Saturday, August 25, 2012


Posted by Woody Pendleton



I don't know who wrote this but it does humanize Paul Ryan, he has a real small town American up bring. He has a good head on his shoulders and a vision for America that is in tune with my vision, to realize that vision he and Romney would have to sell their vision to the country and to the Congress. They are, in my opinion, the last best hope for my kids and grandkids to live the American dream as I see it. Harry

Well, recently we learned that Congressman Paul Ryan, Republican from Wisconsin , is Mitt Romany's pick for the next Vice President of The United States .

What are we to think of this selection? He's not a graduate of Columbia
University . He's not a graduate of Harvard. He wasn't selected as the President of the Harvard Law Review. He didn't get a special free quota scholarship ride to any prestigious university and, instead, had to work his way through Miami University of Ohio . For God's sake the man drove the Oscar Mayer Wiener Truck one summer and waited tables another!

One morning when Paul Ryan was sixteen years old he went in to wake his father up and found him dead of a heart attack. He didn't write two books about that experience. Instead, he assumed the role of adult at an early age, never having the luxury to pursue youthful drug
use and the art of socialist revolution.

Instead, Paul Ryan and his mother took his grandmother, suffering from Alzheimer's, into the household and served as the primary care provider for his grandma. His grandma wasn't the Vice President of the Bank of Hawaii so she could offer nothing in return, except the element of "need".

Once Paul Ryan got his BA in Economics from Miami University of Ohio he was hired as a staff economist in Wisconsin Senator Kastin's office. The job must have not paid well because young Ryan moonlighted as a waiter and fitness trainer. No one offered him a
"token honor" position at the University of Chicago and a $200,000 dollar a year salary.

When a still young Paul Ryan returned to Wisconsin to run for Congress he didn't demonize his opponent and dig up dirt to shovel against him. He waited until the standing
Congressman vacated the office before seeking the office. In Janesville , Wisconsin they don't have a big political machine to promote you, to criminalize your opponent; instead Paul Ryan had to go door to door and sit at kitchen tables and listen to his future constituents

After getting elected to Congress Paul Ryan didn't triumphantly march into Washington , buy himself a Georgetown townhouse and proceed over to K Street to rub elbows with
lobbyists. He bunked in his Congressional office and used the house gym for showers and a fresh change of clothes.

Paul Ryan then married and took his bride back to Janesville . He lives on the same street he lived on as a kid and shares the neighborhood with eight other members of the Ryan
clan. He hunts with the local Janesville hunt club and attends PTA meetings and other civic functions.

For those who can't make those public functions, Paul Ryan bought an old bread truck, converted it into a "mobile constituent office" and drives around to meet with those who need his help and attention.

No, I don't know if we can vote for a guy like this. He doesn't have a regal pedigree; he's Irish for God's sake! No one awarded him a Nobel Peace Prize two months after getting elected. No one threw flowers or got "chills down their leg" as a he took his seat in Congress.

What is most despicable about Paul Ryan is that he has had the nerve to write the House Budget for three years in a row. He's is brazen and heartless in advocating in that budget for a $5 trillion dollar reduction in federal spending over the next ten years! The House
passed his budget three years in a row and three years in a row the Democratically controlled Senate has let it die in the upper house, without ever proposing a budget of their own. What is wrong with this guy? If Congress were to cut $5 trillion dollars from the budget where would the President get the money to give $500 million dollars to a bankrupt Solyndra? Or $200 million dollars for bankrupt Energy 1? Or $11 billion dollars to
illegal aliens filing INIT, non-resident tax returns to claim $11 billion big ones in child tax credits, even for their children living in Mexico ?

I don't know. Paul Ryan seems heartless to me. He keeps wanting to cut government waste, he keeps wanting to put a halt to those big GSA conventions in Vegas and, worse, he keeps trying to make people look at that $16.7 trillion dollar deficit! The guy's no fun at all!

Who wants a numbers cruncher? Who wants someone spoiling the party by showing folks the bill? Nothing will spoil a party quicker than sending the host the bill before the party's over.

Party Hearty folks! At least until November


Posted by Woody Pendleton


Dozens of members of Congress have signed up to back a challenge to Obamacare’s mandate that employers provide contraceptive services – including abortifacients – to employees under their health care programs.
That requirement has been imposed even on employers whose religious faith forbids their participation in the deaths of unborn infants.

