Close Please enter your Username and Password
Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
Password reset link sent to
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

Meriam's Guy

Armageddon now? soon?
Posted:Feb 11, 2008 2:12 pm
Last Updated:Feb 14, 2008 3:06 am
1294 Views

what do you think?
0 Comments
WHAT COULD THIS MEAN ABOUT REVELATIONS?
Posted:Feb 11, 2008 2:02 pm
Last Updated:Feb 12, 2008 4:47 am
1234 Views

(NKJV) Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified [it] by His angel to His servant John
0 Comments
Is it Russia? Communist China?
Posted:Feb 11, 2008 6:33 am
Last Updated:Jul 22, 2024 2:11 pm
998 Views

by Star Parker

Suppose I tell you that the government will design a product and make you buy it. If you say no thanks, that's too bad. The government will decide what you need and what you will buy.

If you say you can't afford it, we'll send in government investigators to check, and if they conclude indeed you can't afford it, we'll tax your neighbors and make them subsidize you so you can pay for it.

We'll set up a government bureaucracy to monitor and make sure you're cooperating. If they discover you haven't made the purchase, they'll go to your employer and have your wages garnisheed.

Let's assume further that total spending for this government-designed and -mandated product accounts for about a fifth of the nation's total economy.

The former Soviet Union? Communist China?

No, this is the new Hillarycare. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., having once failed to explicitly nationalize the one-fifth of our economy going to health care, now wants to slip it past us by dressing it up in drag.

Her plan is to use a federal government mandate to force every American to buy health insurance. She claims it won't violate our freedom because if you already have a private plan that's OK. But a government alternative plan will be made available.

The government will regulate health care, define acceptable health insurance and force every American to buy a plan based on the government-established standard.

Her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, also wants vast government regulations and controls to define and price out health care. But Obama, who has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate, grasps that, short of invoking a police state, it still must be up to consumers to decide to purchase health insurance.

This last point does not intimidate Clinton's Soviet-style affinities. When asked how purchase can be enforced, she told interviewer George Stephanopoulos, "We will have an enforcement mechanism. ... you know, going after people's wages."

Incredibly, Clinton calls her concept of government-mandated universal health coverage "a core Democratic value."

Indeed, we have a problem in the delivery of health care in our country. Costs are going up at twice the overall rate of inflation, with increasing burdens on working families.

Why have health-care costs gone out the roof when the prices of just about everything else have gone down? Because health care already has become a highly regulated, highly bureaucratized industry.

If we want cheaper and more creatively delivered health care, we need less, not more, government.

According to Dr. David Gratzer of the Manhattan Institute, in 1960 about half of health-care expenditures were directly controlled by consumers. Today, it is about 15 percent. Over the same period in which consumers have relinquished control, per-capita health-care spending has quintupled and costs have skyrocketed.

When someone else is paying, individuals behave differently. In a recent book by Shannon Brownlee of the New America Foundation, "Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer," she argues that up to a third of our health-care expenditures are frivolous and ineffectual.

Beyond the pure economic calculus lies the moral question of individual responsibility and freedom.

Last year, the pharmaceutical firm Merck unleashed a state-by-state lobbying campaign to get state governments to mandate that -age girls receive an expensive vaccine they developed to combat the virus that causes cervical cancer.


Deemed irrelevant was the fact that this virus is transmitted overwhelmingly through promiscuous sexual behavior. Those most at risk are poor black girls, so the costs would flip over to government (taxpayers).

The core behavioral problem, immorality and promiscuity, driving the poverty and risk of the disease is not only ignored but effectively subsidized.

Our health-care ills are symptomatic of our social ills. And our social ills reflect a society where the link between personal responsibilities and costs and personal rights and benefits has been largely severed.

Soviet-style mandates like what Clinton wants will simply dig the hole into which we are sinking deeper. The approach is morally repugnant, the antithesis of everything that a free society is about, and, like the former Soviet Union, does not work.

More individual freedom, choice and responsibility in both the delivery and purchase of health care is our only hope.


Star Parker is a regular commentator on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
0 Comments
What Kind of "Experience"?
Posted:Feb 10, 2008 3:58 pm
Last Updated:Feb 10, 2008 3:58 pm
1030 Views

The front-runners in both political parties -- that is, Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- are making "experience" their big talking point. But what kind of "experience"?

