Only One Religion Does Not Get My Vote

"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.” —Alexander Hamilton

This quote is appropriate for the perilous times we live in. There are those people in the Federal judiciary and in the Congress of the United States who would like nothing better then to be in control of all our lives from cradle to grave, and some are running for President!

When President Kennedy ran for President, the left wing press and their minions in the Government claimed We shouldn't elect a Catholic. They said if we did the Pope would be running the Government in abstention.

Now we have a decent man running for President in Mitt Romney, and the same secular anti-religion groups are saying we can't have a Mormon for President.

I am a Catholic, and don't agree with Mr. Romney's beliefs, but As we saw in the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Religion played no part in his Presidency, and I believe it should have no bearing on who gets elected President. Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon or agnostic are all eligible for my vote if he/she believes in the sanctity of individual life, even before birth, individual freedoms including free speech without PC constraints and the rule of law.


The one person who should never be leader of this Country is a true believer of Mohammed. A Muslim who believes in the words as written by the founder of the Muslim religion over seven hundred years ago.

Mohammed writes in the Koran, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Surah 009.029)." Further, Mohammed says: "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'."
Any person who follows the atrocities committed in Iraq by the "IRI"(Islamic Army of Iraq) knows that these Muslims are committed to destroying all non-believers. Even it means cutting off their heads while a video camera is recording the murder! The Islamic Army in Iraq, IAI, conducts a brutally violent campaign against foreigners within Iraq, specifically anyone believed to be cooperating with the U.S.-led coalition.
IAI has been implicated in several gruesome beheading deaths. The terrorist group aims to drive all U.S. and related Coalition forces, both military and civilian, from Iraq. But IAI does not limit its attacks to just these groups; in addition to the beheading of the American civilian contractor, Nicholas Berg by Abu Musad al-Zaqawi. The Radical Fascist Islamists have also murdered French journalists, Pakistani contractors, an Italian journalist, and Macedonian citizens working for a U.S. company.
Anyone who is follower of this "religion" must never lead this Country, or God help us!

There are those who will say I am getting the moderate Muslim confused with the radical, fascist Muslim. My answer to this is let all Muslims here in America disavow and reject radical Islam, and condemn the abhorrent violence they are committing in the name of Allah. Then I will gladly admit I was wrong.
Until there is an end of the "deafening silence" of Islamic leaders and their apologists, in the United States, who never condemn the slaughter of innocents by their fellow Muslims, I invoke the words of President Bush the week of 9/11: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE CONTINUED

Medical care for the healthy and Euthanasia for the mentally and/or physically challenged younger people and also for the elderly with poor health.

This is what is really being practiced by subterfuge in many areas of this country right now under a disastrous plan called Medicare,not to mention an even worse plan called Medicaid.

With a National Health Care Plan for all,anybody who is deemed an excessive financial burden to an already flawed system of government controlled medical care will be given substandard care to hasten his death.If that sounds like a statement which is insensitive, exaggerated and plain nuts,just look at the indifferent slaughter of millions of children yearly by legalized murder called by the more gentle name, abortion.

Murder of one group will not stop with the babies as it has not stopped in some of our overseas countries with similar health programs.The quality and dedication of today's physician has already been hampered by frivolous lawsuits,excessive filing of paper work for a poor monetary reimbursement for services,excessive rules and regulations created by bureaucrats who aren't even physicians who control a doctors practice directly and indirectly.

.Many excellent physicians have turned to other professions because of an already unbearable system of obstruction imposed by the state and federal governments.Universal Health Care will be a debacle in a country that can't even control costs with today's foolish and exorbitant money wasting ventures.

However,these tax and spend advocates are almost to the man and woman against a strong defense for our country. Any half way sane thinking person would think our defense of what we hold dear is much more important than another big government scheme foisted on the American citizens.

The middle class will be paying these bureaucrats salaries with more and more taxes with little or no medical benefit.

