Friday, September 30, 2011

Obama's Healthcare Law Headed to Supreme Court

Obama's Healthcare Law Appealed to Supreme Court

  President Barack Obama is pictured as he delivers remarks on the need to provide states with relief from key provisions of the No Child Left Behind education policy, at the White House in Washington September 23, 2011. REUTERS/Jason Reed

Newsmax says that twenty-six states and a small business group appealed this past Wednesday to the Supreme Court seeking to strike down every aspect of President Obama's signature health care law that was signed by President Obama last March.  The administration defends the law.  The states and the National Federation of Independent Business argue the entire law should be invalidated because Congress had exceeded its powers requiring that Americans purchase health insurance or face a penalty.  The Obama administration filed its own appeal and states that the law is constitutional and that the issue was appropriate for Supreme Court review. 

The Affordable Care Act will be a major issue in the 2012 presidential election next year.  All the Republican candidates have verbally expressed their opposition towards it and say they will push for its repeal if they are elected president.  Repealing the Affordable Care Act is one of Congresswoman Michelle's Bachmann's major "priorities."  She says repeatedly that she won't rest until Obamacare is repealed.  The only problem is she hasn't mobilized  a group of Republican House members to defund Obamacare.  If she won't gear up her efforts to strip funding from Obamacare while she's a Congresswoman, then I'm not too confident she'll do so if she were to win the presidency. 

Many legal experts claim that the nine-member Supreme Court will be closely divided on this issue.  There are four members of the Court who are consistently conservative, four liberal, and one a swing vote.  I could see this vote go either direction.  I wouldn't jump to conclusions that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to rule Obamacare unconstitutional.  There will be much pull and political persuasion for the nine-member panel to leave the ruling alone.  The Supreme Court isn't impartial.  They are influenced by the politics as well.  Also, Obamacare is part of the globalist agenda to transform America into a socialist state.  I'm sure the Supreme Court will be told to not rule against it.  We can't afford to be overly optimistic that the Supreme Court will strike down the ruling.  I'm afraid a compromise will be made somewhere down the line.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government

Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government



There's a news story on Gallup.com entitled, "Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government".  The article from September 26, 2011 asserts a record-high 81% of Americans disapprove of the way the country is being governed, which has increased considerably within the last ten years.  It says that the majority of people registered as Democrats (65%) and Republicans (92%) are dissatisfied with how this nation is being governed.  There were a number of findings that were compiled from Gallup's annual governance survey.  One of the key findings says that 82% of Americans disapprove how Congress governs the nation.  Another finding is 49% of Americans believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.  In 2003, only less than a third believed the above statement. 

Given the fact that our elected elite in Washington have become corrupted, the American peoples' view of Congress is very negative.  Our elected officials have proven they have no interest in preserving and protecting the Constitution.  They consistently pass laws that do nothing but shred the Constitution.  They're all bought and paid for by unions, officials from multinational corporations, lobbyists, and foreign interests such as Saudi Arabia and China for example.  If you wonder why our elected elite aren't responsive towards the American people it's because they're beholden to globalist interests or the forces of Nimrod.  There's a shadow government operating within our own government.  They're all working together towards establishing a one-world government.  That will happen one day which will be very soon.  The Bible says that the "man of sin" will be revealed and he will rule the world for a seven-year period.  This will be a time of great tribulation upon the world.  God will pour out his judgment upon this world.  God allow mankind for a brief period of time to have his way with the creation of a new world order.  It fulfills Bible prophecy. 

What should the American people do?  They need to throw out corrupt incumbents.  That doesn't guarantee things in Washington are going to change for the better.  I guarantee you it won't because the problems in Washington are greater than the 535 members plus the president.  There are all kinds of globalist interests that have their claws in Washington.  There's more to contend with than just Congress and the President.  There are powerful forces that control our government that the average American aren't even aware of.  One thing voting out incumbents will do for temporary is to disturb the balance in Washington, which is something I desire to see happen.  I would rather have a first-term Congressman that becomes corrupted in office than have a veteran Congressman that was corrupted several terms ago.  I don't want to reward a corrupted Congressman or Senator another term in office.  Congress needs to be a revolving door for the next few election cycles where we continually have outgoing and incoming members of Congress every election cycle.  The problem is the American people are content with re-electing the same old politicians to office time and time again.  That's why we get the government we deserve.  When we continually re-elect corrupt incumbents, we're asking for the type of government we're getting.  In next year's election, let's commit ourselves to voting out the incumbents of both political parties in droves.  Washington needs to get the message.  The only way they will is if the voter is serious about voting out those incumbents that violate the voters' trust.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Announces He Won't Run for President

