Sheriff Joe To Congress: Investigate Obama’s Eligibility

Joe Arpaio speech 3 SC1 Sheriff Joe to Congress: Investigate Obamas eligibility

Hey, while Congress is investigating the use of the IRS to harass conservative activists, is trying to find out what the Obama White House covered up about Benghazi and is looking into why the Justice Department went after reporters’ phone records, why not include a check into Obama’s eligibility, too?

That’s an idea confirmed in an affidavit filed with a legal case pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. It was brought by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are seeking to force Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

The case, dismissed at a lower level, is now before the Alabama Supreme Court, where strict constitutionalist Roy Moore was elected chief justice last November. The case becomes all the more intriguing because Moore is on record previously questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

The affidavit comes from Mike Zullo, the chief of a special Cold Case Posse assembled by Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to look into the question at the request of his constituents, who were concerned they were being defrauded by having an ineligible candidate on the 2012 election ballot.

Last year, Arpaio held a press conference at which he and Zullo outlined their findings.

Read More at WND . By Bob Unruh.

Census Bureau Surprises In 2012 Presidential Election Final Report

Barack Obama 6 SC Census Bureau Surprises in 2012 Presidential Election Final Report

The Census Bureau’s final report on the 2012 presidential election which was just published last week contained enough surprising information to draw delight from liberals and dire warnings from conservatives. Although the total voter participation rated declined only slightly between 2008 and 2012, from 63.6 percent to 61.8 percent, the voting rate by blacks exceeded the voting rate by whites for the first time since the bureau started reporting presidential election results in 1996. Another surprising note: The actual number of white voters declined for the first time, from 100 million to 98 million.

The Washington Post said the report “produced another demographic milestone” in how changing voting patterns among whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics are impacting presidential elections and what the implications are for future elections between the Democratic and Republican parties. The combination of higher turnouts among Hispanics and blacks and reduced turnout by whites was sufficient to reelect the president in 2012.

In 2012 white voters represented 73.7 percent of the total vote while blacks and Hispanics represented almost 22 percent. In 1996 white voters represented 82.5 percent of the total vote while blacks and Hispanics combined represented just over 15 percent. Even though just 39 percent of whites voted for the incumbent in 2012, 71 percent of Hispanic voters and 93 percent of black voters did, more than enough to give President Obama a decisive victory over his Republican rival, Mitt Romney. The participation rate by blacks surprised Brookings Institution demographer William Frey, who said: “They persevered. This [was] an important time for them. They were very much responsible for reelecting Barack Obama.”

Conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan, a candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1992 and 1996, noted with distress the decrease in the number of whites who voted in 2012:

America’s white majority, which accounts for nine in 10 of all Republican votes in presidential elections, is not only shrinking as a share of the electorate, but it is declining in numbers, as well…

This is the crisis of the Grand Old Party.

Read More at The New American . By Bob Adelmann.

GOP’s Rand Paul Raises Profile With Eye On 2016

Rand Paul 4 SC GOP’s Rand Paul raises profile with eye on 2016

DES MOINES, Iowa — Sen. Rand Paul is doing much more than “considering” running for president.

The Kentucky Republican is clearing a path to seek the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, with a series of upcoming early primary state visits, a beefed-up political operation and a plan to raise his profile.

His national coming-out begins Friday, when he’s scheduled to be the featured guest at the Iowa Republican Party’s annual spring fundraiser, a plum speaking gig in the state expected to host the leadoff caucuses.

Read More at OfficialWire .

Cruz And Paul Betrayed By Own Party

Rand Paul Ted Cruz 300x200 Cruz and Paul Betrayed by Own Party

It’s been a rough last few years for the Grand Old Party. From utter vilification during the Bush years to two consecutive presidential election defeats, the Republican Party could use a little pick-me-up.

That’s why it seems so baffling that the two most prominent and accomplished rising stars of the GOP, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, have been getting so much hate from their own party.

This dynamic senatorial duo has been doing most of the heavy lifting for their party as of late. Sen. Cruz has really had his chance to shine staring down the Obama Administration on gun control. Now he’s at it again, throwing down the gauntlet to Vice President Joe Biden, challenging him to an hour-long debate on gun control. His fearless efforts have even earned him the praise of his enemies.

Sen. Paul, meanwhile, has served splendidly as the face of the resistance to the current Administration. Whether providing the only solid rebuttal to the State of the Union address, grilling then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi debacle and suggesting she be removed from her position, or bringing the whole country to a standstill in a valiant filibuster against drone assassinations of American citizens without due process, Rand Paul has solidified his position as the de facto leader of the Republican Party. He may very well be the foremost GOP contender for a 2016 run for President.

