REMEMBER THE SUPER COMMITTEE?

A year ago, the country was asked to increase its national debt. Politicians decided, since an agreement couldn't be had, to form a Super Committee which would be afraid enough to not allow the country to either default or sink into greater debt, that no agreement would mean a drastic cut to the military budget by $500 billion dollars. Well, the military DID get its budget cut by $500 billion dollars because an agreement could not be made. The real solution to government spending was pushed further down the road to January 2013, after the general election, to what is referred to as the "Fiscal Cliff", but the issue at hand now is the "Bush tax cuts". Another one of those political indecisions has America looking at increasing taxes, because when tax cuts were implemented, they were only supposed to be temporary, and that temporary date, now 12 years later, has come due and a decision has to be made to either re-instate the tax rate for the rich to where they were before the cuts were made, or EVERYONE'S taxes will go up.

Remember when the cuts were proposed the Democrats called them a tax cut for the rich, and the average citizen would see their taxes cut by so little an amount they probably couldn't buy a muffler for their car with the savings, but NOW, we are told if the Republicans do not agree to Obama's desire to increase taxes on the rich, middle America will see a $3500.00 annual tax increase. How is that possible if the Bush tax cuts only gave cuts to the rich? Why should middle America see an increase; I mean where is the muffler idea now?

But the real gist of this "Fiscal Cliff" hanger is that Obama will win, no matter what the Republicans do. The Republicans have been outsmarted by the Dem's for a long time and this Fiscal Cliff thing shows just how much they were snookered: if nothing is done, taxes will be re-instated at the 2000 level and it will cripple the incomes of whatever Americans are working. If the Repub's agree with Obama and raise taxes on the rich, they will be violating one of their major tenets: lower taxes means a stronger economy.

But the truth of the matter is this: Obama does not want the R's to agree with him. Obama will try to sweeten the pot with irrational budget requests to cause the R's to not agree with him; so the country will go over the "Fiscal Cliff", and it will be the R's fault because "they are obstructionists and want to see Obama fail". Obama wants the additional tax revenue these tax increases will provide; Democrats always want more tax revenue. And perhaps a month or so after Americans see their taxes increase and their take home pay decrease the Democrats will publicize those unhappy people in ads and town hall speeches. They will then offer to give middle Americans a tax cut, which the R's cannot refuse, and Obama looks like the Savior. He will out-snooker the R's again, and engender more Americans to his side. A blind man can see this coming a mile away, but the establishment R's are politically ignorant. They have played into Obama, and Reid's hands for the last 4 years. This event will set the stage for the Democrats to pretty much get what they want for the next 4 years, with Americans behind them, because all those R's want to do is "try to stop Obama from succeeding", at least that is what we will be told.

Four years ago, Obama said he is attempting to fundamentally change America. With his National Health Care law, tax increases, endless debt ceiling, drastic reductions in the military and his appointment of Czars that have the authority to make law via regulations and rules within the departments they Czar over....America will never be what many of us remember her to be. America is on the verge of being fundamentally changed, forever, and it is being made possible because the establishment Republicans are willing participants.

I am nauseated at the prospect, but I can see it coming. How about you?

THEY'RE AT IT AGAIN !!

Those rascally Republicans just can't help but blame their loses on "Right Wingers"; those people that have given the House of Representatives to the "R" column, and added still more from this last election. No, their moderate views cannot possibly be the problem.

It started way back with Bob Dole, then the "Compassionate Conservative" Dubya, who would not have been re-elected if not for the war. He took this nation deeper into the liberal territory, and gave us boondoggles like unfunded national Prescription costs, one of the worst education bills ever, the attempt to get a moderate to the Supreme Court bench, the failure to veto McCain's election reform bill, then the no-budget, first Tarp bailout bill, and a lot of other liberal legislation. Then along came John McCain who would have won if he decided to let Sarah Palin be herself, and if he decided to actually differ with Barak Obama. But true to the "moderate" kind of branding, you couldn't tell the two apart in that election and the nation decided to vote for the real Mccoy, instead of the RHINO. Recently, Romney; a likable guy sure enough, but a moderate, non-the-less.....and didn't we make it clear enough that we didn't want this brand of politician to represent the Republican party? NO! the "establishment" and the money people just do not want conservatives to have a voice where it can matter. But, one day, we will prevail. With Ron Paul out of the picture in future elections, it might be possible for conservatives to rally around another true Conservative or a Libertarian. He'll start to emerge, and sooner rather than later. It might be Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, or someone still not heard of, who will draw people through his truthfulness, and his wanting to legal some things that currently are illegal for no reason other than to make business for the attorneys; drugs, alcohol at any age, abortion for any reason as long as the taxpayer does not have to pay for it, driving under the influence of anything (DUI laws have not made our roads any safer, what needs to be done is to prosecute those to the fullest extent of the law when they violate it, in any case....stop the plea bargaining, and the multiple sentences for similar offenses). Hey, some 40,000 people are killed in car accidents each and every year, but we still sell cars....because it's not the cars that kill, it's the people driving them (that's what they made insurance companies for). Here is a small list of leading killers of American citizens each year: Tobacco 529,000; Medical errors 195,000; Alcohol abuse over 107,000; Vehicular 42,000; Suicide over 29,000; Drug abuse over 25,000; Firearm homicide over 10,000...which would be the two top concerns for you if you were in the position to make legislation to protect and serve American citizens? Should we outlaw doctors?

