The Great American God-Out

San Francisco is already renowned as a godless city, but atheists in the Bay Area want to emphasize their intolerance for anything religious by holding a "Great American God-Out" day this November 15th.

According to the web site, the Great American God-Out is "a newly demarcated holiday wherein, like 'The Great American Smokeout', individuals are encouraged to combine their supportive efforts to help prevent and cure disease. Even if just for one day-- people will live as as if there is no god; people will live as if there only exists the goodness of self and others to sustain healthy living!"

This is just the latest example of that religious intolerance is growing at an alarming rate. Churches and people of faith have been targeted in particular for their support of Proposition 8. In the election aftermath, many churches have experienced protests and even vandalism by homosexual activists. The Great American God-Out is nothing more than an attempt to belittle and ridicule people of faith

More persecution is coming, as followers of Christ let us maintain our devotion to God's Truth, stand firm in our convictions and pursuit of being in His presence 24/7/365, in other words be "ALL-IN"

Obama Win leaves supporters with Empty Lives

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

More from Oz

He seemed so nice at first. He would sit and listen to our problems and his tone and manner was soothing. He seemed to offer real hope to our plight and have solutions for all our concerns.

He told us that what was happening to us was not fair , that we deserved better and that only he could help us. The others we had trusted in had betrayed that trust and only he could fix our problem. He explained that he was destined to be our benefactor and all we really had to do was follow Him down the Yellow brick road.

But what he said sounded Just too good to be true. Could this man really be our "Savior"? Could what he says be true? We must think, think, think! Oh, if we only had a brain and could think for ourselves.

How could he help us for free? Wouldn't it cost a great deal of money? How could he do this for free? It sounded too good to be true.

We're off to see the Wizard!

The scene above is famous as an urban legend. It is reported to include a "Munchkin suicide" in the distance, where the yellow brick road turns. It suggests that all is not well in Oz. In actuality it has been explained as a large bird used in the movie, being brought back into control by an animal wrangler, similar to a campaign manager.

My dear friend Chan sums up last nights election results nicely:

Whom did the country just elect?

After journeying along the Yellow Brick Road during this election cycle, our country, with its diverse band of Dorothy, Toto, Scarecrow, Tin Man, Cowardly Lion, Good Witch, Wicked Witch, Munchkins, and Flying Monkeys, finally reached the Emerald City last night. On January 20, we'll pull back the curtain on the great and terrible Oz and discover his true nature.

~Chan

The time has come

The time has come my friends for all of us to decide the fate of our nation. Each of us, as citizens of this great nation, have the true privilege of letting our voice be heard. The results of tomorrows voting will shape our next four to eight years and very likely the ensuing decades to follow.

No matter who or what you vote for, seek the Lord for guidance and make your voice heard. Voting means that you are actively involved in the community at large.

God Bless us and keep us!

Barack Obama - Words, Words, Just Words

Last night, Barack Obama's infomercial offered the American people a nicely packaged product of misleading information. Check out the facts below:

JUST WORDS #1: Barack Obama Decries Record Deficits But Admits He Has No Interest In Reducing The DeficitBarack Obama: "We were running a record deficit and our national debt had never been higher." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· Barack Obama: "I Do Not Make A Promise That We Can Reduce [The Budget Deficit] By 2013." "'I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families,' Obama told reporters this week when asked if he'd match McCain's pledge." (Nedra Pickler, "Analysis: Obama Won't Try For McCain's Budget Goal," The Associated Press, 7/8/08)· Chicago Tribune: Barack Obama Has "No Interest In Eliminating Deficit Spending." "Since winning the nomination, Obama reportedly has been moving toward the middle of the political spectrum. But on the budget, he still sounds left of center, with no interest in eliminating deficit spending." (Editorial, "Failure Of Nerve," Chicago Tribune, 7/8/08)· The Associated Press: Barack Obama Not "Even Trying" To Balance The Budget And "Frankly Says He's Not Sure He'd Bring It Down At All In Four Years." "Barack Obama says John McCain's plan to balance the budget doesn't add up. Easy for him to say: It's not a goal he's even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won't eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he's not sure he'd bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans." (Nedra Pickler, "Analysis: Obama Won't Try For McCain's Budget Goal," The Associated Press, 7/8/08)

JUST WORDS #2: Barack Obama Talks About Leadership In The Financial Crisis But When The Crisis First Began, He Refused To Lead Barack Obama: "But then a little over a month ago, the bottom fell out. What happened in the financial markets was the final verdict on eight years of failed policies. And we're now going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. A few weeks ago, we passed a financial rescue plan. It's a step in the right direction ... and as president, I'll ensure that you, the taxpayers, are paid back first. But we also need a rescue plan for the middle class ... starting with what we can do right now that will have an immediate effect." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08) · The Washington Times: "Obama Mum On Market Crisis." "Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama opted Friday not to divulge details of his recovery plan for the financial crisis after a morning meeting with his top economic advisers -- fearing it would stir Wall Street jitters." (S.A. Miller, "Obama Mum On Market Crisis," The Washington Times, 9/20/08)· Barack Obama Did Not Make Calls To Round Up Votes For The Economic Recovery Package. ABC's JOHN BERMAN: "The McCain campaign has been hammering Obama suggesting he did not take a leading role in the financial negotiations." SEN. MCCAIN: "At first, he didn't want to get involved. Then, he was monitoring the situation." BERMAN: "Indeed, Obama aides say he did not make any calls to help round up votes." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 9/30/08) · Barack Obama "Hinted That Had He Known Earlier The Deal Was Going Down To Defeat He Would Have Worked The Phones Even Harder." "Obama also hinted that had he known earlier the deal was going down to defeat he would have worked the phones even harder, especially given that some of those who voted no, were some of his early supporters." (Lee Cowan, "Obama Places No Blame, But..." MSNBC's "First Read" Blog, http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/1 <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/2> , Posted 9/30/08) · Fox News' Major Garrett Reported That Barack Obama Would Not Take A Position On Whether Or Not He Supported Or Opposed The Government Rescue Of AIG. GARRETT: "On the biggest financial issue of the day, Barack Obama would not say if he supported or opposed the government-backed rescue of insurance giant AIG." BARACK OBAMA: "We don't know all the details of the arrangement with AIG and the Federal Reserve must ensure that plans protect the families that count on insurance." GARRETT: "Obama also wants taxpayers protected but executives and shareholders exposed but on the central question to intervene or not, Obama sidestepped. Advisers said lack of details forced caution. The larger political truth: advisors believe anxiety alone is enough to lift Obama in the polls. That is why on the trail, Obama doesn't talk about specifics of the moment but the nation's overall direction." (Fox News' "The Special Report," 9/17/08)

JUST WORDS #3: Barack Obama Says He'll Cut Taxes For Those Making Less Than $200,00 But Yesterday It Was Either $250,000 Or $150,000Barack Obama: "As president, here's what I'll do: Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· In July 2008, Barack Obama Said: "If You Make $250,000 A Year Or Less, We Will Not Raise Your Taxes. We Will Cut Your Taxes." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Powder Springs, GA, 7/8/08)· Joe Biden: "Spreading the wealth was not--he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy. For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was just -- that was put in by George Bush, people making an average 1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic -- they're going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we're saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year." (Joe Biden, Interview With WNEP Scranton, 10/27/08)· Obama-Biden Campaign Aides Said That Those Making Between $150,000 And $250,000 Will Actually Not See A Tax Increase Or A Tax Cut. "Biden aides say his comments were actually consistent with Obama's tax plan -- people under $150,000 get a cut, and people making up to $250,000 stay the same." (Mark Murray and Mike Memoli, "$150,000 Vs. $250,000," MSNBC's "First Read" Blog, http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/3 <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/4> , Posted 10/28/08)

