Fix Your Credit Today!

Find the best credit repair companies that are sure to get results!
There are many credit repair services that can help you raise your credit score. Our recommendations can definitely help get you to choose the best!

Who is Obama? Who Knows?

ITS TO LATE TO BE AN APOLOGIST FOR THE PROGRESSIVES!

With This Past How Could He Be Vetted At All....Or Was He?

HOW IN THE WORLD CAN ANYONE NOT SEE HIS CONNECTIONS AFTER KNOWING ALL THIS? SIMPLE....THEY KNOW HE'S THEIR MAN DOING JUST WHAT THEY WANT...DESTROYING AMERICA FROM WITHIN WITH OUR BLESSING!

Where in the World?

What is a Useful Idiot?

In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries.

The implication is that though the person in question naively thought themselves an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used.

The term has been extended to other people perceived as propagandists for a cause they do not understand.


Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.
If you love what you read here.....MAKE IT FAMOUS, SPREAD IT AROUND, DON'T KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!

DONATE FREELY IF YOU HAVE IT TO GIVE it will go toward ministry. I have two jobs to try and make ends meet for my family and I have no Church to help and support this ministry so every little bit really does help!

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Is Obama a real Christian? Are any of the Candidates? PART 2

This is a series explaining what a Christian is for the express purpose of exposing political usage of the term 'Christian' as the be all end all of proving their intent. It would seem that the term has been a 'band-aid' to cover every election cycle and its done on both sides of the spectrum, the media, Congress, and the Presidency.

No politician should be exempt from scrutiny about his faith or lack of it if THEY use this term in any way to justify their actions and it is of the utmost importance that we have a BIBLICAL DEFINITION of Christian to go on, not the watered down religious version.  

The following presentation is to tear down the false view of what makes up being a Christian so we may properly judge those who claim to be God's spokesmen.


The ideas contained in the 'Four Spiritual Laws' are dangerous because they neuter the Gospel into a powerless man made religion instead of the powerful Spiritual force it really is! The Christian concept contained within it is weak and ineffective to deal with the real world.  


From Campus Crusade Examined in the Light of Scripture by Dr. Charles Woodbridge

[Dr. Woodbridge was supportive of Campus Crusade in its earliest days but had to withdraw his support and begin sounding a Scriptural warning because of the wrong path this organization has taken.]

Basing my judgment upon the plain teaching of the Bible, I regard these "Laws" as a totally inadequate, indeed an emasculated and misleading presentation of the blessed Gospel of the Son of God.

If they had been entitled "Four Pious Principles" instead of "The Four Spiritual Laws," perhaps I should have little to say by way of rebuttal.

But to begin with, the use of the definite article "The" is disturbing. The implication is that the "Laws," as the Crusade presents them, are exclusive, definitive and thoroughly adequate. Having discovered and embraced them, a fortunate seeker is presumably bound for Heaven.

When one purports to reduce any subject to four central descriptive items, logic dictates that he must not eliminate from these items the essential ingredients of the matter under discussion. When a physician is prescribing for his patient, he must not remove from his formula necessary but perhaps disagreeable or unpalatable drugs. No faithful analyst, when seeking to abbreviate, must relegate to footnotes the crucial areas of the subject he is publicizing. He must spell out in no uncertain terms -- whether his readers are impressed favorably or not -- the precise, basic, fundamental, and differentiating character of his proposition.

I believe that Campus Crusade has tragically failed to do this. As the result there is every probability that great numbers of earnest students, whose response to the "Laws" has seemed to be affirmative, have a false and unwarranted sense of spiritual security. If my deduction is correct -- and the evidence would lead me to believe that it is -- this would be a tragedy of great proportions.

Years ago I wrote the Director of the Crusade with this in mind. I had the positive, constructive, but admittedly forlorn hope that I might be able to help him to extricate his movement from the doctrinal inadequacies in which "The Four Spiritual Laws" had enmeshed him. I received no reply to my letter. Years have elapsed since then. I now feel that it is my solemn duty under God to speak out in defense of the old, well-tested, and thoroughly proved ways.

First, let us examine the "Laws" as a whole, always bearing in mind by way of contrast the glory and wonder of the Biblical Gospel of Grace.

In each of the four "Laws" mention is made of the Divine plan for a person's life. The story is as follows: God has a wonderful plan for a man's life; because of man's adverse spiritual condition he cannot know that plan for his life; when the proper steps are taken he can know the plan for his life.

This is not the way in which the Gospel is proclaimed in the Bible. The Crusade's approach is anthropocentric ("man-centered"). It implies that the summum bonum, the pivotal issue, is that an individual may know God's wonderful plan for his life.

The Biblical approach is theocentric ("God-centered"). The writers first laid the background of the being and attributes of God, sublime in His sovereignty, ineffable in His majesty and holiness. They quickly stressed the blazing fact that the righteousness of God has been outraged by human sin and that apart from Divine, unmerited grace, man's deadly guilt (Romans 3:19) will bring upon him the wrath of God (Romans 1:18), the deserved judgment of the Lord (Romans 2:2), and ensuing death (Romans 6:23). The amazing be-all and end-all of the Gospel, according to the Bible, is not what man may or may not know about the Divine plan for his life; but it is the everlasting glory of the living God.

How different all this is from the "Four Spiritual Laws." The hell- deserving sinner has far more to reflect upon, prior to his salvation, than the optimistic confidence that somewhere in the dim blue "yonder" God has a satisfying plan for his life!

LAW NUMBER ONE

But now to "Law One" itself: "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." Then two footnotes: John 3:16 and John 10:10. (Is it not astounding that John 3:16 could possibly be in anybody's footnote!)

A few reflections concerning this first "Law."

First, the booklet announcing these "Laws" is used indiscriminately with believers and unbelievers. May I ask a rather obvious question? Precisely what "wonderful plan" does God have for the unbelieving sinner who steadfastly and persistently rejects Christ Jesus as Saviour? Answer: the "lake that burneth with fire."

This is an awesome, rather than a "wonderful," prospect.

Second, is not the Crusade aware of the fact that even a pious Mohammedan might believe that the compassionate God might have a plan for his life?

This being true, the Crusade is left with only three distinctively Christian "Laws."