The Republican party can go ahead and cater to the Latinos, or the promiscuous women who want taxpayers to fund their abortions or contraception, but they will still lose elections. Those are not the issues that will unite a party.

One of the biggest problems American politics has is the 2 party system. It is so entrenched in every state, a person must belong to one or the other in order to possibly win an election, even on the state level.

The Electoral College vote is another joke, obligating electors to vow to support the party they represent.

We need people who want to restore the meaning of the Constitution, at every level, and amend many of the changes that have been made in order to return the Constitution to its rightful place in our society, as a governing agent for the people. Why do we encourage voters to think they are actually voting for a President and a vice President, when in reality the personal votes tell the electors who to vote for and they are obligated to vote the party line. Why do we vote for a "ticket" (Pres. and V.P.) let's repeal the 12th amendment, the 16th amendment, the 26th amendment, and enforce the 27th amendment so they cannot automatically receive pay increases every year. How about those National Senators, aren't they supposed to be sent to Washington by the states (article I. sec.3.). Let's repeal the 17th amendment, so once again they are answerable to their respective states and not their party.

We do not need the money or the desires of the Republican party, and the people it wants to "make" us vote for. We do not need them to tell us we have to moderate our views and enlarge our tent by embracing illegal immigrants and society's  women of illrepute. No no, we need Libertarians or Conservatives to either lead the Republican back to its moors, or to get rid of it completely. Did you notice, in the state elections it is difficult to find a poster or sign that tells you the person running is a Republican.....they don't want to admit it. The Republican party does not represent many people anymore. Heck, 3 million less republicans voted in the recent general election than the last, yet "Tea Party" politicians continue to have a lot of successes. DUH! And Mitt Romney....a nice guy who no doubt would have helped to create millions of jobs, BUT you could tell he moderated his speeches as the election drew nearer. The "Establishment" wanted to be certain he didn't wander too far off the trail and make the voters expect more than he was going to be able to offer. ARRGHH!! Go away GOP.

John Kerry Secretary of Defense?!!

Folks, elections have consequences, and this one claims 3 million fewer Republican voters than in the last election. Did you vote, or is there something wrong with the statistics? Why didn't the Conservatives win more of the Senate seats?  Why are there districts that didn't get a single vote for Romney? Is that even possible?  And now, John Kerry is being considered for the Secretary of Defense even after he besmirched every soldier during the Vietnam war, threw his medals into the field and did everything he could to give comfort to the enemy: secretary of DEFENSE. Is there a soldier alive willing to have him as their leader? I don't know!


There is so much diversion and disinformation being doled out to the public, you have to wonder why a VERY decorated General would admit to committing adultery, and resign his office as director of the CIA. For most of us, this sort of thing would be humiliating, but for Liberals, who go on to get full pensions and medical coverage, and likely another influential appointment, these "falling on the swords" things are just a part of doing business; they have no remorse as long as they have been useful in furthering their agenda, and right now, we have no idea what that agenda is pertaining to the Benghazi attack, which is where this latest misconduct information finds its roots. Each individual is possible fodder, as long as the "Agenda" is forwarded. What grandiose devotion (wouldn't it be nice if Republicans could find just an inkling of this kind of devotion?).

But I think there is something more sinister afoot; something so depraved it alludes the common thinking of man, but it has its roots in religion. Benghazi was an event like all others, that have a religious purpose behind them, but since Americans cannot call terrorists, terrorists, and Americans refuse to acknowledge the differences in religious beliefs between us and Muslims, between Israelies and Muslims; we are not allowed to investigate the events and report on them as they are, instead we are told a variety of stories to avoid calling a spade, as spade. All wars, practically ALL combative aggressions, are based on a religious belief; or let me put it another way; differences in religious beliefs. There is no intelligent or logical reason for Muslims to want to totally destroy Israel, yet that is so imbedded in their hearts they can hardly function for want of and end to all Israelies. And those emotions are also directed at America; what they call the Great Satan. Muslims do not express the idea of wanting to get along with America nor with Israel; rather their only emotion is to totally destroy the aforementioned countries, and this is based on their religion.