A number of lawsuits have been filed over the issue, one federal judge already has halted enforcement against a Denver company, and the government voluntarily has waived enforcement for now in a case brought on behalf of a Michigan company.
Now the American Center for Law and Justice is representing 79 members of Congress with amicus briefs filed in 12 separate lawsuits brought by more than 40 Catholic organizations suing over the requirement.
The plaintiffs in the cases include the Archdiocese of New York, Notre Dame, the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago and others.
According to lawyers handling the friend-of-the-court briefs, the cases challenge the Obama administration’s demand that employers cover sterilization, prescription contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and related patient education and counseling services in their health insurance plans.
Edward White, senior counsel for activist legal team, said, “It is essential to defeat the HHS mandate. The mandate devastates the religious freedom of all employers seeking to comply with their religious beliefs.”
He continued, “This is not just an issue negatively impacting Catholics. This is an issue negatively impacting employers of all faiths.”
In the briefs submitted in the cases backing the Catholic organizations, the ACLJ opposes the federal government’s motions to dismiss the 12 lawsuits. The briefs were submitted with requests that the courts accept them for filing.
Joining the ACLJ in the filings were:
  • Jeff Landry, La.
  • Robert Aderholt, Ala.
  • Todd Akin, Mo.
  • Mark Amodei, Nev.
  • Michele Bachmann, Minn.
  • Spencer Bachus, Ala.
  • Lou Barletta, Pa.
  • Roscoe Bartlett, Md.
  • Dan Benishek, Mich.
  • Gus Bilirakis, Fla.
  • Diane Black, Tenn.
  • Marsha Blackburn, Tenn.
  • Charles Boustany, La.
  • Kevin Brady, Texas
  • Paul Broun, Ga.
  • Dan Burton, Ind.
  • Francisco “Quico” Canseco, Texas
  • Bill Cassidy, La.
  • Steve Chabot, Ohio
  • Michael Conaway, Texas
  • Chip Cravaack, Minn.
  • Jeff Duncan, S.C.
  • Renee Ellmers, N.C.
  • Stephen Fincher, Tenn.
  • John Fleming, La.
  • Bill Flores, Texas
  • J. Randy Forbes, Va.
  • Jeff Fortenberry, Neb.
  • Virginia Foxx, N.C.
  • Bob Goodlatte, Va.
  • Gregg Harper, Miss.
  • Andy Harris, Md.
  • Vicky Hartzler, Mo.
  • Wally Herger, Calif.
  • Tim Huelskamp, Kan.
  • Bill Huizenga, Mich.
  • Bill Johnson, Ohio
  • Walter Jones, N.C.
  • Jim Jordan, Ohio
  • Mike Kelly, Pa.
  • Steve King, Iowa
  • John Kline, Minn.
  • Raul Labrador, Idaho
  • Doug Lamborn, Colo.
  • James Lankford, Okla.
  • Bob Latta, Ohio
  • Dan Lipinski, Ill.
  • Blaine Luetkemeyer, Mo.
  • Dan Lungren, Calif.
  • Don Manzullo, Ill.
  • Jeff Miller, Fla.
  • Mick Mulvaney, S.C.
  • Tim Murphy, Pa.
  • Randy Neugebauer, Texas
  • Alan Nunnelee, Miss.
  • Pete Olson, Texas
  • Steven Palazzo, Miss.
  • Ron Paul, Texas
  • Steve Pearce, N.M.
  • Joe Pitts, Pa.
  • Ted Poe, Texas
  • Mike Pompei, Kan.
  • Ben Quayle, Ariz.
  • Reid Ribble, Wis.
  • Phil Roe, Tenn.
  • Todd Rokita, Ind.
  • Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Fla.
  • Dennis Ross, Fla.
  • Steve Scalise, La.
  • Bobby Schilling, Ill.
  • Jean Schmidt, Ohio
  • David Schweikert, Ariz.
  • Adrian Smith, Neb.
  • Chris Smith, N.J.
  • Lamar Smith, Texas<BR.
  • Glenn Thompson, Pa.
  • Tim Walberg, Mich.
  • Lynn Westmoreland, Ga.
  • and Joe Wilson, S.C. 
  •  by wp:  please note that there are practically none of the long term congressmen and women on this list.  Apparently none of the professional politicians are of Godly beliefs.  SAD.  Is your representative or senators on this list??  Why not?  ASK THEM.



posted by Woody Pendleton


I too have become disillusioned.
7/20/12 By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.


Posted by Woody Pendleton


“Mass Shooting at Empire State Building,” the headlines blared.
“Two dead and nine wounded in rampage shooting,” we were told.