Third, who is the "God" to whom the Crusade refers in Law One? When the apostles wrote of Him, it was against a religious background of understanding -- their Hebrew readers knew Who God is. But when Paul spoke to Gentiles on the Areopagus (Acts 17), he explained Who the Almighty is.

The Crusade must not take it for granted that this confused, untaught generation of college students knows Who the Lord God is. At the very outset of the "Laws" it should be made clear Who the One is with Whom the students have to do. He is the Holy, Sovereign, Omnipotent Creator of the universe.

This observation on my part is not a vague fancy. I heard one of the Crusade's bright and shining lights, a university football star, give his public testimony. He referred to the God of the ages as "the man upstairs." Some may regard this as justified puerility [immaturity]. I regard it as blasphemy. I happened to be the other speaker that evening. Before I addressed the crowd, I turned to the student and told him bluntly that before he witness to others he should be sure that he himself had been washed in the blood of the Lamb of God and that he really knew the living and true God.

I do not imply for a moment that the Crusade leaders should give all their hearers a course in systematic theology. But I insist that when men and women handle the things of God they must make clear Who He is, the ineffable [too overpowering to be expressed in words!] Lord of Glory.

A defender of the Crusade might reply: "'The Four Spiritual Laws' are just a summary of truth. The personal workers fill in the gaps." To this explanation my answer is twofold.

First, when one is reducing any subject to four basic points, it is the height of folly to omit crucial matters with the trivial explanation that assistants will subsequently explain them. For example, if one is summarizing the theme "Aviation," he will not omit the fact that airplanes have wings and a motor, in the confident expectation that the learner will have these addenda elucidated by assistants after his effort to take off from the earth!

Second, if the Crusade assistants do in fact try to explain Who God is, they seem to fail dismally. Else why the shallowness and flippancy in the "testimonies" of so many of their "converts"?

THE SECOND LAW

And now the Crusade's second "Spiritual Law": "Man is sinful and separated from God."

So far so good. I commend the Crusade for putting the matter so plainly.

But Bible believers, taught in the Word of God, might well expect the "Law" to be expanded so as to include its inevitable corollaries.

What are these Biblical corollaries? In a footnote Romans 3:23 and 6:23 are quoted. An explanatory note indicates that the sinner goes his own independent way and fellowship with God is broken; evidence of sin is an "attitude" of active rebellion or of passive indifference.

But no uninformed college student, meditating upon this second "Law," could possibly understand that sin is far more than an attitude of independence or rebellion. God has given to sinful man His Holy Law, which reflects His perfect nature and sovereign will. Sin is an open, flagrant breach of that Law or a stubborn refusal to obey it. Apart from the Law of God sin cannot possibly be understood. It is far worse than an "attitude" or a going on one's own "independent way." It is primarily a heart condition, but it is also an act wrought in defiance of the will of God.

What are the consequences of this heart condition and defiance? The second "Law" states that the sinner is "separated" from God and is out of fellowship with Him. The Bible is far more detailed and explicit. It tells the sinner in no uncertain terms precisely what the separation and loss of fellowship involve. The consequences of willful disobedience are horrible indeed. The Bible speaks of "hell." It reminds us of the "lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15). It suggests the endless, conscious torment of Christ- rejecting sinners. This is the dreadful doom of unbelievers. And it is from this that believers are saved by grace.

For all this the Crusade substitutes in its second "Law," apart from a modest footnote quoting Romans 6:23, the dismal consequence that as the result of the sinner's separation from God "he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life!"

The trouble with this statement is that it is not only weak and anti- climactic, but it is also falsely oriented and misleading. It breeds a naive and unwarranted optimism.

In the first place it is, as in the case of the first "Law," man-centered and thus out of line with the total revelation of God. The paramount result of sin and separation appears to be the unfortunate inconvenience that the sinner has lost the sense of God's love and plan for his life!

Secondly, the "Law" omits what the Bible never omits -- the eternal, unmitigated, drastic consequences of sin and separation. How can a person possibly know what it is to be saved unless he is made aware of that from which he is saved? Why not follow the Biblical pattern and tell the whole truth?

Once more the Crusade's rejoinder might be: "We are simply giving a readily understandable summary of truth. We have not space within the confines of the second 'Law' to tell the whole truth." But frankly, can even a "summary" of the Gospel which is worthy to be used as a basis of witnessing to college students possibly eliminate a clear presentation of the actual consequences of sin?

Thirdly -- and this is simply an observation -- the separated sinner who persists in rejecting the proffered love of God will certainly know the Divine plan for his life! That plan is the "Judgment of the great white throne" and "the lake that burneth with fire"!

Am I unduly critical? Is this merely a conflict between two relatively similar concepts? Is the Crusade's view simply an exposition of the thoughts of a newer, perhaps more enlightened, generation? Let me assure my readers that nothing could be farther from the truth.

One of the leading Crusade writers has let the cat out of the bag. The Crusade, to put it bluntly, does not like the idea of "hell," so far as their witness is concerned. The writer in question has carefully explained that in testifying to college students. Crusaders "for 'hell' should substitute 'eternal separation from God.'"

Please do not think that I am quibbling about unimportant ideas. Have you recently studied Romans or Hebrews or Revelation? May I mildly inquire by what authority the Crusade spokesman chooses what words of the Bible he desires to eliminate? And lest any of my readers are still doubtful about the validity of my argument, may I remind them that the same writer has the audacity to declare -- and I cannot but wonder why a multitude of old-fashioned Bible believers do not arise in holy protest -- that for the word "saved" "we substitute ... (in the beginning at least) 'entering into a personal relationship with Christ.'"

Thus the terrors of Divine wrath are neatly minimized and, probably from the poor student who simply wants a plan for his life, eliminated! The totality of truth is abbreviated, not actually because the "Laws" are a mere "summary," but because the Crusade has taken it upon itself to abbreviate it!

THE THIRD LAW

The Crusade's third "Law" really troubles me. It does indeed state that Christ is "God's only provision for sin." Splendid! It quotes verses in footnotes (of all places) which indicate that Christ died in our place, that He is the only way to the Father, and that He bridged the chasm between the sinner and God.

But the difficulty is that the "Law" does not tell us Who Jesus Christ is.

College students on the whole have only a glimmering of truth in this area.

