pattygreen

................................................................ The faith of this country is the "Christian" Faith. It is the faith this Nation began with. Just like the language of this country is "English". People are free to speak any language they choose to speak while here in the U.S., but they should not expect us to go out of our way, so to speak, to accomodate thier language. If we did that for every language in this country, we would have to say press one for english, press two for french, press 3 for italian, and so on and on. Christianity is this countries faith. People are free to choose any faith they wish to practice while here in the U.S., but they should not expect us to go out of our way, so to speak, to accomodate their faith. Why were our laws changed to exclude prayer and bible reading in public gatherings? Or to exclude the display of the 10 commandemnts in public buildings? Or why should we take "under God" out of our pledge to the flag? Why should we remove "in God we trust" from our money? These are the foundations of our becoming the greatest Nation on this earth. The further we remove God from this country, the further God moves from us!

Isn't it true that his plan would enforce people to pay a $3800. fine, or some high figure like that, if they don't buy insurance? Isn't that a 'tax'? A tax is any fee the government requires you to pay to them. And didn't Obama say that 47 million people were without insurance in this country? Now it's 30 million in his last speech. It's never a person's "right" to have anything. This country has established from the beginning a "free enterprise" and his given everyone here the "right" to a pursuit of anything thay would like. Including health care.

Some taxes should be expected. You can not run a government without tax, I understand that. But where do we draw the line at when it gets to be too much? How about when we have to start borrowing it from other nations at sky high interest rates. When your need outweighs your means to compensate, there is most definitely a huge problem going on with the over spending. Don't ya think? I am all for the government taking care of infrastructure, highways, military defense, national protection, etc., but this is too much! It needs to be halted!

In the christian faith,I believe your treasure is being stored in Heaven for only the deeds that you have done in the flesh that were selfless acts that were done with a pure motive.

If Mr. Jones stole Mrs. Smith's money from her pocketbook and handed it out to all the poor people in the city, would God look favorably on Mrs. Smith. Yes. But only because she was a victim of a crime perpetrated by Mr. Jones. Not because she gave to the poor, because she didn't give to the poor. Mr. Jones gave stolen money to the poor. He gets no credit for doing good to the poor. His sin of robbery has wiped out any good he thought he was doing. As far as Mrs. Smiths favor from God goes, she will get his favor when she gives cheerfully, for the bible says that God loves a cheerful giver.

Congratulations on being a soon-to-be grandma. ............................................................... When the government takes your money without your consent in order to give it to whom they feel it should go to to help them, they are robbing you. Noone has the right to steal from someone else. I am not saying that we shouldn't help the poor. I am saying that the government shouldn't take it upon themselves to ensure that we do it. This is the problem with BIG government. They are taking our money and distributing it to whatever cause they feel is right in their eyes. They are enabling those who don't or wont work to have a free ride on the rest of us. This is okay with you?

Show me a scripture that says," give your money to the government, and they will distribute it to all those who are poor, in need of a drink, disabled, hungry, destitute or in trouble? Then, and only then, will I honor it.

{Quote} When you gather your crops and fail to bring in some of the grain that you have cut, do not go back for it; for it is to be left for the foreigners, orphans and widows...When you have gathered your grapes once, do not go back over the vines a second time; the grapes that are left are for the foreigners, orphans and widows. Never forget thatyou were slaves in Egypt; that is why I have given you this command. ........................................................... I took just one of your quotes from the bible, but what I say here can be applied to them all: It is my responsibility before God to take what I have earned and give it to those that are in need. God does not advocate that someone else is to take what I have earned and give it to whom they see fit. That is thievery. Never! We are each, individually, accountable to God for what we have done to help the poor and disabled. This is where you have a misunderstanding of what God wants for us to do. He in no way has appointed someone else (the Government) to take on the peoples responsibility to help the poor and unfortunate. He expects that all work for their living. He also expects that all help the poor.