JUST WORDS #4: Barack Obama Says That His Business Tax Plan Will Create Jobs Here But His Running-Mate DisagreesBarack Obama: "Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years ... and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· The Washington Post: Barack Obama's Plan On Business Taxes "Would Make It Even Harder" For Corporations To Compete And Will Hurt Workers In The United States. "Barack Obama says that he would 'end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas' and blasts John McCain for refusing to condemn such loopholes. But the offshoring issue is more complicated than Mr. Obama's rhetoric suggests. ... Mr. Obama's proposal would change the provision in which U.S.-based companies don't have to pay taxes on their earnings abroad until that income is 'repatriated' -- brought back into the United States, for example as dividend payments. ... Mr. Obama's suggested fix would make it even harder for them to compete abroad -- ultimately hurting workers and others here." (Editorial, "The Export Of Jobs," The Washington Post, 8/17/08)· The Wall Street Journal Said Barack Obama's Proposal Penalizes Most American Companies That Have Subsidiaries Abroad With "A Big Tax Increase." "Under Mr. Obama's plan, 'patriot employers' qualify for a 1% tax credit on their profits. To finance this tax break, American companies with subsidiaries abroad would have to pay the U.S. corporate tax on profits earned abroad, rather than the corporate tax of the host country where they are earned. Since the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, while most of the world has a lower rate, this amounts to a big tax increase on earnings owned abroad." (Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08)· Joe Biden Acknowledged That Eliminating Tax Breaks For Corporations Won't Keep Jobs Here; That America Has To Make It "More Attractive" For Corporations To Operate Here. Biden: "I agree with everything that was said here. But the bottom line here is that eliminating the tax breaks is not going to keep jobs here in America. We've got to make it more attractive to have jobs here in America and for corporations to be here. You've got to take the burden off the corporations with a health care system that's universal, so we're not at a competitive disadvantage." (Sen. Joe Biden, Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Howard University, Washington, DC, 6/28/07)

JUST WORDS #5: Barack Obama Says He Will Help Small Businesses Even As He Proposes Higher Taxes That Will Kill Small BusinessesBarack Obama: "And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· Obama-Biden Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending." "Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?" (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, 2/12/08)· Obama-Biden Will Increase Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. Obama Economic Advisors Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee: "The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% ... The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate." (Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, Op-Ed, "The Obama Tax Plan," The Wall Street Journal, 8/14/08)· Tax Policy Center: Obama-Biden Would Raise Taxes On One Out Of Every Three Senior Households. "Even though Senator Obama's plan eliminates individual income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000, his plan would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total (not shown in table). On average, seniors would face a tax increase of about 2 percent of income." (Burman et al., "A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans," The Tax Policy Center, 6/11/08)· Obama-Biden Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: "[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)· U.S. Department Of Treasury: Small Business Owners "Are Frequently Subject To The Highest Individual Income Tax Rates." ("Topics Related To The President's Tax Relief," U.S. Department Of Treasury, http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/5 <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/6> , May 2008)· Obama-Biden Would Raise Social Security Taxes. "Obama's proposal ... would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes." (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, "Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/7> , 6/18/08)

JUST WORDS #6: Barack Obama Talks About Pension Security While Democrats In Congress Propose Rules To Eliminate 401(K)sBarack Obama: "You earned your pension. You earned it. It wasn't a gift. You gave up wages so that money could be set aside for your retirement. Time and time again, what we're seeing is companies who owe their workers retirements, pensions shedding those obligations. When you make a commitment to workers at a company, those aren't idle promises. Those are promises that should have the force of law." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· The Wall Street Journal: "Lawmakers Have Been Suggesting They May Look At Policy Changes To 401(k)s . In Coming Months." "In the past 12 months, more than a half-trillion dollars have 'evaporated' from 401(k) plans as a result of turmoil in the financial markets, said U.S. Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. ... Lawmakers have been suggesting they may look at policy changes to 401(k)s -- the tax-advantaged plans that are the most widely used retirement vehicle -- in coming months. Miller made it clear he sees flaws in the 401(k) model. About $3 trillion is invested in the plans, the majority of it placed in equity mutual funds that track the stock market. Miller said the 401(k) approach is a policy 'not well devised' for changes in the market. He said the plans were meant to be savings vehicles, not primary retirement plans." (Jennifer Levitz, "Amid Deep Los ses, Congress Examines 401(k)s," The Wall Street Journal's "Washington Wire," 10/7/08)· Among The Changes To The 401(K) System That Were Proposed At A Recent Congressional Hearing, "Chief Among Them Was Eliminating $80 Billion In Tax Savings For Higher-Income People Enrolled In 401(K) Retirement Savings Plans." "A wide range of sweeping changes to the 401(k) system were proposed Tuesday at a hearing on how the market crisis has devastated retirement savings plans. Chief among them was eliminating $80 billion in tax savings for higher-income people enrolled in 401(k) retirement savings plans. This was suggested by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor. 'With respect to the 401(k), it appears to be a plan that is not really well-devised for the changes in the market,' Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said. 'We've invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,' he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings. With savings rates going down, 'what do we have to start to thi nk about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we ... say it should?' Mr. Miller said." (Sara Hansard, "Congress Mulls Major 401(k) Changes," Investment News, 10/7/08)· At An October 2008 Hearing, Education And Labor Committee Chairman Rep. George Miller (D-CA) Asked: "What Do We Have To Start To Think About In Congress Of Whether or Not We Want To Continue And Invest That $80 Billion For A Policy That's Not Generating What We Now Say It Should?" "But I think the key point raised by Dr. Ghilarducci, and Mr. Orszag I'm going to direct this to you, is that we've invested $80 billion a year into subsidizing this activity, which originally I thought was sort of a savings plan. And now its' become a retirement plan. I don't know when it changed, but now everybody is told that that's their retirement supplement. And again, it appears that while we've lamented all the time the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of this $80 billion, in fact, it's probably going down or appears to have been on a downward trend for a number of years. What's the policy? I mean, what do we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should?" (U.S. House Committee On Education And Labor, Hearing, 10/7/08)· Rep. Miller: "I Think What We Are Seeing Is That After 25 Years Of 401K Plans That They Are A Big Failure In Terms Of Providing An Adequate Retirement For Middle Class Americans." (Jeff Mitchell, "Miller Says Government Must Next Turn Its Attention To Propping Up Sagging 401K And Pension Plans," PolitickerCA.com, 10/8/08)

JUST WORDS #7: Barack Obama Says The American People Aren't "Looking For A Handout" But Proposes A New Welfare SystemBarack Obama: "Americans -- they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They're not looking for a handout. If they're able and willing to work, they should be able to find a job that pays a living wage. They should be able to retire with some dignity and some respect." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· The Wall Street Journal Calls Obama's Numerous Refundable Tax Credits "Tens Of Billions Of Dollars In Government Handouts." "For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase 'tax credit.'" (Editorial, "Obama's 95% Illusion," The Wall Street Journal, 10/13/08)· New York Post: "[O]bama's 'Tax Cuts' Really Amount To A Sizable Expansion Of Welfare." "In truth, as The Wall Street Journal detailed yesterday, nearly all of those 'cuts' actually come in the form of 'refundable tax credits,' by which the government in effect writes a check to those who meet certain criteria - even if they don't pay taxes in the first place. In other words, Obama's 'tax cuts' really amount to a sizable expansion of welfare. That leaves American taxpayers to foot the bill - both directly, and through the lost economic opportunity that's sure to follow Obama's promised tax hikes on income, dividends and capital gains." (Editorial, "Ready, Set ... Spend!" New York Post, 10/14/08)· Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "[T]he One-Third Of All American Working Families Who Pay No Income Taxes Now Will Receive A Government Check Under The Obama Plan. And That Number Could Rise To About 44 Percent Under Obama's Proposal." "The 'tax-cut plan' of Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama is anything but. In fact, it's nothing more than another liberaled-up wealth-transference program that, in the 'old days,' was known as welfare. ... Just as troubling, however, is this little factoid: Even the one-third of all American working families who pay no income taxes now will receive a government check under the Obama plan. And that number could rise to about 44 percent under Obama's proposal." (Editorial, "Obama's Tax Cut: New Welfare Deal," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 10/14/08)