Coming, as most of them do, from modernist churches or godless cultures, they do not know that Jesus Christ is God, the everlasting Son of the Father, Who existed from eternity in the bosom of the Father, and Who for the sins of a rebellious race became incarnate and suffered, bled, and died for the remission of our sins.

Moreover, the third "Law" makes no mention of the incarnation, the vicarious blood atonement, the resurrection of the eternal Son "for our justification" (Rom. 4:25). Thus it does not really explain what it means by "God's only provision."

This is not the apostolic mode of presentation. "Without the shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:7). Such verses as these make the matter plain. Any "Law" which may make passing, appeasing references to related verses but which fails to disclose the identity of our blessed Lord or to mention His out-poured blood for sinners does not remotely resemble the Gospel preaching of the apostles. Is Campus Crusade trying to avoid "the offense of the cross"? It appears to be doing exactly that.

And, according to the third "Law," what is the net result of Christ's being "God's only provision for man's sin"? Is it a paean of praise from worshiping hosts of angels around the throne? Is it the eternal adoration of believers in glory because the God-man's work of redemption has been consummated on behalf of lost sinners? Is it antiphonal echoes of wonder resounding through the corridors of Heaven?

The third "Law" gives the answer: "Through Him you can know God's love and plan for your life"! Words fail me. How incomplete and man-centered can a movement be?

THE FOURTH LAW

And now the fourth "Law": "We must receive Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord by personal invitation; then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives."

This "Law" might be regarded as helpful if "Law" Three had explained precisely Who Christ is, how He saved sinners, and what it means for one to call Him Saviour and risen Lord. But the third "Law" has left a great vacuum. No wonder college Crusaders seem to be so uninformed. May I show what I mean?

In the Crusade's Collegiate Challenge (Vol. 6, No. 2) we read: "Val talked with a girl who wasn't very interested, but as she listened to the Four Spiritual Laws, she decided to invite Christ into her life. Then she told her girl friend who had also received Christ. 'Our week had been so dull, but what a change.' Her friend replied, 'Yeah, now we're in the in-group.'"

Some sentimental, uninstructed soul might breathe a sympathetic sigh and remark, "Isn't that sweet?" But I should like to ask every truly informed reader a pointed question: "Does this sound to you like genuine Biblical conversion on the basis of Christ's atoning work and through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit of the living God?" Of course it does not. And why should it?

In a sheet prepared by Campus Crusade entitled "How to Prepare a Personal Testimony," their workers are told: "Don't use ... words such as 'saved,' 'convicted,' 'converted,' 'born again,' and 'sin.'" These words may be precious to the Crusaders, it is intimated, but "they do not communicate truth to the average non-Christian."

If this dogmatic thesis were true -- and praise the Lord it is not -- how in the world have faithful evangelists through the years, men of God who used these blessed words in the energy of the Holy Spirit, been so marvelously instrumental in bringing precious souls to Christ? Further, is it not true that the Holy Spirit has blessed the use of these very words in the proclamation of the Gospel to sinners? Was Nicodemus a believer when our Lord told him that he had to be "born again"? Were the people surrounding Simon Peter believers when he warned them: "Repent ... and be converted" (Acts 3:19)?

How dare any movement that calls itself "Christian" toss aside lightly the Words of the Omniscient God? Is it to cater to the intellectual or spiritual immaturity of college students? In my opinion this is what Campus Crusade is doing, apparently without fear of weighty contradiction.

May I be a bit more analytical? Three verses of Scripture and words of explanation are given in the footnotes of the fourth "Law." The verses are:

John 1:12; Eph. 2:8,9; and Rev. 3:20. Of course, we are always delighted to discover the Word of God, even if it is relegated to footnotes, in any set of guidelines which have to do with leading souls to the Saviour. And the words of explanation, if they had a solid foundation, could conceivably be of genuine help. They read: "We must receive Christ; we receive Christ through faith; we receive Christ by personal invitation." It then adds:

"Receiving Christ involves turning to God from self, trusting Christ to come into our lives, to forgive our sins and to make us to be what He wants us to be."

All this suggests several questions of supreme importance.

First, not having been told in the first three "Laws" either Who Christ is or how He saved the lost sinner, how can a student really receive the Son of God intelligently as his Saviour?

Second, the word "Saviour" has been bandied about through the centuries.

It is widely misunderstood. It has been given various meanings, some totally false and others deceitfully close to Biblical truth. It is of great importance that true witnesses for Christ always make the title crystal clear.

The followers of Albrecht Ritschl, in referring to Christ, might use the word "Saviour." They would mean that Jesus saves us, by His moral influence upon our lives, from our base and unworthy motivations.

Mary Baker Eddy, mother of Christian Science, wrote (Science and Health, page 39): "Christ wrought a full salvation from sin, sickness and death." Yet Christian Science is as far removed from orthodox Christianity as it can possibly be. Behold what Mrs. Eddy actually means: "His consummate example was for the salvation of us all" (page 51). Is it not plain that, in opposition to this sort of false teaching, the true Crusader for Christ must explain that the Lord Jesus saved us from sin by His perfect sacrifice upon Golgatha?

Even Harry Emerson Fosdick, one of America's leading modernists, did not hesitate to write of Christ: "He died as he lived, a savior. That his saviorhood is unique in its scope and impact is obvious, but the principle of it is not unique. We can all share it" (Dear Mr. Brown, page 134). You see, Dr. Fosdick, one of the leading unbelievers of the twentieth century, called Jesus "Savior." And, demonstrating his infidelity to the Word of God, in the same book (page 136) he speaks of the substitutionary atonement wrought by our Lord as a "pre-civilized barbarity."

Cannot the Crusade be brought to understand that the Saviourhood of the Son of God must be meticulously explained? Else college students too may speak of Him as "Saviour" while meaning something altogether different from the truth!

What a glorious opportunity is missed in the fourth "Law"! When Christ as He is depicted in the Scriptures is truly received as Saviour, what vistas of rapture break upon the redeemed soul! Now the sinner has been born again into the family of God. Now he has become a joint-heir with the Son of the Father! Now Heaven, with all its infinity of blessing, has its gates flung open to welcome him!

