Humphrey Stevenson
For the past year, you and your minions have spent money we don’t have, made under-the-table deals with supporters, name called and threatened opponents, held back room negotiations and used brides, kickbacks and mob style payoffs to try to cram a health care bill down the throat of the American people who told you time and again we don’t want it. Now we have told you in a way so loudly it could wake the dead. We have taken your precious 60th senate vote; the late Ted Kennedy’s seat no less.
Can you hear us now?
Make no mistake, Mr. President, this is not the end; only the beginning. Unless you and your gang cease and desist from health care, cap and trade and any other “progressive” ideas you have floating around in your head, in November of this year the people of this country will unleash an electoral bloodbath the likes of which have never been seen on these shores; a tidal wave of Democrat defeats. What happened in Massachusetts was only a sample, a taste, of what could be. I know you think many of your allies are in “safe” districts. But if a Democrat can be defeated in Massachusetts, are there any safe districts? I wrote an article a few weeks ago entitled “The Night Health Care Died.” Tuesday, November 2, 2010 could be the night the Democrat Party died.
The American people have spoken our peace, for now. We await your answer on January 27.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Fighting Terrorism, One Tube of Toothpaste at a Time
by: Humphrey Stevenson
On Christmas Day 2009, Islamic terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit by igniting a packet containing 80 grams of the explosive PETN that was sewn into his underwear. Although the attempt was foiled by a Dutch passenger, it did show that there are still Muslim extremist set on killing Americans and revealed weaknesses in airline security.
It’s not as though Abdulmutallab tried very hard to disguise his intentions. A young male Muslim buys a one way ticket with cash and checked no bags. The ticket agent should have known there was something fishy. Any beat cop could tell you that won’t pass the JDLR (Just Doesn’t Look Right) Test.
After the attempted bombing, it took President Obama three days to come off vacation to say anything about the underwear bomber. By contrast, you couldn’t drag the man out of Washington to go on vacation until after the Senate passed his health care bill. This illustrates as well as anything could where his priorities lie and it’s not with defeating terrorism or protecting American citizens’ lives.
When the President finally got around to making any sort of in depth statement regarding the attempted bombing, he channeled his inner Harry Truman and said, “The buck stops with me.” But, is that really true? He pretty much blamed everyone but himself. However don’t worry, no one will lose their job over it. The President said it was a “systemic problem.” I think you can read that as meaning it was Bush’s fault.
We,re safe now; Homeland Security is on the job. DHS Director Napolitano says they will deploy another 300 full body scanners to airports over the next year. These scanners give a nearly nude image of the person in the scanner. I was a bit surprised by Sean Hannity’s reaction to this news. While he wasn’t pleased by the further invasion of privacy; he felt it would give the TSA another tool to fight terrorism. Aside from the further inconveniencing of the flying public, one problem with these scanners is the possibility of the images going public. How long will it be until some celebrity’s body scan winds up on the internet?
However, the real problem with the body scanners is the same problem with checking or banning toothpaste or shampoo or mouthwash or all the rest. It misses the target. As national security expert, K.T. McFarland pointed out; we are wasting our time looking for weapons, when we should be looking for terrorists. If we eliminate the terrorists from our airplanes, the weapons will take care of themselves.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said on the Fred Thompson Show that we need to learn to “manage the risk.” He noted that at present our policies are all in response to the terrorists’ actions. For example, a terrorist puts explosives in his shoe; we all have to take off our shoes. A terrorist attempts his actions in the last hour of a flight; we can do nothing in the last hour of a flight. In this way, we are treating everyone as though they are a terrorist. Mr. Ridge was in favor of a way of allowing frequent flyers who voluntarily permit the TSA to investigate them and are then placed on a database to bypass the normal security measures, probably by use of their fingerprint. He stressed that we are never going to be completely safe no matter what we do.
El Al Airlines is the most secure airline in the world. Since it is the national airline of Israel, it cannot afford to take chances. In addition to metal detectors, x-ray, baggage searches (without the permission or even presence of the passenger, by the way) and all other substance screenings, every terminal is patrolled by armed guards, some in uniform and some in plain clothes. The airline profiles its passengers without apology. Muslim passengers are singled out for intense scrutiny. Every passenger undergoes an individual interview with trained security personnel. No one is allowed to board an aircraft until they have had this interview and security is satisfied that the person is no threat. In other words, El Al Airlines is secure because it specifically looks for and eliminates any person who might pose a threat.
I was shocked after 9/11 at how willing Americans were to give up liberty not for security but the appearance of security. No amount of x-rays, metal detectors, body scanners or any other inspection method is going to make any difference until we are willing to admit the problem. Terrorists commit terrorism.
On Christmas Day 2009, Islamic terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit by igniting a packet containing 80 grams of the explosive PETN that was sewn into his underwear. Although the attempt was foiled by a Dutch passenger, it did show that there are still Muslim extremist set on killing Americans and revealed weaknesses in airline security.
It’s not as though Abdulmutallab tried very hard to disguise his intentions. A young male Muslim buys a one way ticket with cash and checked no bags. The ticket agent should have known there was something fishy. Any beat cop could tell you that won’t pass the JDLR (Just Doesn’t Look Right) Test.