And these reports about the “mass shooting” almost always included some reference to this “latest mass shooting,” rekindling the debate over gun laws in our country. Even after it became apparent that the “gunman” had probably shot only one person, a former employer who he had threatened a year earlier – and that the rest of the victims were shot by police – the news stories and pundits continued to refer to this “latest mass shooting” and postulating on how politicians would or should respond.
According to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, after the murderer had shot his victim repeatedly in the face and head, he calmly walked away. Two nearby police officers quickly responded and, when they challenged the suspect, he pointed his gun at them, but, Kelly said, he did not fire at them.
Witness accounts report that the two officers performed what is known in the shooting world as a “magazine dump,” rapidly emptying their guns in the general direction of the criminal, killing him and wounding all or most of the nine other victims. Thankfully, none of the wounds were thought to be life-threatening.
Even hours after it was clear that all or most of those wounded in the incident were actually shot by police, reporters and commentators continued referring to the “mass shooting” and equating the New York shooting with the recent tragedy in Aurora, Co., and the assault at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. They frequently decried the nation’s lax gun laws as the obvious culprit, generating lively and inane debate in the comments sections of online news sources.
Opponents of gun rights spouted nonsense about the National Rifle Association and “gun nuts” wanting everyone to carry a gun, and how much worse the tragedy would have been if citizens had all started blasting away (like the police did). In response, misguided supporters of gun rights repeated idiotic claims about armed citizens putting an end to these kinds of atrocities.
First, this was not a “mass shooting.” This was a cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder. The only “mass shooting” associated with this crime was perpetrated by New York’s finest.
Second, no gun-control law ever devised would have been likely to prevent this murder. The murderer used a gun he had legally purchased and had owned for over 20 years. If he had not had the gun, he might just as well have used a knife or a car or a pop bottle full of gasoline and a Bic lighter.
Third, neither the NRA nor any other firearms organization has ever advocated for all citizens to carry guns at all times. Gun-rights proponents support individual liberty and the right of the individual to decide whether to own or carry firearms. There is a contingent that believes there is a civic duty for responsible citizens to be prepared to serve in the militia if called upon to do so, by having access to, and reasonable skill with, arms. That’s a far cry from advocating that everyone carry a gun.
Fourth, responsible gun owners do not assume that they or any other armed citizen would be able to defeat any threat that presented itself, just because they are carrying a gun. They understand that crisis situations are unpredictable and that a gun is not always the best answer.
The armed citizen that helped to subdue the murderer in the Tucson shooting where Rep. Gabby Giffords was wounded is a great example. He responded to the gunfire by moving toward the shooting and being prepared to draw his gun, but wisely kept it holstered. He left it holstered even when he saw a man in the crowd holding a gun, and instead physically subdued the man. When he realized that the man with the gun was a “good guy” who had wrested the gun from the murderer, he assisted in physically restraining the killer.
As I reported at the time, in all of the “what if” scenarios bandied about by both sides of the firearms debate, this comes closest to answering the questions posed. The “untrained” gun carrier didn’t shoot the good guy or any innocent bystanders. He didn’t wave his gun around and get shot by a cop, and had the murderer not been thwarted in his attempt to reload, the armed citizen would have been in an excellent position to have stopped the attack before many more lives were lost.
Finally, there are some 60 to 80 million gun owners in the United States who own close to 300 million guns, and approximately 0.01% of those guns is used to kill someone in a given year – with over half of those being suicides and a good many of the rest being justified shootings by police or people defending themselves. The vast majority of the rest are gang-bangers and drug dealers killing each other.
Baltimore police report that over 90 percent of murderers arrested and 80 percent of murder victims in that city in 2011 had criminal records. The FBI says guns are used in crime a half million times a year, but Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck reports that guns are used defensively over 2.5 million times each year – usually without a shot being fired.
Also, of those 300 million guns, almost a quarter of them are semi-automatics capable of accepting magazines with 10 or more rounds. These types of guns have been common for over 100 years, and the only difference between those made 100 years ago and those popular today are that the newer ones are a little lighter, usually significantly less powerful and scarier (cooler) looking. A magazine – “high capacity” or otherwise – is little more than a box with a spring in it. It is not difficult or complicated to make or modify one.
The point is that there are lots and lots of guns out there. They are never going to go away, and relatively few of them are ever used for evil purposes, while they are 5 times more likely to be used for justified defense. If guns were one tenth the threat to society that the hoplophobes claim, the death toll would be a thousand times greater than it actually is and everyone in the nation would be dead.
The media bias against guns and gun ownership was on blatant display this week, as was the anti-rights crowd’s inclination to dance in the blood of victims even when the victims’ blood was actually shed by poorly trained police officers. But again, the gun didn’t cause the crime, and no gun law would have prevented it.


Posted by Woody Pendleton
Will You Boldly Proclaim"I am a Christian"? Sign the pledge now!
The Bible records numerous instances in which a time period of 40 days was significant, including when it rained for 40 days and nights when God wanted to cleanse the world, when Moses was on the mountain for 40 days and when the Israelite spies spent 40 days searching out the Promised Land.