If we had fewer self serving politicians and lawyers attacking our personal freedoms,and more real Statesmen ,we might save this country from an apparently inevitable slide to a socialistic disaster.God Bless America. We need it!

WHY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Despite the media frenzy over the uninsured in America. The health care debate should not be about how we find a way to cover the 15% percent of Americans who presently are not covered by any type of health coverage. It should be about how we save the present medicare and medicaid insurance coverage presently in place. If their are no changes made these systems will be bankrupt in a few short years.

All of the Democrat candidates for President are for universal health coverage! They have their own semantic way of describing what if passed will be no more and no less than socialization of the most advanced medical system in the world.

I am not writing to defend the way the system has become too much business and in many cases not enough medicine. Government interference in a private medical system started the paper avalanche and raised the number of bureaucrats working for HRS by the tens of thousands. This all began in the late 60's with the passing of legislation that included both Medicare and Medicaid.
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Bill in the Harry Truman Library in Independence. Mo. in honor of the man who first asked Congress to pass a Universal Health Insurance Bill in 1945 while he was president.

The cost to enroll in the Program was $3.00 per month, and Truman was the first enrolled. We have come a long way baby! Look at your payroll stub to see how much you pay for medicare today, even though you are not eligible because you are not old enough. It is a large and ever growing portion of your tax confiscated from your earnings.

Unfortunately like every other government program the bureaucracy gets bigger every year, and HRS has become a jobs program for big government. Through out the years the medical care has grown so much better, despite the Socialists claims to the contrary, hat people come from Europe, Great Britain, South America and Canada to be treated.

I live in an area which is fortunate to have one of the more well known medical centers of the world, and my visits to this center demonstrates this, by the foreign languages I hear from so many in the registration areas.

Yes it is expensive, but socializing it won't get it to be any less expensive. All this would do is shift the dollars to the payroll of more administrators, away from the people who provide the care.
The one thing you can count on if Hillary, Obama, John or any of the other "Me TOO" candidates gets elected. There will be a shift towards socialization of our medical care, and before you vote for them you should consider what is happening in Europe under Socialized Medicine.


The perils of socialized health care can already be seen in Europe, where certain medical treatments or drugs are no longer available to Europeans above a certain age, says Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.

In Europe, says Belien:
"More expensive drugs and treatments with fewer side effects are set aside for younger patients, while less expensive drugs are given to the elderly because of budgetary constraints in a system providing "free" health care.
Studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half of those in England have refused to treat patients over 65 years of age.
If governments continue these policies, euthanasia will soon be the price that the solidarity principle of the European welfare states imposes on the very old and the very sick."

In the United States, the situation is the reverse:
Elderly Americans are entitled to universal health coverage via the Medicare program.
In America, the bulk of government health-care expenditure goes to those over 65 years old, while in Europe most of the government money is spent on those under 65. Even if you are under the age of 65 you must hope you will someday make it to that age, and do you want this type of situation to await you. And in the meanwhile consider this. No government program is paid for by the government. Every program has a tax consequence to you the tax payer. So while you work toward the age of retirement you will be paying ever increasing amounts of YOUR earnings to a program that may not be friendly to old people!




the perils of socialized health care can already be seen in Europe, where certain medical treatments or drugs are no longer available to Europeans above a certain age, says Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.

In Europe, says Belien:

More expensive drugs and treatments with fewer side effects are set aside for younger patients, while less expensive drugs are given to the elderly because of budgetary constraints in a system providing "free" health care.
Studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half of those in England have refused to treat patients over 65 years of age.
If governments continue these policies, euthanasia will soon be the price that the solidarity principle of the European welfare states imposes on the very old and the very sick.
In the United States, the situation is the reverse:

Elderly Americans are entitled to universal health coverage via the Medicare program.
In America, the bulk of government health-care expenditure goes to those over 65 years old, while in Europe most of the government money is spent on those under

Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan.)