After the attempted bombing, it took President Obama three days to come off vacation to say anything about the underwear bomber. By contrast, you couldn’t drag the man out of Washington to go on vacation until after the Senate passed his health care bill. This illustrates as well as anything could where his priorities lie and it’s not with defeating terrorism or protecting American citizens’ lives.
When the President finally got around to making any sort of in depth statement regarding the attempted bombing, he channeled his inner Harry Truman and said, “The buck stops with me.” But, is that really true? He pretty much blamed everyone but himself. However don’t worry, no one will lose their job over it. The President said it was a “systemic problem.” I think you can read that as meaning it was Bush’s fault.
We,re safe now; Homeland Security is on the job. DHS Director Napolitano says they will deploy another 300 full body scanners to airports over the next year. These scanners give a nearly nude image of the person in the scanner. I was a bit surprised by Sean Hannity’s reaction to this news. While he wasn’t pleased by the further invasion of privacy; he felt it would give the TSA another tool to fight terrorism. Aside from the further inconveniencing of the flying public, one problem with these scanners is the possibility of the images going public. How long will it be until some celebrity’s body scan winds up on the internet?
However, the real problem with the body scanners is the same problem with checking or banning toothpaste or shampoo or mouthwash or all the rest. It misses the target. As national security expert, K.T. McFarland pointed out; we are wasting our time looking for weapons, when we should be looking for terrorists. If we eliminate the terrorists from our airplanes, the weapons will take care of themselves.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said on the Fred Thompson Show that we need to learn to “manage the risk.” He noted that at present our policies are all in response to the terrorists’ actions. For example, a terrorist puts explosives in his shoe; we all have to take off our shoes. A terrorist attempts his actions in the last hour of a flight; we can do nothing in the last hour of a flight. In this way, we are treating everyone as though they are a terrorist. Mr. Ridge was in favor of a way of allowing frequent flyers who voluntarily permit the TSA to investigate them and are then placed on a database to bypass the normal security measures, probably by use of their fingerprint. He stressed that we are never going to be completely safe no matter what we do.
El Al Airlines is the most secure airline in the world. Since it is the national airline of Israel, it cannot afford to take chances. In addition to metal detectors, x-ray, baggage searches (without the permission or even presence of the passenger, by the way) and all other substance screenings, every terminal is patrolled by armed guards, some in uniform and some in plain clothes. The airline profiles its passengers without apology. Muslim passengers are singled out for intense scrutiny. Every passenger undergoes an individual interview with trained security personnel. No one is allowed to board an aircraft until they have had this interview and security is satisfied that the person is no threat. In other words, El Al Airlines is secure because it specifically looks for and eliminates any person who might pose a threat.
I was shocked after 9/11 at how willing Americans were to give up liberty not for security but the appearance of security. No amount of x-rays, metal detectors, body scanners or any other inspection method is going to make any difference until we are willing to admit the problem. Terrorists commit terrorism.
The Control of OPM
www.conservativetruth.org
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Margaret Thatcher in speaking about the problem with socialists said, “They always run out of other people’s money.” Take a quick look at our national dept and I think you would agree that it seems as if we have reached that point. The government is borrowing at record rates to finance what it cannot confiscate. Why? Because liberals, who are in actuality socialists, don’t ever want to put their money where their mouth is; they always want to put your money where their mouth is.
Many have said that Ted Kennedy dedicated his life to seeing that the poor could get health insurance. If that is true, then why did he become a senator? He should have taken part of the Kennedy fortune and started a charitable foundation dedicated to that purpose. Then he could have gone to the Hollywood liberals and browbeat them into contributing to his cause. But instead of that, he dedicated his life to the control of OPM using health care as the mechanism.
Liberals said we must have this health care bill because Americans spend more on health care than anybody else in the world. That is such an irrelevant statistic as to be laughable. I would imagine that we spend more on pretty much everything than anybody else in the world. We are, after all, the most prosperous people on the planet or at least used to be. If you live in a hut in Nigeria on $20 per month, like a certain President’s brother, you are not spending any money on health care; your problem is trying to eat.
So, what we spend on health care is really not the issue. The liberals want to force people to buy a government approved health insurance plan (even if it is from a private insurer). While the government may not spend the money directly, it will control how it is spent. Once again, the issue is the control of OPM.
The lust for controlling OPM is not limited to health care. The Record (Hackensack, NJ) reports that Rev. Jesse Jackson wants large banks to help churches, homeowners and students, who are facing foreclosure, to refinance their loans. He threatened to protest banks saying, “We are going to begin to march on banks, and we are going to challenge banks to do the right thing.” He called the issue of lending a “civil rights” issue. No one has a “right” to borrow money from anyone, banks or otherwise. Lending and borrowing is a contractual agreement.
There is a reason that banks are not willing to refinance these loans. They have gotten burned once and are unwilling to shoulder further risk. Again, if Rev. Jackson was serious, he could, though his philanthropic organizations help these people out of foreclosure. But no, he would rather protest banks. So we see that lending is only a civil rights issue when it’s OPM at risk.
The liberals talk about poverty as though it is an incurable condition. To a liberal, if you are born poor, you are destined to remain poor. However, the history of the United States is filled with countless stories of people who have pulled themselves out of poverty through hard work, ingenuity and/or education. I know I will be thought of a heartless and cruel for saying this, but at some point we must realize that the poor bear some responsibility for their station in life. Unlike liberals, I have great confidence in people. I know that people are capable of extraordinary accomplishments…when they have to.