How does the Crusade's fourth "Law" summarize all this wondrous treasure- store of delights? Read its words. Ponder them carefully and, perhaps, a little wistfully. Compare them with the Bible. Understand their man-centered nature. Now at long last, the "Law" reads: "We can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives." What an anti-climactic conclusion!

Why not spell out the truth of God on the basis of the everlasting Word of God? Why not explain the "plan" which the converted sinner may know? It far transcends a student's life choices! It reaches beyond the limits of his life pilgrimage. It leads to and enters the portals of everlasting glory!

Why not tell the student this in no uncertain terms? And why not, in all fairness, warn him that rejection of the Son of God spells not a vague "separation" from God -- but the eternal miseries of the lake of fire?

Let the student have all the facts before he makes what the Crusade calls a "commitment."

 (From Campus Crusade Examined in the Light of Scripture by Charles Woodbridge)

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

The Real Issue: Is Obama Really A Christian? In any Sense of the Word? PART 1

Is Obama really a christian, can he side with believers on ANY ISSUE to win in November?

 Should any Christian believe his words concerning what God demands us to do?

Many people don't care if a candidate is Christian or not, and I am appalled that M.S.N.B.C has determined that it is a requirement for Republicans and not Democrats. The Issue has been highjacked by Progressives as if they were the single Judge of ones spiritual place before God when the truth is they could care less if there's a God or not. All this amounts to is its a diversion from the issues that matter. 

AMERICA HAS BEEN RAPED AND PILLAGED BY 'FAKE CHRISTIAN WORDS' SPOKEN BY 'FAKE BELIEVERS' IN A 'FAKE GOD', WE THE PEOPLE MUST REDEFINE THE DEBATE. HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERY WORD THEY SPEAK. DON'T ALLOW THEM TO USE GOD AS A 'ROBE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS' THEY DON'T DESERVE TO WEAR!

For most Americans the issue of God in politics is a non-starter because you cannot win this debate simply because it opens up a can of worms that never ends, so it isn't something most of us want to understand fully let alone get involved with in a debate. 

The problem concerning using your 'Christianity' or some semblance of Religion to advance your agendas is that so many diverse opinions and interpretations of just what God says and demands of us are out there that it makes the water cloudy at best.

Christians, TRUE believers in God must be careful both in politics and life NOT misrepresent God and his word in any way, because we will all be held accountable to every wrong step and idle word we speak. Gods word is the ONLY FINAL AUTHORITY on; if a person is truly saved and forgiven, NOT RELIGION, NOT ASSUMPTIONS, NOT HUMAN IDEAS, AND NEVER, EVER DOES IT DEPEND ON POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP!!! 


President Obama is now trying to paint himself as the quintessential Christian candidate as are his opponents. How can we tell if its true?

How are his words any more believable than say Rick Santorum's? Believe it or not, there is CLEAR DIRECTION from Scripture, the Bible makes it impossible to deceive us if we know the truth.

 Simply because someone SAYS I'm a Christian, means little or nothing when compared to the truth of God's word, as believers we are bound to the Bibles view of Salvation NOT OUR CANDIDATES. In the end it must be understood that God has the final word not man, so their words mean nothing no matter how sincere they might seem to us!

I do not believe that being a Christian can be simply boxed into 4 spiritual Laws or a set of beliefs, its much deeper and clearer than any religious idea of what a Christian is. Many people of other Faiths can at times show all the signs of these ideas but are still not Christian, so it fails on its face to define what God has created in the New Birth.


John 1:1-5 

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.   

The same was in the beginning with God.   

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.  

 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.   

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. "

These verses make it plain that the Darkness that controls the world system, which includes politics CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE LIGHT OF TRUTH.

It does not however say that the Light of Truth cannot penetrate the Darkness of this world only that it isn't capable of discerning it. If a man or women is saved, born again, blood-washed, or Christian, meaning 'little Christ, a part of the anointed purpose of God that penetrates the darkness then they and only they have that discernment spoken of to understand the Light.

John 3:3-8

  "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again (Born from Above and cleansed from within), he cannot see (Understand) the kingdom of God.   

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"

(Nicodemus could only comprehend physical understanding of Jesus' purpose so his conclusions were limited to earthly viewpoints

 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (The Words of God infused within us as well as physical birth) and of the Spirit ( The inner perfection of a clean heart), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

(Salvation has NOTHING to do with physical doctrines of men nor their understanding of it. Gods word makes it clear in black and white with no interpretation necessary, you cannot simply repeat what others say salvation is, it is a heart condition not a mental assent to doctrines of men.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

(Those who are really born of God are no longer FLESHLY TOOLS of this world, the flesh will always gravitate downward while the spirit will always gravitate upwards. There is no middle ground, no misunderstanding that can be understood here, if your saved you MUST DO HIS WILL NOT MAN'S!)  

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 

  The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. "
 
The will of God cannot be contained within a man-made church or doctrine, no Religion on earth today is capable of understanding God apart from in-depth study of the Bible......PERIOD!

John 3:15-21

  "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
 
 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Notice here that God is no condemning anyone on earth today, so why do we feel guilt if God isn't condemning us? 

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

It is belief in THE NAME that eradicates Guilt not religious traditions, not religious understandings. God cannot be understood from below only from above, we must be AT HIS LEVEL TO UNDERSTAND HIM. That is the point of the New Birth, to bring us to his level; NOT OF GODHOOD BUT OF UNDERSTANDING. 

  "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF SIN AND HOW IT AFFECTS US IS PARAMOUNT TO KNOWING GOD'S PURPOSES. Religion pales when compared to God and knowing him requires that we drop all pretense concerning understanding God. 

  "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 

 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
Please get this plain understanding about those who know God and those who pretend to know him. If you are in pretend mode you cannot hide your motives for long, your sin WILL FIND YOU OUT, IT WILL EXPOSE YOUR MOTIVES, IT WILL BETRAY YOUR AGENDAS!

No one can hide their agendas if they are saying one thing and doing something completely different. That is Hypocrisy and the BIBLE SPARES NO ONE WHO PRACTICES IT, NO ONE!!

Those who use religious terms, statements meant to give a perception of false belief only succeed when good people do not call their bluff, and I for one am sick and tired of hearing scripture spoken only to gain votes or false understanding of the issues. Christians, WHERE ARE YOU? Why do you allow this lie to proceed, why allow their smooth words to deceive your vote, look to their fruits, their results speak louder than any speech!