Also, Jesus also fasted for 40 days in the wilderness before launching his ministry on earth.
So ministry leaders from across the nation – led by Rick Scarborough of Vision America – settled on 40 days when they felt the need to pray and fast for America in advance of the 2012 election.
Their plan “40 Days to Save America,” is for Christians across the nation to plead with God for help turn the nation back from its current course of “economic decline, immorality, corruption, growing secular humanism and attacks on religious liberty.”
“Forty days … has strong significance,” Scarborough told WND today. “It connotes a time when God does a totally different thing.”
He said the “totally different thing” for American is more than obvious.
Churches and individuals both may sign up to participate.
“I believe America is in a very real crisis,” he said. “It is clear that God is speaking right now to America, and unless there’s a genuine repentance and a great move toward repentance and reunion with God, a cataclysmic judgment is going to fall on this country.”
He continued, “All the pieces of the puzzle are in place. All that’s left is for God to gently tug – and it all comes apart.”
He said morality in the United States – which is moving quickly toward an ethical standard of abortion at will, marriage being what feels good and a class of endowed elites – is approaching “a point from which there is no return.”
Christians, he said, need to “sacrificially enter into a time of prayer, and if they’re physically able, of fasting,” to seek God’s face and his will.
The campaign stems from 2nd Chronicles: “If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
The campaign seeks to bring Americans closer to God and then let him have his will with the election, the nation and the future.
Its leaders include Dave Butts of Harvest Prayer Ministries, Bishop Anne Gimenez of Rock Church in Virginia Beach, Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, Janet Porter of Faith2Action, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, David Bereit of 40 Days for Life, Gen. Jerry Boykin of Kingdom Warriors, Jim Garlow of Renewing American Leaders, Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church, Penny Nance of Concern Women for America, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Dran Reese of Salt and Light Council, Kelly Shackelford of Liberty Institute, Tim Wildmon of American Family Association and Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr. of STAND America.
The goal is to pray and seek God’s will, a process throughout the Bible that has been enhanced by fasting.
Hundreds of ministers and ministries already have made plans to participate, and more are being welcomed daily, Scarborough said.
Leaders of the effort say the nation’s difficulties all have spiritual underpinnings and are even more daunting than what Americans confronted in 1776, 1863 and 1941.
Those dates were when the nation’s leaders, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, respectively, “declared national seasons of prayer, fasting and repentance.”
“Now as then, our destiny rests in God’s hands. The crises confronting us are beyond the power of human beings to resolve without Divine guidance,” organizers explain.
Scarborough says: ” Our call to action is clear.”
The group is asking citizens, their pastors and their churches to gather in one accord and commit to “40 days of prayer, fasting, and action” from September 28 through Election Day, Nov. 6.”
“The political problems which beset us are symptoms of a deeper spiritual malaise,” the team’s mission statement affirms. “The place to start isn’t with primaries, platforms and conventions, but rather through prayer, fasting and repentance.”
Scarborough says that he had had enough back in 1992 when he witnessed firsthand the secular attacks on “our Godly heritage.”
It was then that he realized how “aggressive the secularists were being in their quest to redefine America.”
“In our local high school where my children were being prepared for adulthood, or so I assumed, I sat in the back of a crowded auditorium and listened to a speaker advocating sexual licentiousness and making a mockery of the very moral underpinnings my children were receiving both at home and at church,” he writes. “So I stood up and confronted the speaker and her remarks. I also confronted our local school system…and I got involved as a father, citizen and pastor.”
Soon he founded Vision America to “inform and mobilize pastors and their congregations to become salt and light, becoming pro-active in restoring Judeo-Christian values in America.”
The “40 Days” campaign rejects the limitations of a political environment.
“We are calling for Christian and Jewish voters to make informed choices, voting not as Republicans or Democrats, but as followers of the living God,” the mission statement says. “We are calling for our leaders to have the wisdom and discernment to act according to His will and not based on personal or partisan considerations.”
Unlike “40 Days to Save America,” Vision America is all about getting Americans involved in the political process.
It’s about “empowering the ‘shepherds’ to lead their ‘flocks’ back into being salt in our nation.”
According to the Barna Group, there are more than 324,000 Protestant churches in America, with an average Sunday worship of 100 adults. They cite studies showing that three quarters of regular church attenders do not vote regularly or at all.
“If only 66 percent are not voting, that means there are over 21 million adults who are absent from the political playing field,” the report said. “In addition, thousands of local, state and federal offices lack the influence of God-fearing, Bible-believing citizens who do not step up to run for those positions.”
Scarborough explains such circumstances mean Christians “are not losing the war by being ‘outgunned,’ we are losing by forfeit.”
Seeking God’s will isn’t new in America, the organizers note.
“During the American Revolution, in the darkest days of the Civil War, at the outset of our involvement in World War II, leaders as different as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared national seasons of prayer, fasting and repentance,” the organizers report. “Today, our nation faces multiple crises – pending economic collapse, moral disintegration, and international terrorism – but all have spiritual underpinnings.”
The organizers state bluntly that America’s “national survival is at stake.”
But counting on a political name, or party, won’t help, they warn.
“Our destiny rests in God’s hands.”
Joining with the ministers and ministry groups have been U.S. Reps. Doug Lamborn, Duncan Hunter, Louis Gohmert and Todd Akin. Don Feder and Associates, Catholic Advocate, Center for Security Policy, Freedom Worship Center,, Human Life International, Janet Parshall’s America, Kingdom Warriors, Men for Nations, Movieguide, National Prayer Committee, Salem Communications, Teen Mania, Traditional Values Coalition and others.
Churches and individuals both may sign up to participate.