Christie: US Fails to Live Up to 'Tradition of Exceptionalism’

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie speaking at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California

Last weekend New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made the announcement that he was "reconsidering" a run for president and would decide within days.  Yesterday he made the announcement that he's not running for president after all.  In a Newsmax article last Friday, Governor Chris Christie announced he was reconsidering running for the presidential bid after having denied for months on many television talk shows there was no way he would run for president.  For the last several weeks several Republican donors and fundraisers have been urging Christie to change his mind and run for president.  Christie is a rising star within the GOP establishment.  Christie had promised to make a final decision within two weeks.  Christie claimed he was reconsidering a presidential bid given the fact the Republican candidates for president in 2012 didn't have too much to offer.  The two Republican frontrunners Christie and Texas Governor Rick Perry are weak on certain issues such as illegal immigraiton and Romneycare, a health care law similar to the health care bill Congress passed in 2010. 

As it turned out, Christie wasn't seriously pondering a run for the presidency after all.  He was using the weak lineup of presidential candidates as an excuse to make the announcement he might consider a presidential run.  He was doing nothing but adding his own two cents worth into the foray.  I'm thankful that Christie isn't running for president.  He recently appointed a Muslim judge to the Superior Court in January and now recently he's been confirmed.  Debbie Schlussell said in her blog that Sohail Mohammed was sympathetic to Sharia Law, which gives us cause for concern. Christie is no conservative. 

Click on the above link from Newsmax where the Governor gives his speech on American exceptionalism at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. 

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Dottie Rambo: The Gifted Songwriter of the Twentieth Century (Part 8)

Until He Comes



Who's Gonna Teach My Children's Children



Is There Anything I Can Do For You?



Don't Take My Cross Away



The Formation of the Singing Rambos

Back in the 1950's Buck and Dottie Rambo formed a singing trio called the Gospel Echoes.  The Gospel Echoes featured Buck, Dottie and different singers throughout the years such as Judy Russell, "Little Joe Hatfield", and Shirley Bivins to name a few.  The group eventually recorded a couple of albums for Warner Bros.  However, Warner Bros. never was involved in recording gospel but they did like Dottie.  They asked her would she be willing to sing folk music or rhythm and blues.  She declined because her heart was in singing gospel music.  Therefore, the contract with Warner Bros. ended.  In 1963 Shirley Bivins had decided to leave the Gospel Echoes because she was getting married.  Her new husband was an evangelist and he naturally didn't want her to continue traveling with the Gospel Echoes.  As a result of Bivins' departure, there was a void in the group.  Buck and Dottie finally tapped in Pat "Jones" Green to sing for the group.  She could play the accordion and the piano.  However, there was one problem: Pat Jones couldn't sing the high parts.  Buck and Dottie had been practicing extensively for weeks with Pat Jones, but she couldn't sing the high parts.  There was an upcoming concert with the Happy Goodmans and the Statesman Quartet.  One day Reba, Buck and Dottie's daughter, told her mother and father she knew how to sing every one of those songs.  She asked could she demonstrate before Pat.  They consented and Reba sang the part.  Buck and Dottie were thoroughly amazed how well their daughter could sing.  How come Buck and Dottie didn't know that Reba had a talent for singing?  Reba said in an interview entitled, "Dottie Rambo: Behind the Music" that she tried to hide it from her parents that she could sing.  When she started public school she wouldn't sing very much before her parents.  She feared if her parents knew that she could sing, then they would put her on the road with them.

At the time Reba had decided in her heart that she was going to be a surgeon one day.  She liked music but she had no intention of making a career out of singing.  So Buck and Dottie decided if that's what she desires to do with her life they wouldn't try to change her mind.  Nevertheless when Buck and Dottie discovered that Reba had a wonderful singing voice, Buck asked her if she would consider singing with their mother and father for a little while until they found a replacement.  They consented and Reba sang with them on a consistent basis until Reba married around 1975.  Reba was a perfect fit for the group.  She sang soprano.  She could pick up on parts of the song which was too high for Dottie.  They sang what was called inverted or a three-part harmony.  Whenever the lead was too high for Dottie, Reba was able to take over.  Sometimes they would flip and switch parts sometimes as well.   At the time inverted harmony was not considered proper or popular in southern gospel music because southern gospel was known for using a bass singer.  The Rambos didn't have a bass singer.  Even though there was no bass singer for the Rambos, all three harmonized very well.  Pat Jones played the accordion for the group for three years.  She recorded three albums with the Rambos until she left the group in 1967. 

