?

Guns or abortion clinics.

Don't you just love how liberals seize a tragedy to push an agenda suddenly become embraced with a moral compass. Their entire propaganda is using these children as a premise to support gun control not the welfare of children, if so they would not support the genocide of so many every year under the disgusting premise of "freedom of choice" as if that in itself passes a moral aptitude to justice terminating the life of a child.

when he said, "The middle class has been crushed these past four years."

Obama's first stimulus of 787 billion was suppose to create 3.4 million jobs and what we received was "jobs saved" and how ironically most of them government jobs. Here we go again "its a crisis" we need 450 billion to create jobs. what bs and if hypothetically this money did create some jobs what happens when the money allocated runs out? These jobs are not a part of a plan to sustain economic growth and they don't create wealth in our society at best they will put some people to work for a while (using borrowed money) and then well need another "stimulus" to fund their unemployment when they return back to welfare. Worst of all how many billions of dollars cannot now be accounted for from the first stimulus? Do you think this stimulus will be different? Congress would have to be insane if they pass any jobs bill (stimulus) after seeing the end result of the first one.

What exactly has the tea party done to destroy our prosperity? Obama and the democrats had complete control of both houses of congress until nov. 2010 and I don't recall our economy growing in fact after a 787 billion stimulus we were still around 8.5 % unemployment. If anything all I see the tea party has done is stop more of the same out of control spending by the government and their demonized for this. If someone could demonstrate where the democrats and Obama were making progress in our economy and the tea party stopped something that was working then I would understand, but so far this administration and unions have not produced any such evidence they just say "Damn the tea party," but damn them for what?

Equate to bankruptcy for them. I don't think we can keep up with this pace of job growth.

It appears Freud and Erickson both missed the obvious. The child who was nurtured to suck its thumb, and then socialized to graduate upward to adulthood. You could have been getting help all this time. Society really has failed you!

It appears the 174k yearly income for some in congress is leaving them living paycheck to paycheck and those long hours they put in have others thinking is the job worth it. (the pay of course doesn't reflect all their benefits that come with the job) I think they should get a grip, live within their means like the rest of us and be thankful their pay isn't performance based or they would be earning minimum wage.

Yahoo has the story if your interested.

"A nation that believes through taxes it can gain prosperity...is liken a man who stands in a bucket and tries to pull himself up by the handle."

Think of all those chinese factory workers who got to keep their job or get hired because of Obama's massive spending so we could keep buying their products. Hell, even Martin Luther's statue was just shipped from china. One more american artist out of work one more chinese job created. One could easily argue Obama's stimulus created a lot of jobs just in the wrong country.

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart, every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this

in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more

than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's pop-

ulation is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that maybe

we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans!

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,

It is now official you are all corrupt morons:

a. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 yrs to get it right and it is broke.

b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 yrs to get it right and it is broke.

c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 yrs to get it right and it is broke.

d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 yrs to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is

confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 yrs to get it right and they are broke.

f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 yrs to get it right and it is broke.

g.The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It

has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil

than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have failed in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending

our tax dollars.

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH

CARE SYSTEM?

I read this and thought how true it is!!!

Why do democrats and liberals (mostly) argue the point that people who float over here on rafts or jump the fence and enter our country illegally (and they damn well know it) should be given amnesty, citizenship, free medical care, access to education etc.etc., but then on another day they stand in front of an abortion clinic and argue an unborn child does not have the right to live if a mother chooses they don't want the responsibility. To clarify my point the same people who are arguing that America has an obligation to "adopt" millions of illegals who show up uninvited because its the "right thing" to do advocate terminating an unborn child with the rational that if the mother doesn't want the responsibility then the burden falls to others and that's unfair. Have not several states shown that illegal immigrants cost them millions every year?

Now being a conservative who believes that liberals always do things half *** backwards I believe that an unborn child conceived in this country has a "legal right" to live and an illegal immigrant who floats over here on a raft or jumps the fence has a "legal obligation" to get there *** back on the raft or jump back over the fence until they immigrate legally.

