Obama Campaign - "If I Wanted America To Fail"

Total Pageviews

Daily Devotions


If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.

If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.

If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.

If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward

Thursday, March 4, 2010

ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100304


Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!

"Daily Motivations"

"Seek out that particular mental attribute which makes you feel most deeply and vitally alive, along with which comes the inner voice which says, 'This is the real me,' and when you have found that attitude, follow it." -- James Truslow Adams

"The important thing is this: To be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become." -- Charles DuBois

If each Monday morning, you make a choice to move into the new work week with renewed commitment and passion, you can change all areas of your life. You can truly change your Mondays and change your life. -- David Cottrell

"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

He is my refuge, a rock where no enemy can reach me. (Psalm 62:7)

A story is told of a shipwrecked sailor who clung to a rock in great danger until the tide went down. Later a friend asked him, "Didn't you shake with fear when you were hanging on the rock?"

He simply replied, "Yes, but the rock didn't."

Life and its uncertainties may shake us, but God - who is the Rock of Ages - does not move. If we cling to Him, His strength sustains us.

Since God never changes, His character is constant. Unlike us, He does not compromise or change His values. He cannot be manipulated or persuaded to go against His Word. He does not have a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde personality where He will comfort us one moment and snap at us the next.

God's constancy also gives us eternal significance. God's plan existed at the beginning of creation and remains the same today. It unfolds in stages, which may give us the impression of change, but His original design has always been consistent. From the day God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, God's hand has been leading and guiding His people. And we are part of His plan!

Paul wrote to the believers in Ephesus, "For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so that we can do the good things He planned for us long ago" (Ephesians 2:10). As God's people, we are His loved ones whom He has planned from the beginning to bless and to live with forever!

Your View of God Really Matters …

Use your Bible concordance to find a promise that clearly applies to you today. Claim it and then chose to live your life today as though you really do believe that God's faithfulness toward you really will never change. Remember, faith is not believing that God can do something, but believing that He will do what He has promised. He never changes.

"The Patriot Post"

"The citizens of the United States of America have the right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were by the indulgence of one class of citizens that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." --George Washington, letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, 1790

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all Nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest. But even our Commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with Powers so disposed; in order to give trade a stable course." --George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

"First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in humble and enduring scenes of private life. Pious, just humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform dignified, and commanding; his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting; correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence and virtue always felt his fostering hand.. The purity of his private charter gave effulgence to his public virtues." --John Marshall, official eulogy of George Washington, delivered by Richard Henry Lee, 1799

The Demo-gogues

Darn that financial system: "We've got to be non-ideological about our approach to [economic policy]. We've gotta make sure that our party understands that, like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning. So we can't be demonizing, uh, every bank out there. We've got to be the party of business, small business and large business, because they produce jobs." --Barack Obama (Like it or not the financial system has to function? That's reassuring.)

Needs remedial Civics 101: "This is a democracy. Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care [that] didn't have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it. And just go ahead and have that passed. But that's not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people. Many of whom have their constituents' best interests at heart." --Barack Obama, complaining about representative government -- which isn't a democracy, by the way

We will: "[I]t may be that ... if Congress decides we're not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not. And that's how democracy works. There will be elections coming up, and they'll be able to make a determination and register their concerns." --the condescending and arrogant BO

Warning: "Just in case there's any confusion out there, I'm not going to walk away from health care." --Barack Obama (Lest there be confusion in Washington, we don't want your health care.)

Warning II: "In a letter to President Obama, Senator Ted Kennedy wrote about the need for health care reform. He said what we face is, above all, a moral issue. At stake are not just the principles, the details of the policy, but the fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country. With Senator Kennedy as our inspiration, with the leadership of President Barack Obama and with your help, we will pass health insurance reform this year." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Clear as mud: "I think that the most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these [terrorist] cases any different than the Bush administration handled them all through 9/11." --Barack Obama now trying to use George W. Bush to back himself up

Village Idiots

The battle isn't over: "[O]ne of the things that Barack Obama said and continues to say is change isn't easy, and it doesn't happen overnight. And it certainly doesn't happen in a year. He's not done yet. He's got more time." --First Lady Michelle Obama

Left-theology: "We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that's only about 125 years old. That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts. It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex." --homosexual Episcopal Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson (In other words, it's okay as long as you really mean it.)