I going to continue the thought of the formation of the Singing Rambos next week.  I'm going to end this post by posting pictures of the different albums they recorded as the Singing Rambos and then eventually the Rambos.


Those Singing Rambos  The Soul Singing Rambos

Gospel Ballads Gospel Ballads

Come Spring  The Real Thing  The Singing Rambos Soul in the Family  Sonshine Alive and Alive in Soul's Harbor There Has to Be a Song An Evening With the Singing Rambos

 Songs of Love and Hope

 The Best of the Rambos  The Good Ole Days Volume 5

Spotlighting the Rambos

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Illegal Immigration Key Issue in GOP Debate

Perry, Romney Come Out Swinging Early in GOP Debate

The Fox News-Google GOP Presidential Debate



Some of the information for this story comes from USA Today.  The topic of illegal immigration took center stage at the GOP debate in Orlando, Florida.  Fox News and Google sponsored the debate.  In the third Republican debate in three weeks immigration joined Social Security as the fireworks between the two leading GOP contenders so far in the presidential debate--Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.  Romney accused Perry of creating a "magnet" in Texas for illegal immigrants by offering in-state tuition at colleges for children regardless of their immigration status.  Romney said that shouldn't be happening at all.  Perry charged back with the statement, "If you say we should not educate children who come into our state . . . by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart," he replied. 

At one point in the debate for Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum jumped on the tuition issue as well.  He said, "Why should they be given preferential treatment as an illegals in this country?"  "That's what we're saying.  So I say Perry is soft of immigration, that fact that he doesn't want to build a fence."  It's obvious from the exchange Perry had with Romney and Santorum that he (Perry) doesn't stand on the right side of the issue over illegal immigration. 

There needs to be a triple-tiered border fence built along the southern border from Texas to California, except at certain checkpoints.  It needs to be the type of fence which doesn't have ladders that illegals can climb upon to get into the country.  It has nothing to do with being anti-immigrant.  It's about border security and protecting America.  I understand why many Mexicans come to America. I understand anyone that desires to immigrate to America.  America has always been the land of opportunity.  I'm for immigration as long as the rules are followed concerning those who cross our border.  There are right ways to handle this situation.  As far as tuition breaks are concerned, it's not fair to the citizens of the United States for illegals to have to pay less tuition than those students who are legal U.S. citizens.  That's the way it should be.  However, that's not part of the agenda.  Anyone who believes that Rick Perry's a conservative and is going to protect our borders better think again. 

I have posted a YouTube clip of the Fox-Google debate from Thursday, September 22, 2011.

An Analysis of Paul Krugman's Article on 9/11 in the New York Times Blog

'Forget 9/11,' Patriotism, Unity Are 'Deeply Shameful' (Krugman [NYT], Berkeley Professor [Al-Jazeera]) - The 9.12 Project Network



Paul Krugman, an economics professor at Princeton University, who's an avowed liberal, wrote a stunning piece in the New York Times on the 911 Blogpost.  Here's the statement that Krugman made:

What happened after 9/11--and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not--was deeply shameful.  Te (sic) atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue.  Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Guiliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror.  And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

I don't agree with the political philosophy of Paul Krugman, but in examining world events such the horrific events of 9/11, I'm afraid I have to agree that there has been exploitation of 9/11 from our elected elite.  I by no means am a Bush hater, but there were many things that transpired under the Bush administration since 9/11 that didn't make sense.  For one thing, president Bush should've closed both the northern and southern borders and should've constructed a triple-tiered fence from Texas to California to keep out potential terrorists.  President George W. Bush also waged two wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq but didn't win those wars before Barack Obama became president in 2009.  Instead, he handed those two wars to President Obama.  And President Obama in turn has continued the same war policies that the previous administration began.  To go a step further, President Obama has added a third war which is in Libya.  Who knows how long the special forces will be in Libya? 