Most people are surprised to know that the Costitution does not contain the words "Separation of Church and State". So, what's its origin? At the time of the constitution, many citizens were concerned that one particular christian denomination would become the official denomination of the USA. The Danbury Baptists sent a letter to President Jefferson addressing their concerns.(Althought the states encouraged Christianity, they would not allow an exclusive state-sponsored denomination.) To calm thier fears, he replied in a letter to them: "I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Why did he select this particular phrase to reassure them? Recall that he was adressing a group of Baptists, a denomination of which he was not a member. In writing to them, he sought to establish a common ground necessary between an author and the group he was adressing. By using the "wall of separation" he was actually borrowing the words of the Baptist's own prominent ministers; Roger Williams. For William's words had been: "When they have opened the gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself...And therefore if he will ever please restore his garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto himself from the world..." According to Williams,the "wall of separation" was to protect the "garden of the church" from the "wilderness of the world". That 'wall' was originally introduced as, and understood to be a one-directional wall protecting the church from government. This was also Jefferson's understanding, as conveyed through statements he made concerning the First Amendment (statements now ignored by the court) Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States by the constitution. Second Inaugural address: In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercize is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the Federal Government. A letter to Samuel Miller: "I consider the government of the US as prohibited by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the US. (10th Amendment) Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." Contrary to Jefferson's explanation of the intent, such power no longer rests with the states. In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Educ., the court reversed 150 years of established legal practice under the Constitution and decided that it did have the right to rule on an individual state's decisions regarding religious practice. Prior to that reversal, the courts had left the decisions as Jefferson and all other Founding Fathers had planned it-"resting with the states." State legislatures have been passing laws since the 1600's allowing the free exercise of religious practices in schools and public affairs: voluntary prayer, bible reading, the use of the 10 commandments, etc. These laws had been enacted with the "concent of the governed" and through representatives elected "of the people, by the people and for the people." Jefferson's words to the Baptist Association were soon forgotten since the rumor of a certain denomination becoming 'the official US church" never became fact. The letter remained in obscurity until 76 years later when it appeared in a case of Reynolds v. United States. The court did not use the words form the letter to separate church and state, but used them in an opposite manner. In that case, Mormans claimed that the first amendment's "free exercise of religion" promise and the "separation of church and state" principle should keep the state out of their 'religious' exercise of polygamy. Using the letter, the court showed that while the government was not free to interfere with opinions on religion, which is what frequently distinguishes between one denomination and another, it was responsible to enforce civil laws oaccording to general Christian denominational differences, not to basic christian principles. On that basis, they ruled polygamy was a violation of the Constitution because it was a violation of basic Christian principles. 70 years after that case, in the 1947 Everson case, the court took 8 words out of Jefferson's letter (A wall of separation of church and state) and adopted that phrase as its new battlecry. It announced for the first time the new meaning of separation of church and state- a separation of basic religious principles from the public arenas. The court did not bother to present the context of Jeffersons phrase and how it had been originally used, nor revealed that it had been applied in an opposite manner in previous Supreme court cases. Those 8 words, now taken out of context, concisely articulated the court's plan to divorce Christianity from public affairs. There is no other instance in american history where the words spoken by an individual becomes the law of the land. His remark carries more weight in judicial circles than does the writing of any other founder. Doesn't it seem unreasonable that the Justices bypass all the other founding Fathers in order to find some words with which they could agree? And even then, they selected someone who was not a part of the convention that formed the Constitutional proceedings or was even in the nation at the time. And on top of that, they used his words in a manner in which he would not have approved! George Washington had much to say about the relationship of christianity to schools and government. Why doesn't the court quote him? The simple answer is that the Justices have found in Jeffersons 8 words what they want the First Amendment to say, and not what our Founding Fathers framed it to say, and not even what Jefferson understood it to say. There is no 'wall of separation' in the Constitution, unless it is a wall intended by the Founding Fathers to keep Government out of the church. Jefferson's words have been twisted to mean the opposite; now, the state must be "protected" from the church! There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it. It is amazing what continually hearing about separation of church and state can do to a nation!!!!

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. (Frederick Bastiat quote)

