Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Obama’s Election-Year Lie That Never Dies

Just More Words
Posted October 5, 2012

THE CLAIM: Today, Obama Presented As Fact The Notion That There Are “Tax Breaks To Corporations That Move Jobs And Profits Overseas.” OBAMA: “He says there’s no way that he would close the loophole to give — that gives oil companies billions each year in corporate welfare. Any tax breaks to corporations that move jobs and profits overseas, he had never heard of such a thing. Who knew? Who knew?” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/5/12)

THE FACTS: Under Present Law, There Are No Tax Credits Or Disallowance Of Deductions Specific To Locating Jobs In The United States Or Transferring Jobs Overseas.” “Under present law, there are no tax credits or disallowance of deductions specific to locating jobs in the United States or transferring jobs overseas. However, Congress has provided various credits to encourage certain activities or behavior and has disallowed deductions to curtail behavior deemed inappropriate or to discourage certain economic choices.” (“Descriptions Of Revenue Provisions Contained In The President’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Proposal,” Joint Committee On Taxation, p.73, 6/12)

  • The Actual Tax Provision Obama References Would Raise Only $17 Million A Year, Or What You’d “Call A Rounding Error” With Obama’s $1 Trillion Annual Budget Deficits. “Moreover, it is pretty small potatoes given the attention Democrats pay to it. The JCT estimated that ending the deduction for moving operations overseas would raise just $168 million over a decade. In the federal government with an annual budget deficit of more than $1 trillion, that’s what you call a rounding error.” (Glenn Kessler, “Factchecking The First Presidential Debate Of 2012,” The Washington Post ‘s The Fact Checker , 10/4/12)


2004: Obama Said He Wanted To Ensure That “We Close Tax Loopholes To Companies Moving Jobs Overseas, And Making Them Invest Right Here In The United States.” OBAMA: “The fact of the matter is, it’s more fun being in the majority. You can get more stuff done. And to the extent that I can lend my assistance to these other candidates so that we can promote some of the policies that we’ve talked about: making sure that we close tax loopholes to companies moving jobs overseas, and making them invest right here in the United States. Then, I’m going to do everything I can to make that happen.” (State Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks In Illinois Senate Debate, Chicago, IL, 10/21/04)

2007: Obama Said “ That’s Why We’ve Got To Stop Giving Tax Breaks To Companies That Send Jobs Overseas.” OBAMA: “That’s why we’ve got to give unions the power to do what they do best, which is organize workers to lift themselves up into the middle class. That’s why we’ve got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. Save those tax breaks for companies that invest right here in the United States of America.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Columbus, OH, 10/26/07)

2008: Candidate Obama Again Presented His Economic Plan As One That Ends “Tax Breaks For Companies That Ship Our Jobs Overseas And Give Them To Companies That Create Jobs Here In America.” OBAMA: “At this defining moment in our history, the question is not, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago’ – we all know the answer to that. The real question is, ‘will our country be better off four years from now?’ How will we lift our economy and restore America’s place in the world? Here’s what I’ll do as President. …I’ll end the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give them to companies that create jobs here in America.” (Obama For America Ad, “Barack Obama: Defining Moment,” 10/24/08)


2009: Obama Said “ We Need To Stop Giving Tax Breaks To Companies That Stash Profits Or Ship Jobs Overseas…” OBAMA: “We’re also doing away with the unnecessary giveaways that have thrown our tax code out of balance. I said this during the campaign, I’m now saying it as President: We need to stop giving tax breaks to companies that stash profits or ship jobs overseas so we can invest in job creation here at home.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks On Taxes, Washington, D.C., 4/15/09)

2010: Obama Said “That’s Why We Want To End Tax Breaks Going To Companies That Are Shipping Jobs Overseas…” OBAMA: “And that means a future where we encourage American innovation and American ingenuity. That’s why we want to end tax breaks going to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and start giving those tax breaks to companies that are investing in jobs and research and plants and equipment right here in the United States of America.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks By The President At Finance Reception For Congressman Sestak , Washington, D.C., 9/20/10)