Non Compos Mentis: "I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it. That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself." --NOW president Terry O'Neill on the Super Bowl ad featuring Pam and Tim Tebow

Stay tuned: "The Iranian nation, with its unity and god's grace, will punch the arrogance [Western powers] on the 22nd of Bahman (February 11) in a way that will leave them stunned." --Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Short Cuts

"At the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama singled out for praise Navy Corpsman Christian Bouchard. Or, as the president called him, 'Corpseman Bouchard.' Twice. Hey, not a big deal. Throughout his life, the commander in chief has had little contact with the military, and less interest. And, when you give as many speeches as this guy does, there's no time to rehearse or read through: You just gotta fire up the prompter and wing it. But it's revealing that nobody around him in the so-called smartest administration of all time thought to spell it out phonetically for him when the speech got typed up and loaded into the machine. Which suggests that either his minders don't know that he doesn't know that kinda stuff, or they don't know it, either. To put it in Rumsfeldian terms, they don't know what they don't know." --columnist Mark Steyn

"As bleak as things are, the silver lining is that [Obama] is the man who campaigned on behalf of R. Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine and, most recently, Martha Coakley. At this point, it's only a rumor, but I've heard that the RNC is negotiating with the president to campaign non-stop for Democratic candidates later this year. ... Based on his record thus far, if Obama was a baseball team, he would be the Chicago Black Sox; if he was a disease, he'd be the bubonic plague; and if he was a ship, he'd be the Titanic." --columnist Burt Prelutsky

"The president dismisses his lack of success by claiming he has not communicated his message enough. Really? I don't care how many news conferences you have, how many speeches you give, or how much money you spend on public relations, if the dog food is bad, the dogs won't eat it.." --former Oklahoma Congressman J. C. Watts

"The Weather Channel reported Thursday that last week's ice storms in the South knocked out electricity in some areas for a week. Oklahoma has a firewood shortage because the trees are all frozen. People are staying warm by burning Al Gore's books." --comedian Argus Hamilton

"It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle.'" --Sen. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)

"The Saints won [the Super Bowl] 31-17 over the weekend, and there was a huge snowstorm in Washington with over two feet of snow. So it's true what people say, that the Saints would win when hell freezes over." --comedian Jay Leno?

"The Web"

Fox anchor anchored in Jesus

Allie Martin - OneNewsNow


An anchor with the Fox News Network believes Jesus Christ is the only true hope for America.

In his new book America's Hope in Troubled Times, Kelly Wright tackles a number of issues such as racism, politics, abortion and faith. Regarding racism, the author comments that although great strides have been made to end that issue, there is still a need for people to be transparent and to offer forgiveness.

"I'm speaking specifically of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the era of Jim Crow laws [and] segregation. That left a lot of bitterness and sowed seeds that [go] down into the root of how people think about themselves," he explains. "I know in the 21st century we have both sides saying, 'Well, I didn't commit these acts. I wasn't a part of it' -- but collectively, there is still a process that we have to go through to let each other know that we are truly our brother's keeper. And it does not fall along the lines of the color of one's skin, but we should be able to determine our relationship with people based on the content of their character."

Wright's book also addresses politics and how divisions have resulted from people placing their trust in a political party instead of the true Savior, Jesus Christ.

"Along the political lines, we have the tendency sometimes to judge our relationship with Christ or evaluate our relationship with Christ based on what side of the aisle we're from," the Fox News anchor shares. "Are we conservative or are we liberal? God is for all of us. Christ is reaching out to each and every one of us, and it does not mean that we can't exercise our political persuasion, but it does mean that our political persuasion has absolutely nothing to do with the salvation of our souls. We really have to come into a frame of thinking that."

While Wright is co-anchor of Fox & Friends Weekend and a reporter for the network from Washington, he is also an ordained minister and a gospel singer.

The Only Possible Defense of Private Property

by Bojidar Marinov


In my previous article I showed that Classical Liberalism and Objectivism can’t defend private property on ethical grounds. They defend it on historical, pragmatic, linguistic grounds, etc., but they don’t give a defense of he private property as ethical in itself. In all their views private property appeared long after man appeared, and is a later development. Therefore, it is not “natural” to man, that is, it is not part of his “natural state.” It is not sacred, Ludwig von Mises said, and thus he declared the impossibility of defending it on ethical grounds.