THE BIG LIE IN POLITICS

One of the most frequently used terms used to describe the Republican party is a party of the wealthy "fat cats".

This is probably true when you speak of those serving in the Senate of the United States, and most men who get elected to the Presidency. The same can be said of the Democrats who are or were members of the higher echelons of government. The simple fact is you have to be wealthy or have many very wealthy friends to get elected to an office in either the Senate or the White House.

But the comparison ends there! The Republicans stand for less taxation, smaller and more efficient government, and many other social issues too numerous to mention that represents the vanishing middle class in America.

Yet, the richest men and women in America seem to be supporting the tax and spend Democrats in every election since President Reagan left the White House. The latest billionaire to join the ranks of Democrat supporters is the financial wizard, 76 year old Warren Buffett.

This man has amassed a fortune of 168.4 billion dollars with his Berkshire Hathaway Investment Fund. He did it taking faltering companies from their owners, many whom had inherited the business and could not pay the 55% "death tax".He bought them at much less than he knew they were worth, and with a aggressive development team made money from the apparent losers.

Now he publicly joins all the other "rich" celebrities and modern day "robber barons" in stumping for Hillary Clinton and recently Barack Obama. During a fund raising event last night in Omaha, Nebraska for Obama. Mr. Buffett had these words of "wisdom". Buffett's said that he's the third richest man in the world, and he blasted the US tax system, because he said he pays a lower rate of taxes than his secretary. And last night he went even further about who should run this Country with these words: "U.S. Senator Barack Obama is a ``leader'' who can ease economic disparity while increasing prosperity.", ``We have abundance but we don't have as much fairness as we might have in the system,''
Buffett, has not endorsed Obama, 46, or rival New York Senator Hillary Clinton, 59, but said earlier this year that he would help either of them with their presidential campaigns if asked. He has often criticized the government for favoring the rich, repeating a charge last night that Congress is the ``tax planner'' for the rich.

``Apparently the government in its wisdom thinks that some guy like me is like the condor or the spotted owl or something to be protected,'' he said last night. ``We really need to figure out some way not to fill the golden goose but actually to have abundance grow.''

Obama can ``lead us to the right place, Buffett said, spreading prosperity so that it is more inclusive". The "all inclusive" words sound to this blogger as strangely similar to what a Socialist would have spoken. They believe in what is good for all instead of being concerned with the individuals rights and privileges.


When Democrats talk about raising taxes on the rich, they're starting with families of four making $200,000 a year. You start raising their taxes, and they're not going to have any savings. They probably will never be able to get their kids to "good" college without student loans.
But for people like Buffett and other super wealthy that have all these "gazillions". There's no tax on their portfolios other than when they sell it.
A stock or any asset,is subject to capital gains tax, and the capital gains rate is 15%. There is no tax on wealth per se. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income appears to be designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there. You can blame the tax and spend liberal Democrats for that.

It started with Roosevelt's "new Deal" and it continues today as we get closer and closer to Total Socialism in America.

Super Wealthy people like Mr.Buffett feel no matter what happens they will not be effected. After all there was even a "rich" privileged class in Communist Russia. Of Course they all were Party members! Besides he is 76 and won't be around to see the disaster that will result if his favorite candidates for President win!

YOUR COLLEGE STUDENTS TUITION HELPS DEMOCRATS

Those of you who spend 40 to 50 thousand dollars to send your children to Universities hailed as the best Institutions for learning. Should know that while the "kiddies" are away at school, their minds are being polluted by liberal, anti-religious ideologies that are taught in our Colleges and Universities.

Not only are nine out of ten professors at our universities liberal in thought. They are very liberal and generous in their political contributions to left leaning candidates for the Presidency of the United States.

CNSNews.com reports the following about how the well paid professors in American Universities spend their salaries. Which you pay with your tuition for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama received about $1.5 million in contributions this year from college professors and others in the education field, outpacing the party's front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who got $940,000 from academics.