JUST WORDS #8: Barack Obama Says His $150 Billion Fund Will Lead To Energy Independence But "There's No Guarantee That The Research Will Result In Less Oil Being Imported"Barack Obama: "As president, I'll use companies like McKinstry as a model for the nation. I'll invest $15 billion dollars a year in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy -- like wind, solar and bio-fuels -- creating five million clean energy jobs over the next decade -- jobs that pay well and can never be outsourced." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· FactCheck.Org: "On closer examination, his proposal is to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that 'fast' to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported. ... We do object to implying that a decade-long program, which in all probability could not even begin until sometime in late 2009, is a 'fast track' to anything." (FactCheck.Org, "Straining A Point," http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/8, 7/17/08)

JUST WORDS #9: Barack Obama Says We Need To Tap The Very Same Domestic Sources Of Energy He Opposes TappingBarack Obama: "And to further reduce our demand for foreign oil, I'll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and expand domestic production of oil." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· Barack Obama Opposes Offshore Drilling. OBAMA: "This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say the majority of Americans think that's one of the ways we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Springfield, MO, 7/30/08)· Joe Biden Said That He And Barack Obama Don't Support Clean Coal And Believe In "No Coal Plants Here In America." PERSON: "Senator, Senator, wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" BIDEN: "Say ... I didn't hear what you said." PERSON: "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" BIDEN: "We're not supporting 'clean coal.' Guess what. China's building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States. It's causing people to die." PERSON: "So will you support wind and solar?" BIDEN: "Absolutely. Before anybody did. The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me, 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me, 26 years ago. It came out of Delaware. But guess what. China is gonna burn three hundred years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up. Because it's going to ruin your lungs and t here's nothing we can do about it. No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they're going to build them over there make 'em clean because they're killing you." (Joe Biden, Remarks, Maumee, OH, 9/17/08)

JUST WORDS #10: Barack Obama Says His Spending Proposals Are All Paid For But According To Independent Sources, Barack Obama Can Not Account For All His New SpendingBarack Obama: "That's why, for my energy plan, my economic plan and the other proposals you'll hear tonight, I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost. I'll also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that don't work ... and making the ones we do need work better and cost less." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· ABC News: Barack Obama Can Not "Pay For Every Dime" Of New Spending He Has Proposed. "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said during Friday's presidential debate that he would 'pay for every dime' of his spending. But according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 'without substantial cuts in government spending' Obama's plan -- and McCain's, too --'would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years.' The Tax Policy Center has estimated that Obama's proposed tax policies would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over ten years." ("Fact Check: 'Pay for Every Dime'? Not Quite," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/9 <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/10> , Posted 9/26/08)· PolitiFact Discredits Barack Obama's Claim That His Proposals Are Paid For; Says His Rhetoric Is "Disingenuous." "Until he fleshes out his economic plan considerably more, it's disingenuous to go around claiming his proposals are 'paid for.' And that claim is even more suspect considering that his proposals would leave a larger deficit than would the tax laws currently on the books. We find his claim to be Barely True." ("'Paid For' Without Real Money," St. Petersburg Times' "PolitiFact.com," www.politifact.com <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/11> , 6/16/08)· Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama "Has Not Identified New Revenue Sources Or Spending Cuts To Pay For Some Of" His Proposals. "The Obama campaign responds that tax cuts, once enacted, are usually renewed and do not expire. Therefore, they say, Obama can legitimately claim to be recouping money for other purposes by scaling back the tax cuts. Obama has not identified new revenue sources or spending cuts to pay for some of what he wants to do." (Peter Nicholas, "Adding Up The Cost Of Obama's Agenda," Los Angeles Times, 7/8/08)

JUST WORDS #11: Barack Obama Talks About Reforming Education But He Has No RecordBarack Obama: "Now is not the time for small plans - now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation - to provide every child a world class education. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries, and give them more support. And in exchange I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· "In His Eight Years In The State Senate And Two Years In The U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama Hasn't Made A Significant Mark On Education Policy." ("Obama's Annenberg Stint Informs White House Bid," Education Week, 3/7/07)· The Washington Post: Barack Obama "Elusive" On School Accountability. "Mr. Obama, as the New York Times' David Brooks recently observed, has promised dozens of crowd-pleasing programs but has been elusive on such thorny issues as teacher tenure and school accountability." (Editorial, "Focus On School Reform," The Washington Post, 7/7/08)· Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman: "Obama Is The Staunch Defender Of The Existing Public School Monopoly." "On the subject of elementary and secondary education, the two seem to have gotten their roles completely mixed up. Obama is the staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly, and he's allergic to anything that subverts it. John McCain, on the other hand, went before the NAACP last week to argue for something new and daring." (Steve Chapman, Op-Ed, "Change: A Matter Of Convenience," Chicago Tribune, 7/20/08)

JUST WORDS #12: Barack Obama Says His Health Care Plan Will Save Families $2,500 But There Is "Zero Credible Evidence" For ThatBarack Obama: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions ... and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 dollars a year. And you can keep your same coverage and your same doctor." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· Barack Obama's Pledge To Lower Health Care Premiums By $2,500 In His First Term "Is A Matter Of Considerable Dispute" Among Experts. "In speech after speech, Senator Barack Obama has pledged that he will lower the country's health care costs enough to 'bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.' Moreover, Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has promised that his health plan will be in place 'by the end of my first term as president of the United States.' Whether Mr. Obama can deliver is a matter of considerable dispute among health analysts and economists." (Kevin Sack, "Obstacles For Obama In Meeting Health Care Goal," The New York Times, 7/23/08) · A Health Policy Professor At The University Of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Said The Savings In The Obama Plan Are "Wishful Thinking." "Jonathan B. Oberlander, who teaches health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, called it wishful thinking. 'Do they have the potential to generate significant savings in the long run?' Dr. Oberlander asked. 'Yes. Do I believe they will produce substantial savings in the short run that can be used to finance Obama's plan? No.'" (Kevin Sack, "Obstacles For Obama In Meeting Health Care Goal," The New York Times, 7/23/08) · M.I.T.'s Jonathan Gruber Said That There Is "Zero Credible Evidence" That The Obama Plan Will Save The Average Family On The Costs Of Insurance Premiums. "Experts also are skeptical of both [Obama and Clinton's] claims that their plans will reduce the cost of insurance for the typical family by $2,000 or more. 'I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion,' says M.I.T's Jonathan Gruber." (Factcheck.org Website, www.factcheck.org <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/12> , Accessed 6/9/08) · Factcheck.Org: Barack Obama's Claim That His Plan Will Cut Insurance Premium Costs By $2,500 Is "A Bit Of Misleading Math." "That's a bit of misleading math. It assumes individual Americans will share in all of the savings for the health care system, which includes insurance companies, the government and health care providers. Obama claims families will save $2,500 under his plan, but they won't see at least some of those savings directly in the form of lower premiums. And they may not see them indirectly either." (Factcheck.Org, www.factcheck.org <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/13> , Accessed 6/16/08)