Unfortunately, there were others who started from the same philosophical presuppositions: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[1] And unlike Dietze, Mises, or Rand, Marx and Engels were logical and consistent with their presuppositions: If private property was external to human nature, then it was alien to human nature. If mankind is to return to its “natural state,” it must abolish the source of all alienation and suffering: private property. Marx and Engels took the philosophical separation of property from human nature that the defenders of natural law upheld and developed practical ideology consistent with it. That ideology looked monstrous, unnatural, ugly, and it was monstrous, unnatural, and ugly. But it was logically and intellectually consistent, and it won the day, and it is still winning the day. What Dietze, Mises, and Rand lamented—the decline of property rights—was nothing but the predictable result of the superior logical consistency of Marxism.

There is only one ideology that defends private property on ethical grounds: Christianity, with its Biblical worldview, its doctrine of the creation of man in the image of God, and its doctrine of the moral superiority of the Law of God to any man-made laws.

Dietze got it right at the start: Property is an ethical institution, and first and foremost an ethical institution. It can’t be anything else, it can’t be defended on any other ground, any other ground is sand, and it will eventually collapse under the assault of the opponents of private property.

Then Dietze went in a completely wrong direction, philosophically. So did Mises. So did Rand. In order to defend property, we must declare its sacredness. We must declare its intrinsic goodness. And we must declare its naturalness. If it is not sacred, if it is not intrinsically good, and if it is not part of human nature—as opposed to external to human nature—property is only an expedient tool to be disposed of at will. If it is so, we have no recourse against those that want to confiscate our property in the name of expediency or of “return to nature.”

And the only way to declare its sacredness, goodness, and naturalness is to accept the Bible’s claim that man was created an owner, and that he owned private property from the very beginning of his created existence. Humans did not develop the concept of property, nor did it evolve in result of man’s praxis or interaction. Property was inextricably part of man’s existence in the Garden, and there is no way to define man as a being without property.

That view of property as being inextricably part of the very nature of man is reflected in the Ten Commandments. The same law code that protects man’s life protects his property too—in the Eighth and the Tenth Commandments. We can’t define man without his life; in the same way, we cannot define man without his property. His life is an “ethical institution,” it is sacred, in the same way, his property is an “ethical institution,” it is sacred.

This definition of man as a being that naturally has life and property is not a mere philosophical assumption; it flows from the very nature of objective reality because God Himself is a Proprietor. In the Third Commandment—which corresponds to the Eighth in the first five Commandments—God declares limits to man’s use of His name. God is not a remote being. He owns everything, including the breath from our mouth, and we are not allowed to use that breath in a way that violates God’s name. Using God’s name in an inappropriate way was as heavy a crime as worshipping other gods, and violating His property was a crime against the Person of God. In the same way, Biblically, violating a man’s property was a crime against the person of man.

It is no wonder, then, that the idea of sacred property rights originated with Christianity, and it developed as Christianity developed doctrinally and worked out its doctrines in practice. Even as early as the 4th century Bishop Ambrose declared to Emperor Theodosius the theological connection between God’s property and a private man’s property. When he was commanded by the Emperor, “Surrender the Basilica,” Ambrose replied:

It is not lawful for me to surrender it nor good for you, Emperor, to receive it. By no right can you violate the house of a private person. Do you think that a house of God can be taken away from Him? . . . If you hope for a long reign, submit yourself to God.

Notice the argument: The house of a private person is just as inviolable as is the House of God. In a remarkable early defense of property rights, Ambrose didn’t hesitate to declare: “By no right!,” and he made a connection that the Bible made from the very beginning. Had Ambrose wanted to defend property rights on the basis of natural law, he would have been as helpless as Dietze, Mises, or Rand. But his firm stand on the theological foundation of property made Theodosius yield and repent.

The “evolution” of property rights was only observable in the Christian West in the last 1500 years. Moreover, it was not an independent event: It followed the “evolution” of the doctrines of Christianity, as Christian thinkers studied the Bible and applied it to their theory and practice. The “Renaissance” in the 12th and 13th centuries, the Scholastic revolution, contributed to the development of private property rights more than anything before.

