AARP And Their Billion $$$ ObamaCare Payoff

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by admin on 05-10-2012

A just-released report by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) shows how the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), manipulated their 40 million members for a billion-dollar ObamaCare payoff!

At the height of the ObamaCare debates, when AARP’s own phone logs indicated that by a margin of 50 to 1 seniors didn’t support ObamaCare, the AARP knowingly misled their members into believing that the gutting of Medicare ($716 billion in cuts) through ObamaCare was a positive move that would benefit seniors.

Nothing could be further from the truth…

As reported at Forbes.com, “the same Medicare cuts will give the AARP a windfall of $1 billion in insurance profits, and preserve another $1.8 billion that AARP already generates from its business interests.”

But it gets even worse …

While seniors were looking for honest answers about how ObamaCare would impact them (many turning to AARP for those answers), the AARP was aggressively lobbying to block bipartisan plans to reform Medigap coverage. They eventually succeeded. A move that DeMint says “cost the average senior as much as $415 in premiums per year.”

But the great “Senior Swindle” isn’t over. Severe cuts to Medicare Advantage will force many seniors into government-run plans thus increasing the number of people who need Medigap insurance – something AARP is all too willing to provide because as one of the nation’s largest private health insurers, they receive a 4.95 percent royalty on every policy.

AARP says they are a non-partisan organization representing American seniors. As the DeMint report clearly shows, the AARP is only interested in maximizing their profits and will manipulate and mislead seniors to achieve their means.

WATCH THE VIDEO:


Catholic Bishop: Voting for Obama, Dems Could Place ‘Eternal Salvation of Your Own Soul in Serious Jeopardy’

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by BILLY HALLOWELL / THE BLAZE.COM on 29-09-2012

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki from Springfield, Illinois, is getting attention after making some strongly-worded comments about those Americans who opt to vote for President Barack Obama in November. In a column and video that was posted by Catholic Times, the official newspaper of the Diocese of Springfield, Paprocki targeted portions of the Democratic platform that “explicitly endorse intrinsic evils.” He also warned that supporting certain politicians could place peoples’ “eternal salvation…in jeopardy.”

While he noted that it’s not his job to to tell people who do vote for, the faith leader said that he has a duty to speak out about moral issues. Despite his stated problems with the Democratic Party platform — the initial removal of God, its stance abortion and its support of gay marriage – Paprocki spoke relatively favorably of the Republican platform.

“I have read the Republican Party platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin,” he proclaimed.

While the bishop didn’t overtly name President Barack Obama as a poor candidate for people of faith to support, he invoked religious themes and warned of spiritual damnation if religious voters stand in support of politicians who “promote actions of behaviors that are intrinsically evil.”

Watch an abreviated version of the video::

“I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against. What I am saying is that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote,” Paprocki said. “Because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”

As noted, the Bishop is careful to continuously say that he’s not attempting to influence votes. However, the overall logic, which can be seen in the text version of his comments, follows a telling pattern. In the sixth paragraph, he notes that the Democratic platform endorses “intrinsic evils”; in the next paragraph he claims that the GOP platform does not endorse these same purported evils.

Then, he says that, while he’s not telling people which party or candidate to vote for, that “a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil” could carry dire consequences. Since the only party mentioned as embracing evil in this manner is the Democrats, the thesis is self-evident.

Written by    Billy Hallowell / The Blaze.com

Do You Remember January 3, 2007?

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by Frank Encarnacion on 27-09-2012

I’ve been saying this for years, but this email probably explains it Better and more clearly. This is NOT a political message, but rather a clarification to remind us all of the correct facts.

Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our “economic Crisis” occurred (that was actually created), the Dow hit its highest point ever, closing at 14,164.53 and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day Level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%. But things were already being put in place to create the havoc we’ve all been Experiencing since then. And it all started, as this email explains, on January 3, 2007.

I’m sending this to each of you regardless of your party preferences Because I believe it is something you may not have considered.

This tells the story, why Bush was so “bad” at the end of his term. Don’t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and let It sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was Actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the First time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy That everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:

• The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

• The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

• The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

• George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

Remember the day…

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months Later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment… To this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.

So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007….

THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and The party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused Them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush Entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a Massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that Very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the Last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After That, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a Nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

About the Author:  Frank Encarnacion

The Real Truth About “Palestine”

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by admin on 25-09-2012

Most people have no real clear perspective on “Palestine” and “Palestinians”, except to know that they seem to hear regular news broadcasts on how Israel continues to deny Palestinians their ancestral rights to their ancient homeland…Palestine.  So in an effort to present the facts, here is the “short and entertaining” version……………AND, the “boring and detailed” version.  Watch the video (which tells you a Cliff’s Notes version of the facts).  If you still have doubts, read the (rather lengthy and detailed) historically accurate account below the video:

Watch the video::

Read the boring (but historically accurate) details…………

The Truth about “Palestine”

Steven Simpson

An Arab Islamic Palestine or Palestinian people is a myth. Historically, Palestine meant the Jewish ‘Holy Land’ and Palestinian stood for ‘Jews of the Holy Land’… So the current understanding of Palestine and Palestinians is a myth at best and hijacking of what belonged to others at worst.

The term “Palestine” has conjured up many images and meanings throughout the centuries. In the Christian West, the term was synonymous for the “Promised Land,” or the “Holy Land,” that is, the Land of the Jews. Throughout the centuries, the terms “Palestine” and “Palestinian” were analogous to the terms “Israel” and “Jew.” This is quite evident from reading books, articles, newspapers, and encyclopedias.

“Palestinian” was used to identify Jews living in the Holy Land as opposed to Jews living elsewhere, such as in Babylonia, Persia, Greece, Rome, or elsewhere.  In fact, within Judaism there is even a Talmud (ancient composition of commentary on the Bible) that is called by historians the “Palestinian Talmud,” as opposed to the “Babylonian Talmud.”

Nevertheless, within the last forty to fifty years, a perverse and vicious transmogrification of the term “Palestine” has taken root among anti-Jews and anti-Israel haters around the globe, most notably in the Arab/Muslim world, and in the increasingly “dhimmified” European world. A name in Arabic – “Filastin” – that has no historical connotations or etymological meaning for Arabs and other Muslims – has now taken on the properties of a wholesale myth that could fill volumes of vitriolic and venomous propaganda. Indeed, the whole distortion and myth of an Arab “Palestine” has become a virtual religion unto itself.

How did this myth of a non-existent people and non-existent land of “Filastin” ever come to be? The answer lies in the tragic history of the Roman-Jewish “encounter” during the 1st and 2nd centuries, when Israel (then called Judea) was occupied by the Roman Empire.

The Jews bitterly resented being ruled by the pagan Romans, and for over a century fought to regain their independence. Twice during Roman rule, an independent Kingdom of Judea existed. First, under Herod the Great (while Augustus was emperor), and then under Herod’s grandson, Herod Agrippa, (while Claudius was emperor). Regardless, all ended in disaster when the Jews rose in revolt in 66 A.D., and fought a four year war with Rome that resulted – according to the eyewitness historian Josephus – with close to a million Jewish deaths, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple.

Yet Judea, while conquered, remained a restive province in the Roman Empire. This changed dramatically and drastically in 132 A.D. when a Jewish warrior by the name of Simeon bar Kokhba raised another revolt against Rome. The war lasted for three years and was so intense, that the Emperor Hadrian had to recall his greatest general, Julius Severus from Britain. It took close to a dozen Roman legions to put down the revolt, but when it was finished, so was Judea.

Hadrian had had enough of the Jews and their revolts and decided to rename Judea “Syria Palestina.” The name “Palestina” was chosen after the Philistines – ancient enemies of the Israelites. It was nothing more than pouring salt into the wounds of the already defeated Jews. Jerusalem’s name was not spared either and was renamed “Aelia Capitolina.” And so it appeared that the “Jewish Question” of the 1st and 2nd centuries had been “solved.” However, Jews continued to remain as a majority in their conquered land.

The situation remained static until the Arabs marched out of the Arabian desert conquering every country in sight for Allah and Muhammad. In 635 A.D., the Arabs conquered the Holy Land from Byzantium. However, it appears that the Muslims had no real interest in the land. In fact, when they entered Jerusalem, they apparently did not realize where they were, as they first called the city “Iliyas,” nothing more than an Arabicized form of the Latin “Aelia” (which, as previously stated, was substituted for the name of Jerusalem).

