Great stuff here! It's SO funny!
Monday, August 20, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
12 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT
Received this in a email and thought it was appropriate since where getting closer to another presidential election. Our choices are VERY slim!!!
When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted Democrat, give them
this list. Then they can then pick a reason from this "TOP 12"...
1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I
want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.
2. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a
gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of
gas at 15% isn't.
3. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job
of spending the money I earn than I would.
4. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody
is offended by it.
5. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and
I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers
and thieves.
6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if
it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt
away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
7. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies
being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
8. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free
health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take
away the social security from those who paid into it.
9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be
allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give
the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.
10. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the
Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never
get their agendas past the voters.
11. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions
to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it
might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.
12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my butty,
it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted Democrat, give them
this list. Then they can then pick a reason from this "TOP 12"...
1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I
want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.
2. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a
gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of
gas at 15% isn't.
3. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job
of spending the money I earn than I would.
4. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody
is offended by it.
5. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and
I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers
and thieves.
6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if
it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt
away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
7. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies
being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
8. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free
health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take
away the social security from those who paid into it.
9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be
allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give
the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.
10. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the
Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never
get their agendas past the voters.
11. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions
to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it
might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.
12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my butty,
it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
"If You Can't Fix It With A Hammer, You've Got An Electrical Problem"
RADICAL IDEAS BUT SOME HAVE MERIT
'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.'- Ronald Reagan
This was written by a 21 yr old female
who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she
feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being
forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best.
This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011
PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Is there a constitutional right to own assault rifles?
I'm completely for the 2nd Amendment!
WASHINGTON, July 28, 2012 — There has been hotly renewed debate recently about gun control, and whether a gun ban would have saved lives in the Aurora tragedy. Considering the theater where the shooting occurred actually banned guns, another gun ban probably would have failed completely.
But there’s another angle to the gun control debate that hasn’t received nearly as much attention as it should have. Is there a constitutional right to own assault rifles? Do we have the right, under the constitution, to own fearsom AK-47s and AR-15s?
To answer the question, we need to just look at the text of the Amendment itself:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The answer is crystal clear: Yes, there is a constitutional right to own all types of rifle, including ones that scare liberals and those who only trust the government with guns.
The original intent of the Second Amendment
There are few topics as open and shut as the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. At the time the Constitution was written, the states sent formal requests that the Second Amendment be added, and explained in detail what they wanted it to mean. The original intent of the Second Amendment is clear, even if some have tried for a century to ignore and “rewrite” it.
We even have records written by the founding fathers in which they explicitly state what the Second Amendment means. The wording of the Second Amendment itself is brutally clear about what it protects. There is no ambiguity.
Before the Second Amendment was ever drafted, New Hampshire’s assembly wanted the Constitution to protect the right of the people to own firearms. They declared, “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.”
They were explicit: The government wouldn’t be able to disarm anyone not actively fighting the US government. Notice the emphasis on “any citizen.” This emphasizes that gun ownership is an individual right, not some sort of “collective” right as anti-gun critics sometimes claim.
The Bill of Rights was written to include this protection, and explicitly says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It isn't a right of state militias, but of the people. The purpose is also clear: The right exists for the sake of a militia, so that it is able to protect the “security of a free state.”
This seems to beg the question, are “the people” and the “militia” different concepts? Some liberals claim they are, but this is historically absurd. The two are one and the same, as the founders repeatedly said during the debates on the Second Amendment.
George Mason, one of the most influential founders, said the following: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
Any historical look at the views of the other states, the other founders, and the meaning of “militia” makes it abundantly clear. The militia are the people, and the people have the right to keep and bear arms for the sake of liberty. In other words, the goal is to make sure that the people can be a fighting military force that can keep the government and foreigners in check.
Hunting is nice, but the Second Amendment is about more than that. It’s about a military force – the people being a well-armed militia.
What if we only ban “assault rifles”?
Many people try to mix what they know the Constitution says and what they want to be true. Some people want to ban some guns and not others.
President Obama recently said that AK-47s should be left in the hands of soldiers, and not on the streets. Of course, he seems to be missing the fact that in America, all men comprise the militia, constitutionally speaking. But we’ll let that slide for now.
Does it violate the constitution to ban AK-47s or other scary guns? Most of the time people talk about AK-47s and other military-style rifles as if they're more dangerous than other guns, you can usually bet money that they’ve never seen one in person, have never fired one, and simply don’t understand guns in general.
There are exceptions, but this is generally the case. If we only see guns on TV, we’re likely to misunderstand them.
Either way, the argument still goes along these lines: You have the right to keep and bear arms, but just guns for self-defense and nothing too dangerous. This misses the point completely. The Second Amendment was specifically about making the people dangerous to tyrants.
This is constitutionally unavoidable.
Ownership of military-style weapons is precisely what is protected by the Second Amendment, because that’s the entire point in the first place.
Even if we ignore the Amendment's obvious purpose, a ban on "assualt" weapons is still blatantly unconstitutional. It’s like saying that the freedom of religion means you can have most religions, but not Islam.