Since 9/11 took place over ten years ago, both the Bush and Obama administrations have worked to promote Muslims to high positions within the government.  President Bush tried to persuade the American public that Islam is a peaceful religion.  It's amazing how sympathetic the Bush administration was toward Islam considering it was Islamists that crashed jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  In both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq there were strict rules of engagement in place which made it difficult for our soldiers to effectively fight the "war on terrorism."  Some U.S. soldiers were court martialed because they shot Muslims in defense to protect themselves.  It's insanity.  How come we're fighting a war on terrorism and our military doesn't use the tools necessary to win the war as quickly as possible?  That doesn't make sense other than the fact that wars do make money.  I believe that the U.S.'s continual presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is part of the globalist agenda.  These wars are costing our country in both money and treasure and they both didn't have to linger on like they did.  This "war on terrorism" is a joke the way it's being fought.  However, all the events that have taken place since 9/11 is part of the globalist agenda to impose a new world order upon us.  I also believe the recent uprisings in the Middle East are playing a role in implementing an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East.

I know some blog readers will probably disagree with my assessment on what Krugman said in the New York Times blog, but America is the place for debate.  This is a free country and we Americans have the First Amendment right to share our views and agree and disagree.  Many politicians have exploited national emergencies to implement some type of agenda.  In order to understand a little what I'm talking about, you need to check out the document entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century."  This document stemmed from the project called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).  The project was established in 1997 and it spokoe about the goals of the neoconservatives to promote American global leadership.  They were looking for an excuse for the United States to reassert itself in the world from a military standpoint.  They wanted to maintain U.S. preeminence around the world.  In order for that to take place, there had to be a "Pearl Harbor" moment.  I believe 9/11 was that Pearl Harbor moment.  9/11 wasn't a surprise to those in the highest levels of government.  Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism czar in the Bill Clinton administration, warned the Bush administration months prior to 9/11 that Al-Qaeda wanted to launch an attack on the United States.  A month prior to 9/11 Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor at the time, was given a CIA briefing that Osama bin Laden wanted to hijack airplanes.  What was done about it?  Nothing.  There were warnings given within the federal government that an imminent attack was being planned.  Even though I don't agree with Krugman on the vast majority of his views, I believe he was correct about what he said concerning our politicians using 9/11 as a pretext to go into a war with Iraq for example.  Take a look at how delicate the situation is in Iraq.  It's chaotic there. Saddam by all means was a dictator to his people in Iraq.  I'm not sure he was as big of a threat as he was made out to be in the Middle East. 

Check out the Project for the New American Century to read about the globalist plans for the United States.  It was compiled in September 2000.  It will explain much about what 9/11 was all about.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Can the American Economy Recover?

Wall Street tumbles on recession fears; Dow down 391 points - Moneycontrol.com -



It was not a good day for trading yesterday on Wall Street as the Dow tumbled 391 points yesterday.  The U.S. came off their worst market levels and finished sharply lower in heavy volume trading.  The Dow Jones finished at 10,733.  Weekly jobless claims continue to remain above the 400,000 mark.   Nationwide unemployment still remains around 9.2%. 

For the last few years we've been hearing reports on television, the internet, and the media in general about the tanking economy in America and one of these days there will be a great crash and the dollar will be worthless.  Efforts have been made to devalue our currency for a number of decades.  Former president Richard Nixon took the U.S. off the last vestiges of the gold standard on August 15, 1971.  Within the last three decades the nation's debt has ballooned at an unprecedented rate.  Under the presidency of Ronald Reagan during the '80's, the nation's debt reached $1 trillion for the first time around either 1984 or 1985.  Since that time the deficit has kept ballooning.  Now it has reached past $14 trillion and within a few short years (if not that long), the nation's debt will surpass $20 trillion dollars.  That's mind-boggling.  Whoever would've thought our politicians would spend this nation to an oblivion?  However, it's part of the globalist agenda to transform the U.S. from a capitalist to a socialist country.  I believe President Obama has been chosen to place the finishing touches on completely transforming our nation.  It won't take long to complete that goal.  America will default on its debt before too long if something drastic isn't done very quickly.  The only things that have saved our hide is the "willingness" (which I say lightly) by the American people to back the worthless money being printed by the Federal Reserve and China and some of the countries in the Middle East purchasing some of our nation's bad debt.  If China was to default on our debt, it probably would place our economy into a complete tailspin. There have been talks of replacing the dollar with another form of currency.  There will be a day during the Great Tribulation there will be a single currency under the new world order which will require people who want to purchase goods to have the mark of the beast stamped on them. 