We as Americans are the only ones who have the right to set the agenda for our country not politicians, let's start to be involved, take apart every speech, understand their motives by comparing their words to their lives, that's how Jesus did it and that is how we will win our country back.


John 6:53-58  

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. "

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE HARD SAYINGS OF JESUS THAT MANY HAVE MISINTERPRETED SOMETIMES ON PURPOSE AND SOMETIMES WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING ITS PURPOSE. 

"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

To fully understand this word one must first divorce oneself from religion all together because it enslaves your mind to an understanding of God that defeats his intent. This verse is not the communion verse we like to make it out to be, although it is similar to it. The purpose here is not to teach the 'Wafer god' doctrine nor is it to give credence to 'transubstantiation doctrines'.

These are diversions by Satan from its pure understanding! If we look at it from the big picture we see a far deeper understanding than these surface teachings of men.

To EAT his Flesh means to consume his nature as a man, a man dedicated to his Father, a pure sinless life as opposed to living a selfish existence without thought. Its as simple an understanding as the reason we eat any food we eat, its not a mystery at all, we eat what nourishes our body.

Think about this for a moment, what better way to gain knowledge than by eating his word daily? There is no understanding that more deeply reveals Gods intent that that! Its not cannibalism as the Religious heretics thought but a pure transfer of power to the believer.

  "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

To Drink His Blood is simply to receive what that blood purchased.... salvation, forgiveness and holy living not only in word but in deed as well. Those who do not live it should not talk it, and those who talk about will be judged by those words someday soon.

  "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

We are a dwelling within a dwelling being filled with his thoughts and deeds, that and only that is being Christian. If we fail we can start over but forgiveness is NOT GIVEN LIGHTLY BY GOD it requires true Repentance, turning away from sin never to sin again.

 "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."

This is the grave error of those who profess him but never are known by him, if we simply use the bible as an 'agenda builder' then we have totally missed Salvation and have no reason to talk about it, we either live it or we don't but his word will not be mocked!

   "This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

In the next blog We will delve deeper into what being a Christian really means, from which we as Voters may Judge those who claim to know God. Remember when God said NOT to judge he was not referring to Judging what God has already judged in his word but to whim of human judgement against the sin.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Charlie Rose get's totally owned by Rick Santorum on CBS Morning show

The media is taking their attacks on Santorum’s social views to the extreme – another example is the reaction to a joke told by a Santorum supporter. Yes, Santorum is getting grilled over something a supporter said (which wasn’t even controversial).

 Charlie Rose tried to attack him on it, and Santorum wasn’t having any of it and delivers an epic take down during their interview on “CBS This Morning.” Catch the exchange and reaction.

If nothing else Rick will take on the Media like they deserve to be taken on and that in itself is fresh and new for Washington. They have bedded down with corrupt Media for so long its about time someone put them in their place.









Now for all you MORONS out there sitting in your underwear in your mom's basement, what this supporter SAID in his statement was NOT SEXUAL IN ANY WAY, in fact it was ANTI-SEXUAL, ANTI-PROMISCUOUS, AND ANTI-DIRTY.
 
 Of course the left likes it dirty, sexual and feeling based so their dirty minds cannot imagine any statement that isn't connected to filthy imagination. Using a humorous remark to teach "Keeping it in your pants" or "Crossing your legs ladies" doesn't register with them, after all they want Men and women to be slaves to their desires because that translates to the welfare rolls eventually.
 
 He was stating a KNOWN FACT from our generation that if you KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER you won't get pregnant, you won't ruin your life and your family's, you won't become addicted to government help and ruin our lives!
 
 DOUBLE STANDARDS


 
 


 
 
GET REAL, YOUR A VICTIM OF YOUR VICTIMIZED MENTALITY!







Come on Left (and Right), be real for once, your double standards are the reason America can't stomach politics, you MEDIA TYPES created this Mess that we the people must clean up so stop the nonsense and myth making and just REPORT THE NEWS, DON'T MAKE IT!
 
You remember when being a reporter was looked at as respectable don't you, way back in the 1800's somewhere before MONEY AND POWER took over your moral core don't you?
 


 
 OBAMA IS A HYPOCRITE


 
 
 
I've taken a long hard look at all these candidates and have come to the conclusion I cannot WASTE my vote on Romney or Newt and its plain as day WHY.
 
 We must not allow another PROGRESSIVE LIGHT OR OTHERWISE DESTROY OUR GREAT COUNTRY FROM WITHIN. THEY HATE AMERICA AS IT WAS FOUNDED, THEY WANT A SOCIALIST OVERHAUL OF OUR CONSTITUTION.   












A GREAT DAD



JUST A PLAIN OLD FACT!








Dear Patriot,
This is where we wanted to be. We have planned and strategized in preparation for this very moment. We have demonstrated that we can unite Conservatives and win states- even states that Mitt Romney won four years ago.


 Now, according to a new poll from Public Policy Polling, I am LEADING Mitt Romney nationwide by a double digit margin.

Here are the results:
  • Santorum 38%
  • Romney: 23%
  • Gingrich 17%
  • Paul 13%
We know this race has seesawed back and forth so we don't expect for a moment that Romney and his allies in the liberal media are going to let us stay there.
But this does confirm what we already knew: we are picking up momentum and are in the right place to take advantage of it. We have a strategy that has produced victories and can win us the Republican nomination. And we need to keep it going.


This poll comes on the heels of three huge wins last week in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Conservatives across the country are coming together and uniting behind this campaign.


Everything is going our direction for the moment, but that's the very reason we can't let up--the Romney campaign is starting to get desperate. Governor Romney does not have a consistent record of conservatism that he can run on. 

Because of that, he can't talk about his story and will instead spend tens of millions of dollars in negative, dishonest, personal attacks on my record and my character.


I saw what Mitt Romney did to Newt Gingrich after he lost South Carolina. Romney is right now making plans to do the same thing to me in Michigan--carpet bomb the state with dishonest ads.  We need to be ready so we can fight back!


That's not going to be good enough to defeat President Obama. The GOP standard bearer must convey a clear vision of Reagan Conservatism to the American people if we are going to win this election. 