In an ironic twist of fate, it was a Jew who had converted to Islam that pointed out to the Caliph Omar where he and his occupation army were now standing; namely, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. It was then that the Arabs decided to call the city “Al Quds” and “Beit al Muqdas.” Once again, these are nothing but Arabicized terms from the original Hebrew:  “Ha-Qodesh” and “Beit ha-Miqdash” which respectively mean “the Holy (City)” and “the Holy House” (i.e., “Holy Temple”).

The Arab-Muslims now called the land “Jund Filastin” (Province of Palestine) – a direct borrowing from the Greco-Roman term. But because Arabic has no “p” sound in it language, “Palestina” became “Filastin.” Indeed, every name of every so-called “Arab village” in Israel is nothing more than an Arabic perversion of the original Hebrew, Greek or Latin names for a city. (To name just two: “Habrun” – from the Hebrew “Hevron”, and “Nablus” –Nea Polis, (“New City”) built on the ruins of biblical Shechem.) The Arab Muslim disinterest in the land was so great that with the exception of the city of Ramleh (perhaps built on the Jewish ruins of the city Ramathaim Zophim, according to some archaeologists) no other city was ever built by the Arabs or the other Muslim conquerors.

Even more ironic, it was Ramleh that became the provincial capital of “Filastin.” Jerusalem played absolutely no significance with the major exception of the building of Masjid Al-Aqsa (the Mosque of Al Aqsa) and Qubbat as-Sahra (the Dome of the Rock) over the ruins of the Jewish Temple. And the reason for building these structures was to show the superiority of Islam over Judaism, and to be in “competition” with the Christian Holy Sepulchre which had been built nearby, centuries earlier.

Nothing changed over the centuries as the denuded land of “Palestine” went from one conqueror to another. Finally, in 1917, Britain wrested the land from the Ottomans and after promising the Jews a homeland in their ancestral country, the League of Nations awarded a Mandate to the British which extended over both the western and eastern banks of the Jordan River. It was at this point that the term “Palestine” was revived as a quasi-political entity ruled by a British governor.

While the Jews began to call their newspapers, charities, and organizations such names as the “Palestine Post” and the “United Palestine Appeal,” the Arabs eschewed the term as being “Jewish” and “Zionist.” For them, they were Muslims first, and “Southern Syrians” second. Indeed, many an Arab politician and historian denied that there was ever a country called “Palestine.” To name the amount of Arab political figures and historians who stated this would require an article all by itself. Suffice to say that Arabs such as the late Hashemite monarch Hussein “Chairman” Arafat, and noted Arab historian Philip K. Hitti, have all candidly admitted that no such country as “Palestine” ever existed.

In fact, the latter, while appearing in front of a January 11, 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in Washington, D.C. stated “[T]here is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.” The late King Hussein, who knew about artificial entities (i.e., Transjordan – now “Jordan”) said that “[T]he truth is that Jordan is Palestine, and Palestine is Jordan.” He said this on more than one occasion in the 19070s and as late as December 26, 1981 in an interview with the Paris based Arabic newspaper An-Nahar Al Arabi (“The Arabic Daily”).

Many other Hashemites (past and present) have made similar statements. Indeed, without the help of Churchill and Britain, there would never have been a “Hashemite entity” on the East Bank of the Jordan created in 1922 and carved out of the original “Palestine Mandate” for the Jewish National Home. And in one of the most candid admissions ever made, Zuhair Muhsin, little known leader of the PLO splinter gang known as “Al Sa’iqa” (The Storm) and backed by Syria, said in a March 31, 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

Muhsin was eventually assassinated by Israel in 1979.

And of course, there was “Chairman” Arafat who in a 1974 interview with The New Republic stated: “What you call Jordan is actually Palestine.”

Regardless, until the founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964, “Palestine” and “Palestinian” had no meaning for the Arabs. As an aside, the fact that the PLO was created in 1964 by the League of Arab States and not after the June “Six Day War” of 1967, is telling enough that Ahmad Shuqayri (original founder of the PLO), and his successor Yasser Arafat, were looking for the total extermination of Israel, while Jordan already had the “occupied territories” of the “West Bank,” and Egypt had the “Gaza Strip.”

