What’s Killing White People? The answer is easy, Liberalism! First read the excerpt from the article in
The NY Times:
What’s Killing White People? The answer is easy, Liberalism! First read the excerpt from the article in
The NY Times:
TWO MOTLEY FOOLS!
“…only 21 percent of the American public supports the deal..” again Obama desires what most Americans do not want!
LOOK AT KERRY’S FACE! WE ALREADY KNOW Obama’s NARCISSITIC ARROGANCE! AND establishment repugnant (ie republicans) HAVE THE GALL TO COMPLAIN ABOUT TRUMP’S ARROGANT NEW YORKER EXPRESSIONS! THIS KIND OF STUPID HUBRIS IS WHAT DESTROYS ALL GREAT NATIONS! THE ESTABLISHMENT REPUGNANTS AND DEMONRATS SHOULD BE THE FIRST TO GO WHEN IRAN SETS OFF TWO NUKES OVER NEW YORK AND THE DISTRICT OF CORRUPTION KNOWN AS WASHINGTON!
re: IRAN NUKE DEAL—
Although Obama can’t show where in this agreement Iran promises anything of substance to stop Iran’s efforts for a nuke, EVEN IF IT DID the $175 billion Obama is giving Iran is enough for them to buy a few nukes from Russia with a few hundred billion left over for terrorism world-wide. The agreement does nothing to stop that.
DID YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE A $100,000,000 SITTING AROUND PUTIN WILL SELL YOU A NUKE. PUTIN IS ALREADY MAKING DEALS WITH IRAN! WHAT DO YOU THINK IRAN PLANS ON BUYING WITH ALL OF THAT MONEY?
HERE IS THE ARTICLE THAT SHOWS HOW BADLY THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
Senate Democrats held ranks Thursday and blocked a resolution disapproving of the Iran nuclear deal, handing President Obama a major political victory.
Only a few months earlier, some Senate opponents of the deal predicted they would be able to muster 67 votes to override a presidential veto.
They fell far short of their goal this week in a 58-42 vote. Sixty votes were necessary to move forward.
Republicans refused to concede defeat, however, and said they would force Democrats to vote on Iran again next week, perhaps on the same bill.
“It will be all Iran next week,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said before the vote.
“There are going to be more votes,” he told reporters. “There will be other opportunities for people to change their mind next week, hopefully after they hear from their constituents.
Forty-two Democrats voted Thursday to filibuster the Republican-led disapproval measure and pave the way for sanctions to be lifted on Iran in the spring of 2016. Fifty-four Republicans and four Democrats voted to proceed.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) framed it as one of the most important foreign policy debates of the past decade and suggested Democrats would pay a political price.
He called the Democratic obstruction “a tragedy.”
“This is a deal that will far outlast one administration. The President may have the luxury of vacating office in a few months, but many of our responsibilities extend beyond that,” he said. “The American people will remember where we stand today.”
In the House, lawmakers are expected to vote Thursday on legislation contending that Obama has not sent all of the documents related to the nuclear deal to Congress for review.
On Friday, House lawmakers will also vote on a measure to prevent the U.S. from lifting sanctions on Iran as part of complying with the deal. Their final vote will be on a measure of approval for the deal, which is intended to embarrass the White House and force a difficult vote for Democrats.
Congress faced a Sept. 17 deadline for taking action on the Iran deal under legislation approved earlier this year.
The action in both chambers caps weeks of intense lobbying by the administration and its allies on one side and pro-Israel groups led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
President Obama personally lobbied Democrats to support the deal, arguing it offered the best chance to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon over the next decade.
Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz met often with senators to assuage their concerns over the arcane details of the agreement. Moniz estimated that about 30 Democratic senators visited his office.
Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, a group backed by AIPAC, promised to spend between $20 million and $40 million on television and digital ads urging opposition to the deal.
In the end, only four Senate Democrats defected, despite the high-profile opposition of Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democratic leader-in-waiting.
He was joined by Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, former Foreign Relations panel chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Public support for the deal has declined in recent months, according to a Pew Research Center poll.
The September survey showed that only 21 percent of the American public supports the deal while 49 percent disapproves and 30 percent have no opinion.