Running an inauthentic, Massachusetts moderate is not going to fire up conservatives, and it's not going to appeal to independents. We can't do it if we're going to defeat President Obama.


Every four years, people say, "This is the most important election of our lifetime." I think that's true this year, but I'll go even farther than that: this is the most important election in American history.
President Obama's vision for this country is to fundamentally change us from a free market, capitalist system to a Republic in the mold of the faded, decrepit Republics of Western Europe.


 We simply cannot allow four more years of this.
We are winning elections and the polls are all trending our way. I am going to win the Republican Nomination for President and defeat Barack Obama. But it's not going to happen without your help, right now. Not tomorrow, not next week. Right now.
For America,

Rick Santorum

Conservative Republican for President

.

 
 








Thursday, February 2, 2012

Fact-Checking Obama's State of the Union Speech, Part 1: Jobs

Fact-Checking Obama's State of the Union Speech, Part 1: Jobs

 

by: Jack Rasmus, Truthout | News Analysis 
 
 
Parts 2 and 3 of this series will address Obama's State of the Union comments on taxes, entitlements, finance and income inequality.


On January 24, 2012, President Obama delivered his latest State of the Union (SOTU) speech to Congress. It heavily emphasized economic themes, among which were jobs, manufacturing, trade, the auto industry, teachers, taxes, Medicare, financial regulation and growing income inequality in the United States.


Claims were made and general proposals offered for how to create more jobs and how to get a sluggish US economic recovery finally going after three years of tepid, stop-and-go results.



But many of the president's claims in his SOTU speech, especially with regard to jobs, were contrary to the facts. And the proposals he reaffirmed for generating a sustained   economic recovery were more of the same "old wine in new bottles," which hasn't had much impact to date.


Here are some facts concerning jobs to consider before feeling too optimistic over what was largely a campaign-oriented, election-year SOTU speech - a speech more reminiscent of Obama's 2008 "talk the talk" period than of his 2009-2011 "talk but no walk" record.


Obama boasted that the US manufacturing sector had turned around and created millions of jobs on his watch. He subsequently named the need to further boost manufacturing, and the exports of US-manufactured goods, as one of his two primary recommendations for doing something about the 23 million people still jobless in the United States. (His other primary recommendation was more business tax cuts, which I will address in Part 2 of this series.)


What are the facts concerning manufacturing sector jobs in the United States today?

 NOTE:


According to the US Labor Department, there were almost 17.3 million jobs in manufacturing in December 2000. By the start of the recession in December 2007, there were just under 13.9 million. When Obama took office in 2009, there were slightly over 13.4 million. As of December 2011, there were  about 11.8 million.


Over the past year, from December 2010 through December 2011, there were over 1.9 million total private sector jobs created. But only 218,000 of those were manufacturing jobs.


And virtually all of those manufacturing jobs were created as global trade and exports accelerated in the first half of 2011. That same global trade began contracting in the second half of 2011.


In response to that contraction, in the last three months of 2011, US manufacturing employment actually fell by 24,000 jobs. 


So, tell me how this picture, and a further promotion of the manufacturing sector, is going to significantly aid the 23 to 24 million people currently still jobless in the United States? Even at the early 2011 rate, it would take 100 years to create 20 million additional manufacturing jobs.


The above numbers represent total manufacturing jobs. How about jobs for nonsupervisors and nonmanagers in manufacturing? 

Since the so-called official "end" of the recession in June 2009 up through December 2011 - over a period of two and a half years - a mere 174,000 production manufacturing jobs were created. That's a meager 5,800 a month.


The president in his speech was exceptionally laudatory of the Big Three US auto companies, praising them for having fully recovered and creating jobs. But let's look at the record here, as well. From the start of the recession in December 2007 through the end of 2010, 315,000 auto jobs were lost. 



Over the past year, the industry has hired back at the rate of only 4,000 a month, or 48,000 of those 315,000 jobs lost. And let's not forget, the overwhelming number of those hired in the past year have been hired for temporary status auto industry jobs paid at around $14 an hour, about half the normal auto worker wage rate.


Yes, the auto companies are hiring, but at half pay. Not surprisingly, their profits have recovered - but they have done so by shifting money from auto workers to auto companies' bottom line.


Okay, friends of the administration may argue, maybe the facts regarding manufacturing jobs were a bit overblown and exaggerated by the president. What about the 1.9 million total private jobs created this past year.

Isn't that significant?"


Well, 600,000 of those jobs were created in the retail sector in the last two months of 2011, the holiday season. Most jobs in that sector are part-time and temporary jobs, many of which will disappear in early 2012. 


Another 82,000 jobs went to messengers and couriers, hired by UPS, FedEx and other shipping companies for the holiday mailing surge. 


Those jobs, too, will quickly disappear in early 2012. In addition, banking-and-finance sector companies have announced more than 150,000 layoffs scheduled for 2012 - and that's just to start. And the two biggest job creation sectors of the economy in the first half of 2011 - business and professional services, and leisure and hospitality - both reduced jobs in the final two months of 2011 by 264,000 jobs.


Finally, let's not forget the government sector of the economy. While the private side may have created 1.9 million jobs, 257,000 state, local government and postal workers lost their jobs in 2011 alone; 106,000 of them were teachers.



Speaking of teachers: Obama praised the profession for its key role in the economy and in the development of society, for which, he properly noted, teachers should be honored and respected. He then proclaimed that the best teachers should be rewarded with more pay. 


Education managers should be given more flexibility, he advocated, to give more pay to the best teachers and get rid of the worst. This is his education secretary, Arne Duncan's, old formula. 


In practice, it means the introduction of merit pay, which would undermine teachers' union contracts and give managers more freedom to fire teachers and/or lay them off based not on seniority, but on administrators' preferences and favoritism - the old "civil service" approach. 


Together with the push toward charter schools, Obama's policy for education amounts to a destruction of teachers' union contracts. Charter schools, plus merit pay, plus end of seniority, plus more freedom to fire means the end of teacher unionism as we know it.


In the second half of 2010, Obama reshuffled his staff, repopulating his team with corporate advisers. Bill Daley became chief of staff. General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt headed the president's "jobs council." Scores of corporate underlings were hired behind them. What we subsequently got, in terms of jobs policy, was a manufacturing sector- and export trade-centric set of proposals. 