IMO, Liberals have never been able to understand that the conservatives position is based on principles and principles never change. That's why they are often seen as not being flexible. But, when you are dealing with moral principles, any compromise would be surrendering to evil. So, the 'right' are at a fixed position, while the 'left' has moved further left, since it is not guided by principle, but by 'world opinion' (whatever that is); the philosophy at the moment. The irresponsible liberals have gone soooo far left that that most of us conservatives appear to be far right. If we are 'right' are the liberals wrong? Yes, they are, for we both can't be right. I have found that liberals don't believe in absolutes, especially a code of laws, that if enforced would infringe on their lifestyles. They tell us the bible is too old and restrictive. They say that the ten commandments are the 10 suggeations. They love government handouts since it fits into their plan of government control instead of personal responsibility. Welfare is a mishmash of government programs to take from the haves and give to the have nots. This thievery is justified because we owe it to the poor. It is their 'right' so they say. But I don't owe the crooks, bums or cheaters anything. If a man has a 'right' to what I produce, then I am a slave. Welfare is nothing more than a plot to redistribute the national wealth, and just because it is lawful, doesn't make it just. Liberals don't understand that the more dependent man becomes, the less dependable they become. The liberal 'do gooder' is the worst enemy of the poor. They gravitate to federal giveaway schemes like a fly does to crap. They embrace and hug the poor, kiss them and tell them they are his friend. Then regulates them to a lifetime of dependency, living off the hard work of others. The liberal politician never creates wealth to provide for the poor, He redistributes the golden egg, but he can not lay them. (They have managed to lay a few eggs, but they have been rotton.) Liberals have killed the goose that produced the golden eggs. (free enterprise) But they aren't very smart, are they? Booker T. Washington said this: In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves. Jesus said" If any man will not work, he shall not eat." So, God expects us to work and not live off others. Ephesians 4:28 says " Let him that stole steal no more; but rather let him labor..." Oh! That nasty 5 letter word. Anytime a man receives money he didn't earn, there is somewhere a man who earned money he did not receive. That is thievery and thievery is thievery even when perpetrated by the government. I believe welfare should be handled by the churches and the families of the poor and disabled. Most of us would be willing to admit that the old, sick and disabled should get welfare, but there should be no welfare for the young, strong, or lazy. We don't have a 'right' to a good life. We have a right to the 'persuit' of it. The government is not to guarantee our happiness, only the freedom to pursue it. Just because I am poor or disabled does not consign others to slavery to provide for me. Love may demand it, but laws shouldn't. 70 years ago, families and charity minded christians took care of that. Today, the gov. does that while christians and families feel no responsibility to do it. Many slaves left the security of their the plantation and sought their own security. Some were old, sick and disabled. but they were free. They preferred to eke out a meager existance as a free man rather than live securly as slaves, and look where their sons are today. mayors, heads of corporations, the president of the U.S.A., living great lives. As always, a free people will produce more and climb higher than slaves. Thousands of years have proved that chains have a tendency to thwart progress. The more dependent people are, the less dependable they become. When you give the responsibility of yourself to the state, the authority over your life is transferred with it. You will soon see that gov. control of you will result in gov. force against you. For, whatever governmnet funds, it runs. We need to run the government and not let the government run us.

I really was joking. My brother was over and he was reading some of my posts and told me to type that about the oil and see what kind of response I get. I guess I shouldn't have posted it.

Whether you like it or not, the war is a way of securing future oil supplies, and without that, our economy is toast!

As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind spending as long as the money is in the bank for it. But that's not the case. If the government were willing to give up many of its programs that are costing us a alot of money and if he had been willing to cut all the pork like he had promisaed and if he were willing to slash most of the projected wasteful spending that he's done, I might not be as angry over this new plan.

He NEVER said that he planned a "Public Option" as part of his health care reform while he was a candidate. He just talked about health reform but never mentioned how he was going to do it. He saved that surprise for after his election! And that is why people who were once for him are now against him. Most people, myself included, thought he was going to do something about tort reform or insurance regulations, or lifting the ban on crossing state lines to increase competition, not run his own insurance business and get rid of the free market for private companies and have everyone on the governments plan only. (And, we all know why he can't 'reform' those lawyers.):biggrin:

I would give them credit for that truth because increasing the deficit is a given in any presidency, and especially Obama's because all he's done so far is SPEND!!!!! But you don't mind all that spending cause he's a nice guy, right?:biggrin:

No, the majority aren't screaming. They are voicing their opinions, calling their congressmen and representatives. They are writing letters to their governors and elected officials. They are actually doing what is their right to do. Protesting the governments policies and unsustainable spending. They are being heard as well. Finally, the ACORN organization's deceit and corruption with our money is being brought into the light! The policy of all these Czars is being looked into! If the republicans weren't there to bring into the light the dirty deeds of those in politics, it would all be swept under the rug as it has been for many years. What's the matter with some people? They don't like the idea that some people are requireing them to be accountable?

..................................................................

That was then and this is now. More people feel opposed to what Obama is doing than for it, NOW. Before the election, they thought he wouldn't be a blowhard spendohiolic. Now they see him for what he really is.