Unfortunately, it seems like there’s no rest for these two weary leaders. Not even from their own party. Cruz has earned ire from fellow Republicans who wish out loud that he would just shut up and stop doing what he does best, never mind that the prevalence of the silent strategy is the reason such bold stands are needed in the first place. Even Paul, the GOP’s unequivocal workhorse, has faced ambushes from his own supposed comrades for standing up for the very principles the whole party is theoretically behind.

The Republican Party purports to stand for limited Constitutional government, personal responsibility, liberty, and a strong family. When said party bites the very hands that lead them into battle for those exact principles, something is clearly wrong. The GOP no longer represents the will of its patriotic American supporters, and is no longer deserving of their support.

Joel Valenzuela is the editor of The Desert Lynx

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Biden: Republicans Are Down On America

Joe Biden Words Have Consequences SC Biden: Republicans are down on America

COLUMBIA, S.C.— Vice President Joe Biden is scolding Republicans in Congress, telling Democrats in South Carolina that the new Republican Party is down on America.

Biden is questioning what Republicans don’t understand about the U.S. and the people who built the country and fought to defend it.

He says the one thing all Democrats have in common is an absolute commitment to the middle class.
Read more at Official Wire. By Josh Lederman.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Fox News Darling Attacks Talk Radio Conservatives

Frank Luntz SC Fox News darling attacks talk radio conservatives

A Republican media consultant recently showed us who he really is. In a conversation he thought was “off the record,” Frank “Rat Top” Luntz has tipped his hand and reminded us why we can’t trust him. When he thought only those in front of him would hear his words, he attacked talk radio conservatives for destroying Marco Rubio’s plans to erase our national borders.

A Fox News favorite, Luntz has a big mouth and an awful horse tail brown toupee. (Does it ever occur to people like him that no one on earth has that color hair?) He is a stereotypical caricature of the out-of-touch “country club Republican” liberals and true conservatives both love to mock and hate. One look at him tells you he is not a guy you would want to have next to you in a fox hole. Everything about him says “Please Mr. Liberal Alligator, just eat the guy next to me and we can be friends.”

Foolishly believing that since he was a guest speaker of the University of Pennsylvania Republican Club (his alma mater) he could trust his audience to refrain from recording his duplicitous remarks, Luntz made a mistake and spoke “off the record,” revealing what he really thinks about the struggle to save America.   He blamed conservatives, especially talk radio hosts, for dividing the Republican Party.

Watching him lecture conservatives about the need to essentially be “better Red than dead” tells us that Luntz really doesn’t like conservatives and would rather surrender to liberals than stand for anything. His suggestions for shying away from talking about capitalism and replacing conservative principles with nicer-sounding euphemisms reinforces that conclusion.

Now we have his very troubling attack on talk radio because of its refusal to stand by and let Rubio help Chuck Schumer destroy America.  Rat top’s insistence that recording devices be shut off tells us all we need to know about this parasite’s true colors. He is a man who lives by teaching others the value of white lies, half- truths, and obfuscation, so we really couldn’t have expected anything else.  He has disqualified himself from ever standing with us again.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

Schlafly: Immigration Reform ‘Suicide For The Republican Party’

No disagreement here…

Why Do I Have To Show ID When Obama Shows None?

a birthcertificate obama small 300x225 Why Do I Have To Show ID When Obama Shows None?

I just went through this in re-instating my architectural license in AZ. They wanted me to provide college transcripts, proof of registration in previous states, proof of passing the national licensing exam, and 30 year professional experience (work) history, proof of citizenship, proof of Social Security registration, and government-provided photo ID (not necessary to vote in every state won by Barack Obama in the recent election) – all of which I had to provide 8 years ago upon being licensed initially in the state, and ALL of which is in my file IN THEIR OFFICE. The forms which they send to be re-completed are all available on-line, but cannot be filled out electronically. They have to be printed, filled in by hand (or typewriter!), scanned, printed, and mailed. (I was stunned yesterday that they let me email an additional form they requested from another state!) Meanwhile, the “supervisor” was attending a “conference” in San Francisco, or was it San Diego?

By the Way, just try telling them that your birth certificate is posted on your MySpace page, and let me know how that works out for you. Oh yeah, your’re not the guy with the Connecticut Social Security Number (who couldn’t pass the Federal Government’s own E-Verify system last year), and whose Selective Service Registration is a clear forgery (both departments refusing to provide proof of original documentation, while scurrying to destroy past records – all such actions a matter of public record). Anyway, you’re not the guy walking around with the Nuclear Launch Codes (the Nuclear Football) within 20 feet of you at all times (or was it meters?), so no big deal. Oops! I got that backwards. It isn’t a big deal for HIM, but it is for those of us who hire and pay him, and to whom HE is to answer. But saying all of this only makes me a “racist” and “birther” according to the media elites in BOTH parties.