Would a ban on Islam be constitutional? Of course not. The same goes for banning “some” guns. Any gun ban is a violation of the Second Amendment. This is unavoidable.
Does the Second Amendment only protect muskets?
One of the more common and yet absurd arguments on this topic is that the founders didn’t realize that the AK-47 would be invented, and that people would be able to shoot more than one bullet a minute. The general idea is that because guns look dangerous on TV, we should then ban them. The Second Amendment is irrelevant because the founders just didn’t know what kind of guns would be invented.
By this logic, if Bush had banned the Internet, that would have been constitutional, because the founders certainly didn’t know the Internet was going to be invented when they wrote the First Amendment.
The "they didn't know" argument instantly collapses.
You have the right to own modern military rifles for the same reason you have the constitutional right to use the Internet to disagree with me – because the constitution protects that right.
Is there a constitutional right to own nuclear warheads?
Whatever the morality of posessing nukes, there is simply no constitutional right. The Second Amendment’s was designed to create a fighting force of people who can “keep and bear arms.”
The historical definition and context of "arms" meant essentially weapons that individuals could carry on their person. This means firearms, swords, spears, bows and arrows, etc. This includes quite a bit, but it doesn't include nuclear warheads.
There is a right to own all firearms.
The Second Amendment wasn’t written just so we could hunt animals. It was written so that the militia – which is comprised of the people – would have the right to individually keep and bear military rifles.
That was whole point of the amendment. That means that a ban on scary-looking guns would be a complete violation of the Constitution. A supposed tyrannical government would have the latest and greatest arms, and so should the people's militia.
The Second Amendment still covers modern guns for the same reason the First Amendment covers the Internet and blogs. The Second Amendment protects all guns from being banned for the same reason the First Amendment protects all religions from being banned.
This is why it matters that we don’t ban “assault” rifles. They’re not magical. They’re just like other guns, meaning they’re dangerous and deadly. And that’s why Americans should own them – because the American people should be a dangerous and deadly force that our own government and foreign governments should be a little concerned about.
It’s just what’s necessary for the security of a free state.
See the actual newspaper ad here!
WASHINGTON, July 28, 2012 — There has been hotly renewed debate recently about gun control, and whether a gun ban would have saved lives in the Aurora tragedy. Considering the theater where the shooting occurred actually banned guns, another gun ban probably would have failed completely.
But there’s another angle to the gun control debate that hasn’t received nearly as much attention as it should have. Is there a constitutional right to own assault rifles? Do we have the right, under the constitution, to own fearsom AK-47s and AR-15s?
To answer the question, we need to just look at the text of the Amendment itself:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The answer is crystal clear: Yes, there is a constitutional right to own all types of rifle, including ones that scare liberals and those who only trust the government with guns.
The original intent of the Second Amendment
There are few topics as open and shut as the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. At the time the Constitution was written, the states sent formal requests that the Second Amendment be added, and explained in detail what they wanted it to mean. The original intent of the Second Amendment is clear, even if some have tried for a century to ignore and “rewrite” it.
We even have records written by the founding fathers in which they explicitly state what the Second Amendment means. The wording of the Second Amendment itself is brutally clear about what it protects. There is no ambiguity.
Before the Second Amendment was ever drafted, New Hampshire’s assembly wanted the Constitution to protect the right of the people to own firearms. They declared, “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.”
They were explicit: The government wouldn’t be able to disarm anyone not actively fighting the US government. Notice the emphasis on “any citizen.” This emphasizes that gun ownership is an individual right, not some sort of “collective” right as anti-gun critics sometimes claim.
The Bill of Rights was written to include this protection, and explicitly says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It isn't a right of state militias, but of the people. The purpose is also clear: The right exists for the sake of a militia, so that it is able to protect the “security of a free state.”
This seems to beg the question, are “the people” and the “militia” different concepts? Some liberals claim they are, but this is historically absurd. The two are one and the same, as the founders repeatedly said during the debates on the Second Amendment.
George Mason, one of the most influential founders, said the following: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
Any historical look at the views of the other states, the other founders, and the meaning of “militia” makes it abundantly clear. The militia are the people, and the people have the right to keep and bear arms for the sake of liberty. In other words, the goal is to make sure that the people can be a fighting military force that can keep the government and foreigners in check.
Hunting is nice, but the Second Amendment is about more than that. It’s about a military force – the people being a well-armed militia.
What if we only ban “assault rifles”?
Many people try to mix what they know the Constitution says and what they want to be true. Some people want to ban some guns and not others.
President Obama recently said that AK-47s should be left in the hands of soldiers, and not on the streets. Of course, he seems to be missing the fact that in America, all men comprise the militia, constitutionally speaking. But we’ll let that slide for now.
Does it violate the constitution to ban AK-47s or other scary guns? Most of the time people talk about AK-47s and other military-style rifles as if they're more dangerous than other guns, you can usually bet money that they’ve never seen one in person, have never fired one, and simply don’t understand guns in general.
There are exceptions, but this is generally the case. If we only see guns on TV, we’re likely to misunderstand them.