For them and for the PLO (or PA of today), “Palestine” is just a part of the “Arab Muslim national homeland” that has to be liberated from the “infidel” Jews. As late as 1967, even the UN did not refer to the term “Palestinians” merely calling them “refugees.” (Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967.) However, as the late 1960s turned into the 1970s, the historical terminology of “Palestine” began to be turned upside down, and hijacked by the Arabs. It now became terms synonymous with Arabs, but in reality was only a weapon in the fight to extirpate Israel from the world.

The facts are undeniable. “Palestine” has no meaning in Greek, Latin, Arabic, or English. It is a general fact that a people give their name to a country, not vice-versa. Thus, the Arabs call their homeland, “Jazirat al-Arab” or “Island of the Arabians.” The Jews call their land Israel because they were called Israelites; Israel in Hebrew meaning “to strive with God.”

Similarly, it was called Judah or Judea after the tribe of Judah (meaning “praise” in Hebrew). Ironically, it is only one language in which the term “Palestine” has a meaning, and that language is Hebrew. The name translated as “Philistia” in the Holy Bible comes from the Hebrew “Peleshet” which means nothing more than “land of the Philistines.” Contrary to Arab propaganda, the Philistines were a non-Semitic, Indo-European people who migrated to what is now Gaza. Historians believe that these “sea peoples” originated in the Aegean area of what is now Crete.

In conclusion, one can only imagine if Hadrian had never changed the name of Israel from Judea to Palestina. We might very well have seen a “Judea Liberation Organization” instead of a “Palestine Liberation Organization” and we might very well be hearing the mantra of the “inalienable rights of the Judean Arab people.” At the same time, if Hadrian had changed the name of Judea to Mars, we would be hearing of the “Martian Arab people.” Of course, this sounds absurd, but not any more absurd than the fictitious mythical land and people of “Palestine.”

Israel would be well advised to learn from the cruel fates of history which has a way of repeating itself. Judea did not exist alongside “Palestina” after Hadrian’s destruction in the 2nd century. Similarly today, in the 21st century, it is impossible for Israel to exist “side by side in peace” with a “Palestine” that seeks to replicate and complete Hadrian’s war against the Jews.

One state or the other can exist, but never both.  Israel is a historical reality.  Arab “Palestine” is an artificial invention. Inevitably, a “two state solution” will lead to nothing less than a final solution for the state of Israel, and perhaps for the Jews of the world.  It is time for Israel to take a courageous stand and face the painful facts of reality – and history.

A Christian writer –Reland- chronicling his trip in the land of Israel in 1695/6 confirms :

No settlement in the land of Israel has a name of Arabic extraction. The names of settlements are mostly of Hebrew extraction; some of Greek or Latin-Roman. In fact, no Arab settlement (except for Ramla) has had an original Arabic name to this day. Most names of Arab settlements are of Hebrew or Greek extraction which have been impaired and replaced by meaningless names in Arabic.

There is no meaning in Arabic for the names Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Nablus, Gaza or Jenin and the names of cities, such as Ramallah, El-Halil and El-Kuds have no historical or philological roots in Arabic. In the year 1696, the year in which the tour was taken, Ramallah, for example, was called Beit El, Hebron was called Hebron and Mearat HaMachpelah was called El Chalil (a name for Abraham of the Bible).

About the author::

Steven Simpson is a journalist specializing in Political Science with an emphasis on Middle Eastern Studies. He also holds a Master’s Degree in Library Science.

Chick-Fil-A Tells Huckabee: “We Made No Concessions”

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by ORIGINATED NEWSMAX.COM on 24-09-2012

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is insisting that Chick-fil-A has not changed its stance on same-sex marriage, and that is already prompting an angry backlash in Chicago among gay marriage advocates.

Huckabee wrote on Facebook Friday, “I talked earlier today personally with Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick fil-A about the new reports that Chick fil-A had capitulated to demands of the supporters of same sex marriage.” He said, “This is not true.” The posting was first reported by Slate magazine.

Huckabee then posted a statement given by Cathy on his website that added: “Chick-fil-A made no such concessions, and we remain true to who we are and who we have been.

There continues to be erroneous implications in the media that Chick-fil-A changed our practices and priorities in order to obtain permission for a new restaurant in Chicago. That is incorrect.”