I watched William Shatner interview Gene Simmons, bassist for the rock band KISS. Simmons, born Chaim Witz in Israel in 1949, immigrated to the United States with his mother, a holocaust survivor, at the age of eight. He recalled the first supermarket he had ever seen. He described it as “skyscrapers of food.” Growing up in the beginning years of Israel, Simmons had never seen anything like it; never imagined anything like it.
As he related in the interview, we take all this for granted. Mr. Simmons is correct and unfortunately, since we take it for granted, we think it will always be this way, no matter what happens, socially, politically or economically. Three things have provided the bounty we enjoy, our reverence for God, our respect for the rule of law and capitalism. All three are under assault by the left. Every person has the God given right to life, liberty and property. We must defend a person’s right to use their wealth as they see fit as vigorously as we would defend life or liberty.
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Margaret Thatcher in speaking about the problem with socialists said, “They always run out of other people’s money.” Take a quick look at our national dept and I think you would agree that it seems as if we have reached that point. The government is borrowing at record rates to finance what it cannot confiscate. Why? Because liberals, who are in actuality socialists, don’t ever want to put their money where their mouth is; they always want to put your money where their mouth is.
Many have said that Ted Kennedy dedicated his life to seeing that the poor could get health insurance. If that is true, then why did he become a senator? He should have taken part of the Kennedy fortune and started a charitable foundation dedicated to that purpose. Then he could have gone to the Hollywood liberals and browbeat them into contributing to his cause. But instead of that, he dedicated his life to the control of OPM using health care as the mechanism.
Liberals said we must have this health care bill because Americans spend more on health care than anybody else in the world. That is such an irrelevant statistic as to be laughable. I would imagine that we spend more on pretty much everything than anybody else in the world. We are, after all, the most prosperous people on the planet or at least used to be. If you live in a hut in Nigeria on $20 per month, like a certain President’s brother, you are not spending any money on health care; your problem is trying to eat.
So, what we spend on health care is really not the issue. The liberals want to force people to buy a government approved health insurance plan (even if it is from a private insurer). While the government may not spend the money directly, it will control how it is spent. Once again, the issue is the control of OPM.
The lust for controlling OPM is not limited to health care. The Record (Hackensack, NJ) reports that Rev. Jesse Jackson wants large banks to help churches, homeowners and students, who are facing foreclosure, to refinance their loans. He threatened to protest banks saying, “We are going to begin to march on banks, and we are going to challenge banks to do the right thing.” He called the issue of lending a “civil rights” issue. No one has a “right” to borrow money from anyone, banks or otherwise. Lending and borrowing is a contractual agreement.
There is a reason that banks are not willing to refinance these loans. They have gotten burned once and are unwilling to shoulder further risk. Again, if Rev. Jackson was serious, he could, though his philanthropic organizations help these people out of foreclosure. But no, he would rather protest banks. So we see that lending is only a civil rights issue when it’s OPM at risk.
The liberals talk about poverty as though it is an incurable condition. To a liberal, if you are born poor, you are destined to remain poor. However, the history of the United States is filled with countless stories of people who have pulled themselves out of poverty through hard work, ingenuity and/or education. I know I will be thought of a heartless and cruel for saying this, but at some point we must realize that the poor bear some responsibility for their station in life. Unlike liberals, I have great confidence in people. I know that people are capable of extraordinary accomplishments…when they have to.
I watched William Shatner interview Gene Simmons, bassist for the rock band KISS. Simmons, born Chaim Witz in Israel in 1949, immigrated to the United States with his mother, a holocaust survivor, at the age of eight. He recalled the first supermarket he had ever seen. He described it as “skyscrapers of food.” Growing up in the beginning years of Israel, Simmons had never seen anything like it; never imagined anything like it.
As he related in the interview, we take all this for granted. Mr. Simmons is correct and unfortunately, since we take it for granted, we think it will always be this way, no matter what happens, socially, politically or economically. Three things have provided the bounty we enjoy, our reverence for God, our respect for the rule of law and capitalism. All three are under assault by the left. Every person has the God given right to life, liberty and property. We must defend a person’s right to use their wealth as they see fit as vigorously as we would defend life or liberty.
The Scientific Hoax
as published in www.conservativetruth.org
by: Humphrey Stevenson
It has long been thought that academic research like that done at the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) is pure and holy while corporate research is somehow corrupt and evil. Both have an agenda. In the corporate world, the objective is to bring a product to market. In the academic world, the objective is to secure the next big grant. I may be biased, but I think the corporate world is at least more honest in that one knows the objective is to make money. Academic researchers cloak themselves in the search for truth when in reality their truth has pictures of dead presidents on it.
Many of those providing grants to academic researchers consider it an investment. They have an agenda to push, an idea to sell and the grant providers want their money’s worth. The researchers who accept these grants know this. They want to make their grant providers happy. Considering that the Detroit News reported that Professor Phil Jones of the UEA-CRU collected some $22.6 million in grants, he would want to keep his benefactors very happy.