Whether in Arkansas or in Washington, Hillary Clinton has spent decades parlaying her husband's political clout into both money and power. How did that benefit anybody but the Clintons?

For those people whose memories are short, go on the Internet and look up Whitewater, the confidential raw FBI files on hundreds of Republican politicians that somehow -- nobody apparently knows how -- ended up in the Clinton White House illegally.

Look up the sale of technology to China that can enable them to more accurately hit American cities with nuclear missiles. Then look up the money that found its way to the Clintons through devious channels.

Look up Bill Clinton's firing of every single U.S. Attorney in the country, which of course included those who were investigating him for corruption as governor of Arkansas.

It may be old-fashioned to talk about character and integrity but they can have a lot more to do with the fate of this nation than "experience" at playing political games.

More to the point, Presidents of the United States lacking character and integrity have inflicted lasting damage on the office they held and on the nation.

The country has never trusted Presidents as much as they did before Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon betrayed that trust. Trust, like other features and powers of the Presidency, is not simply a benefit to the particular incumbent.

The nation as a whole is stronger when it can trust its President who, after all, has vastly more knowledge available on both domestic and international problems and threats.

It would be hard to find two people less trustworthy than the Clintons or with a longer trail of sleaze and slime.

Senator John McCain is also touting his "experience," both in politics and in the military.

Senator McCain's political record is full of zig-zags summarized in the word "maverick." That is another way of saying that you don't know what he is going to do next, except that it will be in the interests of John McCain.

While you are on the Internet looking up the record of the Clintons, look up John McCain's record, including the Keating Five, the McCain-Feingold bill, and the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill

Thomas Sowell
0 Comments
Your social security history
Posted:Feb 10, 2008 3:07 pm
Last Updated:Feb 14, 2008 4:17 am
1152 Views

Your Social Security.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your . They need a little history lesson on what's what .and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
I nto the Program would be deductible from
Their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
Only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
Would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
Now receiving a Social Security check every month --
And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
The money we paid to the Federal government to "put
Away" -- you may be interested in the following:

-------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from t he
Independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
Annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
Even though they never paid a dime into it!

-------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
Sure of what isn't so.

But it's worth a try. How many people can
YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
0 Comments
Ten Questions that need answers from Sen Clinton and Sen Obama
Posted:Feb 10, 2008 7:33 am
Last Updated:Feb 10, 2008 2:58 pm
1115 Views

by Larry Elder

1. Sen. Clinton, you oppose the Bush tax cuts because they unfairly benefit the rich. Since the top 1 percent of taxpayers – those making more than $364,000 annually – pay 39 percent of all federal income taxes, don't all across-the-board tax cuts, by definition, "unfairly" benefit the rich?

2. Sen. Obama, you also oppose Bush tax cuts, and claim that they take money away from the Treasury. But President Kennedy signed across-the-board tax cuts in the 1960s and said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low – and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Was he wrong?

3. Sen. Clinton, you criticize President Bush for inheriting a surplus and turning it into a deficit. The National Taxpayers Union added up your campaign promises, and they came to an increase of over $218 billion per year. What would this do to the deficit?

4. Sen. Obama, if elected, you promised to raise minimum wage every single year. But isn't it true that most economists – 90 percent, according to one survey – believe that raising minimum wages increases unemployment and decreases job opportunities for the most unskilled workers? What makes you right, and the majority of economists wrong?

5. Sen. Clinton, you want universal health care coverage for all Americans – every man, woman and . When, as First Lady, you tried to do this, 560 economists wrote President Clinton, and said, "Price controls produce shortages, black markets and reduced quality." One economist who helped gather the signatures explained, "Price controls don't control the true costs of goods. People pay in other ways." Are those 560 economists wrong?

6. Sen. Obama, you once said you understand why senators voted for the Iraq war, admitted that you were "not privy to Senate intelligence reports," that it "was a tough question and a tough call" for the senators, and that you "didn't know" how you would have voted had you been in the Senate. And over a year after the war began, you said, "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." How, then, can you say that you consistently opposed the war from the start?

7. Sen. Clinton, you want to begin withdrawing the troops within the first 60 days of your administration, with all the troops out within a year. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker of the Baker-Hamilton report said that such a precipitous withdrawal in Iraq would create a staging ground for al-Qaida, increase the influence of Iran over Iraq, and result in "the biggest civil war you've ever seen." What would you like to say to Secretary Baker?