No, you and I are just people who believe that under the Rule of Law, we are all EQUAL, even if we’re not an impoverished, government-assisted, transgender “male” (or lesbian), Muslim, or, at least non-Christian or non-Jewish (yes, lots of contradictions there) person of color. Too bad about that “document of negative liberties”…but that apparently only applies to angry white Christian males…like those who wrote that dusty old document (found recently in a trash bin behind the Capitol!).

Tom Ballantyne – Author of Oh Really, O’Reilly! an expose of the greatest fraud and cover-up in American history, by none other than the political elites in the Republican Party and so-called “Conservative” establishment media. (Available at www.UncommonSenseNow.com.)

An Eagle Scout’s Take On The Current Boy Scout Controversy

Scouts SC An Eagle Scouts Take on the Current Boy Scout Controversy

Yesterday, Western Journalism linked to an article about the controversy over allowing openly gay boys into the Boy Scouts of America.

It looks like after relentless pressure, the Boy Scouts are caving into the homosexual agenda (which as I will explain later has nothing to do with homosexuality per se.)

This just might be the last straw for me…

First, some background. From 1998 until 2004, I was a proud member of BSA Troop 199 in Oldwick, New Jersey. I made a lot of friends and even acquired a few mentors during my time in the scouts. One of my proudest accomplishments in my 26 years was attaining the rank of Eagle Scout in October 2004. I remember the ceremony as if it was just yesterday. It was a lot of hard work, but it was more than worth it.

I am still in touch with several of my fellow Eagle Scouts (some of whom just might be reading this right now!) And man do we have a strong opinion on what is happening to the program we were privileged to be a part of during our teenage years.

I do know some “scout dads” who will cease any involvement, current or former, with the Boy Scouts should they yield to the gay lobby.

I should also mention (proudly) that I am a theologically and culturally conservative Christian who after attending a more moderate church for 15 years was saved earlier this year after attending an Independent Baptist church for two weeks. I am proud to call Sun Valley Baptist Church in Anthem, Arizona my new home church.

The reason why I am specific in terms of what kind of Christian I am is because sadly, a LOT of Christianity has been watered down in America. Whole denominations are indifferent to traditional marriage, “social justice,” the increasing usurpation of our God-given liberties under multiple recent administrations, and even abortion.

When it comes to marriage, I subscribe strictly to its biblical definition. (To some people, that makes me a “bigot,” an accusation I will proudly wear with a badge of honor.) Why, you may ask? Because God did not create Adam and Steve, nor Alice and Eve. He created Adam and Eve. End of story.

I believe that Christians are to hate sin while at the same time loving the sinner. It is not gays themselves I am opposed to. It is the gay lifestyle, which is shamelessly promoted on television, Hollywood, the rest of the media, and the Democratic Party (this should not suggest that I am any fan of the Republican Party, FYI.) It is specifically promoted as a “normal” lifestyle, which just simply is not true to the many of us Christians who read the Bible for ourselves.

It is not the job of Christians to call them names (i.e. “perverts”, “queers”, or worse.) Unfortunately, some Christians will distract fellow church-goers from the fact that they are sinners by just demonizing gays (or immigrants or Muslims) all the time. These Christians should know better as we are all sinners, whether we like it or not.

The so-called “homosexual agenda” is not about homosexuality. It is not about “equality.” It is about gaining special privileges that straight people do not have (i.e. “hate crime” laws.) What they will end up doing, whether they realize it or not, is direct more animosity towards gays. (And Christians who hate sin yet love sinners at the same time are accused of hating gays?!)

I know of many gays, especially some of my fellow libertarians, who refuse to let their sexual orientation define them. This is a wonderful thing in and of itself. (And did you hear about the gay tea party activist who opposed “marriage equality”?)

If the Boy Scouts do indeed lift this gay ban, they will join the media and Hollywood in saying that “it’s okay to be gay.” Of course, that flies right in the face of the laws of God. I challenge any liberal reading this to show me Biblical truth to the contrary.

And I don’t have any time for such organizations, especially now that I know I am going to Heaven. Nor will my children, should God choose to bless me with them at some point down the road.

It’s not that I am afraid of gays per se. I have a few gay friends and even a gay relative whom I love dearly and pray for. And if one of them invited me to their “wedding ceremony” should he/she decide to get “married”, I would not turn them down (although I know they are committing a sinful act and will be praying for them ASAP after the “festivities” are over with.) It’s just that the gay lifestyle goes against God’s word. That’s the deal breaker for me.