A Pew poll from mid-July, shortly after Obama announced the deal, showed 33 percent approved of it while 45 percent disapproved.
A key factor in Obama’s win was a speech to a joint session of Congress earlier this year by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was invited by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) with no input from the White House.
Netanyahu blasted the deal, and several Democrats said his criticism and the invitation from Boehner turned the debate into more of a partisan affair.
Another key moment was a letter spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and signed by most Republican senators to Iran’s leadership. It warned that any deal might not be supported by the next president.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said Thursday’s cloture vote was a definitive statement of support for the deal by many Democrats.
Sorry, I have to say NOT SUPPORT, BUT BLACKMAIL AND PAY-OFFS!
“All senators should understand that the cloture vote will then become the defining vote that determines whether the resolution of disapproval moves forward to the president’s desk,” he said. “A vote against cloture is a vote for the Iran agreement – plain and simple.”
House conservatives joined by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) made a last-minute bid to postpone votes on the disapproval resolution.
They argued the 60-day review phase had not begun because the administration failed to submit information on side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The House on Thursday was expected to pass legislation making this point.
McConnell, however, rejected the notion that argument would be successful.
“We have to act before September the 17th, which is next week, or the deal goes forward,” he said Wednesday.
Senate Republicans hope to keep the Iran debate front and center and plan to wrap it up with a discussion on the Syrian refugee crisis to highlight what they say are the failures of Obama’s Middle-East policy.
“I think there’s a desire by a lot of people on both sides of the aisle to have some strengthening of our Middle East policy to push things,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
“There’s significant bipartisan concern that the Iranian deal is going de facto become our Middle East policy, which would be a travesty. So certainly there’s going to be some efforts to push the administration to be more articulate,” he added.
Jordain Carney and Cristina Marcos contributed to this story.
A federal case moving to trial in Texas could provide a means to stop the practice of extending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently called for legislation to end that unpopular practice, which polls show Americans oppose by more than 2 to 1, and even Jeb Bush admitted that it’s perfectly legitimate to call those children “anchor babies.”
The Pew Research Center estimated that 340,000 children are born annually to citizens of Mexico and other foreign countries who are living illegally in the United States, and that doesn’t include children born to “birth tourists,” primarily from Asian countries, which the Center for Immigration Studies estimates could be as high as 36,000. These children are called “anchor babies” because their presumed citizenship enables their parents to access a variety of benefit programs intended for U.S. citizens and makes it so much easier for the entire family to continue living here illegally.
The Texas case is still in its pretrial stage, but an explosive document filed there last week by the government of Mexico adds fuel to the national debate that Trump touched off. The legal brief, which includes a sworn affidavit by Mexico’s consul general for Texas, Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, openly admits that Mexico’s official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system.
The brief begins by declaring that “Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing,” and a footnote clarifies that under the Mexican Constitution, “Mexican nationality is granted to children born abroad of a Mexican-born parent.” In other words, anchor babies born in this country retain their parents’ nationality, which means their citizenship belongs there, not here.
Liberals claim that our own Constitution guarantees automatic U.S. citizenship to all children born on American soil, and it’s true that the Fourteenth Amendment begins with the words, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States.” But behind those three little dots is an important qualification: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
What that forgotten phrase means is that when someone born here is “subject to the jurisdiction” of another nation, that child does not become a U.S. citizen unless the laws passed by Congress so provide (and they don’t). By filing its legal brief and submitting sworn testimony in the Texas case, Mexico is officially declaring that children born to its citizens living illegally in the United States remain “subject to the jurisdiction” of Mexico.
The Mexican consul, in his sworn testimony, says, “My responsibilities in this position include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow Mexican nationals,” and “the main responsibility of consulates is to provide services, assistance and protection to nationals abroad.” Mexico’s assertion of continuing jurisdiction over its “nationals abroad” is inconsistent with any claim to automatic U.S. citizenship merely by reason of birth on U.S. soil.
The Texas case was filed on behalf of about two-dozen mothers who admit they are citizens of Mexico living illegally in Texas. The women complain that without proper ID they cannot get birth certificates for their Texas-born children, and that without birth certificates, they can’t enroll in Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing and other U.S. taxpayer-provided benefits.