And of course, the Protestant Reformation, in its return to the pure teachings of the Bible, exalted property rights to the level of a “divine right” for the individual. Contrary to what Mises and Rand believed, capitalism did not create property rights. It was the perfection of the legal concept of property rights by Protestant theologians that created capitalism, and therefore created the modern world. Capitalism did not create property; property created capitalism; and the Bible established property and built a defense perimeter around it, and sanctioned its ethical and economic advance.

Much is said by Classical Libertarians and by Ayn Rand herself about the American Revolution and its great principle of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. And yet, one will be pressed hard to find a justification of that belief on any other basis but Christianity. Why would Property be equal in value as a right to Life, if we accept natural law as our foundation? After all, man was man long before he had any property, if one accepts the evolutionist ideas of the believers in natural law. It is only when we lay the Creation account as our foundation that we can add Property to Life as an unalienable right. And therefore, the greatest victory for property rights in the history of mankind—the American Revolution—cannot be understood without its Christian foundations.

Christianity as the only philosophical foundation to property is also the explanation for the decline of property rights in the 20th century. The more Christ is banned from the public discourse, the less His Law—the only foundation for property—has influence over the public actions of men and their political representatives. Modern society still has some notion of property because of its Christian past; in fact, Classical Liberals themselves wouldn’t be able to produce their great works if it wasn’t for the Christian roots of our civilization. They intuitively accept the logical conclusions of the Law of God – the importance of the private property rights—while intellectually rejecting its premises. But the removal of Christianity from society has taken its toll; and the decline of all rights, including property rights, is part of that toll. There is only one possible defense of property—ethical defense—and there is only one ideology that supplies both the epistemological foundations and the legal corpus for that defense. That ideology is based on the Biblical worldview. Remove that foundation, and property rights will follow.

Therefore the restoration of property rights can and will start only with the restoration of Christianity to its place of a dominant religion in the West. Only when our law codes, our cultural practices, our economic, political, scientific, scholarly and other fields of society submit to the revelation and the requirements of the Law of God, we will see the property rights truly upheld and defended. Like all other rights, property rights come from God, and they stand or fall with our obedience to God, as a nation under Him.

Networks Ignore New Request for $15 Billion Bailout for Fannie Mae

Mortgage-backer has bled taxpayers for more than $75 billion, but is rarely criticized by the news media.

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute


A business partly responsible for the economic downturn requested another $15.3 billion bailout last week.

It wasn’t one of the news media’s usual suspects, like the banks or insurance giant AIG – the ones they have repeatedly scorned and scrutinized for needing bailouts. It was government favorite and Democratic donor Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association, created as a public-private hybrid in 1938 but taken over by the federal government in Sept. 2008.

There was no media outrage; in fact there was almost no coverage. Fannie Mae’s Feb. 26 request for more than $15 billion made few print headlines and was ignored entirely by ABC, CBS and NBC – despite the billions of taxpayers’ dollars that have gone to bail Fannie out in the past year and a half.

“The new request for aid will bring Fannie Mae’s total to more than $75 billion,” according to an Associated Press report that ran in the Los Angeles Times Feb. 27.

The only hint in that article about improper conduct leading to Fannie’s downfall was in the last sentence: “The two companies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) loosened their lending standards for borrowers during the real estate boom and are reeling from the consequences.”

That was an understatement – the problem at Fannie Mae has always been the socialized risk of implicit (now explicit) backing of the Treasury Dept. which enabled them to take excessive risks with minimal concern for the danger. Add to that powerful friends on Capitol Hill like Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, and a news media willing to ignore its failings; Fannie Mae was a disaster waiting to happen.

In the past three months, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac was only mentioned in seven stories by the three broadcast networks. Only three of those very brief mentions were at all critical of Fannie or Freddie.

But during that same time frame, the networks have criticized bailed out insurance giant AIG and “banks and securities firms,” including Goldman Sachs, J.P. MorganChase, Morgan Stanley.

A ‘Politically Correct’ Mission and Political Friends

So how have Fannie and Freddie mostly escaped the scrutiny of the network news?

In 2004, Newsweek’s Charles Gasparino provided an explanation in a CNN appearance: “Well, Fannie Mae is a very politically corrupt – it may be politically corrupt, but it’s a politically correct company. I mean, they do all the things that, let’s face, liberal journalists like, like put home mortgages out there for poor people. And so right now, beating up on Fannie Mae is kind of politically incorrect.”

Both companies are also well connected, especially to Democrats, in Washington, D.C.