JUST WORDS #13: Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Says Barack Obama Was A Clear Leader In The Illinois State Legislature But He Voted "Present" Nearly 130 TimesSenator Dick Durbin: "Here's a person who as a state legislator was a clear leader in Springfield on so many important issues that really made a difference. Came to Washington, had an impact as soon as he arrived." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· Barack Obama Voted "Present" Nearly 130 Times When He Was A State Senator. "In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted "present," effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator." (Raymond Hernandez And Christopher Drew, "It's Not Just 'Ayes' And 'Nays': Obama's Votes In Illinois Echo," The New York Times, 12/20/07)· Hillary Clinton: Barack Obama's State Senate "Present Votes" Demonstrated An Unwillingness To "Draw A Lot Of Political Heat." CLINTON: "And, you know, this is kind of like the 'present' vote thing, because the Chicago Tribune, his hometown paper, said that all those 'present' votes was taking a pass. It was for political reasons. Well, when you come up with a universal health care plan and you don't have any wiggle room left, you know that you're going to draw a lot of political heat." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, CNN Democrat Presidential Debate, Myrtle Beach, SC, 1/21/08)

JUST WORDS #14: Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Says Barack Obama Went Up Against His Own Party But The Ethics Bill Was Hardly A Test Of Party LoyaltySenator Claire McCaskill: "He's changed the rules in Washington. Gone are the free gifts from lobbyist, gone are the fancy airplane rides for nothing. He did that. Now, it wasn't easy. He had to work across party lines. More importantly, he had to fight senior members of the Senate who liked it just fine the way it was." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· Joining 82 Other Senators, Barack Obama Voted For The 2007 Lobbying And Ethics Reform Legislation. "Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the bill that would overhaul congressional lobbying and ethics rules for members and their staffs and require the disclosure of 'bundled' campaign contributions that exceed $15,000 in a six-month period. Former senators would have to wait two years before becoming lobbyists." (S. 1, CQ Vote #294: Motion Agreed To 83-14: R 34-14; D 47-0; I 2-0, 8/2/07, Obama Voted Yea)· FactCheck.org: Ethics Bill "Hardly A Test Of Party Loyalty." "Worth noting, also, is that Obama gave his supposed collaboration with McCain as an example of how he had worked 'against party loyalty ... for the good of America,' in the words used by Warren in his question. In fact, the measure that became law was sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and a bipartisan list of 16 others. ... But in the end the bill was hardly a test of party loyalty." ("Saddleback Bloggers," FactCheck.org, 8/18/08)· The Wall Street Journal's John Fund: "On A Relatively Minor Ethics Bill," Barack Obama Declined To Work With John McCain In Favor Of "Signing Onto The Democratic Leadership's Ethics Bill." "Mr. McCain said he had 'a long list' and provided specifics from global warming to runaway spending under a Republican Congress. Barack Obama offered only one answer: 'Well, I'll give you an example that in fact I worked with John McCain on," Mr. Obama said, 'and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform.' ... While it's true he briefly teamed up with Mr. McCain on rewriting a Congressional ethics bill, their alliance didn't last long. Back in February 2006, Mr. Obama wrote to Mr. McCain that he was declining to join a bipartisan task force and was instead signing onto the Democratic leadership's ethics bill. Mr. McCain responded with a harsh note accusing Mr. Obama of retreating into 'self-interested partisan posturing.' ... In the end, both men found a way to kiss and make up, and both found reasons to oppose the final ethics bill. But Mr. Obama is now the one citing work on a relatively minor ethics bill as an example of his unself-interested pursuit of the national good. The actual history isn't so clear and draws an unfortunate contrast with Mr. McCain's well-known independence from party orthodoxy. A shortage of examples of him breaking with his party's line remains one of Mr. Obama's big vulnerabilities." (John Fund, Op-Ed, "Obama's Self-Profile In Courage," The Wall Street Journal's "Political Dairy," 8/18/08)

JUST WORDS #15: Senator Joe Biden Says Barack Obama Reached Across And Led On An Effort That Was Hardly A Test Of Leadership Barack Obama: "He came in, not only reached out, but reached across the aisle to Dick Lugar, one of the leading guys in America for the past 20 years on arms control, to keep loose nukes out of the hands of terrorists." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· Barack Obama Co-Sponsored Legislation To Authorize "The President To Establish A Program To Provide Assistance To Friendly Foreign Countries For Proliferation Detection And Interdiction Activities And For Developing Complementary Capabilities (Program)" That Was Incorporated Into Another Bill That Passed By Unanimous Consent. (S. 2566, Introduced 4/6/06)· The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Working with Dick Lugar on loose nukes was a good thing, and an example of Obama's willingness to write legislation [with] Republicans, but it didn't piss off liberals. (Who's in favor of looser nukes?)" (Marc Ambinder, "Obama's Bipartisanship," The Atlantic, 6/26/08)

JUST WORDS #16: Barack Obama Says He Will Expand The Military But An Adviser He Is Selling Access To Is Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Who Proposes Cutting Defense Spending By 25%Barack Obama: "As president, I will rebuild our military to meet 21st century challenges." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) Proposed A 25 Percent Cut In Military Spending To Fund A New Stimulus Package. "After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday. In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay." (Steve Urbon, "Frank Envisions Post-Election Stimulus From Democrats," Standard-Times, 10/24/08)· Barack Obama's Campaign Offered Up A Reception With Rep. Barney Frank To Donors For $1,000. "Aides to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) scheduled pricey luncheons, roundtables, readings, V.I.P. receptions, dinners and policy dinners with campaign officials and advisers, offering donors a taste of his potential administration. ... An e-mailed October 'national schedule of upcoming events across the country for Obama/Biden' was provided to Politico by one of the recipients. Among the offerings: ... --Reception in Palm Springs, Calif., with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee -- $1,000 or $250." (Mike Allen, "Obama Donors Get Access To Top Advisers," Politico, http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/14 <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/15> , 10/ 29/08)

JUST WORDS #17: Barack Obama Says He Wants Tough Diplomacy With Iran But Would Meet With Ahmadinejad Without PreconditionBarack Obama: "I will renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· Barack Obama Would Unconditionally Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror "Without Precondition" Like Ahmadinejad. QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... OBAMA: "I would." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)· The Wall Street Journal: Barack Obama's Foreign Policy "Could Strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad." "Middle East experts said Obama's strategy holds potential pitfalls. In Iran, they said, Sen. Obama could strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad if as U.S. president he moves too quickly to hold direct talks with Tehran's leader." (Jay Solomon, "Obama's Foreign-Policy Pledge Sparks Criticism from Rivals," Wall Street Journal, 3/26/08)· The Washington Post: European Officials "Increasingly Concerned That Sen. Barack Obama's Campaign Pledge To Begin Direct Talks ... Could Potentially Rupture U.S. Relations With Key European Allies." (Glenn Kessler, "Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran," The Washington Post, 6/22/08)

JUST WORDS #18: Barack Obama Says He Will Focus On Afghanistan But He Did Not Focus On Afghanistan When In The United States SenateBarack Obama: "And I will refocus our efforts on finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· Barack Obama Has Served As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs From 2007 -- 2008. (U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Website, www.senate.gov <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/16> , Accessed 2/15/08)· As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Barack Obama Could Have Held Hearings On The Role Of NATO In Afghanistan. "[A]mbassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations...[P]oints out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change..." (Joe Conason, "Obama's European Problem," www.salon.com <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/17> , 12/29/07)· Barack Obama: "I became Chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." (MSNBC Democratic Presidential Debate, 2/27/08)· Hillary Clinton Criticized Barack Obama For Not Holding Hearings As European Affairs Subcommittee Chairman. Sen. Clinton: "But I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee. He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He's held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan." (Sen. Clinton, NBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)