Obama Said That Voters Have A Choice To “ Go Back To The Ideas We Tried In The Last Decade — Where Corporations Got To Write Their Own Rules And The Most Fortunate Among Us Got All Of Our Tax Breaks, And Jobs Got Shipped Overseas…” OBAMA: “We can go back to the ideas we tried in the last decade — where corporations got to write their own rules and the most fortunate among us got all of our tax breaks, and jobs got shipped overseas, and incomes and wages flat-lined as the cost of everything went up, and this society became less equal, and opportunity was diminished for too many. (President Barack Obama, Remarks By The President And The First Lady At A DNC Event , New York, NY, 9/20/11)


TRUTH: “Obama’s ‘Jobs Overseas’ Fantasy, Again” (Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Joe Miller and Viveca Novak “Closing Arguments: Obama,”, 11/3/08) The Tax Breaks That Obama Is Referring To Have Nothing To Do With Why Companies Ship Jobs Overseas. “Back in 2004 when we criticized John Kerry for using a similar iteration of this claim against President Bush, we pointed out that Christian Weller, a senior fellow at the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress, had said taxes ‘are a very small part’ of companies’ decisions to move jobs offshore. Those at a 2005 Brookings Institution summit on trade also said taxes had little to do with outsourcing. Joel Slemrod, a tax expert at the University of Michigan’s business school, summed it up by saying: ‘For those who see [offshoring] as a problem, this is not a solution.’” (Justin Bank, “Obama’s Trade Trickery,”, 9/26/08)

  • Factcheck.Org: “Eliminating This Incentive Would Have Very Little Effect On U.S. Employment .” “The claim that the tax code favors locating jobs overseas has been a Democratic mantra since at least 2004, when John Kerry brought it up constantly in his campaign against then-President George W. Bush. It has some truth to it – but not much. As we reported in 2004, eliminating this incentive would have very little effect on U.S. employment.” (Brooks Jackson, “A False Tax Attack,”, 4/9/10)

  • Factcheck.Org: “As We’ve Been Saying For More Than Four Years Now… Eliminating Them Won’t Do Much To Keep Jobs In The U.S.” “Obama’s infomercial, and his closing TV ads, continue to harp on the theme of ‘tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas,’ which Obama proposes to eliminate. We can’t say whether or not he can deliver on that promise, but as we’ve been saying for more than four years now, (and most recently on Sept. 26) eliminating them won’t do much to keep jobs in the U.S. In a recent exchange of e-mails with us, Eric Toder of the Tax Policy Center concluded that eliminating such tax breaks ‘is a nice political slogan, but will do little or nothing for U.S. employment or incomes.’” (Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Joe Miller and Viveca Novak “Closing Arguments: Obama,”, 11/3/08)

Monday, October 22, 2012

The Price of Change

Dave Merrick: The Price of CHANGE

This was sent to other bloggers (not me...I'm an unknown) with express intent of having it forwarded and implied permission to reprint. 

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception

Is this really ridiculous? Watch and judge for yourself.

Tax Demagogues Are Lying Liars, in One Graph

The rich pay lower tax rates than we do.  Bush's tax cuts were only for the rich.  Both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were sops to the rich.  Schmucks like you and me pay all the taxes so the rich can ride free.

You hear these lies every day.

In case you think I make these lies up, here are some examples.

"Changes in tax rates have strongly favored the very, very rich." -Paul Krugman

"Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich[.]" -Paul Krugman

"We know, for instance, that taxes on the rich have fallen dramatically in recent decades." -Ezra Klein

"The rich pay a huge share of the total taxes in the United States because they have a huge share of the money." -Matthew Yglesias

"If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine -- most likely by a lot[.]  Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher[.]"  -Warren Buffett

"Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush's tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top[.]" -Edmund Andrews, The New York Times

"And that's why this plan eliminates tax loopholes that primarily go to the wealthiest taxpayers and biggest corporations -- tax breaks that small businesses and middle-class families don't get.  And if tax reform doesn't get done, this plan asks the wealthiest Americans to go back to paying the same rates that they paid during the 1990s, before the Bush tax cuts." -President Obama

These lies are rebutted by a single graph produced by the Congressional Budget Office, below.

The taxes included in this chart are for all federal taxes, not just income taxes.  Each quintile is one fifth of taxpayers, based on income.  The top quintile is the one with the highest incomes.

From just this one graph, several observations can be drawn.