Even though most of the media has ignored it, most of us know the story. A hacker has broken into the UEA-CRU in Great Brittan and uncovered thousands of emails exposing the evidence of anthropogenic global warming as an absolute hoax. The so called “scientists” who promote it have used tricks to make their data fit their agenda, hid data that did not support their cause, attempted to discredit skeptics and deleted damaging documents they feared might become public under the Freedom of Information Act.
The so-called scientists at the UEA-CRU claim to have thrown away the original data allegedly showing a slow rise in global temperatures over the last 157 years. All they have now is the “adjusted” (i.e. doctored) data.
When requested to release the original data in 2004, Professor Phil Jones said, “Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” What more proof do you need that Professor Jones is no scientist? A scientist would want others to inspect his data and even draw other conclusions from it, but Professor Jones has another agenda.
Al Gore has been out there for years explaining how we are setting the earth on fire with carbon dioxide in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. However, we now know that the data used in his famous “hockey stick” graph was all fraudulent. We found out last year that all that shocking footage of polar ice melting was actually computer-generated graphics for the 2004 sci-fi thriller The Day After Tomorrow (great movie, bad science). Maybe now he’ll change the name of the movie to A Convenient Lie.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been running all over the world scaring the pants off everybody telling them that the earth is heating so much that the Himalayan glaciers may disappear by the year 2035, only 25 years from now. Well, not exactly; it seems there was a “typo” (so they claim). The actual predicted date is the year 2350. Oh, that’s not bad; they were only off by 315 years. Don’t you find it funny that they can’t accurately predict the weather for this weekend, but they are absolutely positive about the weather hundreds of years from now?
I concluded the whole man-made global warming theory was most likely a political agenda when those pushing the idea started using the term “scientific consensus.” There is no such thing as a scientific consensus. There are scientific theories and there are scientific facts. If a theory is unproven, then it remains only a theory, no matter how many scientists say they agree with it. However, given what we have learned, man-made global warming is not even a scientific theory; it is the world’s first “scientific hoax.”
That’s all this is; that’s all it ever was. Those who push this agenda want to use it to destroy this nation; destroy our way of life. They are well on their way. They have nearly destroyed our auto industry with their idiotic CAFÉ standards. Once Congress is through taking over our health care industry, they are going to take up the “Cap and Trade” bill to allegedly reduce greenhouse gasses. The EPA now has the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. We now know that all of it is based on a lie.
As a chemist, I have great respect for the scientific disciplines and great distain for hucksters who attempt to use science as a cover for a political agenda. All of us in the scientific community need to take a stand against the charlatans at the UEA-CRU before their stain imbues all of science.
by: Humphrey Stevenson
It has long been thought that academic research like that done at the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) is pure and holy while corporate research is somehow corrupt and evil. Both have an agenda. In the corporate world, the objective is to bring a product to market. In the academic world, the objective is to secure the next big grant. I may be biased, but I think the corporate world is at least more honest in that one knows the objective is to make money. Academic researchers cloak themselves in the search for truth when in reality their truth has pictures of dead presidents on it.
Many of those providing grants to academic researchers consider it an investment. They have an agenda to push, an idea to sell and the grant providers want their money’s worth. The researchers who accept these grants know this. They want to make their grant providers happy. Considering that the Detroit News reported that Professor Phil Jones of the UEA-CRU collected some $22.6 million in grants, he would want to keep his benefactors very happy.
Even though most of the media has ignored it, most of us know the story. A hacker has broken into the UEA-CRU in Great Brittan and uncovered thousands of emails exposing the evidence of anthropogenic global warming as an absolute hoax. The so called “scientists” who promote it have used tricks to make their data fit their agenda, hid data that did not support their cause, attempted to discredit skeptics and deleted damaging documents they feared might become public under the Freedom of Information Act.
The so-called scientists at the UEA-CRU claim to have thrown away the original data allegedly showing a slow rise in global temperatures over the last 157 years. All they have now is the “adjusted” (i.e. doctored) data.
When requested to release the original data in 2004, Professor Phil Jones said, “Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” What more proof do you need that Professor Jones is no scientist? A scientist would want others to inspect his data and even draw other conclusions from it, but Professor Jones has another agenda.
Al Gore has been out there for years explaining how we are setting the earth on fire with carbon dioxide in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. However, we now know that the data used in his famous “hockey stick” graph was all fraudulent. We found out last year that all that shocking footage of polar ice melting was actually computer-generated graphics for the 2004 sci-fi thriller The Day After Tomorrow (great movie, bad science). Maybe now he’ll change the name of the movie to A Convenient Lie.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been running all over the world scaring the pants off everybody telling them that the earth is heating so much that the Himalayan glaciers may disappear by the year 2035, only 25 years from now. Well, not exactly; it seems there was a “typo” (so they claim). The actual predicted date is the year 2350. Oh, that’s not bad; they were only off by 315 years. Don’t you find it funny that they can’t accurately predict the weather for this weekend, but they are absolutely positive about the weather hundreds of years from now?
I concluded the whole man-made global warming theory was most likely a political agenda when those pushing the idea started using the term “scientific consensus.” There is no such thing as a scientific consensus. There are scientific theories and there are scientific facts. If a theory is unproven, then it remains only a theory, no matter how many scientists say they agree with it. However, given what we have learned, man-made global warming is not even a scientific theory; it is the world’s first “scientific hoax.”