JUST WORDS #19: Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) Says Barack Obama -- Who Has An Extreme Partisan Record -- Could Bring Bipartisanship To WashingtonGovernor Bill Richardson: "That he's a man that can heal this country, that can bring bipartisanship." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)· The Associated Press: "None" Of Barack Obama's Touted Bipartisan Efforts Paced Him "At Odds With The Leaders Of His Own Party Or Gave Significant Offense To Outside Interest Groups With Democrats." (David Espo, "Bipartisanship Marks McCain's Senate Tenure," Associated Press, 7/2/08)· NPR's Juan Williams: Barack Obama "Doesn't Have The Record" Of Bipartisanship That John McCain Has. NPR'S JUAN WILLIAMS: "You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there's John McCain working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn't have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn't have the record." (Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume," 5/7/08)· The Washington Post's Richard Cohen: "There Is Scant Evidence The Illinois Senator Takes Positions That Challenge His Base Or Otherwise Threaten Him Politically." (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, "McCain's Core Advantage," The Washington Post, 6/24/08)· Politico's Jonathan Martin: "He's Pretty Much A Conventional Liberal On The Issues And Has Few Examples Of Breaking With His Own Party, So How Does Obama Try To Pull Off Being 'Post-Partisan?'" (Jonathan Martin, "Obama's Third Way: It's All In The Tone," Politico, 6/30/08)· Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): "His Record Does Not Reflect Working In A Bipartisan Fashion." "Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, 'unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.'" (Tim Talley, "Okla. Dem Calls Obama Liberal, Declines To Endorse," The Associated Press, 6/10/08)· "The Record Shows Obama To Be A Fairly Doctrinaire Liberal Democrat..." (Editorial, "Obama's Rhetoric Soars, But What Does His Record Suggest?" USA Today, 1/28/08)· In 2007, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com <http://dl.pofskil.com/fs/d:l/distribution_jdqy8610gwi83me/xikdehmsna7t0n/18> , Accessed 3/3/08)

Barack Hussein Obama on Redistribution of Wealth

In their Own Words

I would like to encourage all who are reading this to watch this important video.

Each of our Presidential Candidates decribes in his own words his view on life.

The American voter is compelled to respond, who they will support this November 4th. Being informed citizens, let us choose wisely!

"Joe the Plumber"

"Joe the plumber" has a secret plan to destroy Barack Obama. If you believe the media, Joe is a sinister, McCain-supporting Republican of the Reagan type — he is a true threat to the "Anointed One" — Barack Obama — and his chances of becoming president of the United States. This sounds almost like a make-believe story, but it's true. The media has been seeking to decapitate Joe the plumber. Why? Because he's an ordinary American who has a dream of business success for himself and his family. One day, Joe woke up and suddenly realized that Barack Obama is going to punish him with brutal taxes.

Just by coincidence — and I know Chris Matthews and Katie Couric will never believe it was simply a coincidence — Joe met Barack Obama as Obama passed through his Ohio neighborhood. When Joe challenged Obama with a tough question — something the press has not done during the past two years — the Anointed One wilted. How dare Joe want to make and keep his own money? The nerve of this man to want to be a success in a small business! As Obama put it, shouldn't Joe want to help him "spread the wealth around?"

With that one remark, Obama's No. 1 Lie, his disguise as a moderate crumbled.

Lie No. 2: I will tax just the rich!
There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone. Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as "rich." Joe the plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe's rich too. Under Obama, he won't be able to hire new employees and grow his business. Joe's not alone. Obama says he'll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker.

That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you'll pay 7 percent!

And finally number Lie No. 3, just two little words... "William Ayers"

Welcome to Club Obama

For twenty years, Barack Obama sat in the pews of a Chicago church led by Reverend Jeremiah Wright who said, "the Government gives them the drugs, then builds bigger prisons then sings God Bless America."No, No, No, not "God Bless America", "God damn America."

Obama has often said that Ayers was "just a guy in your neighborhood", but The Wall Street Journal tells us that Obama and William Ayers worked as a team on a $100 million radical education project. And they must be right, because when Obama decided to run for the Senate, he announced his candidacy at home of William Ayers!

Obama also collaborated with Bernadette Dorhn, a woman who was responsible for the death of two police officers and two armored truck guards. How can we trust Senator Obama to be President of the United States? His judgment should be called into question by EVERY American. Just this year Obama said, Americans, "when they get bitter, cling to guns or religion..."

Is that how you want to be perceived by YOUR President?

For more on the subject, you might want to try this link which provides some very serious insight into Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s character: http://www.neverfindout.org/

Words and Motorcycles

Words, words, words, it's all about words. Proposition 8 redefines for all time, at least for California, what the word “Marriage” means. Lets try to simplify things with an analogy:

Lets say that relationships are like vehicles. Different types of vehicles would in this analogy represent relationship types. The heterosexual relationship (know for centuries as marriage) would, in this analogy, be the standard average passenger vehicle, for this discussion, “the Car”. The homosexual relationship (also around for centuries, albeit not in “as great of numbers’) could be represented as perhaps by the relatively infrequently seen, Motorcycle.

No offense to those motorcycle enthusiasts who may be reading this, allow me a little license here please.

How would California (society) respond if four California Supreme Court judges suddenly decided that motorcycles should now be referred to as “Cars”? More to the point, how would the voting public respond following this silly decision by the court, to a proposition to forever change references to these types of vehicles, back to the original term “motorcycles”?

My point is simply this:
Clearly there are differences in the two types of vehicles (relationships). Referring to them by using the same word does not change this. It only adds confusion. It makes the word “marriage” rather arbitrary, requiring further definition in order for the listener or reader to fully comprehend what is being discussed. This runs contrary to the natural development of language. Language grows to be more and more descriptive with time. New words are added to the languages of the world, each and every year. Changing a perfectly well excepted and defined words meaning is fraught with problems.

Using the same word for two diametrically opposed types of vehicles, clothing, or other consumer products would be marketing suicide. Consider buying a regular cola and later discovering it was really a diet lemon-lime drink, or a sack of flour only to later discover at home that you had purchased powdered milk.

We currently have perfectly good words and binding legal contracts available for same-sex couples to use to both celebrate and secure their relationships. We do not need to change our dictionaries for same-sex couples to achieve “equal rights”. The family code of the State of California has more than adequate provisions, made on their behalf. To obtain proof of this, do your own research at the following link:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=7059521563+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Unfortunately, what we do have to do, thanks to the liberal, activist leanings of the California Supreme court, is change our Constitution to include those 14 little words that are causing the homosexual community such distress:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California”

Better Dead Than Red

In certain unscripted moments, Barack Obama has given us a glimpse of his socialist inclinations, but I wonder what percentage would vote for him if they truly understood the extent of his radicalism.

The current financial crisis has created a climate of fear and uncertainty and unleashed an unprecedented tolerance for large-scale government intervention, which is playing perfectly into Obama's hands. People are blaming this largely Democratic-spawned mess on Republicans because Bush is still at the helm.

I do not mean to be an alarmist, but I'm worried for the first time in my life that the election of a presidential candidate could lead to a fundamental change in our system of government. It is scary, just listening to the comments of post-debate focus group members expressing a knowing willingness to accept Obama's socialism.