Now which of these scenarios seems more correct to you?

It appears the IMF is going to bail Greece out and re stabilize their economy. The united states is the largest contributor to the IMF with 18.25 of all revenues collected. (it appears membership comes with financial commitment based on the overall GDP of an economy) What I heard today on the news is the us tax payer will be on the hook for 7.5 billion dollars of this bail out. This I don't get. We had to borrow heavy from other countries such as china to bail us out and now we commit this money to fix a country who allowed its on socialist policies to become its downfall while our economy is still weak at best. Should we commit ourselves when it means further debt on ourselves?

Now I know I have heard it all from the liberals concerning what happened to Greece. Everything from Greece is a capitalist economy to conservatives caused the problem and now liberals are fixing the problem. Why don't we dismiss the rhetoric once and for all and listen to the chief negotiator of the IMF to what happened to Greece.

“This is a defining moment for Greece,” said Poul Thomsen, who heads the IMF negotiating mission to Athens. “The global economic crisis exposed Greece’s weak fiscal position. Revenues have declined significantly, while spending, especially on wages and entitlements has risen sharply.

You liberals see that word called "entitlements" ask your self is this a conservative capitalist philosophy or liberal socialist one? I know every time I listen to a liberal on the news its all about "entitlements." So please spare me any further comments of your self proclaimed superior intellect over conservatives...I truly believe what fox news analyst say, "liberals just don't get it."

sources: www.IMF.org , www.piie.com

Will they be the first ones to scream it was capitalism that brought us down?

I state this because even though Greece has went bankrupt because of its european socialist policies liberals like to point out Greece is a capitalist economy. So what do you think was the driving force that brought the Greek government down capitalists policies or socialist policies?

I've seen on the news how greeks are rebelling against their government because they have gone bankrupt and part of the agreement between the European Union and the gov. of Greece to bail them out is to cut back on all forms of social programs. Apparently this is not sitting well with the union's in Greece. The bottom line Greece was paying more out to its citizens then they were making as a country and could no longer sustain itself. This seems to me to be the exact reason Communist Russia collapsed. Britain is said to be currently facing the same situation economically. Now many economist are saying the US is following the same path by attempting to model our government after the european style of government that seems to be collapsing and holding on by life support. One has to wonder what brilliant mind would conceive such a notion....oh yeah the dumb ***'s name is Barry!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn`t buy

one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat. If a

liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.. If a

liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his

situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches

channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A

liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.(Unless it's a foreign religion,

of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about

shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands

that the rest of us pay for his.

I seen the high points between the interviews this week between cheney and biden. I first heard all about this interview that was set up for cheney and the white house suddenly sends biden out to counter anything cheney was going to say so they put him on first before cheney (which I thought was stupid because it made even greater talking points for the cheney interview) , then they send biden on the air again after cheney's interview as a way to counter attack cheney again.

For example Biden's quote "I believe Iraq will go down as one of the president's greatest achievements during his presidency."

When Mr cheney was asked about this statement he replied, "My good friend joe seems to forget he and then senator obama voted against funding of the war and voted against the surge that ultimately was the success of the war."

Now it gets even better when Robert Gibbs was asked at a press conference why Obama would feel Iraq should be considered his accomplishment? Mr Gibbs replied because Iraq was a huge mess when the president took office and he has fixed the problems and signed the bill bringing the troops home in july 2010." The reporter replied "But the orders signed to bring the troops home in 2010 was signed by George W. Bush before he left office not by President Obama." You would have thought Mr. Gibbs swallowed a shoe he tried to reply with "uh...uh..well...uh before trying to return to the political climate in which the president seemed to fix.

So who do you think should receive the recognition for the success of Iraq?

October 4th of this year, Michael Moore posted a blog on his website aimed at those going to church that Sunday morning. He eventually arrived at this point: “I have come to believe that there is no getting around the fact that capitalism is opposite everything that Jesus… taught. All the great religions are clear about one thing: It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what’s left for everyone to fight over.” At the end of this letter to churchgoers, he makes this closing comment about Jesus and the feeding of the 5,000: “Either he was the first socialist or his disciples were really bad at packing lunch.”