Still, Clinton's near-$1-million second-place finish was almost as much as academia's total combined donations to leading Republican candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. (See Complete Candidate Breakdown)

That many college professors and academics lean to the political left is no surprise -- 76 percent of their donations went to Democratic candidates in the first two quarters of 2007. But the volume of their donations is increasing, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which tracks money in politics.

"College professors and others in the education field have contributed more money than the oil industry and drug makers, with the nearly unanimous goal of putting a Democrat in the White House," the report said.

Faculty members from Harvard University led the way in overall political contributions -- $266,044 -- with 81 percent of those gifts going to Democrats so far in 2007."

At the same time candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say they want to go to the Oval Office as a President who will clean up the mess in Washington. I guess Hillary thought it would be easier to do the cleaninug if she didn't have to carry the baggage of 2 million documents that she and Bill have locked up in his Presidential library until after the 2008 election. These documents are emails, appointment logs and memos that just might give light to Peter Franklin Paul’s more than $1.2 million in donations to Bill and Hillary (manifested in their gala), and show the harder truth, election law fraud, obstruction of justice, perjury, suborning of perjury, the illegal solicitation and coordination of the money for a fundraiser, who was involved, how much money was involved, and the videotape that appears to corroborate all of it. But none of the mainstream media outlets will cover it, how will it get exposed? Bloggers like me and those with even greater distribution must do it!

Obama does not have clean hands either. The Chicago Tribune reported that Obama had this to say about the current situation in Washington.
“The reason that we’re not getting things done is not because we don’t have good plans or good policy prescriptions. The reason is because it’s not our agenda that's being moved forward in Washington – it’s the agenda of the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the special interests who dominate on a day-to-day basis in terms of legislative activity.”

Well, let us take a look at what those enemies of progress have done for Presidential candidate and hypocrite Barack Obama.

Michael M. Bates reports in the NewMedia Journalthe following:
"In terms of money received from the oil and gas industry, Obama ranks third among the eight announced Democratic presidential candidates. He does the same with insurance, again coming in third. First place is reserved for Senator Christopher Dodd who, in his capacity as a committee chairman, can investigate the insurance industry if he wants to. Obama is number two in contributions from the pharmaceuticals and health products industry.

Senator Obama didn’t include banking interests among those nefarious special interests. Then again, with over $600,000 so far, he ranks number one among all candidates of either party in money from commercial banks.

And you may have noticed he didn’t mention teachers’ unions either. Surely that has little to do with the $1.3 million he’s gotten from the education industry, again putting him at the top spot among all announced Democrats and Republicans.

Railing against those abominable special interests is always a winner among liberals. If Mr. Obama were genuinely concerned about the deleterious effects of huge campaign contributions, he should set an example.

Let’s see him return the more than $5 million he’s taken from lawyers and law firms. He can also send back the more than $3 million from the securities and investment industry and attach a letter saying he doesn’t need or want special interest funding.

Then there’s the $1.3 million from real estate, the $1.3 million from the entertainment industry, and the $652,000 from hedge funds and private equity sources he’s accepted so far. Send it back with regrets. He could bow out of Oprahlalooza next month, saying that he doesn’t want to give even the slightest hint of impropriety by accepting all that dough from fat cats.

This is not to say that Rebublicans don't have their generous special interest donators, but at least they don't act as though they are not a party to what has become the most expensive election process in recorded history.

Do we really want these devious people in the highest office of this still great Country? I think not!

ANOTHER OBAMAISM UTTERED

Presidential candidate Barack Obama uttered another of his absurd pronouncements upon hearing that Karl Rove had tendered his resignation to President Bush.
He said:"an architect of a political strategy that has left the Country more divided."

I guess Obama was too busy reading fairy tails about "frogs turning into princes" or some of the lessons he learned in the Muslim school he attended as a youth, to learn that this Country has always been divided politically. In fact we fought a civil war that cost over 600,000 lives over political differences.

A simple review of Presidential election returns from the past will show just how divided this country was and still is.

Long before the debacle in 2000 when the Supreme Court decided that President Bush had won over Democrat Al Gore. there has been factual evidence of the great divide in this Country.

Some of the elections for president as far back as 1888 when Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, but Benjamin Harrison(R) won the electoral college vote and became President. In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel Tilden by one electoral vote 185-184.Previous to this, the election of 1800 resulted in a tie when Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson got the same number of electoral votes.Congress had to form a commission of 15 members from the Government, including the Supreme Court, to decide the issue. Jefferson finally won 8-7.

In more modern times the election of 1960, between Kennedy and Nixon was decided by a 49.7% to 49.6% vote. Kennedy won by a slim0.1%! Nixon beat Humphrey in 1968 by 43.4% to 42.7% and Carter won over Ford 50.1% to 48.0%.

Yes, this country has been divide politically for a long time, but the divide has become more ideological in recent years. Secular humanism has apparently taken over the Democrat party and too many RINOs. Abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage,animus for anything religious and rejection of moral values that once were the benchmarks of this Great Country seem to be what is driving the Democrat party.

A great patriot, Samuel Adams, had these words to say about our country: “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.”

Underneath all the rancor and loose talk there seems to be willingness on at least 50% of the American people to deny the existence of a supreme being, and they do so at their own and the Country's peril. The Muslim radicals will gladly fill the void!

Infitada NYC? What Happened to Melting Pot?

"We should always remember that our strength still lies in our faith in the good sense of the American people. And that the climate in Washington is still opposed to those enduring values, those ‘permanent things’ that we’ve always believed in... Washington is a place of fads and one-week stories. It’s also a company town, and the company’s name is government, big government... In the discussion of federal spending, the time has come to put to rest the sob sister attempts to portray our desire to get government spending under control as a hard-hearted attack on the poor people of America.” —Ronald Reagan
I used this quote from a great President and a great American to illustrate His apprehension of government spending. Spending the money confiscated from you and I in the form of ever increasing taxation.
When My Great grandparents emigrated from Europe to their new home in America thay came to flee oppressive government and to begin a new life, new language and new customs.
They sent their children to American schools to learn English, and through the children's learning, they learned to also speak English. Although in some cases, slightly muddled by their native language.

To them the melting pot of America was a way to assimilate into a new life. This does not appear to be the plan for many in the once great city that welcomed them when they immigrated in the late 1890s.

An article in the New York Post illustrates the way that the Melting pot has given way to a Balkanization of New York and some of our other large Cities.

Under the supervision of School Chancellor, Joel Klein there are presently 60 taxpayer funded "public Schools" that focus on a language other than English! The schools are "charter schools" that teach in one of the following languages: Spanish,Russian, Greek,French,Chinese Koean and now Arabic.

The Arabic school, Khalil Gibran Arabic Academy, is still in construction, but the designated principal was to be an activist Muslim who wore a T-shirt with the words "Infitada NYC". Dhaba Almontaser has resigned her position before the school opened because of media exposure of her radical views, but the school will be completed, and open to teach Arab Culture, history and Arab language.And maybe Infitada aginst the U.S.

The word intifada was coined in 1988 when the Palestinians were waging war with the Israelis.It has no other logical definition than a word to describe the violence of waging war against the Infidels! Ms. Almontaser was quoted as saying it meant nothing other than "shake off".

There are no taxpayer supported Catholic or Jewish Rabinical schools. Nor are there Baptist, Evangelical or any other Religious schools that are tax payer funded. You can bet your last dollar that the Arabic school is a religious school based upon the teaching of Sharia and the precepts of Muhammed found in the Koran.

Why do the people of New York stand for this situation? It can only be that secular humanism, political correctness and apathy has taken over a City that should know better.