should frankly do a lot less talking smack and a lot more shutting the hell up.  But two verses from Scripture illustrate why they don’t: 1) The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1) and 2) “A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind” (Proverbs 18:2).

Let’s talk about “evil” for a few moments.  I have already begun addressing the “third finger” that points back at atheists when they denounce Christians or God.  But the idea of “evil” makes that “finger” the middle one.

Christians talk about evil.  A lot of people do.  Even atheists routinely do.  But what is their foundation for evil?  What is “evil”?  Most give answers such as, “Murder or rape is evil.”  But those would at best only qualify as examples of evil – not a definition that would allow us to make moral judgments.  Christians have an actual answer.  They point out that “evil” is a perversion from the way things ought to be.  But what “oughtness” is there in a random, purposeless, meaningless and valueless universe that was spat out by nothing more than pure chance?

Let’s just say at this point that the atheists are right in what is in reality a straw man attack of God?  So what?  I ask “so what?” because even if what they were saying were somehow true, by what standard would either God or Christians be “nasty” or “horrible”?  What is the objective, transcendent standard that stands above me, that stands above every Christian on the planet, that stands above the entire human race across time and space and holds it accountable, such that if Christians or even God do X or say Y, or believe Z they are “nasty” or “horrible”?

It turns out that they don’t have one.  And in fact, their very worldview goes so far as to literally deny the very possibility of one.  At best – and I would argue at worst – we are trapped in a world in which might makes right, and the most powerful dictator gets to make the rules.  Because there is nothing above man that judges man and says, “This is the way, walk in it.”  There is only other men – and men disagree with one another’s standards – leaving us with pure moral relativism. 

And if moral relativism is true, then the atheists STILL lose.  It would be a tie, given that atheists have no more claim to being “good” than any other human being or group of human beings, no matter how despicable and murderous they might be.  But they would lose because there are a lot fewer atheists (137 million) than there are, say, Christians (2.3 billion).  And it only remains for Christians to disregard their superior moral and ethical system just long enough to rise up and annihilate all the smart-mouthed atheists, and then say afterward, “Boy, we sure feel guilty for having done THAT.  Let’s pray for forgiveness!”  And the only possible defense atheists would have would be to abandon their “survival of the fittest” mentality and embrace superior Christian morality and cry out, “Thou shalt not kill!”

Even if Christians don’t wipe out the atheists physically, most would readily agree that the Christian worldview is still far stronger than the atheist one.  Dinesh D’Souza makes a great argument to illustrate this on pages 15-16 of What’s So Great About Christianity that shows why religion is clearly the best team.  He says to imagine two communities – one filled with your bitter, cynical atheists who believe that morality just happened to evolve and could have evolved very differently; and one filled with Bible-believing Christians who embrace that life and their lives have a purpose in the plan of a righteous God who put His moral standards in our hearts. And he basically asks, “Which community is going to survive and thrive?”

As a Christian, I don’t have all the answers (although I can certainly answer the question immediately above).  I am a human being and my mind cannot contain the infinite plan of an infinitely complex and holy God.  But I have placed my trust in a God who made the world and who has a plan for His creation which He is bringing to fruition.  And that worldview doesn’t just give me explanatory powers that atheism by its very nature entirely lacks, but it gives me a strength that I never had before.  Even when evil and disaster and suffering befall me beyond my ability to comprehend, I can say with Job – the master of suffering:

“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last.  And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God!  I will see him for myself. Yes, I will see him with my own eyes. I am overwhelmed at the thought!”  Job 19:25-27 (NLT).