Obama Spent an Amazing $84 Million on Stimulus Website by Brad Jackson As a candidate for President, Barack Obama pledged to eliminate government waste and spend the taxpayer’s dollars wisely. He also promised to shine a never before seen light of transparency on the federal government. As part of this initiative, Obama’s administration launched Recovery.gov a website they promised would allow Americans to see how their money from the stimulus bill was being spent. Amanda Carpenter has a fantastic piece in today’s Washington Times, detailing the shortcomings of the government site. Concerns are piling up that Recovery.gov, the Obama Administration’s online clearinghouse for stimulus spending information, isn’t producing the kind of transparency it promised. Obama said the website would provide a way for taxpayers to track and monitor how the $700 billion in stimulus money was being spent, yet more than two months after some of the funds have been released the website offers little detail on where the money is going. As Amanda highlights, although Recovery.gov looks nice, the site is short on specifics and serves as little more than a repository of Obama administration press releases and links to other government run websites. Here’s the real kicker though, this website cost you, me and the rest of America’s taxpayers a whopping $84 million dollars. Let me say that one more time. The man who promised on the campaign trail to be a wise steward of your taxpayer dollars and root out government waste has spent $84 million dollars of your money on a website. My day job, when not writing for The New Ledger, is as an online consultant for campaigns, companies, organizations and individuals. I build websites for a living. I cannot fathom even the most amazingly interactive, cliché loaded site actually costing anywhere near $84 million dollars. It doesn’t matter how much “testing” or “compliance” you need to do, it does not cost you $84 million to build that site. How much is $84 million? In the scheme of the trillions of dollars Obama has proposed to spend in his administration, it’s not much, but think about it in other contexts. The outrage and scandal that developed in recent weeks over AIG’s bonuses paid revolved around $165 million worth of bonuses to be paid. The public was whipped into a palpable lather over that money. Nearly ever member of Congress rained upon the cable news outlets to cry havoc over the absurdity of that money. It’s even led to legislation. What else does $84 million get you these days? Let’s see. Obama’s own Department of Energy announced just about a month ago that it would invest $84 million in geothermal energy. From the press release… “President Obama has laid out an ambitious agenda to put millions of people to work by investing in clean energy technology like geothermal energy,” said Secretary Chu. “The Administration is committed to funding important research like this to transform the way we use and produce energy and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.” So in that case $84 million “put millions of people to work” and reduced “our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.” That seems like a better deal to me. Ironically enough, $84 million is also the amount of public funding that Barack Obama turned down to run the general election portion of his campaign. $84 million, or what the government has available to hand out to both the Republican and Democratic nominees for president, is more money than most people will ever see in their lifetimes, making some wonder why it’s not enough for Barack Obama to run his campaign. … Had Obama accepted public funding, his campaign would be limited to spending about $1.2 million per day from the end of the Democratic convention until Election Day. That’s $1.2 million per day for about 67 days. Building Recovery.gov didn’t take that long. Think about that. Whoever got that $84 million, got paid more than $1.2 million PER DAY to build a subpar, underwhelming website. “For that kind of money the administration should produce a top notch website. Unfortunately, the product we have seen so far leaves much to be desired,” Dr. Coburn said. It’s time to ask Obama if he’s going to shine a light of transparency on the process that his administration went through to produce Recovery.gov. Who built it and how does the administration justify spending that kind of money on a website that doesn’t even begin to deliver on what it promised? Mr. President, it’s time for some answers. TNL

You're right! All this government spending is horrendous!!!! The almost 3 trillion that Bush spent during his 8 years was ridiculous, and now look at Obama's spending in just 9 months! Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures Posted March 24th, 2009 at 10.20am in Ongoing Priorities. President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s. What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details: President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion. President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course. President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund. President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it. President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent. President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend. President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016. UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added. CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

That "Novel" you are refering to was written by many people as you say, approximately 40. It was given to us in pieces during a period of 1600 years time. (1492BC-100AD) It contains 66 books, written by 40 different people from all over the world (The pages were penned in the wilderness of Sinai, cliffs of Arabia, hills and towns of Palestine, the courts of the temple, schools of the prophets, Persia, Rome, and even the Island of Patmos) at all different times and from many people of different statuses in life. (Kings, statesmen, herdsmen, Priests, intellectuals, tax gatherers, fishermen, doctors, and the unlearned) Even though it was compiled in that manner, it shows a progress of revelation and doctrine in it. When it was put together or compiled into one book and read together it makes up a miraculous guidebook for man to follow. The 2 halves of the Old and the New Testament making a complete whole book of perfect and divine sense.You cannot understand some of the books of the Old testament without books of the New Testament and vica versa. No other book is like it. The bible alone has the words of your creator within it. If you want to know Him, you should read it.

Fair enough. But just in case you weren't aware, you have not been 'lost' to him. He knows right where you are. If you should ever decide that you would like to 'find' him, you know where to look. God Bless you. Patty