Posted by Woody Pendleton


The Left's Ferocious Wolves

The phrase “the so-called tolerant Left” has been used so many times that it is almost hackneyed.
The Left hasn’t been tolerant for years. And in episode after episode of instances that I thought I would never see in the United States, it is increasingly becoming not just passé’ to adhere to traditional values, but illegal and in some cases downright dangerous.
Christians take note: depending on your locale, you may be in violation of the law if you do something crazy and that is contrary to the new values of 21st Century America. And by “crazy” I mean stand by the values of your faith.
Take for example the case of Elane Photography v. Willock which is slated to be heard by the New Mexico Supreme Court. Bear in mind throughout this story that New Mexico, for now does not recognize same sex unions or civil marriages. Elane Photography is owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, who are both Christians. Back in 2009, Vanessa Willock wanted to engage the Huguenin’s services in commitment ceremony between Willock and another woman.
Because of her faith Elaine Huguenin declined the job. The Huguenin’s did not try to prevent the civil ceremony, nor did they enlist others to do so and they did not organize any anti-gay demonstrations or publish any literature relating to the same. They simply followed the dictates of their beliefs and followed suit with signs in establishments across the United Stares: “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to anyone”. Now I have no idea of the Huguenins have such a sign, but it is not supposed to be a crime for a business such as Elane Photography not to take a job.
Bear I mind, the refusal was not based on the gender of the customer, or the customer’s race and not even because of the customer’s sexual orientation. It was because Elane Huguenin does not believe in same-sex marriage and because the message such a ceremony would convey is contrary to her beliefs.
Ms. Willock was free to take her business to any other photographer in town. She did and she also took her business to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. After a one day trial, Huguenin was found guilty of sexual orientation discrimination and slapped her with almost $7,000 in attorney’s fees. The state prosecuted Elaine and Jon Huguenin, not for preventing someone for doing what they wanted to do, but for refusing to participate in it due to religious beliefs.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation has taken an interest in Ridgeland High School football team, so much so that it has sent a letter to the district superintendent demanding an investigation into Coach Mark Mariakis. His transgression?
He took his team to area churches for pre-game meals. Even though the team visits a different church before each game, the act is unconscionable to Freedom From Religion. I am sure that a vein burst in the FFRF’s collective head when it found that the coach had provided t-shirts with Bible verses, used said verses in motivational speeches, prays with the team, and *gasp* participates in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. According to the FFRF’s lawyer Andrew Seidel, these actions “shatters” the protections of the First Amendment.
Then there was the Great Prop 8 Debate in the Golden State. Supporters of traditional marriage there were treated to a whole laundry list of violent acts. Notable among those acts were death threats:
In Fresno, the town mayor received a death threat for supporting Prop 8. The threat stated, "Hey Bubba, you really acted like a real idiot at the Yes of [sic] Prop 8 Rally this past weekend. Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."
The threat also mentioned a "little surprise" for a local pastor who supported Prop 8 and "his congregation of lowlife's" [sic]. "Keep letting him preach hate and he'll be sorry," the perpetrator threatened. "He will be meeting his maker sooner than expected." The threat also stated that anyone in Fresno displaying a Yes on Prop 8 yard sign or bumper sticker was "in danger of being shot or firebombed." Police took the threat seriously, launching a criminal investigation and taking extra steps to protect the mayor and pastor.
So in 21st Century America, Christians should take great care in exercising their faith, lest they be sued, harassed and even threatened with death. Personal beliefs and free exercise of religion are quickly becoming a thing of the past.
“They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will know them.” Matthew 7:15-16
As an antidote, you may want to visit this site.


Posted by Woody Pendleton


Click here to find out more!

Barack Obama’s War on the Middle Class

Barack Obama’s War on the Middle Class
Like conflict, numbers have a way of concentrating the mind. Everyone knows the economy is in bad shape. But just how bad is it? As President Obama campaigns to move the country “Forward” and tries to scare the middle class into voting against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (rather than for him), it’s critical to note how badly Americans’ incomes have fared in the Obama economy.
According to the Washington Post, “Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself.” The Post cites a report which notes that “from June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent to $50,964.”
A broader historical comparison reveals just how acute the present crisis is. The report further notes that “median income is 7.2 percent below its December 2007 level and 8.1 percent below where it stood in January 2000, which was at $55,470.” Such grim news is just the latest reminder that President Obama’s leadership has left Americans poorer than they were under George W. Bush, and poorer than they’ve been in a generation.
Indeed, as a result of Barack Obama’s failure to stem the economic bleeding, the Federal Reserve reported earlier in the summer that the recession erased two decades’ worth of our collective wealth. There have been 42 straight months where the unemployment rate has exceeded 8%. Offering four more years of economic woe is anything but “Forward.”
It’s no secret the prolonged recession has most hurt the very people President Obama ostensibly intended to help with his ill-conceived government “investments,” the middle class. The middle class, i.e. those making between $39,000 and $118,000 (according to the Pew Research Center), has borne the brunt of the bad economy. As the above numbers demonstrate, three years after the recession technically ended (August 2009), the recession continues to ravage the middle class.
These are facts President Obama cannot mention. And in the Leftist playbook, when you cannot tell the truth, you deceive and personally attack those who dare to do so. Further, you attempt to divide people by artificial barriers, like income. Hence Barack Obama’s obsession with Mitt Romney’s tax returns. There is something gross about categorizing Americans by their gross income. In the Obama worldview, you are your W-2.
Seeing the nation as distinct “classes,” or better yet castes, is illogical and offensive. It’s illogical because there are not separate classes of Americans. Our motto is out of many one, not out of many, many. And it’s offensive because it ignores one of America’s best attributes: upward social mobility. Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs were not born billionaires. And we all know President Obama was not born a millionaire.
The tenuous relationship with the truth that characterizes his best selling autobiographies is evident in his dishonest campaign to win over the middle class. Like the Good Samaritan offering to tend to the wounded traveler by inflicting further harm upon him, the president claims to support the middle class but undermines it by creating more government dependents than private employees. As more people go to their mailbox to receive government handouts than go to work to earn a paycheck, and as Obama guts the welfare reform work requirement, he touts both as progress. In an opposite world George Costanza could only dream of, Barack Obama attacks the middle class like a scourge to be eradicated, while simultaneously claiming to save it. The cognitive dissonance is dizzying, and alarming. To wit:
Barack Obama claims to support unemployed Americans while pandering to and bribing illegal immigrants, and punishing state-based efforts to address illegal immigration and the attendant violence and wage depression.
Barack Obama affirms the middle class vote while marginalizing that vote by seeking to provide ballots to felons and illegal immigrants, rather than soldiers deployed abroad, and by litigating against overwhelmingly popular voter ID initiatives and providing federal tax dollars to shady outfits that register felons, dead people, and Mickey Mouse.
Barack Obama claims to support middle class values while mocking religious voters as weak clingers and forcing religious institutions to provide free contraception and abortifacients, in violation of their most sacred beliefs.
Barack Obama claims to support middle class jobs but has unleashed his EPA to undermine the domestic energy industry that employs and feeds the middle class in many parts of our nation, targeting coal plants for death by regulation and impeding new domestic and offshore drilling on public land, like the Keystone Pipeline.
Barack Obama claims to support middle class healthcare while imposing the Affordable Care Act, which will raise premiums, decrease care, encourage employers to drop coverage, and put government bureaucrats between patients and doctors.
Barack Obama claims to support middle class education but opposes tested and proven education reforms – vouchers and charter schools – that would drastically improve education outcomes for middle and lower class students stuck in failing public schools.
Barack Obama claims to support the middle class’ future, but he has done nothing about the deficit, and nothing to address the unfunded obligations of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that will bankrupt the middle class in a few years’ time.
The evidence is undisputed. Barack Obama’s claims to support the middle class are fiction, contempt masquerading as care. Politicians, no less than individuals, are judged by their actions, not simply their words. The distortion and demonization Barack Obama peddles on the campaign trail cannot hide the damage his policies have caused middle class Americans. They deserve better than him, and better than the “Forward” he offers. In Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, they have the chance to choose it.