8. Sen. Obama, the church you attend, according to its Web site, pursues an Afrocentric agenda. Your church rejects, as part of their "Black Value System," "middleclassness" as "classic methodology" of white "captors" to "control … subjugated" black "captives." Your pastor, Jeremiah Wright, recently called the Nation of Islam's Minister Louis Farrakhan – a man many consider anti-Semitic – a person of "integrity and honesty." What would happen to a Republican candidate who attended a Caucasian-centric church, and who praised David Duke as a man of "integrity and honesty"?

9. Sen. Clinton, you recently criticized NAFTA, the free trade agreement signed into law by President Clinton. The conservative Heritage Foundation says that NAFTA-like free trade benefits the economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico, resulting in increased trade, higher U.S. exports and improved living standards for American workers. Explain how President Clinton and the Heritage Foundation got it wrong then, but that you are right now.

10. Sen. Obama, this question is about global warming, something about which you urge extreme action to fight. You criticize President Bush for going to war in Iraq, even though all 16 intelligence agencies felt with "high confidence" that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMDs. Critics of Bush say he "cherry-picked" the intelligence. Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists consider concerns about global warming overblown. Isn't there far more dissent among credible scientists about global warning than there was among American intelligence analysts about Iraq? If so, as to the studies on global warming, why can't you be accused of cherry-picking?
0 Comments
Here is what Romans and Galatians says about the law:
Posted:Feb 5, 2008 8:36 am
Last Updated:Feb 10, 2008 8:28 am
1192 Views

Here is what Romans and Galatians says about the law:

"We are not under the law" (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 5:1.
We are dead to the law (Rom. 7:4).
We are delivered from the law (Rom. 7:6).
Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4).
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ .... we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24, 25).

Interesting that Adventist's are forced to say that the term "the law in Romans means the 10 commandments, but in Galatians the exact same phrase, "the law" refers to the Ceremonial law.
"The law" has been abolished (Eph. 2:15).
0 Comments
Hillary...what have you done?
Posted:Feb 4, 2008 1:02 am
Last Updated:Jul 22, 2024 2:11 pm
1099 Views

Liar Hellary Rotten Clinton, what have you done?
August 31, 2007
By Tom Kuiper

Hillary just announced that her campaign will "increase our vigilance" when it comes to accepting money from well-heeled donors, also known as "bundlers." Strangely enough, this comes after the discovery that a major Clinton fundraiser is on the lam from California a0uthorities. Not that she demonstrates it often, but here's a clear indication that Hillary's sense of humor is alive and well.

And speaking of indicators, anyone who thinks that Hillary actually cares about where her campaign donations come from really should have their head examined. As I demonstrate numerous times in "I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton In Her Own Words", Hillary has a long, colorful and thoroughly documented history of doing pretty much anything ‒ and putting up with just about anyone ‒ for money.

Who can forget her classic (not to mention classy) plea during a phone call to Jim McDougal, the morning after Bill Clinton's defeat in the 980 gubernatorial election, "You need to send us money. We need it now, and we need all you can send!" Or her "advice" to Bill Clinton, then president of the United States, during the 1996 campaign when he complained he was tired of fundraising, "You're getting you're a‒ out there, and you're doing what has to be done"?

Then, of course, there's the thousands of dollars Hillary and Bill accepted from Denise Rich, ex-wife of millionaire and renowned tax cheat Marc Rich, who at the time was also a fugitive from justice. (No doubt it's purely coincidental that Clinton pardoned Marc Rich on his last day in office.)

Hillary was also happy to take money from Johnny Chung, who once compared the Clinton White House to a subway: "You have to put in money to open the gates." Of course, it costs somewhat more to get on board the Clinton Express than it does the local metro ‒ Chung once gave Hillary's top aide a bag filled with $50,000 in cash. No need for vetting on this one!

Is it really any wonder that movie mogul David Geffen recently said of Hill and Bill, "Everyone in politics lies, but the Clintons do it with such ease, it's troubling"? Sounds like David Geffen has his own copy of "Yankees Fan!"
0 Comments
Hillary Clinton: Communist in a pink pantsuit
Posted:Feb 4, 2008 12:35 am
Last Updated:Jul 22, 2024 2:11 pm
1093 Views

By Carey Roberts

Inspired by the paper machae' figure that protesters paraded about Tiananmen Square in 1989, the 10-foot bronze statue is modest by any standard. These words are inscribed at the base: “To the more than one hundred million victims of communism and to those who love liberty.”