Either way, the argument still goes along these lines: You have the right to keep and bear arms, but just guns for self-defense and nothing too dangerous. This misses the point completely. The Second Amendment was specifically about making the people dangerous to tyrants.
This is constitutionally unavoidable.
Ownership of military-style weapons is precisely what is protected by the Second Amendment, because that’s the entire point in the first place.
Even if we ignore the Amendment's obvious purpose, a ban on "assualt" weapons is still blatantly unconstitutional. It’s like saying that the freedom of religion means you can have most religions, but not Islam.
Would a ban on Islam be constitutional? Of course not. The same goes for banning “some” guns. Any gun ban is a violation of the Second Amendment. This is unavoidable.
Does the Second Amendment only protect muskets?
One of the more common and yet absurd arguments on this topic is that the founders didn’t realize that the AK-47 would be invented, and that people would be able to shoot more than one bullet a minute. The general idea is that because guns look dangerous on TV, we should then ban them. The Second Amendment is irrelevant because the founders just didn’t know what kind of guns would be invented.
By this logic, if Bush had banned the Internet, that would have been constitutional, because the founders certainly didn’t know the Internet was going to be invented when they wrote the First Amendment.
The "they didn't know" argument instantly collapses.
You have the right to own modern military rifles for the same reason you have the constitutional right to use the Internet to disagree with me – because the constitution protects that right.
Is there a constitutional right to own nuclear warheads?
Whatever the morality of posessing nukes, there is simply no constitutional right. The Second Amendment’s was designed to create a fighting force of people who can “keep and bear arms.”
The historical definition and context of "arms" meant essentially weapons that individuals could carry on their person. This means firearms, swords, spears, bows and arrows, etc. This includes quite a bit, but it doesn't include nuclear warheads.
There is a right to own all firearms.
The Second Amendment wasn’t written just so we could hunt animals. It was written so that the militia – which is comprised of the people – would have the right to individually keep and bear military rifles.
That was whole point of the amendment. That means that a ban on scary-looking guns would be a complete violation of the Constitution. A supposed tyrannical government would have the latest and greatest arms, and so should the people's militia.
The Second Amendment still covers modern guns for the same reason the First Amendment covers the Internet and blogs. The Second Amendment protects all guns from being banned for the same reason the First Amendment protects all religions from being banned.
This is why it matters that we don’t ban “assault” rifles. They’re not magical. They’re just like other guns, meaning they’re dangerous and deadly. And that’s why Americans should own them – because the American people should be a dangerous and deadly force that our own government and foreign governments should be a little concerned about.
It’s just what’s necessary for the security of a free state.
See the actual newspaper ad here!
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Love....
A very dear friend blogged about love this week and I felt lead to share. She's an amazing writer and allows God to speak through her to us. What a gift! So go check out her blog! Thanks!
Visit Danielle's Blog here.....
Blessings and Love,
Hollie
Visit Danielle's Blog here.....
Blessings and Love,
Hollie
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
If Obama is re-elected in 2012, the US is finished.
The following is in simple language that everyone can understand, not the gibberish that our government keeps telling people.
By Wayne Allyn Root
Barack Hussein Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. On the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He
is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure,
economic crisis and social chaos – thereby destroying capitalism and our
country from within. Barack Hussein Obama was my college classmate.
(Columbia University, class of '83)
He is a
devout Muslim; do not be fooled. Look at his czars... Anti-business…
anti-American. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack
Hussein Obama is following the plan of
Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University ... they
outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with
government spending and entitlement demands.
Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as
a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United
States into a Socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that
desperately needs government for survival... And can be counted on to
always vote for even bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
Universal Health Care:
The
Health Care bill has very little to do with healthcare. It has
everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and healthcare
workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will
join government employee unions). Obama doesn’t care that giving free
healthcare to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national
debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those
30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist
revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a
depression?
Cap and Trade:
Like
healthcare legislation having nothing to do with healthcare, Cap and
Trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do
with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a
criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and
wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and
CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They
will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama
and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all
the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses
helps Obama “spread the wealth around.”
Making Puerto Rico a state:
Who’s
asking for a 51st state? Who’s asking for millions of new welfare
recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a
depression? Certainly not American taxpayers! But this has been Barack
Hussein Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat
senators, five Democrat congressmen and a million loyal Democratic
voters who are dependent on big government. (This will tip the balance of those living off the government to more than those who must pay for it; and we’re done for.)
Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants:
Just
giving these 12 million potential new citizens free healthcare alone
could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million
reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big
government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to
dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits
for the poor, and eventually Social Security. (see note above re: Puerto Rico)
Stimulus and bailouts.
Where
did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations
(ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create
jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and
Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went
to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).
All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful.
The ends justify the means. Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).
Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussein Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme – all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussein Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp
Last point: think about what this designed “rule of the rabble” will do to anyone successful… and everyone receiving this is. What will your lives be like under communism? The time to fight this abomination is now…
I hope each of you will forward to at least a dozen people.
Blessings, Love and God continue to be with us,
Hollie
Blessings, Love and God continue to be with us,
Hollie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)