Already some 38 percent of Americans do not pay income taxes, and Barack Obama wants to increase that percentage dramatically. In this class warfare the upper-middle class and wealthy are demonized as not earning an honest living. Do you suppose it has registered with Obama voters that Obama is deliberately turning the American dream on its head? Can they hear that his message to the middle class is:

Don't aspire to achievement, success and wealth because:
a) it is immoral to have more than others,
b) the government will take your wealth away from you and give it to others,
c) why bother to bust your rear end to make more when you can vote yourselves money from the public trough?

Obama let slip his socialist proclivities to “Joe the plumber” when he denied he wanted to punish wealth and insisted he just wanted to spread the wealth around. Joe was justifiably repulsed by Obama's cavalier attitude toward the American dream. Afterall, even “Joe the plumber” knows the stated purpose of the income tax system was to fund government services, not to redistribute wealth.
It's one thing to say that higher income earners should pay a higher percentage for government services. But Obama makes no pretense of stopping there. He told Joe that he wants to use the tax code to confiscate money from higher income earners and give it to others.
When Obama says he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is playing games with the truth. If 38 percent are already not paying, his tax credits to them amount to transfer payments from higher income earners, which are actually spending increases, not tax cuts, as The Wall Street Journal editors have noted.
Liberals, such as Obama, might deny human nature, but they can't change it. And human nature happens to dictate that people will not produce as much when you confiscate more of what they produce and give it to others. The working wealthy, especially Christians and conservatives, are some of the most generous people in the world, but we're talking about voluntary charitable contributions, not unconstitutionally coerced redistributions.
How many times must history repeat itself before we learn that socialism and communism cannot work. Liberals love to mock the trickledown theory, but they simply cannot refute the alarming truth:

“That people produce less when they aren't allowed to keep as much of what they produce”.

When do-gooder social planners try to control how much we keep, they guarantee that everyone gets less in the end because they shrink the overall pie.Socialism and communism have failed everywhere they've been tried in the world, yet die-hard socialists, such as William Ayers, (believing they are still smarter than God), insist on cramming them down our throats in the name of "fairness." Radicals always say that true socialism hasn't been given a real chance.

Well, if Obama is elected, socialism may get that chance!

Barack on the Bible

Show Me the Money

As millions of dollars pour into the landmark California Campaign over Proposition 8 – the proposed amendment that would restore traditional marriage in the Golden State – a review of those donations is painting drastically different portraits of each side of the debate.
An online review of contributions for Protect Marriage’s Yes on 8 reveals that nearly half of the money is coming from gifts of $1,000 or less and 95 percent of individual donations are coming from within the state. Contributions to the No on 8 campaign show, however, that nearly two-thirds of the donations are for more than $1,000. In addition, more than a dozen gay and lesbian rights organizations have combined to pump in several million dollars to try to defeat the measure.

“It illustrates this is a classic battle between a vocal minority and a broad majority of Californians over traditional marriage,” said Andy Pugno, legal council for the Yes on 8 campaign.

For more details follow this link:

http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Oct08/Art_Oct08_12.html

Theft...A New Political Strategy?

Recently neighborhoods in the Chino and Chino Hills areas have been attacked by vandals’ intent on limiting free speech. Numerous political yard signs in support of Proposition 8 are disappearing from private property overnight. The well funded campaign in opposition to Proposition 8 may be unaware that some of their supporters lack respect for free speech and personal property rights, but such mischievous late night activities certainly stand in sharp contrast to the “Equal Civil Rights” that is central to their campaign strategy. The basic argument they put forth is that their behavior should be protected as a civil right. Should the theft of yard signs be included in these protected behaviors?

Throughout this campaign those opposed to Proposition 8 have shown that they are willing to go to any length to secure their so-called “Civil Right” for same sex couples to marry. Jerry Brown, in an attempt to bias voters, re-titled the proposition from "limits marriage between one man and one woman" to "a constitutional change to eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry". No doubt Jerry Brown has more than one agenda here, as our state Attorney General he is well aware that the rights that are being fought for in this battle are already granted to same sex couples under current laws.
Also are you aware that “Brides” and "Grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California, that privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called “Party A” and “Party B” on marriage licenses. According to Pacific Justice Institute, a young couple's marriage license was denied by the Placer County Clerk/Recorder because it failed to comply with California State registration laws. Their offense? Writing "bride and groom" next to the license's "Party A and Party B." Writing the gender-specific terms was an "unacceptable alteration" to the new ambiguous marriage licenses. One wonders, what's next? Will the State of California force ministers to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?
Man-woman marriage is the only natural way to build families, which in turn builds a society. In the United States, same-sex couples are free to live as they choose. It is dangerous, however, to treat marriage as a "social construct" that is changeable. Husband-wife unions are the basic source of society. Because society is not the source of marriage's definition, it cannot change the accurate description of marriage by its own will. Voters should hear alarm bells ringing when radical judges act as they did this year to “redefine words”, especially words that do not find their definition in the courts.

To correct this injustice Proposition 8 adds 14 words to the constitution of California:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”

40 Days Left - Let's Finish Strong!

I attended another simulcast conference this morning focused upon updates to the Proposition 8 strategies around the state. Todays meeting also marked forty days of prayer left until November 4th. It was really good for me personally to be present there this morning.

I have struggled lately with the realization that my own deep felt interest in the issue of protecting the definition of marriage is not as passionately felt by many people that I come in contact with, even many that are very near and dear to me. I have even felt that my own church is hesitant to get too involved with the issue. These realizations cause me to take stock of where I find myself. Am I out of touch here? Am I making too much of this perceived threat?

This mornings meeting was a great reminder of the following truths:

God designed marriage to be one man and one women

Churches need to be informed and careful as to how they respond politically

Whether apparent or not, there really is a lot of support for Proposition 8 out there.

Voter polling regarding this issue has traditionally been off by 7-8% to the negative
(Meaning public opinion is in favor of the measure 7-8% more than reported)

Previously the State of California ballot boxes showed a 62% support for similar measures, like proposition 22, back in 2006 (75% in the county where I live)

Satan wants me to become discouraged and feel unsupported in my efforts.

At this mornings meeting, Lou Engle of The Call Ministry painted a very convincing argument that we are living in a period of State sanctioned and legalized sexual immorality very similar to that, which existed under King Ahab and his wife Queen Jezebel. The Bible lists Ahab as the most evil of all the kings before him (1 Kings 16:30). He did not make wise choices:

A Little History:
Ahab was the seventh King of Israel. He reigned for 22 years (871-852 BC). He was the son of Omri. He married Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, the king of the Sidonians. Ahab, under Jezebel's influence, built a pagan temple, and allowed idols into Samaria. Elijah the prophet warned Ahab that the country would suffer from drought if the cult of Baal was not removed from the land of Israel. Baal worship was accompanied with sinful sexual acts; behaviour expressly forbidden in Jehovah's law.After three years of drought, Elijah challenged Ahab and his pagan priests on Mount Carmel. God sent down fire to ignite a sacrifice, but the priests of Baal could not summon Baal to do the same. Then the people realized that God was the only true God. (1 Kings 18:18-39). Then, rains came and ended the drought.

Elijah denounced Ahab as a murderer because of the stoning of Naboth, which Jezebel, had instigated. Elijah told Ahab that dogs would lick his blood outside of the city, just as they had licked the blood of Naboth. He also told Ahab that none of his male heirs would survive and that Queen Jezebel would be torn apart by the dogs of Jezreel (1 Kings 21:17-24).

It is not hard to see Lou Engle’s point, as beacons of Light in this dark world, we Christians have a right and, ...dare I say an obligation to protect the future of this country from those that wish to sanction immorality as a social norm.

Queerly Beloved

After the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22 in June, pro-family policy experts forewarned dramatic changes for marriages and weddings in California and across the nation. Not only would homosexuals be allowed to redefine marriage, every aspect of this timeless relationship would be altered. Attending weddings in the future will be a very different experience.