As a libertarian (a very misunderstood term, but that’s for another time) AND a Christian, I believe that one of the best gifts God gave us was the gift of free will (which even includes the freedom to refuse to acknowledge there is a God.) Of course, there are consequences for using this gift the wrong way. But such is the Christian life.

And if gays wanted to start their own program similar to the Boy Scouts in nature, I think they should be more than free to do so, assuming parents of prospective members are comfortable with such a program. But the Boy Scouts has every right to discriminate in this way as they are a private organization.

In fact, I would argue that in a truly free society, it should be the right of ANY business or organization to discriminate based on (dare I say it) race, religion, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation, among pretty much any other basis.

Now I am no racist or bigot, and I would likely refuse myself to patronize any restaurant or business that did discriminate in such a way. But the freedom to discriminate like this should exist nonetheless. Discrimination is a two-way street, after all. Black restaurant owners could refuse to serve KKK members. And gays should be free to not serve anyone they deem is homophobic.

I don’t know about you, but I’ll be watching this story like an Eagle…

 

Photo credit: Preston Kemp (Creative Commons)

 

 

 

 

If There Is No God – Part II

Flickr Creative Commons Greendyker No Christianity logo If There Is No God   Part II

(Editor’s note: Read Part 1 here.)

Ultimately, if religion is merely a creation of man, and religion itself is evil, what does that say about man? And why has God all of a sudden become expendable? He has always had a prominent place in our hearts and in our society. God wasn’t a problem for two centuries; but now the Democratic Party has gone agnostic, and the Republican party is split.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the GOP excommunicates God (and the Republican secularists lose their ‘Scapegoat’) – what’s the platform? What makes the GOP a winning ticket?

Whether man wants to hide behind religion, big government, progressivism, or secularism – we’re imploding! As far as ideology goes, no matter what our espoused affiliation, we’ve all contributed to the mess. None of us are innocent – there’s plenty of blame to go around!

In the end, we must blame the depraved, morally bankrupt, self-destructive tendencies of MAN for our demise. Atheists who claim that man is responsible for creating religion are forced to come to the same conclusion.

The Constitution may have proven to be an essential tool in keeping religious tyranny from reigning. But we’re swiftly headed in the other direction towards Communism, which is a religion in and of itself, in which the government is our god (and applies complete control over us).

Religion should not be used as a means of control; it should serve a greater purpose. I never considered Emperor Constantine (or any other political-religious leader for that matter) having pure intentions – but at least he stopped the persecution of Christians.

Absolute power and authority in the hands of men is bad, no matter the ideology/affiliation. The Christians I know don’t want theocracy, despite the obnoxious claims perpetuated by the New Atheists.

In fact, I pointedly asked Dave:

“Why the bias, the law suits, and the hard cultural atheism? This is a new phenomenon!”

To Dave’s credit, he took a sincere stab at addressing the question:

I think the vitriol came initially after the war on terror and the atrocities – largely from Muslims – that occurred . However they (atheists) were uncomfortable associating with Christians who were also appalled by the jihadists. I think you saw people like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher tending to be more critical of Christians (Christians don’t threaten to cut off your head, at least not anymore) because it was an easier target- other atheists used it as an opportunity to point out the hypocrisy they saw in all religions . Truthfully, many atheists now see religion on the decline and want to speed it’s demise.

In response, I affirmed that demise of religion will not fix the problem! This is not a religion problem but a human nature problem. Take away religion, and you still have the man.

If you look at the atrocities perpetuated in heathen lands and godless, secular societies led by cruel dictators (i.e. Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, etc.) throughout history, the root of the evil is apparent!

Darwinism, in particular, has had a significant influence in minimizing the sanctity of life; and this is why death panels will soon become a reality in this country (as it is just an extension of abortion) for those lives considered unworthy of the cost required to sustain their existence (i.e. elderly, infirm, disabled, terminally ill). It’s the secularists who endorse a death culture, while orthodox Christians are consistently pro-life. Where’s the morality from the secular side? Do they not often endorse the barbaric slaughter of those who are most in need of care, advocacy, and protection? From where does their moral compass stem?

Social stability is a fragile thing. We are witnessing how fast our moral foundations can be undone.
We may want to consider Islam and Communist North Korea before targeting ‘radical Christianity’ (whatever the heck that means!!!)

By the end of our discussion, Dave and I pretty much reached a stalemate. But I believe the take-home message remains:

From where does our faith come? From where does our hope come?

How can all this madness be thwarted and wholly overcome?

Does the answer lie in man or God?

“Choose you this day whom ye will serve…me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”