“Fannie Mae was always a political beast, but it reached its elbow-swinging heights during the time when former Clinton administration budget director Franklin Raines sat in the CEO chair. Under Raines' leadership, Fannie overstated earnings by a stunning $10.6 billion, all the while paying Raines and his senior management team massive bonuses,” the Motley Fool reported Sept. 10, 2008.

Motley Fool also pointed the finger at a few others, including Rep. Barney Frank, the House Financial Services Committee chairman (and Fannie regulator).

Some print outlets have examined Fannie and Freddie’s donations to politicians. The New York Times online attacked Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Sept. 24, 2008 for ties to Freddie Mac, but glossed over then Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., connection to Fannie and Freddie. And never mind Barney Frank’s (see related story).

The Times story buried campaign contribution figures for both candidates until the very last paragraph of the 1,401 word story. According to the article, since 2004 “Senator Obama has received about $126,000 in contributions from employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while Senator McCain, over the last decade, has received about $22,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”

Obama was the number 2 recipient of contributions from Fannie and Freddie, compared to McCain’s 62 – but the Times didn’t mention that.

Networks’ Ignored Fannie and Freddie’s Problems in 2005, 2008 and 2010

The broadcasts networks rarely criticize Fannie Mae or its sibling Freddie Mac, despite accounting scandals and the 2008 taxpayer bailout.

ABC, CBS and NBC often attacked AIG, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and others for “greed” and for needing bailout funds. But when $42 million in cash compensation packages were announced on Christmas Eve for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives, the networks couldn’t muster any anger toward the highly connected groups.

The Business & Media Institute found three brief mentions from ABC and CBS totaling 175 words about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between the bonus announcement and Jan. 5, 2010.

Not a single one of those reports used the word “bonus” or mentioned the Obama administration decision to extend the credit line of both government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), which already required more than $100 billion from taxpayers.

Unlike the broadcast networks, CNBC’s Rick Santelli was indignant about the stealth extension of funds to Fannie and Freddie. On Jan. 4, Santelli told viewers his New Year’s resolution to “mention Freddie and Fannie and every day maybe ask what’s wrong with S&P, Moody’s and Fitch. Because for us to re-nationalize off balance sheets these trillions of dollars of lecherous accounting gimmicks without having it affect the U.S. credit rating in my opinion is reprehensible.”

But the networks were used to ignoring such critics of Fannie and Freddie. In 2008, as the GSEs’ financial stability was crumbling there was almost no coverage of the pair despite serious criticism.

Charles W. Calomiris, finance and economics professor at Columbia Business School, and Peter J. Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, laid the blame for the current financial crisis at the feet of Fannie and Freddie.

“The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) – and their sponsors in Washington – are largely to blame for our current mess,” Calomiris and Wallison wrote in a Sept. 23 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

As problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac intensified in August and September 2008, the media switched to attacks on deregulation and Republicans, rather than the mortgage giants.
il the networks needed to do was read the Wall Street Journal to get an idea of how bad the coming crisis would be. As far back as 2002, the Journal was comparing Fannie Mae to Enron in its editorial pages. A Feb. 20, 2002 editorial entitled “Fannie Mae Enron?” exposed the high debt and poor risk management of Fannie and Freddie.

“The more we’ve since looked at Fan and Fred the more they look like poorly run hedge funds: lots of leverage and snarkily hedged risk. The word Enron ring any bells?” said the Journal editorial.

It turned out that Fannie Mae’s financial fiasco was – at that time – 19 times bigger than Enron’s. Yet, the TV news media on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC barely made a peep. Now with the federal bailout, that number is much higher.

A union fat cat as 'fiscal watchdog'

Michelle Malkin


Everything you need to know about President Obama's commitment to fiscal responsibility and cost containment can be summed up in two words: Andy Stern.

Stern is the corruption-coddling head of the powerful Service Employees International Union. In naming Stern and others to the White House debt commission last week, Obama extolled his appointees as "distinguished individuals" who'll bring a "sense of integrity" to the job. Tell that to rank-and-file SEIU members across the country who have watched their hard-earned dues go down the tubes under Stern's thugocracy.

EPA - Stern: Protégés are plagued by scandal.