  • The most obvious observation is that the higher your income, the greater your federal tax rate is. Taxpayers in the top quintile paid about 25% of their income in federal taxes, while those in the bottom quintile paid about 5% in 2007.

  • The rate for the top quintile has been very steady for the last thirty years: about 25%. In fact, the rate since the Bush cuts went into full effect (2003-07) was about the same as twenty years before (1983-87).

  • The same cannot be said for the lower quintiles; they have trended downward, especially since the Bush cuts in 2003. For the lowest quintile in particular, the rate has drifted downward since 1984, from about 10% of income to about 4%. That is a cut in the tax rate of about 60% for the lowest quintile, versus no cut in rate for the top quintile.

  • Changes in these rates cannot be explained by changes in income. The rate is taxes paid divided by income. If your taxes went up only because your income went up, then your rate would not change.

  • Reagan's tax cuts became fully effective in 1983. But look at the trend in average tax rate for the highest quintile of earners after that. It went up. That upward trend on the richest Americans went up for seventeen years after Reagan's tax cuts.

  • The same cannot be said for the lower quintiles. Tax rates for the lower 80% of taxpayers remained virtually flat, or trended downward, from 1983 to 2000.

  • A cut on the capital gains tax rate became effective in 1997. Do you see any kind of accompanying dip in the average tax rate for the highest quintile in that year or shortly after? Nope. The rate is pretty flat from 1993 to 2000.

  • The Bush tax cuts did cut tax rates -- for all income groups. The cut was about 2%-3% of income for all quintiles. But since the lower income groups were paying lower rates in the first place, the constant cut across income groups meant that tax rates were cut proportionally more for lower income groups. For example: the top quintile was cut from about 27% to about 24%, which is a cut in the rate of 11%. But the bottom quintile was cut from about 7% to about 4%, a cut in the rate of over 40%.

Some lying liars have tried to obfuscate things, sometimes by including multiple taxes (e.g., personal income and payroll) and at other times by complaining that not all taxes are included.  The above graph from the CBO includes all federal taxes.  However, if you were to look at personal income taxes only, the observations above would be even more obvious.  I recommend taking a look at a previous American Thinker Graph for the Day.  Since about 2002, the average federal income tax on the bottom 40% of "taxpayers" has been negative: they collect more in credits than they pay in taxes.

There is one minor flaw in the above CBO graph: that top quintile includes a lot of taxpayers.  In fact, in 2009, those making over $75,000 constituted the top 20.6% of taxpayers, or approximately the top quintile.  So that top quintile includes some of the middle class plus the rich and "mega-rich" (a Warren Buffett term).

So let's look at that top quintile, shall we?  The table below shows 2009 average federal income taxes as a percent of income (adjusted gross income less deficit) for the various income groups.  The groups with incomes over $75,000 constitute the top quintile, approximately.  (Data for the year 2009 is the latest available.)

Average Federal Income Taxes Paid, as Percent of Income

Average tax rate
Under $75K
$75K to $100K
$100K to $200K
$200K to $500K
$500K to $1M
$1M to $1.5M
$1.5M to $2M
$2M to $5M
$5M to $10M
$10M or more

The obvious observation from this data is that the rich pay higher taxes than the poor or middle-class.  The rates are strictly progressive up to incomes of $5 M: each income group, up to $5M, paid a higher percentage of income in taxes than the next lower group.

It is true that the very highest income group, those making over $10M per year (the "mega-rich"), paid a lower rate than those making merely a few million.  But that group still paid a higher percentage than all groups making less than half a million dollars.  The average billionaire would pay a higher tax rate than his secretary unless he paid his secretary a couple million dollars per year.

Does it not strike you as odd that this "anomaly" in progressivity is used to justify increasing taxes on everyone making more than $200K per year?  If the top 8,274 taxpayers are the ones who bother you, why are you raising taxes on the top three million taxpayers, a good several hundred thousand of whom already pay a higher rate than those 8,274?

There is a simple reason the "mega-rich" pay a slightly lower average rate on personal income taxes than the merely "rich."  That reason is not some dark secret known only to tax loophole experts.  It is that most of their income is from capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than "normal" income.