Jobs were supposed to come from stimulating manufacturing and exports, pushing free trade, and cutting business regulations, as well as from promoting patent protection for the technology sector and similar pro-business approaches. Daley-Immelt essentially took over the Obama jobs program.


More business and investor tax cuts followed, including $802 billion in further tax reductions in December 2010. Regulations were reduced, as Obama bragged in his SOTU speech that he cut more regulations than George W. Bush did in his first term. 


Contrary to the president's 2008 campaign promises to restructure "job-killing" free trade agreements, the Obama-Daley-Immelt team opened a new offensive to pass pending free trade agreements with Korea, Panama, Columbia and elsewhere. The former three were adopted in 2011. 


These were promoted as measures to create manufacturing jobs. However, according to various studies since 1994 by the Economic Policy Institute, more than 10 million jobs have been LOST due to free trade. Nevertheless, in his SOTU speech, Obama once again promoted the corporate line and the false claim that free trade creates jobs.


Manufacturing output has risen significantly since mid-2009, as has manufacturing corporations' revenues and profits, especially the big multinational players such as Immelt's GE and the auto and high-tech companies. 


But manufacturing jobs are still 1.6 million short of where they were in early 2009, and wages of new manufacturing jobs are far lower than existing wages. A few workers get low paying jobs while manufacturing companies reap the big benefits of Obama's manufacturing-export-centric jobs policies. 


The, "Let's boost manufacturing-export companies" approach to job creation has been a sham job-creation program, taken straight out of the economic playbook of the Daleys and Immelts who have been driving the Obama team jobs program since late 2010.


And judging from the comments of President Obama in his recent SOTU address, corporations will continue to drive the Obama jobs program - while they simultaneously sit on their $2.5 trillion cash hoard and refuse to invest in America.

Creative Commons License

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License
 
 
 
Jack Rasmus Jack Rasmus is the author of "Epic Recession: Prelude to Global Depression" (Pluto Press and Palgrave Macmillan, May 2010) and the forthcoming book "Obama's Economy: Recovery for the Few" (same publishers, 2011). His blog is jackrasmus.com and web site: www.kyklosproductions.com.
 

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Fact-Checking Obama’s Boasts by Ann-Marie Murrell


 
The following blog from the Patriot Update was so good I had to re post it here so more could see the blatant dishonesty of some liberal posters on Facebook and other forums. The biggest issue though is not the comment but the fact that no one seems to rebut it!
 Fact-Checking Obama’s Boasts
Written on January 31, 2012 by Ann-Marie Murrell


I’ve been noticing that liberals are starting to sprinkle some incorrect facts on non-liberal Facebook pages.


Here’s one comment, which I’ve taken straight off a recent post on the PolitiChicks page.  

I’ve seen other similar posts on other sites:

Our president is absolutely no fool. He’s accomplished much that people don’t recognize yet. Since his election, there have been 3 million private sector jobs added while government jobs have decreased by over 20,000. That is not a record of a guy expanding government at the expense of the private sector…. he’s attempted to be bi partisan at every turn until the December payroll tax fiasco. 

Now, the TGOP have backed themselves into a corner and our president and the Democratic Party will have none of the republican agenda talking points. They are ready to fight and not give in to any of it. It’s downright ugly…. and the general election will be a nasty, two fisted, brawl.”


I keep waiting for someone to refute these posts but so far no one’s biting back.


Some of these misconceptions are coming directly from Obama’s recent State of the Union address.  Unfortunately his liberal followers are quoting his stats, many of which are incorrect.


With help from an article by news analyst Jack Rasmus at Truth-out.org, I’ve compiled a sort of “Fact vs Myth” list for you.  Hopefully it will help all us Conservatives combat the distortions happening online.


It’s not fun to argue with liberals and it’s highly doubtful you’ll ever be able to change their minds about anything, but it’s not the liberals we need to turn around—it’s the fence-sitters who want to know the truth and are reading these posts.   THEY are the ones we need to get to. 

This is for them.


Obama’s Boast:  The US manufacturing sector had turned around and created millions of jobs on his watch!


The TRUTH: 


“According to the US Labor Department, there were almost 17.3 million jobs in manufacturing in December 2000.  By the start of the recession in December 2007, there were just under 13.9 million. When Obama took office in 2009, there were slightly over 13.4 million. As of December 2011, there were about 11.8 million.


Over the past year, from December 2010 through December 2011, there were over 1.9 million total private sector jobs created.
 

But only 218,000 of those were manufacturing jobs. And virtually all of those manufacturing jobs were created as global trade and exports accelerated in the first half of 2011. That same global trade began contracting in the second half of 2011.


In response to that contraction, in the last three months of 2011, US manufacturing employment actually fell by 24,000 jobs


So, tell me how this picture, and a further promotion of the manufacturing sector, is going to significantly aid the 23 to 24 million people currently still jobless in the United States? Even at the early 2011 rate, it would take 100 years to create 20 million additional manufacturing jobs.



The above numbers represent total manufacturing jobs. How about jobs for non-supervisors and non-managers in manufacturing? Since the so-called official “end” of the recession in June 2009 up through December 2011 – over a period of two and a half years – a mere 174,000 production-manufacturing jobs were created. That’s a meager 5,800 a month.”


Obama’s Boast:  The Big Three US auto companies have fully recovered and are creating jobs!


The TRUTH: 

 “From the start of the recession in December 2007 through the end of 2010, 315,000 auto jobs were lost. Over the past year, the industry has hired back at the rate of only 4,000 a month, or 48,000 of those 315,000 jobs lost. 


And let’s not forget, the overwhelming number of those hired in the past year have been hired for temporary status auto industry jobs paid at around $14 an hour, about half the normal auto worker wage rate.
 

Yes, the auto companies are hiring, but at half pay. Not surprisingly, their profits have recovered – but they have done so by shifting money from auto workers to auto companies’ bottom line.”



Obama’s Boast:  There have been 1.9 million total private jobs created this past year!



The TRUTH: 

  “600,000 of those jobs were created in the retail sector in the last two months of 2011, the holiday season. Most jobs in that sector are part-time and temporary jobs, many of which will disappear in early 2012. Another 82,000 jobs went to messengers and couriers, hired by UPS, FedEx and other shipping companies for the holiday mailing surge. 