Like other states, Texas issues a birth certificate to a close relative only upon presentation of a valid ID issued by a U.S. federal or state agency. These restrictions were adopted to combat the growing epidemic of identity theft, whose main cause is the widespread use of forged or fake documents by illegal aliens.
In order to assist its citizens living here illegally who cannot get the required ID, Mexican consulates issue an official-looking document called the matricula consular, which includes a laminated photo. Of course, Texas rightly refuses to accept such foreign identity documents, which it has no way to verify.
The basic allegation of the lawsuit is that by refusing to accept the matricula consular as proper ID for obtaining a birth certificate, Texas is somehow violating the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving anchor babies of U.S. citizenship. On the contrary, their reliance on a foreign identity document proves they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of a foreign power and thus not eligible for automatic U.S. citizenship.
The Texas lawsuit was concocted by a group called the South Texas Civil Rights Project, which was founded in 1972 as a spin-off of the ACLU. It was assisted by another leftwing legal outfit, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, whose largest supporter, the Legal Services Corporation, collected $375 million of U.S. taxpayer funds in the current fiscal year.
Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and author of two new books just published last year: “Who Killed the American Family” (WND) and the 50th Anniversary edition of “A Choice Not An Echo” (Regnery), available at eagleforum.org, amazon, and usual sources. She can be contacted by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at http://www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM
” Internal Revenue Service penalty is not written into the Obamacare law.”
Opinion: The newest Obamacare fail: penalties of $36,500 per worker
Published: July 23, 2015 12:50 p.m. ET
The Internal Revenue Service swoops in with a money grab
Hey, employers, don’t even think about reimbursing your workers’ health-insurance premiums.
Beginning this month, the IRS can levy fines amounting to $100 per worker per day or $36,500 per worker per year, with a maximum of $500,000 per firm.
This Internal Revenue Service penalty is not written into the Obamacare law. The amount is over 12 times the statutory amount in the Affordable Care Act of $3,000 per worker per year. That is what an employer is charged when one of its employees gets subsidized care on one of the health-care exchanges. It’s 18 times the $2,000 penalty for not offering adequate health insurance.
The $100 fine is applicable not only to large firms, but also those with fewer than 50 workers that are exempt from the $2,000 and $3,000 employer penalties. Firms with one worker are exempt. The penalty for S-corporations will take effect on Jan. 1, 2016. The new rule is broad, sweeping and overly punitive.
This new IRS penalty does not assist in the ACA’s stated goal of expanding health insurance in the United States. Rather, it does the opposite. It discourages people from finding and purchasing the insurance that suits them. It also discourages companies from hiring. Consider that 14% of businesses that do not offer group health insurance have some sort of arrangement to reimburse their employees for insurance costs, according to the National Federation of Independent Business.
Small employers with a workforce of between 50 and 100 employees are required to offer the more expensive ‘essential health benefits.’
The administration should be encouraging employers to take on more labor, because many capable people are sitting on the sidelines. On the day after the IRS rule took effect, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its Employment Situation Report for June 2015. The report showed that U.S. labor-force participation had declined to a new low, 62.6%, equivalent to levels in October 1977. The drop included prime-age workers, those between 25 and 55, who are normally in the labor market because they generally have finished school and have not yet retired.
Rep. Charles Boustany, a Republican from Louisiana, has introduced the Small Business Healthcare Relief Act of 2015, and Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, has a companion bill in the Senate (S.1697). The bills would allow small businesses to use pre-tax dollars to assist employees purchasing insurance in the individual market.
Why has the IRS taken this extreme view? If the employer reimburses an employee for health-insurance premiums, this arrangement is described as an employer-payment plan. The employer-payment plan is considered by the IRS to be a group health plan that has to meet the conditions of Affordable Care Act insurance, including the prohibition on annual limits for essential health benefits and the requirement to provide certain preventive care without cost sharing.