That’s all this is; that’s all it ever was. Those who push this agenda want to use it to destroy this nation; destroy our way of life. They are well on their way. They have nearly destroyed our auto industry with their idiotic CAFÉ standards. Once Congress is through taking over our health care industry, they are going to take up the “Cap and Trade” bill to allegedly reduce greenhouse gasses. The EPA now has the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. We now know that all of it is based on a lie.
As a chemist, I have great respect for the scientific disciplines and great distain for hucksters who attempt to use science as a cover for a political agenda. All of us in the scientific community need to take a stand against the charlatans at the UEA-CRU before their stain imbues all of science.
The Big One
as published in www.conservativetruth.org
by: Humphrey Stevenson
America is in decline. I hate to be the one to have to break that to you. We are in decline because we have failed to follow God’s Big Law. We have been guilty of breaking His commandments through our history and God has still blessed our republic. I think it’s because we have always recognized God for who He is. Now, we are guilty of violating the One; the big One, Numero Uno; thou shalt have no other gods before me.
You don’t have to bow down to an idol to worship other gods. It’s a matter of where you place your faith. You can’t look at the 220 Representatives and 60 Senators that have voted for these so called “health insurance reform” bills and tell me they don’t place their faith in government. After Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, failure, after failure, after abject failure and they still want the government to control health care? How else do you explain it? There is no logic to it. It has to be a religion.
They will stoop to any means to advance their cause. Senator Mary Landrieu sold her vote for language in the bill to get $300 million for Louisiana. It has been called the New Louisiana Purchase. Of course, she is now saying that she only voted to move the bill to debate and has not decided how she will vote on final passage. Senator Landrieu obviously thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck. The language for the $300 million is in the bill. If the bill does not pass, Senator Landrieu does not get the money.
Their appetite for control extends to the smallest of things. Recently, Senator Chris Dodd proposed the Government should start regulating frequent flyer miles. I’m sorry; didn’t the airlines invent the frequent flyer programs? Now we have a U.S. Senator that thinks the Government should manage frequent flyer miles.
It is not limited to the United States. A hacker has broken into Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Great Brittan and uncovered emails proving that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is an absolute hoax. I thought Fred Thompson had the line of the day when he said, “We found out that man made global warming is in fact man made-up global warming.” The so called “scientists” who promote it have used tricks to make their data fit their agenda, hid data that did not support their cause, attempted to discredit skeptics and deleted damaging documents they feared might become public under the Freedom of Information Act.
You might say that these climate alarmists worship the earth and you may be correct in some cases, but their “solutions” all have at their root government control. In this case a world government. They are promulgating a hoax to advance a government system. So these climate alarmists are basically just another group of government worshipers.
It is inarguable that progressives are on a mission to eradicate Christianity from all public discourse; but why? It’s because the progressives know that our liberty comes from God. So in order to take our freedom and independence they must remove us from God, or remove God from us. That is the point of the progressive movement, place people in bondage to an authoritarian government. They want people to depend on government, place their faith in government. That will empower the progressives because they are the government.
The progressives have been in a fifty year endeavor to remove Christianity from the public schools. It’s not really an effort to remove religion, but specifically Christianity. I taught in public schools for a while, so I know this first hand. You can be a professing Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist and go to school and no one will bother you. But if you are a Christian, you better keep that under wraps or the powers that be will come down on your head. For the same reason, Christianity produces free and independent people and the progressives can’t have that.
We as Christians are called upon to be salt and light in a dark world. We can sit back no longer. We can’t hide in our churches. I know, we’ve all been told that there is a separation of church and state, but that is not in the Constitution. The Constitution simply says that the Government cannot tell you how to worship God. It does not say (or imply) that professing Christians cannot be involved in Government. Call your Congressman, write letters, run for school board, run for city council, run for Congress and most importantly, always vote. If we want good Christians running for office, they must know that there is a dependable block of Christian voters behind them.
by: Humphrey Stevenson
America is in decline. I hate to be the one to have to break that to you. We are in decline because we have failed to follow God’s Big Law. We have been guilty of breaking His commandments through our history and God has still blessed our republic. I think it’s because we have always recognized God for who He is. Now, we are guilty of violating the One; the big One, Numero Uno; thou shalt have no other gods before me.
You don’t have to bow down to an idol to worship other gods. It’s a matter of where you place your faith. You can’t look at the 220 Representatives and 60 Senators that have voted for these so called “health insurance reform” bills and tell me they don’t place their faith in government. After Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, failure, after failure, after abject failure and they still want the government to control health care? How else do you explain it? There is no logic to it. It has to be a religion.
They will stoop to any means to advance their cause. Senator Mary Landrieu sold her vote for language in the bill to get $300 million for Louisiana. It has been called the New Louisiana Purchase. Of course, she is now saying that she only voted to move the bill to debate and has not decided how she will vote on final passage. Senator Landrieu obviously thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck. The language for the $300 million is in the bill. If the bill does not pass, Senator Landrieu does not get the money.
Their appetite for control extends to the smallest of things. Recently, Senator Chris Dodd proposed the Government should start regulating frequent flyer miles. I’m sorry; didn’t the airlines invent the frequent flyer programs? Now we have a U.S. Senator that thinks the Government should manage frequent flyer miles.