We now have concrete evidence of just how radical the post-Proposition 22 era will be. “Brides” and "Grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California, that privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called “Party A” and “Party B” on marriage licenses.

According to Pacific Justice Institute, a young couple's marriage license was denied by the Placer County Clerk/Recorder because it failed to comply with California State registration laws. Their offense? Writing "bride and groom" next to the license's "Party A and Party B." Writing the gender-specific terms was an "unacceptable alteration" to the new ambiguous marriage licenses.

What's next? Will the State of California force ministers to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?

Voters must change the state constitution by passing the Marriage Amendment (Proposition 8) in November if they wish to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage. Unless Proposition 8 is passed, heterosexual couples will be forced to wed out of the state if they wish to be officially identified as bride and groom or husband and wife. This is a major slap in the face for traditional marriage.

To make sure every young couple is able to honor their covenant relationship, join the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign!

Obama & Biden... A Bridge to Nowhere?

Years ago a friend and I joked about creating our own company called "Change Incorporated". Our business plan (Ha-Ha) was to meet the demand for change in this world by… you guessed it, providing changes for people. We joked that we would demand artistic license to change whatever we were hired to change, as WE saw fit. It was a short-lived chuckle over a beer or two. Little did we know that the 2008 Democratic Presidential ticket would steal our idea!

The Barack Obama’s “Blueprint for Change” is a 59-page document detailing Obama’s game plan to build our government into a Goliath sized welfare wagon and will replace economic incentive with legislated handcuffs. When states try these sorts of maneuvers, businesses leave them for warmer climates. Such practices on a federal level could only further stifle the U.S. economy and pound a wooden stake in the heart of the country. The only jobs that government can create are government jobs and our government is large enough now. We desperately need to provide American Businesses with all the incentives we can so that we can stimulate businesses to create more jobs and restore the economy.

The ideas Senator Obama puts forth in this liberal manifesto sound encouraging, generous, magnanimous and enabling, kind of like the mythical “free lunch”, but these ideas are dangerous and ill conceived. This so called “Blueprint” has NOT had the benefit of the plan check process. Almost every “supposed solution” that Obama promotes has a huge price tag associated with its realistic establishment. The document outlines the creation of countless new government agencies and subsidies. Translation: Bigger government and more taxes. Also included is the extensive use of the Internet to operate the business of the United States government. No doubt he’ll be getting most of his assistance from Al Gore with this part of the plan, unless Al is too busy saving the planet.

In all fairness, new ideas are needed to improve the mess that we are in. Real reform is required in numerous departments in Washington, but larger government and more taxes would move us in the wrong direction. When families struggle with managing their finances, they too often think that more money is the solution to the problem. But the problem is management, not money. Statistics prove that more money just makes for a larger problem. The same is true with government. Additionally, Obama’s blueprint for change has Grand titles and notions but little substance. Even Hillary Clinton during the primaries pointed out that there are very few specifics outlined in the document.

So, how do we obtain REAL REFORM?

We elect people who are real reformers. People with a proven track record, with the ability to take on the old school, wasteful crowd of politicians, no matter the party and put the needs of the people first. Senator McCain & Governor Palin are such people and have reformers records to prove it. Obama is a two-year-old U.S. Senator with the most liberal spending record in the senate. His running mate is a dyed in the wool liberal, a plagiarizing 30 year old senator with the 2nd highest spending record in the senate. Neither has spent any time reaching across the aisle to create a unified bipartisan coalition of reform. Their plans for America are poorly planned and un-supported, much like a “Bridge to Nowhere”.

Governor Palin already has experience in dismantling such useless structures. She and John McCain have a Blueprint of their own. It includes a widely swinging wrecking ball of reform for Washington. McCain has promised to veto the very first pork barrel spending bill to hit his desk when he is president and to let the nation know just who authored it.

We don’t need “bridges to nowhere” or “blueprints that can’t pass plan check”

Profile in Courage

Many by now have been introduced to Governor Sarah Palin and have witnessed the meteoric rise to national attention in just these last few weeks. This well loved and respected governor of Alaska (80% approval rating) was introduced to the country as a God fearing, pro-life, pro-gun, reformer candidate. Her pro-life stance is personified in Trig, her 4-month-old child with Downs’s syndrome. Her desire to deliver and raise a child with such a challenge in these times of abortion on demand, speaks volumes to the conservative, pro-life American community. Here is a woman, who practices what she preaches, whose word is her bond. During her career in politics, the headlines have painted her to be an aggressive reformer. She is principled and unashamedly submits her principals to scrutiny.

Well, the media has lost little time in attempting to find fault with her. Revelations regarding her seventeen-year-old daughters pregnancy are being used to try and make her appear as a hypocrite. There is an argument being made that, if it is revealed that your family has flaws in areas you espouse to be core values, then you must just be spinning the truth and your stated beliefs are just fluff, packaged for general distribution to the voters to win you a spot on the American stage.

But when it comes to your core values and your moral compass, it is not your circumstances that prove your sincerity, but your actions when under the pressure of dealing with those circumstances. People are imperfect. Bad stuff happens, even with the best of intentions. It is the reason why we are all in need of a Savior. It is times like these when the moral compass is needed most to stand firm and do the right thing. Governor Palin would prefer no doubt to not have the issue of her daughters pregnancy be plaguing her campaign right now – the highlight of her career in politics. But the facts are the facts and she has rightly and appropriately addressed the issue by loving and supporting her daughter and embracing this new life, because that is a true expression of her core values.

Bravery does not imply the absence of fear, but the ability to rise above the crippling power of fear and not be controlled by it. The courageous person, especially one with intellectual courage, must learn to endure suffering and hardship in the interests of the truth and to continue attacking harmful falsehoods even when it is risky and painful. For the Christian courage comes from a deep confident understanding in God’s providential care of His children.

Both Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin are Brave leaders of America; reminding us that Core Christian values do matter and have a place in the voting booth

Obama's Inexperience - Exposed

The Democrats' golden boy, Barack Obama, showed once again this week that he is not ready for the presidency. In trying to make himself appear to have experience, he's now claiming that "running for president" gives him experience to be president. That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. That would basically qualify anyone who runs for president to have the necessary experience. He was trying to draw contrast between himself and GOP Vice Presidential Nominee Gov. Sarah Palin. As noted on FOX News, in an interview Obama said:

"Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We've got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years," Obama said.

This is ridiculous on many levels. First, for Obama, who's running for president, to try to make himself look better by going after Palin, who's running for vice president, shows that Obama can't even keep his eye on the target. His opponent is McCain, and voters will be voting for either McCain or Obama.
Second, Obama tries to compare his operation to Gov. Palin's by using budget and personnel numbers when she was MAYOR. The Obama campaign seems to forget that she is governor of Alaska. As McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds notes, "It is a testament to Barack Obama's inexperience and failing qualifications that he would stoop to passing off his candidacy as comparable to Governor Sarah Palin's executive experience managing a budget of over $10 billion and more than 24,000 employees."

Obama is too liberal and too inexperienced to be president. Hopefully America will see the light. There is too much at stake.

Today is a good day! John McCain picked a very strong running mate in Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska. He himself said this about her:

"I am honored to announce that I have chosen Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as my choice for the Republican nominee for Vice President. As a father with three daughters, I can't express how proud I am to choose the first female Republican Vice-Presidential nominee. Sarah Palin is a trailblazer and a reformer. As the first female governor of Alaska, she challenged a corrupt system and has been a tireless advocate for reform - passing a landmark bill on ethics reform. She has taken on the old politics in Alaska and reformed the state's energy industry. She rejects wasteful pork barrel spending. She's fearless - exactly the type of leader I want at my side and the type of leadership we will bring to Washington."