MarketWatch columnist Bill Bischoff explains the new rule as follows. “Employer-payment arrangements have long been a popular way for small employers to help workers obtain health coverage without the hassle and expense of furnishing a full-fledged company health-insurance plan. Under an employer-payment arrangement, the employer reimburses participating employees for premiums paid for their individual health-insurance policies or pays the premiums directly on behalf of participating employees.”
Small employers with a workforce of between 50 and 100 employees are required to offer the more expensive “essential health benefits,” including hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental-health and substance-use disorder services, and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
In contrast, large employers, those with more than 100 workers, do not have to meet all the generous standards for health-insurance plans offered on the state exchanges, but can offer lesser health insurance and still avoid penalties. The “minimum essential coverage” that large employers have to offer to comply with the law turns out to be substantially less generous than the “essential health benefits” required for plans sold to individuals and small businesses by insurance companies.
Of course, not all employers will choose low-benefit plans. In order to retain workers, many large employers are likely to offer generous plans, and offset the cost by paying a lower cash wage. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that benefits account for 32% of compensation packages, with cash wages responsible for the remainder. However, low-benefit plans are likely to be attractive to employers with low-skill workforces in the restaurant, retail, and leisure and hospitality industries.
Although large employers can legally offer low-benefit plants, small employers are not allowed to do so. This leads to an extraordinary discrepancy in potential tax payments between small and large employers. Hence, they face both higher costs for insurance and higher tax penalties if they fail to offer such insurance.
The Boustany-Grassley bill is focused on small businesses, but it makes sense to allow individuals in large companies to choose less expensive options. Health-insurance premiums are rising substantially. Oregon’s health-insurance commissioner has just approved raises of 25% to 33% for Moda Health Plan and Lifewise, affecting over 220,000 people. Other health-insurance companies nationwide are asking for increases in the same range, and insurance commissioners are deciding whether to approve them.
Even the least expensive plans on the health exchanges, termed bronze plans, feature deductibles that are prohibitive for many. The average deductible on a bronze plan is $5,000 for a single person and $11,000 for a family, according to HealthPocket, a research firm.
Businesses need to take a stand against this new IRS power grab. As Americans search for low-cost ways to stay insured, it makes sense for the government to give employers more options, rather than fewer.
More from MarketWatch
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, is the coauthor of “Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young.” Follow her on Twitter here.
Vladimir Putin’s speech – SHORTEST SPEECH EVER.
On August 04, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia :
“In Russia , live like Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia , to work and eat in Russia , it should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslims then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law.
The politicians in the Duma gave Putin a five minute standing ovation.
MOST MEXICAN-AMERICANS AGREE WITH TRUMP.The majority of legal immigrants, and children of legal immigrants agree with Donald Trump. They came here using the system, as cumbersome as it is. They feel:1) The simple fact the people Trump referred to came here illegally makes them criminals.2) A large number of them do commit criminal acts. SEE THE STORY FOLLOWING THE IMMEDIATE ONE BELOW.3) The legal immigrant fears the gang-bangers such as MS-13 and other terrorists and criminals sneaking in with the otherwise innocents.4) The Hispanic leaders quoted in the article below are in favor of criminal behavior and do not reflect the attitude of legal citizens!4) Dumb republican politicians better wise up!
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hispanic leaders are bristling at the largely tepid response by Republican presidential candidates to Donald Trump’s characterization of Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers.
Several 2016 contenders have brushed off Trump’s comments while others have ignored them. Marco Rubio, a Florida senator who is Hispanic, denounced them as “not just offensive and inaccurate, but also divisive,” after declining for two weeks to address the matter directly. Another Hispanic in the race, Ted Cruz, said Trump is “terrific,” ”brash” and “speaks the truth.
It’s an uncomfortable moment for Republicans, who want more votes from the surging Latino population.
And it could be a costly moment if more candidates don’t go beyond their Donald-will-be-Donald response and condemn him directly, said Alfonso Aguilar, a Republican who leads the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership.
“The time has come for the candidates to distance themselves from Trump and call his comments what they are: ludicrous, baseless and insulting,” Aguilar said. “Sadly, it hurts the party with Hispanic voters. It’s a level of idiocy I haven’t seen in a long time.”
So far, Trump has paid less of a political price than a commercial one.