It is not limited to the United States. A hacker has broken into Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Great Brittan and uncovered emails proving that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is an absolute hoax. I thought Fred Thompson had the line of the day when he said, “We found out that man made global warming is in fact man made-up global warming.” The so called “scientists” who promote it have used tricks to make their data fit their agenda, hid data that did not support their cause, attempted to discredit skeptics and deleted damaging documents they feared might become public under the Freedom of Information Act.
You might say that these climate alarmists worship the earth and you may be correct in some cases, but their “solutions” all have at their root government control. In this case a world government. They are promulgating a hoax to advance a government system. So these climate alarmists are basically just another group of government worshipers.
It is inarguable that progressives are on a mission to eradicate Christianity from all public discourse; but why? It’s because the progressives know that our liberty comes from God. So in order to take our freedom and independence they must remove us from God, or remove God from us. That is the point of the progressive movement, place people in bondage to an authoritarian government. They want people to depend on government, place their faith in government. That will empower the progressives because they are the government.
The progressives have been in a fifty year endeavor to remove Christianity from the public schools. It’s not really an effort to remove religion, but specifically Christianity. I taught in public schools for a while, so I know this first hand. You can be a professing Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist and go to school and no one will bother you. But if you are a Christian, you better keep that under wraps or the powers that be will come down on your head. For the same reason, Christianity produces free and independent people and the progressives can’t have that.
We as Christians are called upon to be salt and light in a dark world. We can sit back no longer. We can’t hide in our churches. I know, we’ve all been told that there is a separation of church and state, but that is not in the Constitution. The Constitution simply says that the Government cannot tell you how to worship God. It does not say (or imply) that professing Christians cannot be involved in Government. Call your Congressman, write letters, run for school board, run for city council, run for Congress and most importantly, always vote. If we want good Christians running for office, they must know that there is a dependable block of Christian voters behind them.
Late One Saturday Night
as published in www.conservativetruth.org
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Late one Saturday night the Democrats’ dream of dragging the US citizens into the all-encompassing, inescapable control of socialized medicine took a giant step toward becoming reality. Why in the dark of night when most people are sleeping or watching the fourth quarter of a college football game? Maybe they would prefer people not see what they were doing.
By the narrow vote of 220 – 215, Nancy Pelosi’s Health Care Bill passed the House of Representatives. One Republican, Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana’s Second District, voted in favor of the bill. Interestingly, he is the Representative that defeated William “Cold Cash” Jefferson. (Remember the guy with $90,000 in his freezer?) No word as yet on how much money Cao has in his major appliances.
This one Republican vote has allowed the Democrats to tout their victory as bipartisan. However, the true bipartisanship was in opposition to this bill. Thirty-nine courageous Democrats crossed the aisle to join the Republicans to vote against the bill.
Possibly the biggest joke of the night was the so-called Stupak Amendment. This amendment was ostensibly to forbid Federal funds to be used for abortions under the Health Care Bill. I am as staunch an opponent of abortion as anybody, but everyone knew this was a political ploy to allow a comfort zone for twenty-five Blue-Dog Democrats to vote in favor of the bill and give Pelosi just the margin she needed for passage. The plan is for this language to be stripped out in conference committee anyway. There is no way the liberals are going to pass a Health Care Bill without funding abortion.
Once the Stupak Amendment passed, final approval of the bill was a fait accompli. Given this, I don’t understand why the Republicans didn’t play a little politics of their own. There were 240 votes in favor of the Stupak Amendment. If the 176 Republicans that voted “Yea” had voted “Present” on the amendment, it would not have passed. This would have removed that “comfort zone” from the Blue-Dogs and forced them to either vote for Nancy’s Bill without the cover of the Stupak Amendment or join the Republicans and vote against the bill. I realize that the Republicans don’t want to be seen as supporting Federal funding of abortion, but don’t lose sight of the ultimate goal. Moreover, if you defeat the bill, you don’t have to worry about abortion language. Besides, had this plan failed we would be no worse off than we are now.
I have discussed in previous articles that Obama and Pelosi are willing to sacrifice the careers of some Democrats in order to get government-run health care. Not only does this give them control over one-sixth of the economy and the very physical body of each and every citizen of the United States, they believe this will place Democrats in power in perpetuity. The reason they believe this is because government-run health care will place the American middle class in the same boat as the poor as it pertains to health care; dependent on the Federal Government.
You see, the American people are a remarkably adaptable people. No matter how bad government-run health care is, if it is all that is available then, over time, the people will adapt to it. Once that happens, the argument will no longer be over government-run health care versus private health care, but who is trying to cut or increase funding for health care. If some well meaning Republican comes along and talks about changing health care, the Democrats will demonize him by saying, “He wants to cut funding for health care and make the lines at the doctor longer.”
That’s how ingrained these programs become once they are implemented. Consider Medicare. This program was signed into law in 1965. In just over forty years, this program is so fixed in our society that no politician will even discuss the possibility of changing the program. It used to be that Democrats accused Republicans of wanting to cut Medicare, now we have Republicans accusing Democrats of the same. In fact, recently Republicans have used Medicare cuts as part of their argument against government-run health care. While true, I still find it demoralizing that we have stooped to using the treats of cuts in one failed, government program to argue against another.
Our parents always warned us that not much good happens late on a Saturday night. We didn’t realize that they were talking about the House of Representatives. However, if some way is not found to stop this bill from becoming law, we will all regret what happened on that Saturday night.
