Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

Hillary…Just Another Spelling For Corruption

October 20, 2007

Hillary’s Corruption Never Ends.

t has been said that atheists can lie like a rug because they have no moral compunction that requires them to tell the truth.

“The beauty of being an atheist is that you have no moral reason to tell the truth. So Pete Stark can claim such outrageous (if stupidly worded) things about the President.” MT from our private group

Along these lines, we find Hillary taking funds, once again, from questionable sources. One can be justified in questioning her ethics.

The Czarina has been recently exposed as an acceptor of fraudulent funds and has theoretically given the funds back. However, this does not absolve her or her campaign minions from the wrong doings. If it were to absolve them, one can extrapolate from that the following scenario: someone kills someone but didn’t really know they did so, telling folks that you did kill someone, somehow absolves you from the consequences of your actions.

This is why we on the right often state the obvious: personal integrity and accepting responsibility for ones own actions is alien to the Leftinistra. When caught doing wrong, it is invariably someones else’s fault or the blame is placed on something else.

As Sunlit Knight from a Newt One has often stated, as an example of the Leftinistra quagmire of self-induced idiocy:

“People don’t make enough money so let’s raise the minimum wage. That is like saying that all of the boats aren’t the same height so let’s add more water to the lake.”

All raising the minimum wage does, as raising the water in the lake, is make the problems worse because there is no change. It is merely a feel-good action…someone can say that they did something and when that something does not have the affect imagined, it must be the fault of something or someone else.

Hillary has proclaimed her religiosity but her actions are quite opposite of that which she claims. Would a religious individual receive illegal contributions for the sake of political gain just to win an election? Isn’t that hypocritical?

When questioned about such activities, the inquiring minds are accused of smearing and being mean-spirited or racially biased.

From the NY Post:

October 20, 2007 — Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been raising huge piles of money in Chinatown, but some of it has come from donors who can’t be located or who were improperly repaid for their contributions, according to The Post and other reports.

A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.

[…]

The Clinton campaign dismissed the L.A. Times story as derogatory to Chinese-Americans.

[…]

Dear Leftinistra…we don’t but that kind of crap anymore. Even making that kind of lame claim will and does backfire on you in this day and age and it is high time that you try another tactic because this dog don’t hunt no more.

It is high time that the self-alleged Higher Moral Authority within the Leftinistra to be held accountable to their lies.

However, like MT says:

“The beauty of being an atheist is that you have no moral reason to tell the truth. So Pete Stark can claim such outrageous (if stupidly worded) things about the President.” MT from our private group


How true that is, eh?

There is also an editorial at IBD and it is dead nuts on target:

[…]

An ambitious presidential front-runner. A hot scramble for campaign cash. A corner-cutting past. And now red lights are flashing that she could be in hock to foreign interests. This is going downhill fast.

[…]

Naturally, this will be spun as some lame smear campaign because Hillary is such a nice person, even though she has been shown to be a budding Leninist and a Soros pawn.

Advertisements

Tag Team Clinton…The New Vision(s) For Amerika

July 14, 2007

The Trashing of America

 

Trashed America

The trashing of America

The Jeremiah Project has a great piece (really long) on Bill Clinton and in the process of nearly vomiting, I came across some things about Bill and Hillary as well.

“The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people” — Bill Clinton 1993 on MTV

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans” — Bill Clinton in 1993 from USA Today

You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.” — Bill Clinton in 1993, Philadeplphia

“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president” — Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpeonaed documents.

“I have said that I’m not running and I’m having a great time being pres – being a first-term senator” — Hillary Clinton

Anyway, here is an excerpt from The Jeremiah Project. Keep in mind the Hillary quote where she said, “…we are the President…”

 

The Enemies of your freedom

Following the events of Sept. 11, 2001 Americans have been distracted by the governement and the media into devising the enemy of our freedom. We are told that militant Islam has the goal of destroying freedom as we know it and goes by the names, Jihad, Hamas, terrorist, insurgent, Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, etc.

While those may indeed be enemies to our freedom… there is an even more sinister enemy at work within our borders. It’s called: the Progressive Caucus, multiculturalism, Hillary’s “village”, and has names like Ted Kennedy, Charles Rangel, Jesse Jackson, Sarah Brady, and Bill Clinton, among others.

It is Socialism and it’s quickly spreading throughout America.

  • The individual loses all rights and everything is done in the name of the commonwealth (public) (read – “village”); you are officially the property of the state and not an individual with wants, desires, and needs. There is only the rich and the commonwealth. If you are not rich, then you are a member of the commonwealth. The needs and wants of the rich come before the needs and wants of the commonwealth. In the commonwealth there are no individuals and no one has any rights whatsoever. All decisions in your behalf are made by the state. Your children are the property of the state and it is decided by the state what they will learn, who will teach them, and what will become of them. As a parent, you have little or no say in what becomes of your children, all decisions are made by the government and you accept or become an enemy of the state.
  • The government owns and/or controls the basic means of production and distribution of services and goods. We are told that business and other things will be regulated but that we will still be free. Free to do what? They will operate under the illusion of a free enterprise system. All business and land, if not owned by the government or the rich, is controlled and taxed very heavily. What a contradiction of terms. How can anyone have a Socialist form of government with freedom? As stated, in a Socialist form of government the rich rule and have the power, not the people. Consider the actions the government has taken in recent years concerning tobacco, health care, the environment, and the airline industry. Vice President Al Gore promised to make air travel safer and Americans were eager to accept the further erosion of their rights and pay even higher tarifs to government to protect them from an unseen enemy. One lady I recently travelled with told me that she was willing to undergo an extensive selective search of her luggage “if it would make traveling safer.” Safer than what? I ask. The Clinton administration took full advantage of the crash of TWA 800 to play on the fears of American travellers. It would seem a foregone conclusion that the airplane was brought down by a terrorist act – regardless of the fact there is no conclusive evidence to date that it was a criminal act. The events of 9/11 only cemented the governments reach into the transportation industry. This heightened state of security at American airports is nothing more than another ploy of the government to further control the airline business and raise another “hidden” tax to pay for it.
  • The creation of a federal (Homeland Security & FEMA) or state police force; the purpose of which is to put down disturbances, political or otherwise, “root” out political enemies, ensure the loyalty of the people, and enforce laws upon taxation, population control, religion, the workplace, and the family unit.  Consider Clinton’s now infamous 100,000 more police officers on the street. Along with the government funded of those officers comes the federal control over how the recipients of the funding are used. Will this new police force be held accountable like the FBI? Attorney General Janet Reno promoted Larry Potts—who coordinated the Waco raid and was censured for his role in the 1992 Ruby Ridge, Idaho, shoot-out — to deputy director of the FBI.
  • The redefining of justice and injustice to better fit the Socialist State.
  • The subjection or elimination, generally the latter, of all religious institutions, with the exception of a state approved and mandated religion. This “New World Order” institution will also be used to ensure the loyalty of the people and will be used in the collection of taxes.

The Socialist State cultivated by the Clinton presidency obviously presents a clear and present danger to the traditional American way of life that has been grounded in Judeo-Christian principles. But a much greater danger is on the horizon. This danger is the socialistic serpentine worldwide government that the Scriptures say will emerge in the end times (Rev. 13:7-8). This world empire, based in a reunified Europe, will abrogate the sovereignty of every other nation on the face of the earth. Its government will be run by godless, amoral Humanists who will worship the creation rather than the Creator (Romans. 1:25).

Just some things to think about…view the videos in the VODPOD and see if Hillary’s antics fits this article.

 

NOTE: I do not necessarily agree with the entire article above and the excerpt above should be read in the context of which it was written for the complete “feel”.  It does, however give me pause…

Cal v Hillary

July 10, 2007

Cal Thomas delivers yet another one-two punch to the fraud Hillary’s lame attempt to capture a sliver of the religious right and her coaches have said that “Democrats have been encouraged and coached by liberal evangelical Christian Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine to talk about their faith in an attempt to capture a small slice of the religious vote that has mostly gone to conservative Republicans in the last several election cycles”.