The leading Hispanic television network, Univision, has backed out of televising the Miss USA pageant, a joint venture between Trump and NBC, which also cut ties with Trump. On Wednesday, the Macy’s department store chain, which carried a Donald Trump menswear line, said it was ending its relationship with him. Other retailers are facing pressure to follow suit.
On Friday, the NASCAR motorsports series said it will not hold its season-ending awards ceremony at the Trump National Doral Miami. The CEO of a top NASCAR sponsor, Camping World’s Marcus Lemonis, had said he would not participate in the awards ceremony if it were held at a property owned by Trump, whom he criticized for “recent and ongoing blatantly bigoted and racist comments … in regards to immigrants.”
In his speech last month marking his entry into the Republican race, Trump said Mexican immigrants are “bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
The businessman has refused to back down, although he insists his remarks were misconstrued.
“My statements have been contorted to seem racist and discriminatory,” he wrote in a message to supporters on Thursday. “What I want is for legal immigrants to not be unfairly punished because others are coming into America illegally, flooding the labor market and not paying taxes.” His original comments, though, did not make a distinction between Mexicans who came to U.S. legally and those here illegally.
His rhetoric may resonate with some of the Republican Party’s most passionate voters, who have long viewed illegal immigration as one of the nation’s most pressing problems. But the 2016 contest brings opportunity for the party to make inroads with Hispanics, with several Latino candidates and a former Florida governor, Jeb Bush, who has deep Latino ties and speaks Spanish and hasn’t been shy about using it in the campaign.
Even so, Bush has said little more about Trump’s comments than that they were “wrong.”
“Maybe we’ll have a chance to have an honest discussion about it onstage,” Bush said last weekend while campaigning in Nevada, referring to Republican presidential debates.
Rev. Gabriel Salguero, president of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition, is paying keen attention to how the candidates respond to Trump’s “xenophobic rhetoric.”
“We’re listening very, very closely, not just what candidates say but what they don’t say — the sins of commission and the sins of omission,” he said.
Among 2016 contenders:
—New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Trump’s comments “wholly inappropriate.” But in a subsequent radio interview, he said Trump is “a really wonderful guy (who’s) always been a good friend.”
—Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said: “I don’t think Donald Trump’s remarks reflect the Republican Party.”
—Cruz said he likes Trump and thinks NBC “is engaging in political correctness” in breaking ties with him.
—Rubio said the next president “needs to be someone who brings Americans together — not someone who continues to divide.”
—Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former technology executive Carly Fiorina and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson have been silent.
Not since the 2004 re-election campaign of President George W. Bush has a Republican presidential candidate earned as much as 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. Mitt Romney got a dismal 27 percent in the 2012 contest against President Barack Obama.
Associated Press writers Ken Thomas in Washington, Hillel Italie in New York and Jill Colvin in Ashland, New Hampshire, contributed to this report.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A man suspected in the shooting death of a woman at a busy San Francisco tourist destination has seven felony convictions and has been deported five times, most recently in 2009, a federal agency said Friday.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had turned Francisco Sanchez over to authorities in San Francisco on March 26 on an outstanding drug warrant, agency spokeswoman Virginia Kice said.
Sanchez was booked into the San Francisco County Jail from federal prison, according to a statement from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, which operates the jail.
Police officers arrested Sanchez about an hour after Wednesday’s seemingly random slaying of Kathryn Steinle at Pier 14 — one of the busiest attractions in the city. People gather there to take in the views, joggers exercise, and families push strollers at all hours.
Sanchez was on probation for an unspecified conviction, police Sgt. Michael Andraychak said Thursday.
Kice said ICE issued a detainer for Sanchez in March, requesting notification of his release and that he stay in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. The detainer was not honored, she said.
Freya Horne, counsel for the sheriff’s office, said Friday that federal detention orders are not a legal basis to hold someone, so Sanchez was released April 15. San Francisco is a sanctuary city, and local money cannot be spent to cooperate with federal immigration law.
The city does not turn over people who are in the country illegally unless there’s an active warrant for their arrest, she said. Horne said they checked and found none. ICE could have issued an active warrant if they wanted the city to keep him, she said.