Another problem that's facing our country economically today is there's been a major exodus of manufacturing jobs within the last seventeen years, partly due to the the NAFTA trade agreement and GATT in 1994 which has resulted in lowering trade barriers with other countries.  Before NAFTA was signed in 1993 the United States allowed Japanese goods to flood our market in the '70's and as a result it forced many of the electronics businesses in America to go out of business.  It also resulted in a trade deficit with Japan as well.  The United States has had issues with trade deficits since that time.  There was once a time when the United States placed tariffs on imported goods.  Those tariffs would fund the operation of the federal government.  That was before the Sixteenth Amendment passed in 1913 which levied a federal income tax upon the American people.  

Can the American economy recover?  According to many economists, they claim that America is so far in debt there's no way our economy can recover.  I've heard Glenn Beck say repeatedly on Fox News in the past that Americans will have to sacrifice because America is headed for hard times.  He did say with our indomitable spirit, America can recover.  I'm not sure that we can stop the spiraling nation's debt because of the compounded interest on our debt alone.  It's difficult for the revenue that's coming in to pay the interest on our debt.  We're not paying off the principle.  With the loss of so many manufacturing jobs within the last several years, it will be difficult to draw the needed revenue necessary to pay off our nation's debt.  We've digressed from a manufacturing economy to a consumer-based economy.  As a result, America is no longer as independent and sovereign as she once was.  We can't control our own destiny because our politicians have beholden this country to foreign interests such as China, for example.  Another problem we have is we have traitors in both Houses of Congress and the White House.  They have no political will to do what's best for America.  They've been bought and co-opted by the forces of Nimrod.  The Republicans who control the House don't even have the willingness to defund Obamacare.  They wanted to convince the American people that they'll repeal Obamacare but the Republicans in the House won't seize the opportunity to defund Obamacare and all of Obama's socialist programs.  That says a lot.  That's why I'm not a fan of Michelle Bachmann, who's a presidential candidate for 2012.  She repeatedly says in her campaign she will repeal Obamacare if she's elected president but she won't utilize the means necessary to motivate House members to defund this monstrosity.  Therefore I'm not interested in hearing what she has to say. 

Lastly we as the American people play a role in our nation's declining economy.  How so?  The last few generations of Americans have been content with borrowing money over their heads and as a result we can't afford to pay it back.  We've become a nation that upholds the philosophy of instant gratification.  If it's something we desire now, we'll purchase it on impulse regardless whether we can afford it.  This didn't happen as a result of the mortgage meltdown of 2008.  We the American people were borrowing over our heads long before that happened.  Many Americans were in the habit of borrowing more they can afford when times were prosperous.  The trend started in a major way with the Baby Boomers and that trend still continues with the youngest generation today.  That doesn't mean all Americans from the Baby Boom generation all the way down to the present generation are financially reckless.  There are a number of young Americans that are prudent with their finances.  However starting with the Baby Boom generation we've become a very self-centered and materialistic nation.  We are more interested in satisfying our selfish whims than looking ahead to the future. 

Speaking of the housing crisis which resulted in the mortgage meltdown of 2008, one of the reasons why our nation's housing crisis took a huge tumble is because many Americans signed to purchase a home on a subprime loan, which means they couldn't afford the normal house payments.  Also, Congress forced major banks such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dilute the requirements of home ownership.  As a result, that set this nation on a course of economic disaster. 

If there is any hope for our economy we must first repent of our sins individually and collectively as a nation (II Chronicles 7:14).  We must turn back to God and follow God's prescription for financial prosperity as laid forth in the Bible.  We must labor with our hands.  We live in a lazy society today.  Many people aren't willing to labor for their living like generations beforehand.  Laboring can be wearisome.  It's not easy.  However, you can't be financially prosperous if you won't put your hand forth to the plow and labor diligently.  Secondly, from a governmental perspective, we need to vote out incumbents from both political parties in droves in the 2012 general election, which is over 13 months away.  We need patriots who will stand for God, Country, and the Constitution.  We need lawmakers with integrity who recognize that the taxpayers' dollars aren't theirs' to squander.  They need to take an axe to the vast majority of the federal spending that's taking place.  They need to defund all those programs that are unconstitutional.  They must shrink the size of government.  We need to unhook our country from the Federal Reserve.  The Federal Reserve is the reason why our currency is in the mess that it's in.  They have no right to dictate how our federal dollars are to be spend.  Thomas Jefferson once said that a private central bank issuing public currency is more of a menace to our country than an invading army.  The Federal Reserve is no reserve bank.  It's a consortium of international bankers who control how our nation's dollars are spent.