McCain has brilliantly also captured the press today. The pomp and pageantry of last nights close of the Democratic convention is buried by not only this announcement of the McCain-Palin ticket but also by Hurricane Gustav. Now that he has picked a strong partner and has the full attention of the media, for once, he needs to do the following:

Shatter the image the Democrat's painted that

his 1st Term = Bush's 3rd term.
Let America know how much Obamas Changes would cost

Prove that Obamas dream is would be an economic disaster
Point out Obamas weakness in foreign policy.

All in all today was a great day in the trenches

Hail Ceasar!

Tonight, Senator Obama will accept the Democratic Parties nomination for president

“We're trying to do something new," said a senior Obama campaign aide, noting that Obama is taking a page from the campaign book of John Kennedy, who in 1960 delivered his acceptance speech to 80,000 people in the Los Angeles Coliseum.

Allen, the stage supervisor for Spears and several other rock stars, says he designed the set more to evoke images of the White House and the Lincoln Memorial, not the Acropolis. "We've done Britney's sets and a whole bunch of rock shows,” Allen said, “but this was far more elaborate and complicated and we had to do it in far less time."

Once Obama speaks, confetti will rain down on him and fireworks will be fired off from locations around the stadium wall, according to an Associated Press report.

Obama - Biden ...or Osama Bin Laden?

On Monday, while Democrats delivered vague speeches from a stage set that rivaled a rock concert, those outside the convention hall were left asking:

Who is the real Barack Obama?
An ad at www.americanissuesproject.org provides part of the answer:


The ad explores Obama's ties to William Ayers, whom the New York Sun describes as a "founding member of the group that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon during the 1970s." If you plan to vote in November, you need to see this ad.

In 2001, Ayers Did Not Express Regret For His Past Conduct And Even Claimed The Weather Underground "Didn't Do Enough" Bombings. "Mr. Ayers wrote a memoir, 'Fugitive Days,' published in 2001, and on the day of the September 11 terrorist attacks, he was quoted by the New York Times as saying: 'I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.'" (Russell Berman, "Obama's Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny," The New York Sun, 2/19/08)
"Obama's relationship with Ayers is an especially vivid milepost on his rise, in record time, from a local official who unabashedly reflected a very liberal district to the leader of national movement based largely on the claim that he can transcend ideological divides." (Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited 60s Radicals," Politico, 2/22/08)
The fact that Barack Obama chose to launch his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist reflects not only a lack of judgment, but also real questions about his views. Obama's response to the ad? A full-throated defense of his long association with a man who says he didn't bomb enough U.S. targets. That tells us more about Barack Obama than any of the speeches we saw Monday night ever could.

Obama - Biden or is it Osama Bin Laden?....I am confused, who is running again?

Personal Morality and Public Policy

I just learned that Senator Obama said the following in a 2004 speech:

“Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Obama is absolutely right. To argue that one can’t vote one’s conscience on issues is morally and intellectually incoherent — for both politicians and ordinary voters.

But,....If Obama is a Christian, as he claims to be, then how is it that he is able to embrace his “murder on demand” position on Abortion? Could it simply be that "his personal morality" has been bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood?

One Nation......Under God?

This nation was founded by a people greatly concerned with the protection of individual freedom. Much careful time and effort was placed upon the creation of a system of governing which insured the protection of the individual from the tyranny of the state. The checks and balances between the three branches of government were created to establish and maintain this balance and harmony.

It is this very focus upon the rights of the individual, I fear, that will also be responsible for dismantling the rich Christian Heritage that was also an important aspect of this nations founding. How can that be you might ask? On the surface these two facets of our society seem extremely complimentary. But, over the last view decades, selfishness has captured center stage in this country and a focus on the rights of the individual has been championed, I feel, to the detriment of society as a whole.

In short, what I am saying is that an important problem with democratic rule is that sometimes the majority opinion is DEAD WRONG. As a society, we want to be protected from both a dictatorship and a mob rule. What do we do however when a small facet of society successfully lobbies through a variety of influential ways to “over-throw” decades of honorable and correct policy, in favor of excepting sinful behavior as the norm? I am a firm believer that absolute truth exists and that it finds its ultimate expression and definition in God, the God of the Hebrews, the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. When the democratic process no longer recognizes or honors the truth and a society chooses to turn its back on its maker and go their own way, they are headed for disaster.

The Bible speaks at length about protecting the fatherless and the widow, so a focus of the protection of individual rights has all the appearance of biblical chivalry on the surface. But when a behavior that is sinful at its core is dressed up in the flag and protected as an inalienable right, then we as a nation have to take responsibility for its allowance. We must remember it was the people of Germany that allowed Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Regime to come to power. They, as well as the world at large, suffered for their mistake.

Abortion is allowed in this country today, because it has been successfully argued in our court systems by the misguided that personal rights shall trump the protection of innocent life. Murder is now legal if your victim is young enough to be undefined by the courts! Likewise now the Gay, Lesbian, Transsexual, Bisexual communities desire to twist the truth and redefine marriage and have their lifestyles sanctioned as a mainstream norm.

The homosexual community has been successfully in establishing in many minds in America that their personal rights are under attack and that their behavior choice should be protected as a civil right. Could it simply be that the difficulties they are experiencing are merely the consequences of their own sinful actions? Over the last several decades Tim Gill and wealthy, politically active homosexuals like him have, very stealthily, made inroads into a variety of political powerhouses. They have actively pursed pushing their agenda into numerous unions and lobby groups and are finding some success wooing a place on the political platforms of both major parties.

As Christians, we are called to Love the sinner and hate the sin. When addressing this issue, I feel as if my way of life is being attacked and devalued. I admit that I struggle to love those that are responsible for this. I do pray regarding this issue, but I confess it is not always for my attackers to enter the kingdom of heaven. In truth, however, our God loves and forgives his children and there will be homosexuals in heaven. As I engage in discussing my thoughts on this subject I need to remember that and act as a true child of God.

Over 1.1 million Californians signed petitions to qualify Proposition 8 for the state ballot, considerably more than the 694,354 signatures needed. This overwhelming success in obtaining a position on the ballot underscores that a large group of voters hold family values and want marriage defined in the traditional way. As one of them, I know I intend to do all I am able, to see that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

I will not be surprised however if we lose this battle in November. The damage may already be done. This once great nation may have already begun its slow decay.

Could it just be part of the overall plan? Communism has crumbled and deemed a complete failure, could democracy be next? Could the freedom inherent in our government become its Achilles heel and lead to its very downfall? I pray that I am wrong, but my true allegiance is to my Lord and King not my country or nation. Our God is a jealous God; his ultimate desire is for us to find Him sufficient to meet all of our needs.

Remember when the law was given to the people of Israel through Moses, there were provisions for a king, though the nation had no human king. God made this provision because he knew their hearts would desire to be like other nations and they would want a king. After leading Israel into the land of Promise and fighting their battles for them, God was grieved when they sought to be ruled by a human king “like other nations”. Though they had the benefit of God residing in their very presence, their desire to be like other nations, lead to idolatry and ultimately to the destruction of the temple and the captivity of the nation

The Book of Revelation tells of a new Kingdom to be established, along with a new heaven and a new earth. In fact all things will be made new. These issues regarding the protection of individual rights will not even be spoken of there. Only one thing will be of importance there and it will cause us to say:

“Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord Almighty!”

Persecution of Gods faithful is coming, either in this battle or the next. I stand ready to engage the enemy in the full armor of God. I remain His I remain ALL IN.