As a devout Christian, let me try to explain this Biblically:  When Jesus Christ walked the earth, He told everyone that He was here to fulfill prophecy and to fulfill the law, to be the sacrifice for sinners; a propitiation that would reunite sinners to the Creator God; that He was the blameless lamb sent to take away sin. The Romans thought otherwise and wanted Him destroyed so He didn't cause a movement to overthrow the Roman government, because the Jewish people were looking for a King, and everyone thought Jesus was that King. It was sort of a strange thing that Gentiles (people who didn't know anything about the prophecy or the laws of God given to the Hebrews) were the ones who were converted to believe Jesus (Reformers refer to this as the Elect or Predestination). But that whole promise thing started way back when Abraham was "dealt" a dilemma; God told him he was to have a son in a year. Abraham mused that his wife Sarai was too old to give birth to children so Abraham decided to have sex with his Sarai's mistress to help God out with His promise to give him a child (which was a common thing then, in order to provide a man with enough offspring to manage a farm and its attendant livestock). This is where the battle begins; it is one of the flesh and the Spirit. God DID cause Sarai to become pregnant (a spiritual causation from God because of Sarai's age and Jesus Christ (the only begotten of the Father) would find His ancestry through Abraham and Sarai;), while Abraham caused her mistress Hagar to become pregnant; an event caused by the action of the flesh; Ishmael (Hagar's son) can find his ancestry through Abraham and Hagar. God blessed both births, but Hagar and her offspring were cast out of the Hebrew camp, to find a life somewhere else. This is probably the deepest tenet to the Christian faith; the battle between the flesh and the spirit. We fight this every day, trying to "submit our thoughts and actions to the leading of the Spirit...."Ye walk not in the flesh but in the Spirit".  And in the book to the Romans..." what I will to do I do not do but what I will not to do, I do...."   

Muslims trace their heritage back to Abraham, so do the Christians, although we do see all the way back to the Garden of Eden, but basically, the division of mankind can be traced back to Abraham making a baby with Hagar, and God providing a baby with Sarai, at about the same time. Both lineages (Ishmaelites and Israelites/Christians) can be traced back to Abraham, and that is what everything now hinges on. Muslims think of Jesus as a prophet, but go on to add Mohammed, another prophet to their schemes, but still relate to the birth of the child to Hagar and Abraham; Christians pledge their allegiance to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of mankind, which was the lineage promised to Abraham through Sarai. Christians include anyone who believes in Jesus as they Savior; we do not restrict ANYONE  because of their nationality nor origin. Muslims (or as I like to refer to them as Ishmaelites), on the other hand pledge their allegiance to Allah, through the prophet Mohammed and do restrict who they include; in their world everyone has to become a Muslim or be a slave or be destroyed, but as for those of Israeli descent, they have to be utterly destroyed so no trace of them is left in the world.  Americans will have an option once the Muslims make their move to destroy us, but either way it doesn't matter to the Muslim religion, or the Nation of Islam, the thinking of Americans and their Christian views have to be wiped out. (Did you know the Bosnian war was about the Christians and the Muslims, and America sided with the Muslims? Did you know what is going on in Africa is about Christians and Muslims and America has sent "advisers" to assist the Muslims?)

So here we are today, Muslims trying to keep their homes, societies and the world as sinless as possible and anyone who disobeys their laws or tenets as laid down by the prophet Mohammed, need to be destroyed to insure the purity of those homes, communities and finally, the world. That is why Muslims have no problem killing their children, family members or members of their communities; it is done because people have disobeyed the law and it is absolutely the most important thing to keep those social networks pure. Death to a disobedient person is brought on by those who are disobedient; it is not the savage act of a Muslim, or at least that is what we are told; it is what they believe.

Now the question is,  How do you negotiate with people who think themselves above reproach, and who think you are so debased that your swift and determined death is the only thing that can keep their world pure? How do you negotiate with people that want to rule the world with their religious beliefs, which necessarily excludes all other beliefs? Yes, even those Hollywood actors and actresses will have to "submit to the will of Allah" as determined by the Muslim leaders know as Ayatollahs, yet some of those actors are what Christians call sinners who choose not to obey  The Only Creator, God, which is to their own demise; we have no intentions of harming them in any way. It is our hope they will one day understand and "see" they can be redeemed back into a loving relationship with the Creator, just as He wants; killing them would not please the God we serve, but to the Muslim, killing a disobedient, depraved violator of the law of Allah is necessary to purify a home.

Elections do have consequences. Those who we elect to "rule" over us may not even consider what is at stake but think so highly of themselves that they believe they can "bring the world together", when the rest of the world doesn't want to be brought together. OR, something more sinister and subversive is going on, and it may be this nation is being handed over as a gift to Allah. We are now at the point that we cannot trust our Military Generals, our CIA, or FBI  and it is rumored the President is considering appointing what some would call a traitor, to lead the Defense of our Nation. But we know, God is in control. Perhaps this nation and the world, is ready for the just wrath of God.