Congress also needs to repeal the vast majority of regulations that stifle economic growth.  They need to repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd-Frank Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010.  They need to abolish the current tax code and either institute a flat tax or a national sales tax.  They need to allow small and medium-sized businesses to have full sway in the marketplace.  The factors of production shouldn't be determined by the government.  The free market should determine supply and demand--not the federal government.  Congress also needs to renege on NAFTA, CAFTA, and other free trade deals that have resulted in America losing millions of jobs overseas.  NO nation can be prosperous if it doesn't have a manufacturing base.  We must utilize our resources to become the most prosperous nation in the world.  America has been abundantly blessed by God over the years.  We've allowed the ruling elite to destroy this country and make it difficult for the nation to prosper.  I do recognize that not all of the problem lies within Washington.  We as Americans are at fault in certain areas as well (such as borrowing and spending for example).  We need to learn that prosperity doesn't stem from government.  The government doesn't create wealth.  That's something only the private sector must do.  We must turn back to the founding principles of this country if there's a chance for America to recover economically. 

The most important thing is for America to turn to God and recognize he's the only hope for our lives.  If we'll turn to him and follow the precepts in His word, then everything else will fall into place.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Lindsey Williams on Alex Jones

Earth Shattering Events to Come



America Will Default on it's 14+ Trillion Dollar Debt



Obama Must Destroy Middle East (Part 1)



Obama Must Destroy Middle East (Part 2)

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The Cares and Trials of This Life Will One Day Become Irrelevant

(John 16:22-23) "And ye now have therefore sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you. And in that day ye shall ask me nothing.  Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you."  Years ago I recall Jimmy Swaggart singing a song entitled, "We'll Talk it Over in the Bye and Bye."  That song was speaking of the time when we meet with our Lord and we'll be asking him questions over why we suffered some of the trials and tribulations that we experienced in this present life.  Even though that song sounds nice the problem is that it's not scriptural.  Jesus said in John's gospel that in that day we won't ask him anything.  I've heard many religious people and Christians make the statement over the years there are some things they're going to ask the Lord when they get to Heaven.  They're going to ask why the Lord allowed certain trials to transpire in their lives while they're on this earth.  Those that aren't aware of that passage of scripture in John where Jesus said we won't ask him anything in that day of judgment will fall prey to the belief that they will be asking the Lord a litany of questions about the diverse trials they and their loved ones faced in this life. 

In the light of John 16:23, why won't those who enter into Heaven's gates question the Lord about the cares and troubles in this life?  The reason is because Heaven will be eternal bliss.  There will be no sin, no pain, no death and no sorrow that will enter that land.  The saints of God will be in Heaven praising Jesus, the Lamb of God.  There won't be any time nor need to dwell on the trials that we didn't understand in this past life.  Also, the saints of God will be adorned in a new, glorified body.  These new glorified bodies won't have experienced the cares and trials that we faced in this present life.  With the new immortal bodies, we'll be praising Jesus and adoring the lamb.  All the things of this life will be irrelevant in the life to come.  Once we see Jesus, we'll recognize that all the trials we faced in this life will be worth it after all.  The things that matter to us now on this side of the grave won't matter on the other side.  Isn't that wonderful?  There'll be no cancer, no sickness nor disease, no corruption, no death, and no sin will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. 

Revelation 21:4 tells us that God shall wipe all our tears away in Heaven because there'll be no more death, no more pain, and no more troubles.  The latter part of that verse says that the former things are passed away.  Life as we know it now will no longer exist.  Why would we need to know why God allowed "Mrs. Brown" to die with cancer on this earth and in the midst of her death she left a husband and two young children?  On the other side of the grave it won't matter.  All the trials, valleys, and cares of this life will be in the past tense.  Those types of things may matter to us on this side of the grave but once we are adorned with our new glorified bodies, all the cares of this life will vanish.  It will be irrelevant.  When we're in the presence of Jesus we won't need to ask Him anything.  Praise God.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Obama Said to Plan Buffett-Style Tax on ‘Mega Rich’

Obama Said to Plan Buffett-Style Tax on ‘Mega Rich’