“It’s not legal to hold someone on a request to detain. This is not just us. This is a widely adopted position,” Horne said.
Steinle was gunned down while out for an evening stroll with her father along the waterfront. Police said witnesses heard no argument or dispute before the shooting, suggesting it was a random attack.
Liz Sullivan told the San Francisco Chronicle (http://bit.ly/1IuWbKw) the killing of her daughter was unbelievable and surreal. “I don’t think I’ve totally grasped it,” Sullivan said.
Police Sgt. Michael Andraychak said witnesses snapped photos of Sanchez immediately after the shooting, and the images helped police make the arrest while he was walking on a sidewalk a few blocks away.
Police were still waiting for fingerprint identification on Sanchez, who is believed to be a 45-year-old whose last address was in Texas. Authorities said he does not yet have a lawyer who could be reached for comment.
Sullivan told the Chronicle that her 32-year-old daughter turned to her father after she was shot and said she didn’t feel well before collapsing.
“She just kept saying, ‘Dad, help me, help me,’ ” Sullivan said.
Her father immediately began CPR before paramedics rushed the woman to the hospital. “She fought for her life,” Sullivan said.
Steinle went to high school and previously lived about 40 miles east of San Francisco, the newspaper said. She recently moved just blocks from the waterfront and worked for a medical technology company.
This story has been corrected to show the shooting happened Wednesday instead of Thursday.
NEED PROTECTION? LIFE INSURANCE ISN’T ENOUGH. BUY A GUN, AND LEARN HOW TO USE IT!
BUY SOME GOLD AND PROTECT YOUR WEALTH! See how to get FREE gold!
ONE QUESTION: WITH ALL OF THE THUGS ROAMING AROUND, WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO GO TO A CHURCH FILLED WITH GOOD PEOPLE TO TAKE OUT HIS ANGER! Jerk, go take out a thug, not the saints.
Dylann Roof is a maniac.
I noticed the atypical action of the media by not using the “Je Suis…” phrase this time with the shooting at the AME church. Could it be the media is not religious? As a Christian I did not use “Je Suis (I am)” for the irreverent magazine in France. However, I will use it for the decent Christian folks in the AME church in Charleston, SC!
Once again, Barry O infers gun control is the answer! Sorry, Mr. Prez, nut control is the ONLY answer.
To my point. We are a country plagued by problems. In the past 6 years, the big problems have become worse, and the small problems have become bigger. I’d rather not explore all of these right now, but the one problem that is looming over all of us is RACISM!
Some have called me a racist, which actually is not true. I should be called a “Thugist.” I dislike thugs of all races. Dylann Roof is a maniacal, cowardly, racist thug! He is the kind of cowardly thugs I cannot stand! Any coward that has to enter a place of praise and worship to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to commit a dastardly deed is a thug of the worst kind.
If he wasn’t a coward, he would have been hanging out with the thugs to rid the world of them! He would not be with the decent church people, to hurt them! If he was courageous, when the thugs committed a crime, he could have gotten rid of those scum. Such a clean up job would help the good people of the country. Destroying decent people hurts the country.
How can we fix this? What can be done to correct the worst problem we face? Only calm, confident intelligence can do it. Not words! Not Obama fantasy phrases! Only the intelligent, calm, confident Ben Carson can offer the leadership to fix this disease that is tearing our country apart!
The only democrat I would consider looking at for president is James Webb. However, he does not have the tools to fix this.
I like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. While they both appear willing to take on and fix racism, I doubt they have the background to take on this task!
From Dr Ben
“Not being a career politician I know that before the American people will consider my solutions for fixing America, they will first ask – who is Ben Carson?
“At its core, my story is an American story. Growing up on the poorest of streets in Detroit with bad grades and a horrible temper, even I gave up on myself for a time.
“But the determination of a loving mother who refused to give up on me convinced me I could do anything. I have lived the American Dream.
I’m running for President because we must again be a country where every single American has the opportunity to think big, to pursue happiness, and to reach their full, God-given potential.
“With the release of My Life, I hope to help to share my story and show that by working together, we can restore the promise of America.