Those jobs, too, will quickly disappear in early 2012. In addition, banking-and-finance sector companies have announced more than 150,000 layoffs scheduled for 2012 – and that’s just to start. And the two biggest job creation sectors of the economy in the first half of 2011 – business and professional services, and leisure and hospitality – both reduced jobs in the final two months of 2011 by 264,000 jobs.


Finally, let’s not forget the government sector of the economy. While the private side may have created 1.9 million jobs, 257,000 state, local government and postal workers lost their jobs in 2011 alone; 106,000 of them were teachers.” 
Obama’s Boast:  He once again promoted the corporate line and claimed that free trade creates jobs!


The TRUTH:

 Manufacturing output has risen significantly since mid-2009, as has manufacturing corporations’ revenues and profits, especially the big multinational players such as Immelt’s GE and the auto and high-tech companies.  


But manufacturing jobs are still 1.6 million short of where they were in early 2009, and wages of new manufacturing jobs are far lower than existing wages. A few workers get low paying jobs while manufacturing companies reap the big benefits of Obama’s manufacturing-export-centric jobs policies.


According to Rasmus, “The, ‘Let’s boost manufacturing-export companies’ approach to job creation has been a sham job-creation program, taken straight out of the economic playbook of the Daleys and Immelts who have been driving the Obama team jobs program since late 2010. 


And judging from the comments of President Obama in his recent SOTU address, corporations will continue to drive the Obama jobs program – while they simultaneously sit on their $2.5 trillion cash hoard and refuse to invest in America.”


Finally, for a president and administration that are constantly praising the anti-corporation Occupy Movement, in the second half of 2010, Obama reshuffled his staff, repopulating his team with corporate advisers.


According to Jack Rasmus of Truthout.com:

“Bill Daley became chief of staff.  General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt headed the president’s ‘jobs council.’ Scores of corporate underlings were hired behind them. 


What we subsequently got, in terms of jobs policy, was a manufacturing sector- and export trade-centric set of proposals. 


 Jobs were supposed to come from stimulating manufacturing and exports, pushing free trade, and cutting business regulations, as well as from promoting patent protection for the technology sector and similar pro-business approaches. Daley-Immelt essentially took over the Obama jobs program.


More business and investor tax cuts followed, including $802 billion in further tax reductions in December 2010. Regulations were reduced, as Obama bragged in his SOTU speech that he cut more regulations than George W. Bush did in his first term.



Contrary to the president’s 2008 campaign promises to restructure “job-killing” free trade agreements, the Obama-Daley-Immelt team opened a new offensive to pass pending free trade agreements with Korea, Panama, Columbia and elsewhere. 



The former three were adopted in 2011. These were promoted as measures to create manufacturing jobs. However, according to various studies since 1994 by the Economic Policy Institute, more than 10 million jobs have been LOST due to free trade.”

Keyword Spy Tools!

Top Keyword Spy Tools & Reviews.
Reviews the top keyword spy tools which are available online today.

Vote Progressives ALL OUT on Both sides!

PROGRESSIVES TO VOTE OUT:
Congressional Members of the Progressive Caucus
Rep Earl Hilliard (AL-07)
Rep Eni Faleomavaega (AS-AL)
Rep Ed Pastor (AZ-02)
Rep Lynn C Woolsey (CA-06)
Rep George Miller (CA-07)
Rep Nancy Pelosi (CA-08)
Rep Fortney "Pete" Stark (CA-13)
Rep Henry A. Waxman (CA-29)
Rep Xavier Becerra (CA-30)
Rep Julian C. Dixon (CA-32)
Rep Esteban Edward Torres (CA-34)
Rep Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Rep George E. Brown (CA-42)
Rep Bob Filner (CA-50)
Rep Diane DeGette (CO-01)
Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL)
Rep Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Rep Carrie P. Meek (FL-17)
Rep Alcee L. Hastings (FL-23)
Rep Cynthia A. McKinney (GA-04)
Rep John Lewis (GA-05)
Rep Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Rep Patsy Mink (HI-02)
Rep Jesse Jackson (IL-02)
Rep Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Rep Danny Davis (IL-07)
Rep Lane Evans (IL-17)
Rep Julia Carson (IN-10)
Rep John Olver (MA-01)
Rep Jim McGovern (MA-03)
Rep Barney Frank (MA-04)
Rep John Tierney (MA-06)
Rep David Bonior (MI-10)
Rep Lynn N. Rivers (MI-13)
Rep John Conyers (MI-14)
Rep Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02)
Rep Melvin L. Watt (NC-12)
Rep Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Rep Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Rep Major Owens (NY-11)
Rep Nydia M. Velazquez (NY-12)
Rep Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Rep Maurice Hinchey (NY-26)
Rep John LaFalce (NY-29)
Rep Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Rep Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Rep Louis Stokes (OH-11)
Rep Sherrod Brown (OH-13)
Rep Elizabeth Furse (OR-01)
Rep Peter A. DeFazio (OR-04)
Rep Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Rep William Coyne (PA-14)
Rep Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo (PR-AL)
Rep Robert C. Scott (VA-03)
Rep Bernard Sanders (VT-AL)
Rep James A. McDermott (WA-07)

Tim Tebow Quote:

“If you’re married and you have a wife, and you really love your wife, is it good enough to only say to your wife “I love you” the day you get married?
Or, should you tell her every single day when you wake up, and at every opportunity?


That’s how I feel about my relationship with Jesus Christ. That is the most important thing in my life, so any time I get an opportunity to tell Him that I love Him, or get an opportunity to shout Him out on national TV I’m going to take that opportunity.


So I look at it like in my relationship with Him, I want to give Him the honor and glory anytime I have the opportunity.”

Follow my blog for the Latest Updates!

Popular Posts

Follow ME by Email

Jihad Watch

Ironic Surrealism

American Thinker

American Thinker Blog

ACT for America

Conservative Hideout 2.0

American Conservative News Politics & Opinion - The Land of the Free

You Decide Politics

THE HOT JOINTS

Monkeysee.com - Newest Videos

OfficiallyScrewed.com

The Corner

The Wilderness Survival Blog

Survival Readiness

Survival Topics

Free Bass Fishing Tips for Beginners Improve Your Catches

Squidoo: First Aid Tips and Advise