While fat-cat union bosses toss hundreds of millions of dues into Democratic coffers, low-wage SEIU members' pension funds are eroding and the organization's debt is piling up. And federal prosecutors are reviewing requests that the union be investigated for potential illegal lobbying activities at the White House.
More damning: As head of the 2.2 million-member labor union, Stern directly installed a cadre of stooges embroiled in scandals across the country.

* Start with Tyron Freeman, who Stern installed as head of Local 6434, the sprawling home-care workers' chapter in southern California. An extensive Los Angeles Times investigation exposed how Freeman siphoned off hundreds of thousands of dollars in dues money for his personal enrichment and pleasure. Moreover, the paper alleged, Stern helped cover up the scandal.

Freeman lived large -- piping $600,000 in union contracts to his wife's video production and entertainment ventures. The local also paid his mother-in-law $8,000 a month to babysit his daughter and other union employees' children; footed a $13,000 bill for membership at a Beverly Hills cigar club, and forked over $8,000 in union dues to cover expenses for Freeman's Hawaiian wedding.

Stern's handpicked flunky also created a nonprofit training shop that in practice served as a conduit to subsidize a childcare business operated by Freeman's mother-in-law.

SEIU's top officials were warned of Freeman's plundering six years before the paper blew the whistle. After dragging its feet and being forced to act to quell public embarrassment over the Times exposé, SEIU finally threw Freeman under the bus.

* Rickman Jackson, another Stern protégé and former chief of staff to Freeman, headed Michigan's largest SEIU chapter before being "reassigned" for three years to a staff organizing job after the disclosure of financial shenanigans tied back to Local 6434.

While collecting a six-figure annual salary in Michigan, Jackson was drawing a second salary in California and accepted $33,500 in housing payments on a residence listed as the business address of Freeman's bogus housing nonprofit.

* Stern installed Annelle Grajeda as president of the 80,000-member Local 721 in Los Angeles. Whistleblowers detailed how Grajeda's ex-boyfriend, SEIU official Alejandro Stephens, collected multiple salaries and consultant fees from the union while also pocketing a salary as an LA County health services employee. Grajeda arranged for her ex-lover to get an eight-month leave of absence from the job. He was fired after he refused to return to work.

Grajeda quit her California posts after catching public flak and found a new job as special assistant to SEIU secretary-treasurer Anna Burger in Washington, DC. Grajeda now oversees efforts to "partner with the Obama administration" to secure more public funds for SEIU projects.

* More recently, San Diego SEIU Local 221 came under fire last month for squandering dues on a cozy $107,000 severance package and consultancy deal for Stern's former appointee Sharon Frances-Moore.

Freeman, Jackson, Grajeda and Moore were all groomed by Stern and personally appointed by him to the posts they exploited. Like Obama, Stern has managed to pass the buck while pretending it stopped at his desk.



If there is anyone out there who doesn't have a clue, this is the best visual presentation
I ever saw... Now don't be mad at old people, (or me) just remember who did this......

Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Our Social Security
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12,
1945), a Democrat, introduced Social Security (FICA) Program. He

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 Into 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
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:


Dwight David Eisenhower
34th. President, Republican,
Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to
January 20, 1961
Insert by Vincent Peter Render,

If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress, not President
Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the
General Fund for Congress to spend.
If I recall correctly, it was a
democratically controlled Congress.
From what I understand,Congress' logic at that time was that there was
so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be
used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.

-------------WORSE STILL------------------------------------------------

Lyndon Baines
Johnson 36th. President,Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to
January 20, 1969

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so
that Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat,Term of Office:
November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.


Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.


William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20,
1993 to January 20, 2001

Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993
to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice
President Term of Office: January 10, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting
the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote asPresident of the Senate, while he was Vice
President of= the US ......

THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK !!----------------------

James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to
January 20, 1981

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



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.

Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".
Thomas Jefferson

For Immediate Release

March 1, 2010


Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

"The e-mail Bag"

You Might Be A Redneck


Thank you Jeff Foxworthy!

You read the Auto Trader with a highlight pen.
The Salvation Army declines your mattress.
You've ever raked leaves in your kitchen.
Birds are attracted to your beard.
Your wife's job requires her to wear an orange vest.
You were shooting pool when any of your kids were born.
You have the local taxidermist's number on speed dial.
You've ever hit a deer with your car...deliberately.
Your school fight song was "Dueling Banjos".
You think a chain saw is a musical instrument.

No comments: