Guest Voice: Chuck Baldwin Video Sermon "What Every Christian Should Know About The New World Order"

This is a sermon that I think every Christian of all denomination ought to listen to.

High Speed Video

Video for Dial Up Speeds:

Audio (BroadBand):

Audio (Dial Up):

Chuck Baldwin Live official Website

Crossroads Baptist Church – Pensacola, FL

Stupidity Unleashed: Republican Senator Jim Bunning

Egad.

U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning predicted over the weekend that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would likely be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months.

During a wide-ranging 30-minute speech on Saturday at the Hardin County Republican Party’s Lincoln Day Dinner, Bunning said he supports conservative judges “and that’s going to be in place very shortly because Ruth Bader Ginsburg … has cancer.”

“Bad cancer. The kind that you don’t get better from,” he told a crowd of about 100 at the old State Theater.

“Even though she was operated on, usually, nine months is the longest that anybody would live after (being diagnosed) with pancreatic cancer,” he said.

Ginsburg, who is 75, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer earlier this month and surgeons removed a small tumor that had not spread. Doctors termed it a “Stage 1” cancer, meaning they found it in the early stages when it is most curable.

via Bunning: Justice Ginsberg likely will be dead in 9 months – The Courier-Journal.

If the Republican Party is looking to regain their legitimacy among the American people, this is not, I repeat not a way to go about doing so; at all.

Obama to Unveil Class Warfare Plan

I knew this was coming:

President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on business and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said.

In addition to tackling a deficit swollen by the $787 billion stimulus package and other efforts to ease the nation’s economic crisis, the budget blueprint will press aggressively for progress on the domestic agenda Obama outlined during the presidential campaign. This would include key changes to environmental policies and a major expansion of health coverage that Obama hopes to enact later this year.

A summary of Obama’s budget request for the fiscal year that begins in October will be delivered to Congress on Thursday, with the complete, multi-hundred-page document to follow in April. But Obama plans to unveil his goals for scaling back record deficits and rebuilding the nation’s costly and inefficient health care system Monday, when he addresses more than 100 lawmakers and budget experts at a White House summit on restoring “fiscal responsibility” to Washington.

In his weekly radio and Internet address today, Obama expressed determination to “get exploding deficits under control” and described his budget request as “sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don’t, and restoring fiscal discipline.”

Reducing the deficit, he said, is critical to the nation’s future: “We can’t generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control.”

Obama faces the long-term challenge of retirement and health programs that threaten to bankrupt the government years down the road, as well as the more immediate problem of deficits bloated by spending on the economy and financial-system bailouts. His budget proposal takes aim at the short-term problem, administration officials said, but also would begin to address the nation’s chronic budget imbalance by squeezing savings from the federal health programs for the elderly and the poor.

Even before Congress approved the stimulus package earlier this month, this year’s deficit was projected by Congressional budget analysts to approach $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of the overall economy, the highest since World War II. With the stimulus and other expenses, some analysts say the annual gap between federal spending and income could approach $2 trillion when the fiscal year ends in September.

Obama proposes to dramatically reduce those numbers by the end of his first term, cutting the deficit he inherited in half, said administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the budget has yet to be released. His budget plan would keep the deficit hovering near $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, but shows it dropping to $533 billion in 2013 — still high in dollar terms, but a more manageable 3 percent of the overall economy.

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from “winding down the war” in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes that the nation will continue to spend money on “overseas military contingency operations” throughout Obama’s presidency, the official said, but that number is significantly lower than the nearly $190 billion the nation budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year

via Washington Post – Obama to Unveil an Ambitious Budget Plan.

Well, one can forget about any new jobs coming to Michigan or anywhere else in America, because if Businesses are taxed, they will not hire new people. Just more class warfare from the Democrats. I also notice that Obama is cutting funds to Iraq and Afghanistan, that will be the precursor to ending the war. Because you cannot fight a war, if you do not have the funds.

We are headed into a repeat of the 1990’s all over again, ending the deficit on the backs of the wealthy in the Country, while the rest of Country gets off scott free. Where is the fairness in that? The reason why this is so bad is this, if you tax the wealthy and business owners, they are much less likely to hire new employees and also they are less likely to spend money, thereby adding to the economy. This whole idea of the Democrats of Tax and Spending our way out of our Economic woes is just plain idiotic.

We are headed towards very scary times in America. Act accordingly.

(H/T and Thanks to Drudge)

Nothing ever changes in Washington D.C.

Heh.

The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails.

Two advocacy groups suing the Executive Office of the President say that large amounts of White House e-mail documenting Bush’s eight years in office may still be missing, and that the government must undertake an extensive recovery effort. They expressed disappointment that Obama’s Justice Department is continuing the Bush administration’s bid to get the lawsuits dismissed.

During its first term, the Bush White House failed to install electronic record-keeping for e-mail when it switched to a new system, resulting in millions of messages that could not be found.

The Bush White House discovered the problem in 2005 and rejected a proposed solution.

via Obama administration tries to kill e-mail case – AP.

Hey far lefty liberals! How’s that Hope and Change working out for ya eh? 😆 🙄

Too funny for words. What the Liberals get for putting all thier Faith and trust into a magic moonbat.

Others: Newshoggers.comFlopping Aces

The Southern Avenger on "Crisis-Mongering"

How President Obama’s haste and hysterics in passing his stimulus to alleviate the economic crisis is similar to Bush’s theatrics in addressing the terror “crisis.”

The Southern Avenger’s Blog

The Southern Avanger at Taki’s Magazine

Taki’s Magazine HQ

HELL FREEZES OVER! Andrew Sullivan says something nice about Ron Paul

Holy Moses ‘n Aaron! I never thought I’d see this day, ever!

I do not know these things. But I do know that a serious engagement with the ideas and principles of a non-Keynesian approach to economics – of the kind Ron Paul talks about – is worth having again. At some point the right will have to govern again; and reminding people of the dangers of excessive government, excessive debt, and printing money will be necessary. The groundwork needs to start now. And it needs to be free of partisan cant and ideological posturing.

via The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (February 20, 2009) – A Conservative Of Doubt.

I agree with Sullivan; for a change. I feel so Odd, and like I need to shower. 😉

Regarding the New York Post's apology

Regarding the New York Post’s Apology and the other stupidity.

I dunno, what ya’ll think?

Family Resemblance?
Family Resemblance?

So, like Michelle said; Sue me.

Other likemided people: Michelle Malkin, Gateway Pundit, Pat Dollard and JOSHUAPUNDIT

Yeah, I know what I wrote here. I still feel that way too. But this is not about Racism, this is about the Liberal Democrats controlling Conservatives right to free speech. The, ahem, chimps Liberal Black Democrats want to control what we honkey White Conservatives write, and I think it is a bunch of bullshit.

So, bring it on, there Mr. “Interloper”.  I dare ya.

Chris Muir also weighs in here:

uh-oh – Nearly One-Forth of the House got donations from corrupt firm connected to Murtha

I suspect there will be some sort of fallout from this here:

More than 100 House members secured earmarks in a major spending bill for clients of a single lobbying firm — The PMA Group — known for its close ties to John P. Murtha , the congressman in charge of Pentagon appropriations.

“It shows you how good they were,” said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator at the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “The sheer coordination of that would take an army to finish.”

PMA’s offices have been raided, and the firm closed its political action committee last week amid reports that the FBI is investigating possibly illegal campaign contributions to Murtha and other lawmakers.

No matter what the outcome of the federal investigation, PMA’s earmark success illustrates how a well-connected lobbying firm operates on Capitol Hill. And earmark accountability rules imposed by the Democrats in 2007 make it possible to see how extensively PMA worked the Hill for its clients.

In the spending bill managed by Murtha, the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriation, 104 House members got earmarks for projects sought by PMA clients, according to Congressional Quarterly’s analysis of a database constructed by Ashdown’s group.

Those House members, plus a handful of senators, combined to route nearly $300 million in public money to clients of PMA through that one law (PL 110-116).

And when the lawmakers were in need — as they all are to finance their campaigns — PMA came through for them.

According to CQ MoneyLine, the same House members who took responsibility for PMA’s earmarks in that spending bill have, since 2001, accepted a cumulative $1,815,138 in campaign contributions from PMA’s political action committee and employees of the firm.

via CQ Politics | Firm with Murtha Ties Got Earmarks From Nearly One-Fourth of House.

I will simply say this, that ALL of the members of the House and Senate involved with this should resign immediately. This is a disgrace to the political system and should be dealt with harshly; that goes for Democrats AND Republicans.

Update: Here’s the list of people with their hands in the cookie jar:

Bold = Member Did Not Receive PMA Money between 2001 and 2008
* = No Longer Serving in the House
# = Member of House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in the 110th Congress

Democrats

Requesting MemberState$ Secured Solo$ Secured w/OthersTotal CreditedPMA campaign $ since 2001
Peter J. Visclosky#Indiana$21,400,000$2,400,000$23,800,000$219,000
John P. Murtha#Pennsylvania$31,705,000$2,400,000$34,105,000$143,600
James P. Moran#Virginia$8,400,000$2,400,000$10,800,000$125,250
Norm Dicks#Washington$11,330,000$800,000$12,130,000$91,600
Bill Pascrell Jr.New Jersey$2,400,000$2,400,000$73,200
Mike DoylePennsylvania$1,600,000$1,600,000$69,400
Loretta SanchezCalifornia$3,200,000$3,200,000$60,118
Tim HoldenPennsylvania$3,200,000$3,200,000$57,275
Tim RyanOhio$1,000,000$1,000,000$54,250
Michael E. CapuanoMassachusetts$2,000,000$800,000$2,800,000$54,000
Chet EdwardsTexas$6,040,000$6,040,000$48,734
Silvestre ReyesTexas$800,000$800,000$42,300
Christopher CarneyPennsylvania$5,900,000$5,900,000$38,500
Paul E. KanjorskiPennsylvania$1,600,000$3,200,000$4,800,000$37,150
Marcy Kaptur#Ohio$1,600,000$1,600,000$34,500
Carolyn McCarthyNew York$1,000,000$1,000,000$31,500
Patrick J. MurphyPennsylvania$1,600,000$1,600,000$29,250
Allyson Y. SchwartzPennsylvania$800,000$800,000$25,000
Jason AltmirePennsylvania$2,600,000$2,600,000$24,500
Brad ShermanCalifornia$1,600,000$1,600,000$15,500
Susan A. DavisCalifornia$800,000$800,000$13,750
Allen Boyd#Florida$6,400,000$2,200,000$8,600,000$12,000
Sanford D. Bishop Jr.#Georgia$1,200,000$2,400,000$3,600,000$10,500
Jane HarmanCalifornia$2,400,000$2,400,000$10,500
Jim MathesonUtah$2,400,000$2,400,000$10,000
Steve IsraelNew York$1,600,000$1,600,000$8,500
Jerrold NadlerNew York$1,600,000$1,600,000$8,500
Joe SestakPennsylvania$1,280,000$1,280,000$8,500
Jim MarshallGeorgia$2,400,000$2,400,000$7,000
Mark Udall*Colorado$2,000,000$2,000,000$6,533
Michael H. MichaudMaine$800,000$800,000$6,500
Tom Allen*Maine$1,800,000$1,800,000$5,750
Danny K. DavisIllinois$295,000$295,000$5,500
Robert E. AndrewsNew Jersey$1,500,000$1,500,000$5,000
Gene TaylorMississippi$800,000$800,000$4,750
Nancy PelosiCalifornia$2,000,000$2,000,000$4,500
David E. PriceNorth Carolina$800,000$800,000$4,000
Steven R. Rothman#New Jersey$800,000$2,400,000$3,200,000$4,000
Brian HigginsNew York$3,400,000$3,400,000$3,000
Brad MillerNorth Carolina$1,000,000$1,000,000$2,250
Brad EllsworthIndiana$1,600,000$1,600,000$2,000
Ed PerlmutterColorado$1,600,000$1,600,000$2,000
Phil HareIllinois$6,800,000$6,800,000$1,500
Martin Meehan*Massachusetts$2,800,000$2,800,000$1,500
Howard L. BermanCalifornia$800,000$800,000$1,000
Carolyn B. MaloneyNew York$3,200,000$3,200,000$1,000
Ben ChandlerKentucky$2,400,000$2,400,000$250
Shelley BerkleyNevada$2,400,000$2,400,000
Dan BorenOklahoma$2,000,000$2,000,000
Leonard L. BoswellIowa$1,650,000$1,650,000
Baron P. HillIndiana$1,600,000$1,600,000
Gwen MooreWisconsin$400,000$400,000
Christopher S. MurphyConnecticut$400,000$400,000
Mike ThompsonCalifornia$1,000,000$1,000,000

Republicans

Requesting MemberState$ Secured Solo$ Secured w/OthersTotal CreditedPMA campaign $ since 2001
David L. Hobson*#Ohio$3,500,000$3,500,000$70,050
Jerry LewisCalifornia$4,000,000$4,000,000$8,000,000$34,649
Rodney Frelinghuysen#New Jersey$2,500,000$4,800,000$7,300,000$29,129
Ander CrenshawFlorida$1,000,000$1,000,000$27,300
Zach WampTennessee$2,800,000$2,800,000$23,900
Todd Tiahrt#Kansas$5,000,000$2,000,000$7,000,000$21,250
Tom Reynolds*New York$1,000,000$1,000,000$12,000
Jack Kingston#Georgia$4,000,000$2,400,000$6,400,000$11,500
H. James Saxton*New Jersey$2,000,000$1,500,000$3,500,000$11,500
Jo Ann EmersonMissouri$1,000,000$1,000,000$11,000
C.W. Bill Young#Florida$16,000,000$4,400,000$20,400,000$10,750
Howard P. “Buck” McKeonCalifornia$1,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,000$9,500
Heather Wilson*New Mexico$6,500,000$6,500,000$9,000
Jim Walsh*New York$2,400,000$2,400,000$8,500
Mark Steven KirkIllinois$390,000$390,000$7,750
Todd AkinMissouri$1,000,000$1,000,000$7,500
Ray LaHood*Illinois$7,800,000$7,800,000$7,450
Jeff MillerFlorida$1,600,000$2,200,000$3,800,000$7,000
Duncan Hunter*California$15,200,000$15,200,000$6,500
Chris Cannon*Utah$1,600,000$1,600,000$6,000
Kay GrangerTexas$3,600,000$3,600,000$6,000
Joe Knollenberg*Michigan$2,800,000$2,800,000$6,000
David DreierCalifornia$3,000,000$3,000,000$5,000
Jim GerlachPennsylvania$1,000,000$1,000,000$4,500
Tom LathamIowa$5,150,000$5,150,000$4,500
Joe L. BartonTexas$2,400,000$2,400,000$4,000
J. Dennis Hastert*Illinois$1,600,000$1,600,000$3,500
Roscoe G. BartlettMaryland$400,000$400,000$3,000
Peter HoekstraMichigan$3,700,000$3,700,000$2,500
Howard CobleNorth Carolina$1,000,000$1,000,000$2,000
John T. Doolittle*California$2,400,000$2,400,000$2,000
Kenny Hulshof*Missouri$1,600,000$1,600,000$2,000
Steve Pearce*New Mexico$6,500,000$6,500,000$2,000
Bill ShusterPennsylvania$1,600,000$1,600,000$2,000
Frank A. LoBiondoNew Jersey$1,500,000$1,500,000$1,500
Rob BishopUtah$2,400,000$2,400,000$1,000
Geoff DavisKentucky$6,800,000$6,800,000$1,000
Virgil H. Goode Jr.*Virginia$2,400,000$2,400,000$1,000
Doug LambornColorado$1,000,000$1,000,000$1,000
Kenny MarchantTexas$2,400,000$2,400,000$1,000
Christopher Shays*Connecticut$1,600,000$1,600,000$1,000
John SullivanOklahoma$2,000,000$2,000,000$1,000
Tom Tancredo*Colorado$1,600,000$1,600,000$1,000
Michael C. BurgessTexas$2,400,000$2,400,000$500
Ralph M. HallTexas$2,400,000$2,400,000
Doc HastingsWashington$1,600,000$1,600,000
Sam JohnsonTexas$1,200,000$1,200,000
Todd R. PlattsPennsylvania$4,400,000$4,400,000
Rick Renzi*Arizona$2,400,000$2,400,000
Pete SessionsTexas$1,600,000$4,800,000$6,400,000

Wow. Can’t wait for the fallout.

Others: The Swamp, NPR, Outside The Beltway, The Washington Independent, Liberty Street, Right Wing Nut House, Betsy’s Page, Hot Air, Wizbang, Taegan Goddard’s …, Riehl World ViewSister Toldjah, Michelle Malkin and QandO

Republicans now supporting nationalization of banks

It looks like the party of Freedom is selling the American people up the river:

Nationalization, long regarded in Washington as a folly of Europeans, is gaining rapid ground among US opinion-formers. Stranger still, many of those talking about federal ownership of banks are Republicans.

Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator for North Carolina, said that many of his selloutcolleagues, including John McCain, the defeated presidential candidate, agreed with his view that nationalisation of some banks should be “on the table”.

Mr Graham said that people across the US accepted his argument that it was untenable to keep throwing good money after bad into institutions such as Citigroup and Bank of America, which now have a lower net value than the amount of public funds they have received.

“You should not get caught up on a word [nationalisation],” he told the Financial Times in an interview. “I would argue that we cannot be ideologically a little bit pregnant. It doesn’t matter what you call it, but we can’t keep on funding these zombie banks [without gaining public control]. That’s what the Japanese did.”

Barack Obama, the president, who has tried to avoid panicking lawmakers and markets by entertaining the idea, has recently moved more towards what he calls the “Swedish model” – an approach backed strongly by Mr Graham.

via FT.com – Bank nationalisation gains ground with Republicans.

Nationalization is nothing more than Communism. We are being sold up the river. Remember this come 2010.

(H/T Drudge)