Posted by Woody Pendleton

Michelle Obama Continues to Increase the Government’s Role in Parenting

Michelle Obama Continues to Increase the Government’s Role in ParentingSasha and Malia apparently aren’t enough for Michelle Obama. She wants to mother our children, too. That’s the only conclusion that can be reached when observing the First Lady’s campaign to decrease parents’ role in raising their children.
Obama’s latest method of gaining more control is through school food nutrition standards. Noting that home-packed lunches aren’t up to the First Lady’s standards, the government is making school meals free for all, regardless of income, as part of a four-state pilot program that begins this fall.
Given our penchant for free stuff, parents will be walking right into the trap. But never fear, the media cheers. The Muskegon (Mich.) Chronicle reports:
“Muskegon parents can put the peanut butter back on the shelf and the bologna sandwiches back in the refrigerator, because this year breakfast and lunch will be served free to all student.’
More disturbing than the cost of this unnecessary program is the way Obama is further cutting parents out of the picture and hijacking their critical role. We constantly hear from bureaucrats and government school apologists who say parents aren’t involved enough. Their solution? Decrease parental responsibility even more. By encouraging free government lunches for all students, Michelle Obama is creating a situation that will increase government interference in family life and take a major responsibility away from parents.
But, hey, why worry about Johnny’s lunch when Uncle Sam is taking care of it?
The government food program, formally known as the Community Eligibility Option, is a pilot program being tested in four states. The West Virginia Panhandle Daily Monitor reports it “was enacted as a result of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act” of which the First Lady was a champion.
Audrey Rowe, a USDA bureaucrat who helped Obama pass the legislation, recently visited West Virginia and shared her views of the government’s role:
"It's our opportunity and responsibility to ensure that no child in West Virginia goes hungry during the summer months just because most schools are closed," said Rowe said in a news release from the West Virginia Department of Education. "Our children need to maintain a consistent healthy diet that supports growth and learning."
So now the free school food programs will expand to the summer as well? Will they also expand to parents and anyone else that walks through the door?
And what happens when a Paul Ryan-type gets into power, is tasked with curtailing out of control federal spending, and wants to recreate a culture of personal responsibility? It’s not going to end well for those who become tricked into accepting government handouts like free school meals.
There really is no such thing as a free lunch, folks. And there shouldn’t be for kids whose parents make enough money to provide for their basic needs. The government’s effort to shove parents aside and take over that critical role is unhealthy and worrisome.