Was Jesus Christ really a socialist? Well, first, socialism must have a definition. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary has 3 definitions for the word, and they all involve collectivism, governmental ownership of the means of production in a society, and the lack of private property rights by individuals. Socialism is much closer to diet-communism, containing all the potential for a collectivist society without quite so much bloodshed. The goal of all Marxist theories (including socialism, fascism, and communism) was to eventually create a paradise on earth. This paradise would be governed by the principle that each person was not unique. That person simply worked as part of the whole, putting in as much as they could and being given only what they needed by the all-powerful government.

Now that socialism is defined, the work of Jesus must be put into a similar light for comparison. Jesus was sent to Earth as the Son of God, preaching salvation for belief in Him, and of a paradise AFTER this life is over. Jesus did in fact do many wondrous acts for people throughout His ministry, including healing the sick, feeding multitudes through miracles, and even raising others from the dead. Jesus once said, “Give, and it will be given to you…” (Luke 6:38a), and on another occasion stated, “Sell your possessions and give to charity.” (Luke 12:33a). In His interaction with the “rich, young ruler” in Luke Chapter 18, Jesus told the rich man, who argued that he had followed the law, to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. Later, once the rich man went away sad, Jesus said, “Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

So what comparison can be made here? Both socialism and Jesus do indeed advocate giving. The difference comes in the motivation for the giving, the method of the giving, and in the scope of the giving. Jesus advocated giving to others in order to store up treasures in heaven. Socialism advocates giving to others in order to do your duty to society, and to eventually create a collectivist paradise. Jesus told people to give freely, since God loves a cheerful giver. Socialism doesn’t really care about the mindset in which the individual gives up possessions and liberty, for it is taken by force in the end anyway. Jesus did not teach that one should wait until government takes the money to give it to the poor; he said to do it personally so that it can be used in the furtherance of the ministry. Socialism actually prefers government redistribution of wealth to personal charity, so it makes personal charity more difficult and redistribution of wealth the norm.

Dr. Timothy Faber, pastor at East Tipp Baptist Church in Lafayette, disagreed that Jesus was a socialist. He stated, “The ability to own personal property, to recognize that people have the right to have possessions, is a God-given right.” Dr. Faber referenced 2 Corinthians 11 and 12, where believers are urged not to be a burden upon anyone. This is a clear message for self-reliance. 1 Thessalonians also talks about personal responsibility, saying to “lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” Clearly, the Bible doesn’t advocate any type of reliance upon the government, which happens to be a central tenet of socialism.

As far as who should be doing the giving, and at what level, Dr. Faber explained that the Bible makes it clear that individuals are to care for themselves and their family first, and then for others within their community. He pointed to 1 Timothy 5:8 which states, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” How can one provide for their family unless they have a job and keep some money for themselves? How can one raise a family unless they have possessions, such as a house? Dr. Faber went on to say “The Bible makes it clear that the church or individuals are to meet the needs of the poor, not the government.” He made it clear that one teaching of Scripture (being self-reliant) can’t be ignored in order to fulfill another (giving to the poor.)

Leftist individuals would argue that churches don’t give enoug

October 4th of this year, Michael Moore posted a blog on his website aimed at those going to church that Sunday morning. He eventually arrived at this point: “I have come to believe that there is no getting around the fact that capitalism is opposite everything that Jesus… taught. All the great religions are clear about one thing: It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what’s left for everyone to fight over.” At the end of this letter to churchgoers, he makes this closing comment about Jesus and the feeding of the 5,000: “Either he was the first socialist or his disciples were really bad at packing lunch.”

Was Jesus Christ really a socialist? Well, first, socialism must have a definition. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary has 3 definitions for the word, and they all involve collectivism, governmental ownership of the means of production in a society, and the lack of private property rights by individuals. Socialism is much closer to diet-communism, containing all the potential for a collectivist society without quite so much bloodshed. The goal of all Marxist theories (including socialism, fascism, and communism) was to eventually create a paradise on earth. This paradise would be governed by the principle that each person was not unique. That person simply worked as part of the whole, putting in as much as they could and being given only what they needed by the all-powerful government.