But a Chicago alderman says Cathy is publicly contradicting what company executives personally assured him for months — that the fast-food chain is changing its stance on gay marriage — and he asked the company Sunday to clarify.

Alderman Joe Moreno insists that Chick-fil-A told him it has ceased making donations to anti-gay groups and has enacted workplace protections for its employees against discrimination.

Moreno said the two concessions were the result of 10 months of negotiations he had with Chick-fil-A executives as he weighed whether to support a new Chick-fil-A restaurant in his Chicago ward. He said the executives gave him documents backing up the new positions.

Chick-fil-A had stopped making donations to anti-gay groups, Moreno said.

In a statement on Wednesday, Chick-fil-A said, “the Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,” adding that “going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena,” according to Politico.

Moreno asked Chick-fil-A to clarify its stance on Sunday, saying that Cathy’s statement “at the least, muddied the progress we had made with Chick-fil-A and, at the worst, contradicted the documents and promises Chick-fil-A made to me and the community earlier this month,” according to CNN.

Cathy’s conflicting statement, Moreno said Sunday, is “disturbing.”

“I am simply asking Mr. Cathy to confirm statements and documents that HIS company executives provided to me,” Moreno said in a written statement, capitalizing “his” for emphasis.

“It’s pretty simple, Mr. Cathy. Do you acknowledge and support the policies that your executives outlined to me in writing or do you not? Yes or no?” the statement added.

Chick-fil-A, whose restaurants are closed on Sundays, did not immediately respond to requests made by several media organizations for comment.

NEWSMAX.COM

What You Won’t See On The News

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by admin on 23-09-2012

This video was broadcast from the amazing Majestic Theatre in San Antonio Texas.  It will take 18 minutes of your time.  But it will be time well spent, to get a very educational insight to the complicity of the media to give cover to a seemingly never ending stream of lies.

WATCH THE VIDEO::

Black Clergy Urging Their Churches To Sit Out The Election

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by COURTESY NEWSMAX.COM on 17-09-2012

Some black clergy see no good presidential choice between a Mormon candidate and one who supports gay marriage, so they are telling their flocks to stay home on Election Day. That’s a worrisome message for the nation’s first African-American president, who can’t afford to lose any voters from his base in a tight race.   The pastors say their congregants are asking how a true Christian could back same-sex marriage, as President Barack Obama did in May.

As for Republican Mitt Romney, the first Mormon nominee from a major party, congregants are questioning the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its former ban on men of African descent in the priesthood.

In 2008, Obama won 95 percent of black voters and is likely to get an overwhelming majority again. But any loss of votes would sting.

“When President Obama made the public statement on gay marriage, I think it put a question in our minds as to what direction he’s taking the nation,” said the Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder of the predominantly African-American Christian Cultural Center in New York. Bernard, whose endorsement is much sought-after in New York and beyond, voted for Obama in 2008. He said he’s unsure how he’ll vote this year.

It’s unclear just how widespread the sentiment is that African-American Christians would be better off not voting at all. Many pastors have said that despite their misgivings about the candidates, blacks have fought too hard for the vote to ever stay away from the polls.

Black church leaders have begun get-out-the-vote efforts on a wide range of issues, including the proliferation of state voter identification laws, which critics say discriminate against minorities. Last Easter Sunday, a month before Obama’s gay marriage announcement, the Rev. Jamal-Harrison Bryant of Baltimore formed the Empowerment Network, a national coalition of about 30 denominations working to register congregants and provide them with background on health care, the economy, education and other policy issues.

Yet, Bryant last month told The Washington Informer, an African-American newsweekly, “This is the first time in black church history that I’m aware of that black pastors have encouraged their parishioners not to vote.” Bryant, who opposes gay marriage, said the president’s position on marriage is “at the heart” of the problem.

Bryant was traveling and could not be reached for additional comment, his spokeswoman said.

The circumstances of the 2012 campaign have led to complex conversations about faith, politics and voting.

The Rev. George Nelson Jr., senior pastor of Grace Fellowship Baptist Church in Brenham, Texas, participated in a conference call with other African-American pastors the day after Obama’s announcement during which the ministers resolved to oppose gay marriage. Nelson said Obama’s statement had caused a “storm” in the African-American community.