President Barack Obama and billionaire investor Warren Buffett

I've been saying for the last couple of months during the debt ceiling debate that the White House was looking for a way to sneak in a tax increase upon the American people.  Democratic leaders in Congress such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin and billionaire investor Warren Buffett have been saying that the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes to the federal government.  Buffett has asserted that his secretary pays more in taxes than he himself does.  I knew that the president was looking for an excuse to raise taxes upon the wealthy.  Newsmax says that President Obama is proposing a new levy on U.S. taxpayers who pay more than $1 million as a means of reducing the national debt.  He is adopting the suggestion from billionaire investor Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway.  This tax will be part of the recommendation to the super congressional committee which will be charged to "find ways to trim $1.5 trillion" from the nation's long-term deficit.  Buffett made the statement over a month ago that the federal government needs to stop coddling the rich.  He said the rich who earn over a million dollars need to pay a higher percentage of taxes.  My advice for Mr. Buffett is he needs to write out a large check to the federal government.  Since he's a billionaire and has more money than he knows what to do with, then why doesn't he participated in shared sacrifice as the president so often speaks of and donate 35% of his income above and beyond what he already pays to the federal government.  He can voluntarily donate money to the federal government.  I'm sure Congess would be delighted to take his money.  The truth is he can exempt himself because he's an Obama crony.

The question I have for President Obama is what's a fair share for rich people to pay?  What percentage should the rich who earn over $1 million pay in order to be paying their fair share?  Is it 35%?  Is it 40%?  50%?  What's fair?  Just because a person is rich doesn't mean they should be paying a higher percentage of taxes in comparison to all other taxpayers.  What's fair about that?  Why are President Obama and Congress trying to punish those who are wealthy due to hard work, diligence, and thrift?  It's because it's part of the agenda to destroy capitalism and implement a socialistic society.  President Obama mentioned repeatedly about transforming this country.  He's been successful thus far in transforming this country.  Another question I want to ask the president is why should certain income categories be exempt from paying taxes?  Why should the emerging rich or those making incomes of $250,000 to $1,000,000 shoulder most of the burden and those on the lower end not contribute any taxes?  I know some will say that those on the lower rung of the ladder can't afford to pay much in taxes.  I agree.  I'm not insinuating that those on the lower end should pay a high percentage of taxes.  Nonetheless, the rich shouldn't pay a higher percentage of taxes either.  Just because they're rich doesn't mean they should be paying a higher percentage of income taxes in comparison with other Americans with lower incomes. 

As I stated in yesterday's post, the solution to the tax issue is to abolish the current tax code and implement either a flat tax or a national sales tax where revenue would be generated from the sale of goods to Americans.  That way everybody would contribute to paying their fair share of taxes.  It would also close loopholes as well.  Anybody that works a job should contribute to the tax base.  Naturally under the flat tax rate, those whose income category ranges in excess of $1 million for example will pay more taxes in real dollars under a flat tax rate of 10% vs. those whose income category is in the range of $20,000 under a 10% tax rate.  The point is we shouldn't punish the rich because they are wealthy.  If they've earned their wealth, they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. 

It's through the rich that jobs are created.  No poor person can create jobs.  Heinz Ketchup wasn't started by a poor man.   All the major oil companies were started by rich men.  John D. Rockefeller wasn't poor when he started Standard Oil in 1870.  Rich people are the only ones that can start a business.  The poor don't have the capacity to start businesses.  It takes capital to start a business.  It's time for all this class warfare to end.  It's not going to happen because the elected elite are power hungry.  The progressive tax code gives the politicians control over the American people, which is what the agenda is about.  The power to tax is the power to destroy.  The Obama administration is all about destroying our capitalist system.  He's creating a socialist America which will eventually culminate into a communist country.

Click on the above link from Newsmax to read about Obama's plan for the "mega rich."

Monday, September 19, 2011

The Current Tax Code Needs to be Abolished

John Boehner jobs speech urges reform of tax code - Jake Sherman and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

House Speaker John Boehner at the Economic Club

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) gave a speech at the Economic Club in Washington last Thursday on September 15, 2011.  He spoke about reforming the tax code.  Boehner dismissed President Obama's jobs plan as "a poor substitute" for the "policies that are needed to put America back to work," even as he echoed the president's call for a special congressional committee to exceed its deficit reduction goal of $1.5 trillion over 10 years.  Boehner calling for lowering the corporate rate and closing loopholes.  I have a better idea.  Instead of reforming the present tax code, the best thing to do is to abolish the current progressive tax code and institute either a flat tax or a national sales tax. 