Posted by Woody Pendleton

Some Things More Important Than Politics

When New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan offers a benediction at the Republican Convention in Miami on Thursday, he will appear as a pastor, not a politician.
The distinction often gets lost when one finds oneself talking about issues that necessarily involve politics. It especially goes missing in media coverage, which thrives on conflict and contrast and categories, tilting toward black and white in a world often much more complicated.
As president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Dolan has found himself in the forefront of a battle over the definition of religious liberty in America. He was among the first out of the gates criticizing the president's health care plan that includes coverage of abortion, among other things, and has been a consistent defender of religious freedom. The archdiocese of New York is currently suing the Department of Health and Human Services over the health care mandate, on grounds that it forces churches and other religious groups with large numbers of employees to violate their sacred beliefs.
That's why it became a controversy when the cardinal invited President Obama to dinner. But unlike the commencement address and honorary degree given to the president at the University of Notre Dame in 2008, where Obama suggested that conscience rights would be protected by his administration, this dinner isn't an honor, it's a fundraiser -- for charities that this administration's policies have put in jeopardy. Faith-based social service organizations face crippling fines for noncompliance to the HHS mandate.
In defending his decision to invite the president, Cardinal Dolan described the dinner as a demonstration that people can gather in fellowship, "civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not to endorse either candidate. Those who started the dinner 67 years ago believed that you can accomplish a lot more by inviting folks of different political loyalties to an uplifting evening, rather than in closing the door to them," Dolan continued.
In an e-book released earlier this summer, "True Freedom," Cardinal Dolan wrote: "If we allow the human person to become a thing, and a human life to become a commodity that can be valued more or less depending on circumstance, political ideology, or current whims, then we have embarked on a perilous path."
As the Democratic convention in Charlotte is shaping up to become an ode to abortion rights -- abortion being an "intrinsic evil" in Catholic teaching -- the presence of Dolan on the political scene not as a political player, but as a teacher, is significant. Dolan reminds Catholics that they do not belong to a party but to something higher.
There should be robust debates about moral stewardship on all political issues, not just the ones dubbed "social," led by people of faith. Addressing basic moral principles, Dolan helps make this possible. Reminding people of faith who they are, what they believe and what that means for their lives, while reminding the political class who they represent, as well as reinforcing the traditional idea that freedom and democracy need religion. And that religion is more than a "safe harbor" as it was described on "Meet the Press" during this political cycle, but a call that requires our whole lives, even our political ones.
During the media coverage of a trip to Israel that involved freshman congressmen diving into the Sea of Galilee after imbibing alcohol, some were beside themselves. This is where Christ walked on water! But the sea isn't a holy water font, and Catholics and other people of faith believe it is our lives that are meant to be holy. This is the political issue that people of faith face: How can my vote protect the freedom to live as I'm called to? Dolan is working on it. He knows it's in the best interest of all of us to protect that right to true freedom.


Posted by Woody Pendleton

Israel Faces The Cynical World

This week a German doctor in Bavaria filed a criminal complaint against Rabbi David Goldberg.
Israel Faces The Cynical WorldRabbi Goldberg's "crime"? He performs ritual circumcisions on Jewish male infants in accordance with Jewish law.
The doctor's complaint came shortly after a ruling by a court in Cologne outlawing the practice of male circumcision.
The Austrians and the Swiss also took the ruling to heart and have banned infant male circumcision in several hospitals in Switzerland as well as in the Austrian state of Vorarlberg. Denmark and Scandinavian governments are also considering limiting the practice of circumcision which has constituted one of the foundational rituals of Judaism for four thousand years.
Meanwhile, in Norway Dr. Anne Lindboe has come up with the perfect way out of the artificial crisis. Lindboe serves a Norway's ombudsman for children's rights. And she proposes that we Jews just change our religion to satisfy anti-Jewish sensitivities. She suggests we replace circumcision with "a symbolic, nonsurgical ritual."
It's worth mentioning that circumcision isn't the only Jewish ritual these enlightened Europeans find objectionable. Sweden, Norway and Switzerland have already banned kosher slaughter.
Attacking circumcision isn't just a European fetish. The urge to curb Jewish religious freedom has reached the US as well. Last year San Francisco's Jewish Community Relations Council had to sue the city to strike a measure from last November's ballot that would have banned circumcision if passed. The measure's sponsor gathered the requisite 12,000 signatures to enter the proposition on the ballot. Circumcising males under the age of 18 would have been classified as a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to a year in prison. Sponsors of the measure distributed anti-Semitic materials depicting rabbis performing circumcisions as villains.
The people involved in banning or attempting to ban circumcision are not on the political fringe of their societies. They are part of a leftist establishment. They are doctors and lawyers, judges and politicians. This doesn't mean that all their fellow leftists are anti-Semites. But it does mean the political Left in the Western world feels comfortable keeping company with anti-Semites.
This state of affairs is even more striking in international affairs than in domestic politics. On the international level the Left's readiness to rub elbows with anti-Semites has reached critical levels.
While the Europeans have long been happy to cater to the anti-Semitic whims of the Islamic world, the escalation of the West's willingness to accept anti-Semitism as a governing axiom in international affairs is nowhere more apparent than in the Obama administration's foreign policy.
And the American Left's willingness - particularly the American Jewish Left's willingness - to cover up the administration's collusion with anti- Semitic regimes at Israel's expense is higher today than ever before.