And there is a simple reason for that: capital gains have already been taxed in the form of corporate income taxes.  Warren Buffett likes to include payroll taxes in his little anecdotal calculations, but he neglects to include corporate income tax, inheritance taxes, and other forms of taxes that are paid disproportionately by the mega-rich.

And by the way, total federal revenue in 2007, well after the Bush tax rates were in effect, was 18.5% of Gross Domestic Product.  The 1960-2000 average was 18.2% of GDP.  All that tax rate-cutting, and still the actual revenues collected were above the historical average.

Randall Hoven can be followed on Twitter.  His bio and previous writings can be found at


Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Ron Paul on the Evil Fed, the IRS, and Saving the Buck

Hoping to restore a little conservatism in the mindset of true Americans.

Found at posted on Nov.29, 2007

By Maria Bartiromo

At 72, Ron Paul is a Web phenomenon. His campaign says that some 80% of the $17 million raised in the past four quarters—including about $4.3 million in one October day—has come from online supporters. And according to a mid-November poll, the Republican Presidential hopeful is gaining ground in New Hampshire, though he's still in single digits. Like maverick candidates such as Howard Dean in 2004 and Ross Perot in 1992, Paul seems to connect with voters hungry for unvarnished positions. Paul, an obstetrician and 10-term congressman from the Texas Gulf Coast, voted against the war in Iraq and wants the troops home fast, but it's his economic ideas that are the most radical: He detests the Fed and would abolish the IRS. Paul was about to climb on a plane for a campaign trip to South Carolina when I caught up with him.

Q: As President, how would you strengthen the economy?

A: The most important thing is to get control of the budget, because the more we spend and the higher the deficit, the more we have to tax and borrow and inflate the currency—literally create new credit to buy Treasury bills. We need to restore confidence in the dollar before [its decline] gets out of control. The easiest place to cut spending is overseas because it's doing so much harm to us, undermining our national defense and ruining our budget. I would start saving hundreds of billions of dollars by giving up on defending the American empire. I'd start bringing our troops home, not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan, and Europe, and save enough money to slash the deficit. We can actually pay down the national debt and still take care of people here at home. That would restore a lot of confidence.

Q: What is the most important change you would make?

A: Aim for the federal government to immediately live within its means, to take the pressure off the Fed to create money.

Q: And that means what?
Means no more inflation. If the Fed doesn't create money out of thin air—and they do it mostly to accommodate the deficits—that would restore the soundness of the dollar and give us our purchasing power back.

Q: But as President, you're supposed to be independent from the Fed. You would encourage the Fed to stop printing money?

A: You know this idea that we can create a secret bank and they manage things and rarely tell us—or Congress or the Executive Branch—what they're really doing, there's a problem there. I can't even go to a monetary policy board meeting of the Federal Reserve, and I'm on the Banking Committee of the U.S. Congress. I want open government, and certainly the Fed ought to be open. But it's an institution that really shouldn't exist. [Its financing] allows Big Government to get bigger without being responsible. And that's why we have runaway spending for both warfare and welfare.

Q: Hasn't the Fed been effective in providing liquidity in the current credit crisis?

A: You're right, but it's sort of like a drug addict. The drug addict demands more or he's going to have convulsions. The economy would have a convulsion if the Fed didn't inject more credit. But if you continue to do that, the problem gets worse. You can't solve the problem of monetary inflation with monetary inflation. These circumstances have all been created by our government and the Fed.

Q: How was the recent crisis caused by our government?

A: It was astounding that you could get a mortgage at 4%, and this was all due to the Fed creating money and artificially lowering rates, which gets people to do the wrong thing. Builders do the wrong thing, and people borrow money and buy houses they can't afford.

Q: How would you change tax policy?

A: Ideally, get rid of the income tax. In the meantime, I'd give huge tax credits to anybody who wanted to take care of their own medical care. I'd give tax credits for all educational benefits. I'd get the government out of managing education and medicine. And do it by changing the tax code.
I have a bill right now that is very popular, especially for people who are trying to work their way through college or who are having a tough time making ends meet, and that is to exempt all taxes on tips. People who have a first job or a second job waiting on tables and doing other things, they're harassed by government rules and regulations, and sometimes they have to pay higher taxes than the tips they actually receive. I'd move next to saying no taxes on anybody who's trying to get through college. Why do we tax them, make it hard for them, then give them grants? It doesn't make any sense.

Q: Who are your economic advisers?

A: I don't have any. I read Austrian economics, which I've been doing for 30 years. So my advisers have been [von] Mises and Hayek and Sennholz.

Q: Do you consider yourself a friend or a foe of Wall Street?

A: If they believe in freedom, free markets, and sound money, they'll love me. But if they like creating credit out of thin air, they'll see me as a threat. I was one of three people who voted against Sarbanes-Oxley because I thought it was detrimental to Wall Street. I'd repeal it.

Q: You want to take the troops out of Iraq, but what about Iran? What do we do if other nations turn hostile?

A: I'd treat them something like what we did with the Soviets. I was called to military duty [as a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon] in the '60s when they were in Cuba, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and we didn't have to fight them. We didn't have to invade their country. But to deal with terrorism, we can't solve the problem if we don't understand why they [attack us]. And they don't come because we're free and prosperous. They don't go after Switzerland and Sweden and Canada. They come after us because we've occupied their land, and instead of reversing our foreign policy after 9/11, we made it worse by invading two more countries and then threatening a third. Why wouldn't they be angry at us? It would be absolutely bizarre if they weren't. We've been meddling over there for more than 50 years. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953; we were Saddam Hussein's ally and encouraged him to invade Iran. If I was an Iranian, I'd be annoyed myself, you know. So we need to change our policy, and I think we would reduce the danger.

Q: You have vehement new supporters. What's driving the sudden interest in your candidacy?

A: I think they're sick and tired of what they're getting. They've lost all trust and faith in the government. They believe in the American Dream, and they're getting a nightmare. And they're rallying behind the program I've been working on for 30 years—defending the Constitution, limited government, free markets, sound money, and self-reliance; believing people can take care of themselves better than government can. The nanny state doesn't work, the police state doesn't work, and neither does the warfare. And they know it.

Maria Bartiromo is the anchor of CNBC's Closing Bell.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

The Divinity of Jesus-for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

From the Naves Topical Bible:

Act 4:12  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

As Jehovah Isa 40:3; with Mt 3:3
Jehovah of glory Ps 24:7, 10; with 1Co 2:8; Jas 2:1
Jehovah our righteousness Jer 23:5, 6; with 1Co 1:30
Jehovah above all Ps 97:9; with Joh 3:31
Jehovah the first and the last Isa 44:6; with Re 1:17; Isa 48:12 16; with Re 22:13
Jehovah's fellow and equal Zec 13:7; Php 2:6
Jehovah of hosts Isa 6:1 3; with Joh 12:41; Isa 8:13, 14; with 1Pe 2:8
Jehovah Ps 110:1; with Mt 22:42 45
Jehovah the shepherd Isa 40:10, 11; Heb 13:20
Jehovah, for whose glory all things were created Pr 16:4; with Col 1:16
Jehovah the messenger of the covenant Mal 3:1; with Lu 2:27
Invoked as Jehovah Joe 2:32; with 1Co 1:2
As the eternal God and Creator Ps 102:24 27; with Heb 1:8, 10 12
The mighty God Isa 9:6
The Great God and Saviour Ho 1:7; with Tit 2:13
God over all Ro 9:5
God the Judge Ec 12:14; with 1Co 4:5; 2Co 5:10; 2Ti 4:1
Emmanuel Isa 7:14; with Mt 1:23
King of kings and LORD of lords Da 10:17; with Re 1:5; 17:14
The Holy One 1Sa 2:2; with Ac 3:14
The Lord from heaven 1Co 15:47
Lord of the sabbath Ge 2:3; with Mt 12:8
Lord of all Ac 10:36; Ro 10:11 13
Son of God Mt 26:63 67
The one and only Son of the Father Joh 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9
His blood is called the blood of God Ac 20:28
One with the Father Joh 10:30, 38; 12:45; 14:7 10; 17:10
As sending the Spirit equally with the Father Joh 14:16 with Joh 15:26
As unsearchable equally with the Father Pr 30:4; Mt 11:27
As Creator of all things Isa 40:28; Joh 1:3; Col 1:16
Supporter and preserver of all things Ne 9:6; with Col 1:17; Heb 1:3
Acknowledged by Old Testament saints Ge 17:1 with Ge 48:15, 16; Ge 32:24 30 with Ho 12:3 5; Jud 6:22 24; 13:21, 22; Job 19:25 27

PROPHECIES CONCERNING UNIVERSALITY OF THE KINGDOM OF Ge 12:3; 49:10; De 32:21; Ps 2:8; 22:27 31; 47:8; 65:2; 66:4; 72:5, 8 11, 16, 68:31, 32; 17, 19; 85:10 12; 86:9; 87:1 5; 89:1 37; 96:1 13; 102:13 15; 110:1 6; 113:3; 138:4, 5; 145:10, 11; Isa 2:2 5; 4:2, 3; 9:1 7; 11:1 10; 24:16; 25:6 8; 29:18, 19; 32:15 17; 35:1, 2; 40:4 11; 45:8, 42:3; 23, 24; 49:1 26; 51:6, 8; 53:10 12; 54:1 3; 55:5, 10 13; 56:3 8; 59:19 21; 60:1 5, 7 9; 66:7 23; Jer 3:17; 4:2; 16:19 21; 31:34; 33:22; Eze 17:22, 23; 47:1 12; Da 2:35, 44; 7:13, 14, 18, 22, 27; 12:4; Joe 2:28, 29; Mic 4:1 4; Hab 2:14; Zep 2:11; 3:9; Hag 2:7 9; Zec 2:10, 11; 4:10; 6:15; 8:20 23; 14:8, 9, 16, 9:1, 10; 20, 21; Mal 1:11; Mt 8:11; 13:31 33; Mr 13:10; Lu 1:33; 2:10; Joh 3:30; 10:16; 12:31, 32; Ac 2:34, 35; 1Co 15:24 28; Eph 1:10; Php 2:10, 11; Heb 8:11; 10:13; 12:23, 24, Re 5:9, 10, 27, 28; 13, 14; 6:2; 11:15; 12:10; 14:6; 15:4; 17:14; 19:6, 11 21; 20:1 3

Friday, October 12, 2012

The Deadly Disgrace of Obama's Pro-Terrorist Lawyers


October 12 marks the 12th anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole. The grim milestone comes as President Obama faces mounting questions about his administration's dereliction of duty during the murderous attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. And it comes just a day after resurgent al-Qaida thugs pulled off the drive-by assassination of a top Yemeni security official who worked at the U.S. embassy in Sanaa.

These are not "bumps in the road." These are gravesites on the blood-spattered path to surrender.

Seventeen U.S. sailors died in the brutal suicide attack on the guided Navy missile destroyer as it refueled at the Yemeni port of Aden in the fall of 2000. Then-President Bill Clinton vowed to track down the Muslim terrorist attackers: "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable." But a dozen disgraceful years later, Slick Willy's toothless promise has become a bitter punch line.

The current Democratic White House has not only delayed and denied justice to the victims and their families. President Obama's foot-dragging administration, crawling with pro-terrorist lawyers, effectively undermines our nation's ability to detain, contain and destroy jihad threats from within and without.

Suspected Cole bombing suspect and former Persian Gulf Operations Chief for al-Qaida Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri has been in U.S. custody since 2002 and at Gitmo since 2006. In February 2009, Obama met with Cole families and promised them justice. Then, he stabbed them in the back by ordering the (Social) Justice Department to abandon the death penalty case assembled against the al-Qaida mastermind under the Bush administration.

That's right: The Osama bin Laden football-spikers in the Obama administration deliberately dropped the USS Cole ball on al-Nashiri's military prosecution because of their opposition to the Guantanamo Bay detention system. Jesse Nieto, father of murdered Cole sailor Marc Nieto, won't forget it. "That really left a bitter, bad taste in my mouth," he told the Newnan (Ga.) Times-Herald earlier this year.

In 2011, the Obama administration reinstated the charges amid a widespread backlash against Attorney General Eric Holder's plans to bestow U.S. civilian trials in Manhattan to foreign Gitmo goons. But the trial has been plagued by yet more delays and left-wing lawyer antics painting Nashiri as a victim of American hegemony. "This whole trial is a political football the politicians are playing with," Nieto aptly noted. "If they left it to the military, it would be taken care of. And it would be fair."

Team Obama's initial withdrawal from the prosecution came out of left field — literally. But it is no surprise to those who paid attention to Holder's radical ideological and corporate allegiances.

As I reported in "Culture of Corruption," Holder joined the prestigious Covington and Burling business and corporate law firm after a quarter-century as a government lawyer.
The stint boosted his net worth to nearly $6 million. Covington and Burling's post-9/11 claim to fame? Representing 17 terror suspects held at Gitmo who hail from Yemen, long a safe haven for terrorists. (Another Cole bombing mastermind, Jamal Mohammed al Badawi, was convicted and sentenced to die in Yemen for the terror attack, but somehow escaped twice from jail and was freed by the Yemeni government in 2007.)

Holder's law firm employed dozens of radical attorneys such as David Remes and Marc Falkoff to provide the enemy combatants with more than 3,000 hours of pro bono representation. Covington and Burling secured victories for several Gitmo enemy combatants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Remes, who garnered human rights awards for Covington and Burling before striking out on his own, now represents Nashiri.

Falkoff went on to publish a book of poetry, "Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak," which he dedicated to the suspected terrorists: "For my friends inside the wire, Mahmoad, Majid, Yasein, Saeed, Abdulsalam, Mohammed, Adnan, Jamal, Othman, Adil, Mohamed, Abdulmalik, Areef, Adeq, Farouk, Salman, and Makhtar. Inshallah, we will next meet over coffee in your homes in Yemen."

One of the class of Yemeni Gitmo detainees that Falkoff described as "gentle, thoughtful young men" was released in 2005 — only to blow himself up (gently and thoughtfully, of course) in a truck bombing in Mosul, Iraq, in 2008, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others.

In January 2010, The Times of London reported that "at least a dozen former Guantanamo Bay inmates (had) rejoined al-Qaida to fight in Yemen." Another Yemeni Gitmo recidivist and top al-Qaida leader, Said al-Shihri, was freed after undergoing "rehabilitation" — and then promptly rejoined jihadi forces. He was reportedly killed in a U.S. missile strike last month.

In February 2010, GOP Sen. Charles Grassley forced Holder to acknowledge that at least nine DOJ attorneys officially represented or served as advocates for Gitmo detainees before joining the Obama administration. They work in the offices of the attorney general, the acting deputy attorney general, the associate attorney general, and the assistant attorney general for the criminal division. In addition, the assistant attorney general for the civil division previously represented one Afghan detainee, and his former employer represents other detainees.

Gitmo recidivists — a burgeoning Obama demographic that includes suspected Benghazi jihad plotter Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu — certainly are better off than they were four years ago. The question is: Can Americans at home and abroad really afford another four years of Obama, Holder and their soft-on-terror government attorneys sabotaging national security?

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Spirit And Truth - Expanded

This will not be accepted well by many who teach basically the same doctrine represented on this site, but this is bible...and it has been a loonnnggg time coming for me.

Joh 4:23
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Joh 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

It is argued that these verses speak specifically to receiving the Holy Ghost.  I believe this a a partial truth.  I believe it is speaking to that but not exclusively, and here is why.

The LAW that was given in Exodus and Leviticus went largely into the priestly functions.  Levi being the tribe the Lord drafted into His service in place of the firstborn of every family.

The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.Deut.18:1

Since the tribe of Levi were exempt from war and inheritance... Joseph became two tribes for the inheritance.  His sons, Ephriam and Mannaseh were each a tribe counted in the ineritance. Samuel was from the tribe of Ephriam.  Ephriam replaced Levi in the inheritance! Can anyone say-foreshadowing?

Under that law, the Levites would perform all the priestly functions. 

1 Samuel
Until 1 Samuel 2:27-30... when God tells Eli that he has failed in his office, and his sons have disgraced Israel and God, therefore God is going to set aside the priesthood. He sets aside Eli and his sons by killing them!   He sets up Samuel (who is NOT from the tribe of Levi- he was from the 1/2 tribe of Ephriam) as prophet over the priesthood (vs 36).  Samuel offered sacrifices to God.  Samuel was a type of Jesus. 

The priesthood wasn't immediately destroyed..but became powerless.  There were times when it seemed to be restored to power and glory, especially under Solomon, but the word was already established. 

God is sovereign.  He will do what He wants to do.  The key to this reasoning is found in 1 Samuel 2 vs 30.
Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father (Levi), should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.
Those chosen to represent God and His will in the office of the priests was also an established word!  BUT God overturned His expressed will by His Sovereignty.  We know it was always in the plan, but we think we understand everything, when the word tells us we don't!

1Co 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Co 13:10  But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
1Co 13:11  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1Co 13:12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Get that point...His express will was already given...yet He already planned to supersede it.    We stand on His expressed word and use it as, not only our map to heaven, but also as a weapon...our attack those who don't see what we see in it.  But God has a sovereign will that allows Him to honor them that honor Him, even if we don't think they are honoring Him correctly!
Mar 9:37  Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
:38  And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
:39  But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
:40  For he that is not against us is on our part.
:41  For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
:42  And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
John 15:15  Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
1Jn 3:1  Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jn 3:2  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
1Jn 3:13  Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
1Jn 3:14  We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1Jn 3:15  Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn 3:16  Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
We want to have a say into who are the sons of God (according to His Word)...but He is the judge, not us.  We have His WORD (which we see through shades of flesh)...but He sees the heart and is sovereign in His judgment. 
Eze 46:16  Thus saith the Lord GOD; If the prince give a gift unto any of his sons, the inheritance thereof shall be his sons'; it shall be their possession by inheritance.
Eze 46:17  But if he give a gift of his inheritance to one of his servants, then it shall be his to the year of liberty (jubilee- rapture); after it shall return to the prince: but his inheritance shall be his sons' for them.
I used to use this to teach that believers who love Jesus, but don't know the born again experience as I do are servants, not sons.  I did this because I believed only those who receive that baptism of the holy spirit, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues...AND who have been baptized in Jesus name are the only sons...everyone else were only servants who could share in most of the blessings of God's attentiveness until the rapture.  Then, only the sons would inherit. 
but I found a hitch to this explanation:
Pro 17:2  A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren.  
There is a truth and a plan that is correct that I believe is taught at this site..and it all agrees with Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I also know that those who follow Acts 2:38 sing songs in worship written by those who do NOT follow Acts 2:38...but follow after God in their heart, and are blessed by the words and spirit brought forth by those writers.  I have been in worship services (non-apostolic) where the Spirit of God was richer and thicker than many apostolic services I have been in.  Same Spirit/God, most would agree.  But still we dismiss them as somehow less than fully honored of God because we understand a few things with more light.  Yes, we can argue that even those who received the holy ghost still had to get baptized in Jesus name...and back it up with scripture...but does that make God less sovereign?
Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

We are to walk in the we receive light, we must walk in it.  It is never acceptable to think "I'm done.  I don't need to add anything to my walk, or experience."  As we come to fuller revelation we must walk in that fuller revelation.  That doesn't mean we must continually expect everyone else to walk in OUR fuller revelation.

... but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

Many think they will be OK because they have followed THE PLAN of Acts 2:38, but have hatred in their hearts, gossip, cheat on their taxes, or spouses!!! lie, steal, and do all manner of evil...BUT they followed the plan and condemn those who actually love God and His word, and live above reproach but didn't understand the totality of Acts 2:38.
I would rather take my chances loving God and trusting His word as I understood it, living above reproach than to follow a formula and then live as less than a Christian.

Even better...I would rather understand the truth of Acts 2:38 AND live like a Christian!  Those that follow Acts 2:38 and do not live as Christians are not really following Acts 2:38!  The first step to Acts 2:38 is "REPENT".  Death to self will so Jesus' will can rule our lives.  Repentance is an ongoing daily activity.  Just because you did it once, doesn't mean you still walk according to His will... and if you are NOT walking according to His will.. well, read the last thing in bold print.

Those who honor Jesus as Lord are my brothers, those who don't, need to repent.  Those who know truth need to teach truth.  Those who think they have the corner on truth need to expand their minds.  God will honor them that honor Him, and they will inherit with all the brethren who inherit.  None are limited by OUR understanding.  Only WE are limited by our understanding.  If our understanding is greater than others...more is expected of us...not more judgmentalism, but more love and compassion, and exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit.

Let's love God, and His word, and those who honor Him!  Maybe we need to study rebuking a little... maybe next time.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...