Still, he said “I would never vote for a man like Romney,” because Nelson has been taught in the Southern Baptist Convention that Mormonism is a cult.

As recently as the 2008 GOP primaries, the SBC’s Baptist Press ran articles calling the LDS church a cult. This year, however, prominent Southern Baptists have discouraged use of the term when addressing theological differences with Mormonism. Many Southern Baptist leaders have emphasized there are no religious obstacles to voting for a Mormon.

Nelson planned to vote and has told others to do the same. He declined to say which candidate he would support.

“Because of those that made sacrifices in days gone by and some greater than others with their lives. It would be totally foolish for me to mention staying away from the polls,” he said in an email exchange.

Romney has pledged to uphold conservative positions on social issues, including opposing abortion and gay marriage. But many black pastors worry about his Mormon beliefs. Christians generally do not see Mormonism as part of historic Christianity, although Mormons do.

African-Americans generally still view the church as racist. When LDS leaders lifted the ban on blacks in the priesthood in 1978, church authorities never said why. The Mormon community has grown more diverse, and the church has repeatedly condemned racism. However, while most Christian denominations have publicly repented for past discrimination, Latter-day Saints never formally apologized.

Bernard is among the traditional Christians who voted for Obama in 2008 and are now undecided because of the president’s support for gay marriage. But Bernard is also troubled by Romney’s faith.

“To say you have a value for human life and exclude African-American human life, that’s problematic,” Bernard said, about the priesthood ban. “How can I judge the degree to which candidate Romney is going to allow his Mormonism to influence his policies? I don’t know. I can’t.”

Romney said in a 2007 speech that LDS authorities would have no influence on his policies as president. He also said he wept when he learned that the priesthood ban had been abolished because he was anxious for it to be lifted. But that has done little to change perceptions among African-Americans and others.

“Obama was supposed to answer for the things that Rev. Wright said,” said the Rev. Floyd James of the Greater Rock Missionary Baptist Church in Chicago, at a recent meeting of the historically black National Baptist Convention. “Yet here’s a guy (Romney) who was a leader in his own church that has that kind of history, and he isn’t held to some kind of account? I have a problem with that.”

Obama broke in 2008 with his longtime Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright, after videos of his incendiary sermons were broadcast.

Many Democrats and Republicans have argued that Romney’s faith should be off limits. The Rev. Derrick Harkins, faith outreach director for the Democratic National Committee, travels around the country speaking to African-American pastors and other clergy. He said concerns over gay marriage have receded as other issues take precedence, and no pastors have raised Mormonism in their conversations with him about the two candidates.

“There’s just no space in this campaign for casting aspersions on anyone’s faith,” Harkins said in a phone interview. “It’s not morally upright. It’s not ethically appropriate.”

The Rev. Howard-John Wesley, who leads the Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, Va., said he is telling his congregants, “Let’s not make the election a decision about someone’s salvation.” Last spring, when it became clear that Romney would be the GOP nominee, congregants starting asking about Mormonism, so Wesley organized a class on the faith. He said congregants ultimately decided that “we could not put Mormons under the boundaries of orthodox Christianity.”

But Wesley said, “I don’t want Gov. Romney to have to defend the Mormon church, the way President Obama had to defend Jeremiah Wright.” Wesley, whose congregation has more than 5,000 members, said he will be voting for Obama.

The Rev. Lin Hill, an associate pastor of Bethany Baptist Church in Chesapeake, Va., said in a phone interview that he plans to travel with other local pastors to about 50 congregations over two weeks to hold discussions and distribute voter guides that will include a contrast between historic Christianity and Mormonism, and educate congregants about the former priesthood ban.

Hill is active in his local Democratic Party but said he’s acting independently of the campaign. He said Mormon theology becomes relevant when congregants argue that they can’t vote for Obama because, as a Christian, he should have opposed gay marriage.

“If you’re going to take a tenet of a religion and let that dissuade you from voting, then we have to,” discuss Mormon doctrine, Hill said. “We want folks to have a balanced view of both parties, but we can’t do that without the facts.”

The Rev. Dwight McKissic, a prominent Southern Baptist and black preacher, describes himself as a political independent who didn’t support Obama in 2008 because of his position on social issues. McKissic said

Obama’s support for same-gender marriage “betrayed the Bible and the black church.” Around the same time, McKissic was researching Mormonism for a sermon and decided to propose a resolution to the annual Southern Baptist Convention that would have condemned Mormon “racist teachings.”