Last week 400 persons gathered in Washington DC to witness the unveiling of the Victims of Communism Memorial. The speakers mourned those who had died at the hands of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. And they warned of the threat of Islamo-fascism.

But little was said of the clear and present danger of communism itself.

Most persons don’t make a habit of visiting the website of the Communist Party USA. But if you do cpusa in the upper corner you’ll see the familiar hammer and sickle that symbolizes the union of the industrial workers and peasantry following the Russian Revolution of 1918.

But take a second look, because the traditional communist logo has been revamped. It now sports a gear, and the elements have been arranged in the shape of — no doubt about it! — the feminist looking-glass symbol. Is it possible that gender liberation ideology is rooted the manifestos of Karl Marx and tactics of Vladimir Lenin?

Keep looking, and you’ll see the platform of US Communist Party proclaims, “Among the forms of oppression women experience are attacks on their reproductive rights; lack of quality, affordable day care; inequality in rearing and household work; sexual harassment on the job; and domestic and sexual violence.” [cpusa]

Now let’s pay a visit to the website of the National Organization for Women at ww.now and compare agendas:

Reproductive rights? Yep.

Day care and -rearing? Check.

Sexual harassment? Yes, of course.

Domestic violence? You bet!

Do you detect a scintilla of difference between the positions advocated by the US Communist Party and the NOW? Neither do I.

Scroll down the home page and you’ll bump into this headline: “NOW Political Action Committee Proudly Endorses Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

Then do a Google search that matches “Hillary Clinton” to each of the CPUSA demands. Is it a mere coincidence that the Communist Party, the National Organization for Women, and Hillary Clinton are marching in lockstep with each other?

Of course this doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has followed Hillary’s career.

Carl Bernstein’s recent book, A Woman in Charge reveals that soon after the 1992 election, Hillary sat down with advisor Dick Morris to discuss her role in her husband’s administration. Attorney general? Chief domestic policy advisor? Or White House chief of staff?

In the end, Hillary decided that none of those positions could satisfy her talents or ambitions. Nothing less than the co-presidency would do.

In that role she finagled to name Norma Cantu as head of the civil rights division in the Department of Education. Cantu, of course, was the architect of the socialist-inspired Title IX quotas that were imposed on college athletics, eventually leading to the demise of over 2,000 men’s sports teams.

A few years later Hillary wrote It Takes a Village, revealing her admiration for the social welfare policies of France where “more than 90 percent of French between ages 3 and 5 attend free or inexpensive preschools.”

Then there’s Hillary’s longtime sponsorship of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which draws on the long-discredited Soviet theory of comparative worth to artificially jack up women’s wages beyond the levels determined by the market.

During a New Hampshire speech last month, Clinton said it’s time to replace President Bush’s “ownership society” — which she ridiculed as the “on your own” society — with one based on shared prosperity. Does anyone hear the echoes of Karl Marx’s famous dictum, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”?

And if you want final proof of Hillary Clinton’s totalitarian vision, recall this promise at a 2004 San Francisco fund-raiser: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

So how did communism lead to the deaths of over 100 million persons around the globe? Simple — in its fanatical quest to achieve a classless and genderless society, it tramples on individual rights, resorting to intrusive and eventually repressive state power.
That’s why we should fear Hillary Clinton.

Source: Renew America
0 Comments
IT'S COST THE TAXPAYERS $2.3 BILLION TO KEEP HILLARY IN THE SENATE
Posted:Feb 3, 2008 2:34 pm
Last Updated:Feb 6, 2008 6:30 am
1177 Views

LA TIMES - To fuel her rise, Clinton has relied on the controversial funding device known as "earmarking." The earmarks enabled her to win favor with important constituents, many of whom provided financial support for her campaigns. . . Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.

All told, Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects in her state since her election to the Senate, much of it for public works projects funded in conjunction with fellow Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer and others in the New York congressional delegation.
0 Comments

To link to this blog (Tropical_Man) use [blog Tropical_Man] in your messages.