Within the last several months, President Obama, the Democrats in Congress, and billionaire investor Warren Buffett have been calling for the rich to pay a higher percentage of taxes since they are wealthy and can "afford to pay more in taxes."  It's the same game of class warfare as usual.  The problem with our government isn't lack of revenue going to the government, even though there isn't as much revenue going to the government the last three years as it was prior to then.  The problem with our government is overspending.  There are all kinds of waste, fraud, and bureaucracy that needs to be eliminated from Washington.  Our elected elite aren't concerned about reining in the deficit.  That even includes Republicans.  They're all concerned about control.  The old adage says that "the power to tax is the power to destroy."  The elected elite can't ever seem to generate enough revenue to the federal government.  Much of the revenue that's generated to the government is squandered and wasted.  Then they have the audacity to tell us that we Americans aren't paying enough taxes to the government.  The problem is waste, first and foremost. 

It's time that we abolish the present tax code.  Prior to the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States in 1913, the American people never paid income taxes to the federal government.  Prior to the Sixteenth Amendment being passed by Congress, all the revenue that was raised to fund the operation of the federal government was drawn through tariffs and excise taxes.  It was through tariffs on foreign goods that helped generate the revenue needed to fund the federal government.  The Founders didn't intend for the federal government to be funded off the backs of the American people.  The Sixteenth Amendment was passed as a result of the Progressive Movement in the early part of the 20th century.  When income taxes were first levied by the federal government soon after the amendment's passage, the American people only paid a small percentage, which was probably around 2 to 3%.  Today many Americans whose earnings range in six-digit figures pay at least 30% plus more.  It's ridiculous.  Our progressive tax system hurts the middle class and the emerging rich.  The super rich always find a way through loopholes to not have to pay much in taxes.  The way the tax code is manipulated, those that are hurt the most are those who are least able to afford it.  Those that are super wealthy are able to bargain their way out of paying higher taxes.

Instead of the current, progressive tax code, we need to implement either a flat tax where every American regardless of income category pays the same percentage of taxes or Congress institutes a national sales tax where taxes are collected through sales of goods.  The only exception would be food and medicine.  The flat tax or the national sales tax is much better than the current tax code.  With the alternative tax options I've just given, the American people won't have to worry about filing taxes every Spring and loopholes can be eliminated through this method.  These two methods would make taxation much simpler and fairer.  However, the elected elite (including both Democrats and Republicans) won't go that route because our politicians thrive on class warfare.  They like to divide the American people by promoting class warfare.  The current progressive tax code gives our politicians the ability to control and destroy the wealth of the American people.  That's what our elected elite are all about.  They're all about power and control.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Former First Lady Jackie Kennedy's Views On MLK and LBJ

Jackie Kennedy: Martin Luther King Jr. "phony" - CBS News


 Former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy

CBS News analyst and historian Douglas Brinkley appeared on CBS's "Early Show" with co-anchor Erica Hill on Monday revealing some of Jackie Kennedy's thoughts on Martin Luther King, Jr. and former president Lyndon B. Johnson.  There's a new book of newly-released interviews with Jackie Kennedy and it reveals some things many people may not be aware of.   The book's entitled, "Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy".  The book includes a series of interviews given by former Kennedy aide Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. shortly after her husband's assassination on November 22, 1963.  She spoke of her husband's reading habits to the botched Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. 

In one of her interviews, she said that Martin Luther King, Jr. was "terrible", "tricky", and "a phony."  Jackie Kennedy also scorned the notion of Lyndon Johnson succeeding her husband in office.  John Kennedy chose then Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson as the vice presidential candidate because Kennedy felt he needed Johnson to win Texas in order to win the presidential election in 1960.  Johnson was Kennedy's political rival.  Jackie told Schlessinger in the 1964 interviews that her husband often fretted over a Johnson presidency.  Jackie Kennedy said her husband told her could she imagine what this country would be like if Johnson was president? Bobby told Jackie that he had discussions with JFK to name someone else in the 1968 presidential ticket.  As it turned out, Johnson succeeded Kennedy in 1963 and won the 1964 election in a landslide for a full term.  Johnson declined to run again in 1968. 

To read the entire story, click on the above link from CBS News.