Now that socialism is defined, the work of Jesus must be put into a similar light for comparison. Jesus was sent to Earth as the Son of God, preaching salvation for belief in Him, and of a paradise AFTER this life is over. Jesus did in fact do many wondrous acts for people throughout His ministry, including healing the sick, feeding multitudes through miracles, and even raising others from the dead. Jesus once said, “Give, and it will be given to you…” (Luke 6:38a), and on another occasion stated, “Sell your possessions and give to charity.” (Luke 12:33a). In His interaction with the “rich, young ruler” in Luke Chapter 18, Jesus told the rich man, who argued that he had followed the law, to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. Later, once the rich man went away sad, Jesus said, “Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

So what comparison can be made here? Both socialism and Jesus do indeed advocate giving. The difference comes in the motivation for the giving, the method of the giving, and in the scope of the giving. Jesus advocated giving to others in order to store up treasures in heaven. Socialism advocates giving to others in order to do your duty to society, and to eventually create a collectivist paradise. Jesus told people to give freely, since God loves a cheerful giver. Socialism doesn’t really care about the mindset in which the individual gives up possessions and liberty, for it is taken by force in the end anyway. Jesus did not teach that one should wait until government takes the money to give it to the poor; he said to do it personally so that it can be used in the furtherance of the ministry. Socialism actually prefers government redistribution of wealth to personal charity, so it makes personal charity more difficult and redistribution of wealth the norm.

Dr. Timothy Faber, pastor at East Tipp Baptist Church in Lafayette, disagreed that Jesus was a socialist. He stated, “The ability to own personal property, to recognize that people have the right to have possessions, is a God-given right.” Dr. Faber referenced 2 Corinthians 11 and 12, where believers are urged not to be a burden upon anyone. This is a clear message for self-reliance. 1 Thessalonians also talks about personal responsibility, saying to “lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” Clearly, the Bible doesn’t advocate any type of reliance upon the government, which happens to be a central tenet of socialism.

As far as who should be doing the giving, and at what level, Dr. Faber explained that the Bible makes it clear that individuals are to care for themselves and their family first, and then for others within their community. He pointed to 1 Timothy 5:8 which states, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” How can one provide for their family unless they have a job and keep some money for themselves? How can one raise a family unless they have possessions, such as a house? Dr. Faber went on to say “The Bible makes it clear that the church or individuals are to meet the needs of the poor, not the government.” He made it clear that one teaching of Scripture (being self-reliant) can’t be ignored in order to fulfill another (giving to the poor.)

Leftist individuals would argue that churches don’t give enoug

for more on how your great socialist leaders are working for you. www.lewrockwell.com

Socialism as a political philosophy was best summarized by William Graham Sumner in his 1883 "Forgotten Man" essay:

As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C Shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X…What I want to do is to look up C …I call him the Forgotten Man…He is the man who is never thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator, and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the many burdens which are laid upon him

For example, when A and B (e.g. President Elect Obama and the socialist Congress) see the temporary condition of X’s unemployment, A and B seek to "fix" the problem by employing X to "do" something that A and B deem socially desirable – e.g. installing a nationwide system of high-speed internet. A and B sell the program as a benevolent means of providing X with work and further point out that the new system will also help disadvantaged Y who does not presently have access to the internet. A and B do not tell C, D, E or anyone else in the alphabet population that, because A and B have caused the new system to be created, A and B will inherit the power to regulate the most powerful means of communication and education in the history of mankind. This comes later, after the entire alphabet population has overcome its giddiness over the new "free" internet. When civil libertarians who supported the charitable internet project object to A and B’s obtrusive regulation and monitoring, A and B or their successors claim that they "paid for it" and so have the power to regulate it. If anyone else in the alphabet has the temerity to challenge A and B’s good intentions, J, a judge appointed by A and approved by B, dutifully agrees with A and B.