McKissic’s Mormon resolution failed.

On Election Day, McKissic said, “I plan to go fishing.”

Original story courtesy NEWSMAX.COM

Al-Qaida Website Tells Muslims to Murder US Diplomats

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by COURTESY NEWSMAX.COM on 16-09-2012

The Yemen-based branch of al-Qaida urged Muslims to step up protests and kill more U.S. diplomats in Muslim countries after a U.S.-made film mocking the Prophet Mohammad which it said was another chapter in the “crusader wars” against Islam.

“Whoever comes across America’s ambassadors or emissaries should follow the example of Omar al-Mukhtar’s descendants (Libyans), who killed the American ambassador,” the group said, referring to Tuesday’s attack on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi.  “Let the step of kicking out the embassies be a step towards liberating Muslim countries from the American hegemony,” a statement posted on an Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) website on Saturday said.

Fury about the film swept across the Middle East after Friday prayers, with protesters attacking U.S. embassies and in protests that killed at least seven people and prompted Washington to send troops to bolster security at its missions.

“The film published in America which insults our Prophet  Mohammad, peace be upon him, comes as part of the continuing crusader wars against Islam,” AQAP’s statement said, referring to European wars in the region some 1,000 years ago.

“The incident is so huge that the resources of the nation should be pooled together to kick out the embassies of America from Muslim lands,” it said.

AQAP, mostly militants mainly from Yemen and Saudi Arabia, is regarded by the United States as the most dangerous branch of the network founded by Osama bin Laden.

The group has used Yemen, a key regional U.S. ally, to plot attacks on the United States. Washington has backed a Yemeni army campaign that drove al Qaeda and its allies from their southern stronghold this year.

Muslims have blamed the U.S. government for the amateurish film of obscure origin. Washington has condemned the film and said it does not condone any insult to any religion.

Praising the attacks by angry demonstrators in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan on U.S. and other Western missions as “natural responses to a huge insult”, the statement said that American embassies should be burned and diplomats killed.

It said defending the Prophet’s honor was a “religious duty and obligation to the Muslim nation, each according to his ability”.

The group also said that Muslims living in the West have an extra duty to be involved in attacks on key targets.

“They are more capable of doing harm and reaching the enemy is easier for them,” it said.

Impoverished Yemen is struggling against challenges on many fronts since mass protests forced president Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down last year after decades in power.

The United States, eager to help the country recover from the upheaval that has pushed it to the brink of collapse, has said it would provide $345 million in security, humanitarian and development aid this year, more than double last year.

NEWSMAX.COM


Watch the (INCREDIBLY hokey) film clip that is actually being used to justify killing human beings……….



ObamaCare:: Summed Up InThe Longest Single Sentence In History

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by admin on 15-09-2012

Obama’s Democratic Platform Calls for More Restrictions on Gun Owners’ Rights

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by COURTESY NRA/ILA on 08-09-2012

One thing was made crystal clear at the Democratic National Convention, held this week in Charlotte, N.C.  The 2012 National Democratic Platform is President Barack Obama’s platform.  There is nothing in the document that doesn’t reflect the President’s position.

While the opening lines give lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, the rest of the plank calls for renewing the semi-auto ban and for regulating gun shows into oblivion.
Here’s the language:

 Firearms:


We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements–like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole–so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

As if to signal that the Democratic Party is ready to follow Obama’s lead on the issue, Senator Dianne Feinstein announced in her keynote speech to the convention’s California delegation that she intends to reintroduce an “updated” version of the 1994-2004 “assault weapons” and “large” magazines. (For more coverage of Feinstein’s plans, please see related story.)

The platform is silent on other key issues such as the “Fast & Furious” scandal, Right to Carry and the right to self-defense. All of this is a stark contrast to the detailed pro-gun language of the Republican platform, and sends a clear signal that if reelected, Barack Obama will pursue new restrictions on gun owners’ rights. His willingness to take unilateral executive actions without approval by Congress–such as the long gun registration scheme his Justice Department has imposed in the southwest border states–coupled with his anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court nominees, should remind gun owners of the dangers a second term would pose if Obama is reelected and never has to face voters again.