“Thank you, and God Bless America.”
While I also like Governor Perry and Scott Walker, they are not in my first tier of preferences, because they are not able to touch this area of racism.
Right now, the elitist repubs are ignoring this awesome candidate. If black people would get behind this wonderful Dr Ben Carson, the repubs would have to take him on! Help us beat the establishment at its monopolistic game! Let’s help Ben Carson win the nomination.
One other reason you should vote for repubs: dems in power do not get the intense scrutiny of repubs. The dems get away with robbing us blind because of the cover they get from the news media. I could cite scores of examples but let us just look at one: Watergate brought down a repub prez because of the intense anal exam by the press. Both Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama have conducted more criminal activity than Nixon ever did. However, did you ever hear of the Jimmy Carter break in to steal evidence in a drug case that he wanted to avoid. Did the press ever go after Obama (or Hillary) for the crimes they were conducting in Benghazi, Libya; the real crimes involved in “Fast and Furious” gun running to Mexico; the intentional acts to incite racism in the Cambridge cop, Harvard Professor situation and many, many more. What, you don’t believe me? Of course, but you would if the press did its job in exposing dem crimes as rapidly and completely as repub crimes!
Wow! That was heavy! Allow me to lighten the mood with a little humor:
Expert Lemon Picker Gelio’s joke
We thank God for the Blessings we have; and the blessings we are receiving!
We thank God, for everything!
For your GoDaddy URL– http://x.co/2OK1G
For your spendable gold– http://tinyurl.com/eaglesofgold
Before reading “The Tale of Two Funerals” you need to see the video of Michael Brown, thug of Ferguson, MO. beating up an old man to rob him.
I pray daily for the safety of this poor, old man, and praise God daily that the thug, Mike “the gentle giant, college boy” Brown got the justice he deserved!
If you want justice, trust in God!
TALE OF TWO FUNERALSBy all accounts, Harold was a bright child. He grew up in America. He went to school and had a bright future ahead of him.Harold’s full life was cut short in a violent moment.While few people had ever heard of Harold before his death, many did afterwards.And in death, something shocking happened.What was so shocking, especially when it is compared to the death of someone else recently in the news?Harold is Harold Greene, Major General United States Army.On August 5th, General Greene was killed by a Taliban terrorist. He was returned to America with full military honors.While Major General Greene was buried, Barack Obama was golfing. The Vice President wasn’t there either. Flags were not even lowered to half staff.Four days after Harold Greene gave his life for America, Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson Missouri.It is safe to say, Brown was at best a thug.The media has repeatedly shown photos of Brown flashing gang signs. Some media outlets have even associated him with a specific gang. In the minutes before his death, Brown committed a robbery at a local convenience store. According to other reports, Brown struck officer Darren Wilson and shattered his orbital bone.Obama is sending a three-person delegation to Michael Brown’s funeral.Obama would not attend the funeral of the highest ranking military officer killed in the line of duty since 9/11, yet he will send a delegation to the funeral of a thug.When Margaret Thatcher, one of America’s staunchest allies and Ronald Reagan’s partner in bringing down Soviet communism, died Obama sent only a small low-level delegation to her funeral. The snub was not missed by the British.When Chris Kyle, the most lethal American sniper in history was murdered, there was no expression of sympathy from the White House. There was no White House delegation at his funeral.American heroes die and Obama goes to the golf course.A thug dies and he gets a White House delegation.
No wonder real Americans hold Obama in contempt.
GOOD PEOPLE CELEBRATE THE GOOD!
THUGS (CHICAGO THUGS OR ANY THUGS) CELEBRATE THUGS!
A THUG CAN BECOME GOOD AT ANY MOMENT BEFORE HIS LAST BREATH, AND BE FORGIVEN!
GOD SERVES JUSTICE ON THUGS THAT STAY THUGS!
IF YOU WANT JUSTICE, KNOW THE THINGS OF JESUS AND HIS HEAVENLY FATHER!
Visit America Conservative 2 Conservative at: http://americac2c.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
To control which emails you receive on America Conservative 2 Conservative, click here
Doesn’t it make you feel proud that the entire world is laughing at OUR expense?