Does this not expose the disingenuous tactics of the political left?  Isn’t this called pandering with absolutely no intention of honoring the sucking up?  In the military there is a term we  used when things, well, sucked; Embrace The Suck.  The political left hasn’t a clue what that means or what it takes to Embrace The Suck.  If they did, they wouldn’t be sucking up to the religious right.

In the article below, emphasis added is mine.

Cal Thomas:

Some unknown author once said, “Everybody should believe in something; I believe I’ll have another drink.”

 

Democratic senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took a less cynical and more substantive approach to faith in a recent interview with The New York Times. The quality and depth of one’s relationship with God should be personal and beyond the judgment of others, unless one is running for president and chooses to talk about it as part of a campaign plan to win the election.

 

Democrats have been encouraged and coached by liberal evangelical Christian Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine to talk about their faith in an attempt to capture a small slice of the religious vote that has mostly gone to conservative Republicans in the last several election cycles.

In a Times’ front-page story about Sen. Clinton’s Methodist faith, there are pictures of her in Sunday school as a young girl, pictures of two ministers who “influenced Hillary Rodham on faith and social responsibility,” and two pictures of her praying.

 

One of the ministers from her youth, Rev. Donald Jones, says of his messages then, “I wouldn’t have focused so much on personal salvation. I would have focused more on social responsibility.” In theological circles this is known as “works salvation,” the notion that one can do enough good deeds to earn God’s approval and enter Heaven. While James, the Apostle, writes “faith without works is dead” (James 2:20), he means that works done as a result of saving faith for the purpose of leading others to that same faith – not for the sole objective of improving one’s own circumstances on earth – find approval in God’s sight, while works that are separated from a saving faith message are, as the prophet Isaiah says about such human righteousness, like “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).

 

Even the Times suggests the destination of a strictly “social gospel”: “Mrs. Clinton sometimes was a guest speaker at an adult Sunday school class, a class that some members complained normally resembled Rotary Club lectures because it often addressed nonreligious topics.” To paraphrase James, if faith without works is dead, so also are works without faith.

 

Liberal faith, which is to say a faith that discounts the authority of Scripture in favor of a constantly evolving, poll-tested relevancy to modern concerns – such as the environment, what kind of SUV Jesus would drive, larger government programs and other “do-good” pursuits – ultimately morphs into societal and self-improvement efforts and jettisons the life-changing message of salvation, forgiveness of sins and a transformed life.

 

If the newspaper story is accurate, this is where Mrs. Clinton is on her faith: “In a brief quiz about her theological views, Mrs. Clinton said she believed in the resurrection of Jesus, though she described herself as less sure of the doctrine that being a Christian is the only way to salvation.”

 

This is a politician speaking, not a person who believes in the central tenets of Christianity. The same book that tells of the Resurrection, also quotes Jesus as saying “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6). One might ask, which the reporter did not, that if there are other ways to God than through Jesus, why did He bother to come to earth, allow Himself to be crucified and suffer rejection? He might have stayed in Heaven and told people about a spiritual GPS system that would get them there another way.

 

About the accuracy of Scripture, Sen. Clinton serves up theological mush: “The whole Bible gives you a glimpse of God and God’s desire for a personal relationship (good, so far), but we can’t possibly understand every way God is communicating with us. I’ve always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understandings of the time into the Bible might be actually missing the larger point.”

 

That is precisely the point of liberal Christianity, to which Sen. Clinton subscribes.

 

Sen. Clinton is entitled to whatever faith she wants to practice, but when she uses it as an election tactic, she should not be allowed to alter classic Christian theology.

 

CalThomas@tribune.com

Once again, I assert that Hillary RODHAM Clinton is a fraud.

 

 

Thank You, Hillary! Thank You! I Can Crap Better Now!

July 9, 2007

This woman is the very definition of MORON!  Who or what in the hell does she think she is?  Czarina? Queen Pork Spending Whore?  Woman’s gift to Harlotry?  Listen to this jerk.  She has some serious head shrinking voodoo dance doctor requirements.

Times Watch: (in its entirety…this one cannot be piece-meal delivered)

Hillary Forgives Republicans of Their Sins

“Her Methodist faith, Mrs. Clinton says, has guided her as she sought to repair her marriage, forgiven some critics who once vilified her and struggled in the bare-knuckles world of politics to fulfill the biblical commandment to love thy neighbor.”

Posted by: Clay Waters
7/9/2007 3:21:34 PM

Reporter Michael Luo’s front-page Saturday story on Hillary Clinton’s religious faith, “For Clinton, Faith Intersects With Political Life,” was a pretty transparent attempt to moderate Hillary Clinton’s secular reputation by emphasizing her religiosity.

 

Meanwhile, Luo naively cast candidate Clinton as a passive spouse betrayed by her husband during the Monica Lewinsky scandal — as if Bill Clinton’s White House philandering came as a total shock after all the years in Arkansas.

 

“Long before her beliefs would be tested in the most wrenching of ways as firs lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton taught an adult Sunday school class on the importance of forgiveness. It is a lesson, she says, that she has harked back to often.”

 

Through the long piece, Luo portrayed her as a victim: “Her Methodist faith, Mrs. Clinton says, has guided her as she sought to repair her marriage, forgiven some critics who once vilified her and struggled in the bare-knuckles world of politics to fulfill the biblical commandment to love thy neighbor.”

 

Unless the neighbor happens to work for the White House Travel Office, in which case all bets are off?

 

“Mrs. Clinton, the New York senator who is seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has been alluding to her spiritual life with increasing regularity in recent years, language that has dovetailed with efforts by her party to reach out to churchgoers who have been voting overwhelmingly Republican.

 

“Mrs. Clinton’s references to faith, though, have come under attack, both from conservatives who doubt her sincerity (one writer recently lumped her with the type of Christians who ‘believe in everything but God’) and liberals who object to any injection of religion into politics. And her motivations have been cast as political calculation by detractors, who suggest she is only trying to moderate her liberal image.”

 

Luo was swept up with the symbols of Clinton’s religiosity, symbols the Times would no doubt see as suspicious or bothersome if openly displayed by a Christian conservative: “In the interview and a subsequent telephone conversation, she described her spiritual habits — she carries a Bible on her campaign travels, reads commentaries on Scripture and on other people’s ‘faith journeys’ and spoke of experiencing ‘the presence of the Holy Spirit’ on many occasions.

 

Luo has still more on Saint Hillary, who graciously forgives Republicans for their sins: “And she talked of forgiveness. Mrs. Clinton volunteered that she was moved by apologies in recent years from David Kuo, a Republican speechwriter and evangelical Christian who later worked in the Bush administration, and Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, both of whom have confessed to harboring hateful thoughts of her. She spoke of her own shortcomings — ‘it’s a challenge every single day’ — in leading a moral life and of turning to Christian writers for solace after her husband’s infidelity.”

 

After some brief criticism from the left and right, Luo returned to his credulous portrayal of Clinton’s religious beliefs: “Mrs. Clinton’s religious roots run deep….As for how literally to interpret the Bible, she takes a characteristically centrist view….Shortly before her father’s death in 1993, Mrs. Clinton sought to meld her faith and political ideology into an overarching philosophy of public service. In delivering a passionate speech on health care, she said Americans suffered from a ‘sleeping sickness of the soul’ and called for a ‘new politics of meaning.”

 

“Liberal and conservative pundits alike jumped on what they called her religious moralisms wrapped in New Age language. But Melanne Verveer, her former chief of staff, said the speech was merely an extension of how Mrs. Clinton’s religious values infused her sense of public service.”

 

Luo was not nearly so respectful of the views of Republican Mitt Romney in a May 10 story. Ostensibly covering the controversy over Al Sharpton’s suggestion that Mormons weren’t real Christians, Luo instead devoted most of his story to allowing Sharpton yet more attacks on Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith as racist and backward.

And just what did this wasted efforts of human tissue do just recently?  Did she not vehemently attack GWB for doing far less than her Zipper Loose Cigar Muppet husband did?

Please.  Enough is enough.  Those jerks at HillaryRub are worse than she is.

The Socialist Christocrats

June 24, 2007

Frank Pastore has a two-part piece at Townhall explaining what he means about The Socialist Christocrats. In essence, the anti-God Leftinistra will use Christ for inroads into areas they have alienated for years. Most Christians are about forgiveness and giving folks the benefit of the doubt. They are also gullible.

On Budgets, Morality, and Priorities(Part 1)

Jim Wallis, leader of Sojourners and one of the Big Three of the Religious Left (along with Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo), recently asked, “What are the great moral issues of our time for evangelical Christians?”Good question, though I’m not sure if there are any moral issues evangelical Christians don’t care about.

He asked this in response to a statement by James Dobson that he didn’t like. Dobson had said that the current global warming controversy wrongly shifts “the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.”

This is right off the first page of the Left’s playbook: “Persuade evangelicals to care less about abortion, homosexuality, and abstinence and more about “social justice.” The latter a euphemism that encompasses a Marxist redistribution of wealth, anti-capitalism, European-style big government socialism, an environmental policy that believes man is the pollution, and an overall sense of morality where what you do privately doesn’t count, it’s only what you do collectively that counts. Socialists believe in the virtues of government so much that even morality is defined in collectivist terms.

From Wallis’ own website (www.sojo.net) I’ve gathered the following “great moral issues of our time.” They’re listed below.

And again, these are important issues, but the questions that need to be answered are: “Who should pay for these? How much should they pay? What gets funded first, last, least and most? How does the limited pie get cut up? Is the money being spent wisely and efficiently? Are our policies helping or hurting? What is the responsibility of the host governments? Who lives and who dies?”

Here’s the list: Global poverty, global hunger, global warming, global disease, HIV-AIDS, the genocide in Darfur, human trafficking and other violations of human rights-especially the war in Iraq-and closer to home, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, providing universal health care, expanding the Food Stamp program, and actually increasing (increasing!) Medicaid and Medicare benefits.

These are important issues that we all should care about. And we do. American tax dollars are the primary source of funding for these things, that is, in addition to our incredibly generous charitable giving.

And, don’t complain to me about how we give less per capita than European countries, or how their economies are more “just” than ours. Since the end of WWII, what they should have spent on defense they spent on social programs. We bankrolled the West’s military spending in the shadow of the Soviet threat. Sure, it’s really easy to be “generous” when Daddy’s paying your mortgage, utilities, and tuition.

So, we care a lot about these things, and we prove it through both our taxes and our donations.

But, apparently we don’t care enough for the Left or Jim Wallis. We must care “more.”

Notice how Dobson’s “marriage, abortion, and abstinence” are more moral than economic, while Wallis’ long list of “great moral issues of our time” are more economic than moral? Could it be that “social justice” simply means that there should be no rich and no poor rather than some rich and many poor? If so, that’s communism-with more value placed upon equality than freedom.

Wallis is fond of saying “budgets are moral documents.” He’s right. A federal budget is a snapshot of the current moral values system of the nation-except for the fact that rarely is something we no longer care about actually de-funded. And, budgets are generally zero sum entities, as well-if you’re going to fund New Program A, you must cut from Old Program B.

So, when he implies “care more,” let’s translate. “We must raise your taxes, and/or cut your entitlement benefits, and/or cut your security spending, and/or cut other programs we don’t think are as deserving as these ‘great moral issues of our time.'”

Let’s see if such directness will fly…

Raise your hand if you’re not paying enough in taxes. Unemployed college students put your hands down. Raise your hand if paying around 30% is not quite your “fair share.”Boomers, raise your hands if you’d like your Social Security benefits cut as you ready to retire next year and then collect Medicare in 2011. Oops, sorry. Wallis actually wants to increase benefits as we wait beneath the shadow of the crashing fiscal tsunami of entitlement spending-yeah, that’s smart-when the boat is sinking, drill more holes in the hull.

Americans, raise your hands if you don’t think survival is a moral issue, and you think we ought to defund our security budget in a post-9/11 world. Wallis is a pacifist who believes all wars are immoral, not just Iraq. Hence, in his worldview perhaps we don’t even need a standing army at all. Come to think of it, this might be how he plans on funding his proposals: just eliminate all military spending, all DOD spending and all NASA spending, and all border security spending, and all port security spending…

Lastly, raise your hand if you know of a federal program that should be cut and the money diverted to one of these “great moral issues of our time.” By the way, this is what legislatures do really well. They argue and debate competing priorities while being held responsible for their decisions by the people who put them in office.

I don’t see many hands.

See, it comes down to this. Wallis is preaching to the wrong congregation. He’s preaching to all Americans about how their federal budget needs to be more moral-which is why he wants to raise their taxes-when he should be preaching to churches about how they’re not giving enough to the “great moral issues of our time.”

It should be more about church donations than federal taxes.

Like you, I believe I already pay too much in taxes and I don’t want to pay anymore. But, I also believe I could never donate “too much” or even “enough” to charity-there’s never “enough,” there’s always room for “more.”

“Just one more dollar, Sir, for the starving children in Africa?”

And “more” money spent on these issues would make Jim Wallis happy-unless he just cares about raising taxes out of some anti-capitalist bent. I wonder…

Who knows…maybe spending more money might actually help to solve some of these problems, but I doubt it. After all, I believe the real solution begins not with money, but with having the right values and morals. But, that’s a topic for another column.

The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.

The Socialist Christocrats (Part 2)

In an earlier column, I discussed why the religious left is wrong on budgets, morality, and priorities (available here). Here, in Part II, I want to focus on what happened Monday night between the three Democrat frontrunners and the sponsor of the event, Jim Wallis of Sojourners.First, some general impressions.

I found it both ironic and troubling that the top three Democrats talk more comfortably about their faith than do the top three Republicans. I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise though-after all, they’ve been rehearsing for this performance since Bush’s reelection in 2004.

The actors knew the script. Director Wallis had coached them well. Real Christians care about poverty and global warming. No more of that sin-salvation-Jesus stuff for us. Don’t talk about heaven and hell, we’re for the Kingdom now! Let’s raise taxes and the minimum wage, grow government, start more unions, provide universal health care and child care, with free college for everybody-including illegals. And above all, let’s replace greedy-selfish capitalism with generous-loving socialism and truly achieve social justice. Vote out poverty now! Raise taxes on the rich!

Right. And Jesus was a big government Robin Hood socialist. And so they’ve created God in their own image.

Second, what did we learn about the candidates on Monday night?

John Edwards believes in theistic evolution, he is “personally against” gay marriage but for civil unions, believes the separation of church and state means a Christian president should violate his religion if it conflicts with his politics, and that poverty can be cut in half in the next ten years by starting more unions, raising the minimum wage to $12.50 an hour, providing free government housing to those who can’t afford their own place, and by having universal health care and day care, along with free college tuition for all students.

That sounds very expensive. And who’s going to pay for all this?

I wish he had said, “I personally oppose abortion and gay marriage on biblical grounds, and I support abstinence education and a Protection of Marriage Amendment. As President, I will take an oath to uphold the Constitution. And though no President can impose his will on the Congress, I will work to overturn all laws I believe to be immoral.” Again, that’s why it’s only a wish. (I hope Fred Thompson reads this.)

We learned that Jim Wallis believes poverty is a “gospel issue,” and that eliminating it is a “biblical priority” for the government.

Another wish: I wish Wallis cared about teaching the Bible to the poor and in our schools half as much as he cares about baptizing his schemes for the redistribution of wealth.

We learned from Barack Obama that he believes God doesn’t take sides in war, but that the Civil War and World War II were just wars fought against evil. When asked about this, he answered,

I always remember Abraham Lincoln, when, during the Civil War, he said, “We shouldn’t be asking whose side God is on, but whether we’re on his side.” And I think that’s the question that all of us have to ask ourselves during any battle that’s taking place, whether it’s political or military, is, are we following his dictates? Are we advancing the causes of justice and freedom? Are we our brother’s keeper, our sister’s keeper? And that’s how I measure whether what we’re doing is right.

I wonder if he thinks God was rooting for the South, or the Nazis-or today, if He’s for al Qaeda? If we’re supposed to be following God’s dictates in order to advance justice and freedom, I’m sure Ahmadinejad and Osama have a different opinion as to what Allah’s dictates are. Therein lies the root of the global war against radical Islam. I would have liked him to mention that.

Obama also opposed taking away educational programs in prisons in order to be tough on crime. If he was really concerned about reducing recidivism, he’d support the wonderful success of Prison Fellowship, they teach God’s dictates too. He also criticized the high salaries of corporate executives. He said, “I also would like to see executives recognize that when they’re getting as much in one day as their average worker is getting in an entire year, that there is a moral element to that.”

Funny. He didn’t mention the salaries of rappers, athletes, Hollywood moguls or trial lawyers.And lastly, we come to Hillary.

She wants abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare.” I wonder if she’ll be supporting the renewal of Title V funding for abstinence education or the increased distribution of condoms in high schools?

The scariest line of the night came at the very end when Hillary was asked about sacrifice and excessive individualism. She said:

And I think you can sense how we are attempting to try to inject faith into policy and also to elicit from people a sense of our common humanity and how we have to be in this together as a nation. We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy-you know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people.

Let me translate. The “turf” and the “something” she wants to take away from you is your money.

Edwards, Obama, Hillary, and Wallis. Yes. Some Americans may have learned a lot about these Christians this past week.

Others of us knew what we needed to know long ago.

Remember, today’s Democrats always want to be generous with your money-whether they’re Christians or not. Economically, they’re socialists.

That’s why this cast of candidates are the new Socialist Christocrats.

The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.

On Dems and Religion

June 10, 2007

It strikes me as uncanny that the party of keeping religion out of politics and vice versa are now choosing to use religion to appeal (appease) to a new crowd…evangelical Christians that primarily vote for republicans.  Now,  why would that be?

But skeptics believe Democrats will have to find a stand that backs up their rhetoric if they are to make inroads with weekly churchgoers, who vote overwhelmingly for Republicans…

Apparently, the democratic party has a reputation of being hostile to religion, especially when the democrats are supported by porn stars and the republicans are not.  Could this sudden Come To Jesus rhetoric be a mere ploy in the political posturing expertise of the godless left?

“Culturally, the political operatives within the Democratic Party haven’t been comfortable with it,” Vanderslice said. “They are often not people of faith themselves, or at least that was the case on the Kerry campaign. And I think there was a sense that the way religion has been represented in the last few decades has always been in the context of the religious right.”

This is yet another example of an old adage: If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.  If anyone falls for this obvious fraud on the part of the democrats, they deserve what befalls them.

Hillary’s Empty Abortion Rhetoric

June 8, 2007

To follow up on the link noted below, the article in the Washington Times is so typical of Hillary’s campaign. Hillary will say anything to create the impression that there is common ground; that whatever group she is speaking too has something in common with her agenda. If she is speaking to anti-war leftists she offers hard line attacks on President Bush and calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. If she is speaking to foreign policy wonks or moderates she offers a more nuanced approach. She never really changes her opinion but rather changes her tone and her rhetoric to suit the audience.

The same is true on abortion . All of her talk about abortion being “safe, legal, and rare” is hot air. She pretends to offer common ground:

The pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. … That is a great failing on all of our parts. … There are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions.

But this means very little when it comes to actual policy because Hillary is as pro-choice as you can get. There is no common ground. On areas where the pro-life side has attempted to make incremental progress (parental notification, partial birth abortion, sonograms, etc) Hillary has opposed them every step of the way.

Hillary then goes on to blame the media and community leaders:

Mrs. Clinton said both groups can do more outreach through churches and schools to strive for the “zero” goal.

We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make,” Mrs. Clinton said. “The adult society has failed those people. … We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.

That’s funny, I am pretty sure the very people who support Hillary (Emily’s list, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc.) are the very people arguing that far from being immoral, or a choice fraught with anguish, that abortion is a constitutional right; something to be proud of and fight for not be embarrassed about. They are not interested in teaching teens about sexual responsibility or the consequences of abortion. They want federally subsidized abortion and free condoms.

So don’t be fooled be Clinton’s talk about common ground. She is not interested in anything that would actually reduce abortions in this country. What she is interested in is trying to appear like a sensible, moderate, religious person while at the same time not losing any of her support from radical feminists and abortion zealots.

On Hillary and Faith

June 5, 2007

The FRAUD hillary Speaks of Faith

Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:34 PM

From CBS

This coming from hillary AND cbs is “Rather” comical but here it is anyway…

Sen. Hillary Clinton
Sen. Hillary Clinton credited her faith with sticking with her husband after learning of his infidelity: “I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought,” she said. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Quote


“I take my faith very seriously and very personally. And I come from a tradition that is perhaps a little too suspicious of people who wear their faith on their sleeves.” ~Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

That right there is bloody laughable! Faith in what? Faith in whom? Dear hillary, you KNEW that billy-bob was a womanizer WHEN you were “dating” the loser!

We are on to you, fraud. And we are watching.

Update 

The leading contenders of the DNC are all speaking on faith.  I guess they are side-stepping the “separation” issue.

The Other Hillary

June 5, 2007

When Her Desires Are Met…Her Real Personality Comes To Play

Of Hobbits and hillary

June 1, 2007

Of Hobbits and hillary

So, there I was, watching the LOTR series the other night. And while watching the movies, my mind was ruminating on Billary’s latest nonsense of ending “an on-your-own society” and replacing it with “we’re all in it together society” where prosperity is “broadly shared”.

Two quotes follow:

 

Election 2008: Sen. hillary clinton shared on Tuesday her vision of the U.S. economy under her executive stewardship. She should change her party affiliation – or the name of her party. Speaking in New Hampshire, clinton acknowledged that instead of the “ownership society” that George W. Bush has promoted throughout his presidency, she prefers a “we’re all in it together society” where prosperity is “broadly shared”.

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” [hillary clinton, 1993]

So while watching my movies and ruminating on the stalinista’s latest ramblings, I started seeing parallels.

The crux of the movies (and of course, the books) is the whole of Middle Earth depended on the actions of ONE TINY HOBBIT. Not Middle Earth broadly sharing the responsibility–ONE TINY HOBBIT.

The Elves couldn’t do it. The Dwarves couldn’t do it. The Ents couldn’t do it. The Rohirrim couldn’t do it. The Men couldn’t do it. The Wizards couldn’t do it. Neither Sam, nor even eight of the nine, could do it. Only Frodo. AN INDIVIDUAL.

Frodo got plenty of support while on his journey, yes. BUT NO ONE ELSE COULD ACCOMPLISH WHAT HE NEEDED TO–NO ONE.

Whether or not Peter Jackson knew just what he was illustrating, I have no idea.

Let’s look to another example of someone who was the only one who could accomplish something.

This person was born 2,007 years ago by modern reckoning (taken from His birth, as a matter of fact) and He died 33 years later. He had plenty of help from a loving mother, a wonderful foster-father and the King of all Fathers. He was smart, knowledgeable, spiritual beyond pale–yet down to earth, common sense, loving, kind and compassionate. He understood the flaws of humanity and forgave them. He laughed, cried, loved, and became angry at nonsense (doing business in temples comes to mind).

Instead of the fellowship of 9, He had twelve devoted friends. How many of us can say that?

He promoted INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY through His Father’s 10 rules (also known as Commandments, not suggestions) and His own 1 rule (the 11th Commandment). He advocated a hand up, not a hand out.

And yet…persons who think like the stalinista and her buddies (pelosi, reid, murtha, et. al.), who claim to know Him, don’t seem to get it. But here’s the kicker…once again, He and only He could do the job He was sent here for.

It was He who had to taste the lash, He who had to wear the Crown, He who had to die. Not the 12 together. Not society as a whole. He and He alone.

He was, of course, Jesus Christ, full Son of God, who died for OUR redemption and taught us how to work towards our own salvation.

Two individuals–one fictional, Frodo, who saved all of Middle Earth; one real, the Son of God, our Savior.

Two individuals who made a difference. Two individuals who saved their respective worlds. Not a collective such as a termite colony–a collective that centers around a queen and lives on destruction.

Do you prefer to be an individual or part of a destructive collective? A vote for billary is for a destructive collective–make no mistake.