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Late one Saturday night the Democrats’ dream of dragging the US citizens into the all-encompassing, inescapable control of socialized medicine took a giant step toward becoming reality. Why in the dark of night when most people are sleeping or watching the fourth quarter of a college football game? Maybe they would prefer people not see what they were doing.
By the narrow vote of 220 – 215, Nancy Pelosi’s Health Care Bill passed the House of Representatives. One Republican, Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana’s Second District, voted in favor of the bill. Interestingly, he is the Representative that defeated William “Cold Cash” Jefferson. (Remember the guy with $90,000 in his freezer?) No word as yet on how much money Cao has in his major appliances.
This one Republican vote has allowed the Democrats to tout their victory as bipartisan. However, the true bipartisanship was in opposition to this bill. Thirty-nine courageous Democrats crossed the aisle to join the Republicans to vote against the bill.
Possibly the biggest joke of the night was the so-called Stupak Amendment. This amendment was ostensibly to forbid Federal funds to be used for abortions under the Health Care Bill. I am as staunch an opponent of abortion as anybody, but everyone knew this was a political ploy to allow a comfort zone for twenty-five Blue-Dog Democrats to vote in favor of the bill and give Pelosi just the margin she needed for passage. The plan is for this language to be stripped out in conference committee anyway. There is no way the liberals are going to pass a Health Care Bill without funding abortion.
Once the Stupak Amendment passed, final approval of the bill was a fait accompli. Given this, I don’t understand why the Republicans didn’t play a little politics of their own. There were 240 votes in favor of the Stupak Amendment. If the 176 Republicans that voted “Yea” had voted “Present” on the amendment, it would not have passed. This would have removed that “comfort zone” from the Blue-Dogs and forced them to either vote for Nancy’s Bill without the cover of the Stupak Amendment or join the Republicans and vote against the bill. I realize that the Republicans don’t want to be seen as supporting Federal funding of abortion, but don’t lose sight of the ultimate goal. Moreover, if you defeat the bill, you don’t have to worry about abortion language. Besides, had this plan failed we would be no worse off than we are now.
I have discussed in previous articles that Obama and Pelosi are willing to sacrifice the careers of some Democrats in order to get government-run health care. Not only does this give them control over one-sixth of the economy and the very physical body of each and every citizen of the United States, they believe this will place Democrats in power in perpetuity. The reason they believe this is because government-run health care will place the American middle class in the same boat as the poor as it pertains to health care; dependent on the Federal Government.
You see, the American people are a remarkably adaptable people. No matter how bad government-run health care is, if it is all that is available then, over time, the people will adapt to it. Once that happens, the argument will no longer be over government-run health care versus private health care, but who is trying to cut or increase funding for health care. If some well meaning Republican comes along and talks about changing health care, the Democrats will demonize him by saying, “He wants to cut funding for health care and make the lines at the doctor longer.”
That’s how ingrained these programs become once they are implemented. Consider Medicare. This program was signed into law in 1965. In just over forty years, this program is so fixed in our society that no politician will even discuss the possibility of changing the program. It used to be that Democrats accused Republicans of wanting to cut Medicare, now we have Republicans accusing Democrats of the same. In fact, recently Republicans have used Medicare cuts as part of their argument against government-run health care. While true, I still find it demoralizing that we have stooped to using the treats of cuts in one failed, government program to argue against another.
Our parents always warned us that not much good happens late on a Saturday night. We didn’t realize that they were talking about the House of Representatives. However, if some way is not found to stop this bill from becoming law, we will all regret what happened on that Saturday night.
Nancy’s Choice
as published in www.conservativetruth.org
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Nancy Pelosi is having trouble deciding on a name for the government controlled insurance option in her new health care bill. “Government Option” is out because it tells us too much about it. I guess she would like to avoid the word “government.” “Public Option” seems to have been passed by and she is considering “Consumer Option” or “Competitive Option.” Nancy probably likes these because it makes the government controlled insurance would be free market based.
However, these monikers are all misleading because they include the word “option.” This implies that one has a choice as to whether to enter government-run health care or not. This will not be our choice but Nancy’s choice. This is what the liberals want us all corralled into. If you move into it voluntarily, great: if, however, you must be forced into it, either directly or through circumstances, well that’s just the way it goes.
Obama and Pelosi’s idea of so-called health care reform has nothing to do with trying to make health care better. Just like their ideas of taxes is not really to raise money for the Federal Government. The point is to control the way wealth is distributed. Similarly, the point of the heath care plan is to control the physical person of the citizen.
Pelosi’s bill totals 1990 pages and the members of congress are given seventy-two hours to read it. According to Michelle Bockmann, there will be, maybe, four hours for debate. Pelosi expects a vote on the bill either Friday or this weekend.
I heard Rep. Mike Pence briefly describe a GOP proposal for health care reform. The proposal seemed to be common sense and Rep. Pence said that the legislation would only total about two-hundred pages. While I have not been completely informed on this proposal, I don’t as yet have any serious objections to it. My only problem is the idea of a kind of “me-too” legislation. This tends to surrender the premise of government reform of health care to the Democrats.
Many pundits had suggested that the outcome of three elections on Tuesday would have a bearing on the passing of Nancy’s Bill. It seems that the lessons of August might have been forgotten by the “Blue Dog” Democrats. However, a Republican sweep in Virginia and New Jersey Governors’ races, coupled with a win by Conservative Doug Hoffman in New York District 23, could serve as a healthy reminder that the American people do not want any form of Government mandated health care reform.
Even before the elections on Tuesday, Senate Leader Harry Reid was intimating that health care reform would not be completed this year despite President Obama’s claims. Reid said, “We are not going to be bound by any timeline.” One wonders if Senator Reid had some advance knowledge of what Tuesday’s results might be and was trying to impart a different spin on any Congressional delay of a health care takeover
Well two out of three ain’t bad. Republican Bob McDonnell pulled off a nearly twenty percentage point massacre over Democrat Creigh Deeds in the Virginia’s gubernatorial race. Republicans also took the LT. Governor and Attorney General contests. In the surprise of the night, Republican Chris Christie won a solid victory over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine for the Governorship of deep-blue New Jersey. A state that Obama had visited no less than five times campaigning for Corzine.
Though Conservative Candidate Doug Hoffman was not able to win New York District 23, the narrow defeat revealed more of a problem for the Republican Party candidate selection process than any failings on Mr. Hoffman’s part. Had he been selected by the party from the beginning and the party supported him fully, we would be celebrating a victory there as well. I can only hope that this experience has not soured Doug Hoffman’s political aspirations because he seems to be the type of true conservative we need.
Off year elections are always a referendum on the party in power. So there is no way to separate the election results from what the people think of Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their cornerstone issue. It remains to be seen what effect Tuesday’s results will have on what The Wall Street Journal has called “the worst bill ever.” Whether Pelosi is putting on a brave face or is really intent to push forward (I think it is the latter), won’t be known immediately. She just might choose to sacrifice the political careers of a few Blue-Dogs on her way to enslave a nation.
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Nancy Pelosi is having trouble deciding on a name for the government controlled insurance option in her new health care bill. “Government Option” is out because it tells us too much about it. I guess she would like to avoid the word “government.” “Public Option” seems to have been passed by and she is considering “Consumer Option” or “Competitive Option.” Nancy probably likes these because it makes the government controlled insurance would be free market based.
However, these monikers are all misleading because they include the word “option.” This implies that one has a choice as to whether to enter government-run health care or not. This will not be our choice but Nancy’s choice. This is what the liberals want us all corralled into. If you move into it voluntarily, great: if, however, you must be forced into it, either directly or through circumstances, well that’s just the way it goes.
Obama and Pelosi’s idea of so-called health care reform has nothing to do with trying to make health care better. Just like their ideas of taxes is not really to raise money for the Federal Government. The point is to control the way wealth is distributed. Similarly, the point of the heath care plan is to control the physical person of the citizen.
Pelosi’s bill totals 1990 pages and the members of congress are given seventy-two hours to read it. According to Michelle Bockmann, there will be, maybe, four hours for debate. Pelosi expects a vote on the bill either Friday or this weekend.
I heard Rep. Mike Pence briefly describe a GOP proposal for health care reform. The proposal seemed to be common sense and Rep. Pence said that the legislation would only total about two-hundred pages. While I have not been completely informed on this proposal, I don’t as yet have any serious objections to it. My only problem is the idea of a kind of “me-too” legislation. This tends to surrender the premise of government reform of health care to the Democrats.
Many pundits had suggested that the outcome of three elections on Tuesday would have a bearing on the passing of Nancy’s Bill. It seems that the lessons of August might have been forgotten by the “Blue Dog” Democrats. However, a Republican sweep in Virginia and New Jersey Governors’ races, coupled with a win by Conservative Doug Hoffman in New York District 23, could serve as a healthy reminder that the American people do not want any form of Government mandated health care reform.
Even before the elections on Tuesday, Senate Leader Harry Reid was intimating that health care reform would not be completed this year despite President Obama’s claims. Reid said, “We are not going to be bound by any timeline.” One wonders if Senator Reid had some advance knowledge of what Tuesday’s results might be and was trying to impart a different spin on any Congressional delay of a health care takeover
Well two out of three ain’t bad. Republican Bob McDonnell pulled off a nearly twenty percentage point massacre over Democrat Creigh Deeds in the Virginia’s gubernatorial race. Republicans also took the LT. Governor and Attorney General contests. In the surprise of the night, Republican Chris Christie won a solid victory over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine for the Governorship of deep-blue New Jersey. A state that Obama had visited no less than five times campaigning for Corzine.
Though Conservative Candidate Doug Hoffman was not able to win New York District 23, the narrow defeat revealed more of a problem for the Republican Party candidate selection process than any failings on Mr. Hoffman’s part. Had he been selected by the party from the beginning and the party supported him fully, we would be celebrating a victory there as well. I can only hope that this experience has not soured Doug Hoffman’s political aspirations because he seems to be the type of true conservative we need.
Off year elections are always a referendum on the party in power. So there is no way to separate the election results from what the people think of Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their cornerstone issue. It remains to be seen what effect Tuesday’s results will have on what The Wall Street Journal has called “the worst bill ever.” Whether Pelosi is putting on a brave face or is really intent to push forward (I think it is the latter), won’t be known immediately. She just might choose to sacrifice the political careers of a few Blue-Dogs on her way to enslave a nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)