Posted by Woody Pendleton



Within minutes of the announcement that Paul Ryan would be Mitt Romney's running mate, the Democratic attack machine shifted into high gear.
"Paul Ryan will destroy Medicare as we know it," claimed the ads. "So will Mitt Romney." Be afraid. Be very afraid.
But isn't ObamaCare what seniors should really be scared of? Yes, indeed. And to hide that fact, the Obama forces are telling five big lies.
Lie Number One: Health Reform Is Good For Seniors.
Millions of taxpayer dollars (that's our dollars) have been spent on Andy Griffith television ads and other advertisements trying to convince seniors that they are big winners under health reform. If the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could claim jurisdiction over these ads, a lot of Obama administration folks would be headed for the hoosegow.
In fact, 40% of the cost of giving subsidized insurance to young people is being paid for by reduced spending on the elderly and the disabled. For the next 10 years, the spending reduction totals $716 billion. That's no small change.
The Obama ads and the White House television talking points stress new benefits for seniors: a free annual wellness exam and the eventual closing of the "donut hole" for drug coverage. What they conceal is that for every $1 spent on new benefits, seniors will lose $9 in other spending — which gives a whole new meaning to the term "bait and switch."
Consider people reaching the age of 65 this year. Under ObamaCare, the average amount spent on these enrollees over the remainder of their lives will fall by about $36,000 at today's prices. That sum of money is equivalent to about three years of benefits. For 55 year olds, the spending decrease is about $62,000 — or the equivalent of six years of benefits. For 45 year olds, the loss is more than $105,000, or nine years of benefits.
In terms of the sheer dollars involved, the planned reduction in future Medicare payments is the equivalent of raising the eligibility age for Medicare to age 68 for today's 65 year olds, to age 71 for 55 year olds and to age 74 for 45 year olds. But rather than keep the system as is and raise the age of eligibility, the reform law instead tries to achieve equivalent savings by paying less to the providers of care.
Lie Number Two: Seniors Will Not Lose Any Medicare Benefits.
To begin with, one in four Medicare beneficiaries is in a Medicare Advantage plan. These plans may be overpaid by Medicare, but they are required to "spend" their overpayments on extra benefits for the enrollees. These include extra drug coverage, dental benefits, etc. Over the next 10 years, ObamaCare will reduce spending on these plans by $156 billionand this reduction will inevitably lead to a loss of benefits. The remainder of the cuts in Medicare spending will mainly be in the form of reduced payments to providers. Although promised benefits won't change under orthodox Medicare, in the very act of reducing provider fees, health reform will cause seniors to get less care. So while the White House claim that beneficiaries will not lose benefits may not be technically a lie, surely the FTC would pounce on a private company if it said the same things.
Remember: lower payment to providers means less access and less access means less care. One study of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) found that simply enrolling children in CHIP did not result in more health care. That is, they had the same number of doctor visits, etc. However, increasing the fees CHIP pays to doctors does result in more care. And presumably the converse is true as well.
According to the Medicare Office of the Actuary's memorandum, in about two years, Medicare payments to doctors will fall below Medicaid rates and will fall further and further behind Medicaid with each passing year. Medicare payments to hospitals will basically match the Medicaid rate, indefinitely into the future. What will this mean? Seniors will be lined up behind welfare mothers in the attempt to find doctors who will see them and institutions that will admit them. As Harvard University health economist Joe Newhouse has explained, seniors will likely have to seek care at community health centers and safety net hospitals. As the Medicare Office of the Actuary has explained, in a few short years, hospitals will begin closing and senior citizens will have increasing difficulty obtaining access to care.
Lie Number Three: Health Reform Has Made Medicare More Solvent.
Remember, all the health reform act does is pay doctors and hospitals less money. On paper this makes the Medicare trust fund appear to last longer because its expected expenses go down. But if you think this is a legitimate way to make Medicare more solvent, why not be even more aggressive? We could wipe out Medicare's $43 trillion unfunded liability entirely if we reduce doctor and hospital fees all the way to zero!
The problem is: seniors would not be able to find a doctor who would see them or a hospital that would admit them.
Lie Number Four: ObamaCare Is Fully Paid For.
The White House claims that ObamaCare makes a small profit — that is, that it actually reduces the deficit.
Yet last Sunday on ABC's This Week, Cokie Roberts baldly asserted that the (ObamaCare) cuts in Medicare spending will never happen. In fact she asserted this with such an air of inside-the-Beltway authority that none of the other talking heads on the program dared to challenge her. She may be right.
We've already been through this exercise with a piece of Republican legislation — the 1996 budget act. The Republicans decided to balance the budget, in part, by slowing in the growth of Medicare doctors' fees. However, in the following years, Congress repeatedly stepped in at the last minute to delay the reductions. The next point of reckoning will come in January, 2013, when a 10-year "doctor fix" will require about $271 billion.
Think about that for a moment. Republicans and Democrats together have promised various constituencies almost $1 trillion in benefits — to be paid for by taking $1 trillion away from Medicare providers over the next 10 years. Yet, like Cokie Roberts, no one in Washington thinks that Congress will stick to the bargain.
If it doesn't, that means that ObamaCare was never really paid for, that it will create a new entitlement that will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit, and that nothing has happened to make Medicare more solvent.
By the way, neither the Congressional Budget Office nor the Office of the Medicare Actuaries thinks the cuts are sustainable. That's why both agencies have put out "alternative" projections of Medicare finances for future years — which is Washington's way of telling Congress, "We don't believe you."
Lie Number Five: Health Reform Is Going to Make Medicare More Efficient.
An alternative to cutting provider fees is to slow the growth of Medicare by making the whole system more cost effective.
The goal here really isn't a partisan issue. The Obama administration has continued a number of the pilot programs and demonstration projects started under the Bush administration. These are designed to find ways of making Medicare less costly through pay-for-performance, coordinated care, managed care, home-based care, electronic medical records, etc. The Congressional Budget Office has looked at these efforts on three separate occasions and each time has concluded that they are not working or, in the few cases where there are positive signs, the performance is lackluster.
In the absence of such efficiencies, the law basically mandates a reduction in provider fees.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...