ACTION

All of us that call ourselves God fearing Christians have a duty to vote and to encourage our fellow Christians to vote ! imagine how much difference it would make if these Christians had voted for God fearing political candidates. We might just save our once great country !

   As ridiculous as this sounds, every word of this is absolutely TRUE!

1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to uninsure the insured.
2. Next, we require the newly uninsured to be re-insured.
3. To re-insure the newly uninsured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became uninsured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original uninsured can be insured, which will be free of charge to them.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is called “redistribution of wealth” … or, by its more common name, SOCIALISM.

Dr. Shaun Crowell for TN Gov 
Republican governor, Bill Haslam, is in the process of submitting a plan to the HHS (formerly controlled by FEMA Death Marshall Kathleen Sebelius) to utilize Obamacare dollars in a manner similar to Arkansas and Iowa’s Private Option plans.  Article Click HERE

The summary below of Barack and Michelle Obama's 6 year reign in the White House is by far the best I've ever read as it squarely hits the nail on the head.  And it took a black reporter writing it to make it as effective as it is. A white man's account would be instantly criticized by the liberal media as pure racism. But, how can anyone scream Racist when an exacting description of the Obama's is penned by a well known journalist of color?

BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE OBAMA EVER!

(Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles ..)

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's. Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture." 

 The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state. 

 I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America . They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous. 

 I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President, and a love of our country and her citizens, from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. 

 His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs? 

 Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility. 

 I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America . I view that statement and that Mind set as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.

 Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do that. I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. 

 And what the two of them have shared has been proven to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. 

 He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. 

 His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare. 

 I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority. 

 Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

 I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color. 

 As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. 

 He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

 Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America 's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed. 

Time and time again I have been accused of being on the “wrong side of history” when it comes to the arguments over abortion and, especially, to so-called gay marriage. This linguistic fad has exploded in use lately as if history itself is the sole arbitrator of what is right and true. It is the weapon of utter dismissiveness that is boldly and routinely wielded by the Left.

One should, in reality, not be interested in being on the “right side of history,” but on the right side of right and wrong.

The most recent and sudden burst of Leftist momentum in the culture wars have Progressives engaging in histrionic vitriol on a massive scale. Progressives make the fundamental mistake of feeling that being in lockstep with, or creating, social fads and whims of popular opinion at this particular moment in history is equivalent of being on the “right side of history.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

History is full of misguided ideological isms that seized the moment and manipulated cultures, societies, and circumstances all the while declaring themselves on the “right side of history.” The “right side of history” argument is an appeal to the authority of an imagined future that hasn’t even happened yet and an attempt to convince the opposition that resistance is futile while their agenda is inevitable. Few in our present generation fully realize that national socialism, fascism, Marxism, and even anarchism were each considered by a great number of people not that long ago the new, great, and inevitable ideology that would usher in a new utopian age.

They were mostly seen as movements of the young, often centered on charismatic personalities, challenged the old norms and values, and were to be the great correctors of all the societal ills and wrongs that had come before them. They could not picture themselves as being anything but on the “right side of history.” In the end, each ended up being cast upon the ashbin of history were they belonged. Opposing them was choosing to be on right side of right and wrong, despite being declared as being on the “wrong side of history” and obstructing their “inevitable” whirlwind of social and cultural change.

The conservative ideology has never overly concerned itself with the whims of popular opinion and the surges of mob mentality that have on occasion affected the political realm. It is a political philosophy that seeks to stand on the shoulders of the wise men who preceded us and the tried-and-true principles of the past while seeking to bring hope and intelligent change to the future. Conservatives reject the concept of governing by the whims of the moment, the passing fads of popular opinion, or the panic of momentary crisis.

Progressives, like the other radical isms of the last century, seek to overturn the morals, traditions, and values of the past instead of building and improving upon them. And that is a stark contrast to conservatism. Progressivism declares that rejecting the concept of the sanctity of innocent human life and cheerleading all attempts to redefine, degrade, trivialize, breakdown, mock, and otherwise downplay marriage and the family as it has been traditionally defined since the beginning of mankind is being on the “right side of history.”  They could not be more wrong.

While the Right sees traditional marriage and family structure as the most elementary and important building block of civilization the Left views it as little more than a confining legacy that is nothing but a breeding ground of patriarchy and misogyny and should be, at best, viewed with suspicion and perhaps even with some open hostility. That explains the recent, full-fledged assault on the institution of marriage and what it is has always been. For as soon as marriage is anything other than a compact between one man and one woman then it loses its cohesion and structure and becomes just whatever one chooses it to be. And once it has been degraded enough, the institution of marriage loses its integral role and structural place in modern culture and society. Destroy the family, and the State has to fill that role and void in society. That is the ultimate goal of the new social engineers and their idea of the “right side of history.” There should be no shame in opposing such agendas.

Progressivism deserves all the scorn and contempt that has ever been heaped upon it. Its various isms and championed causes are in direct contradiction to the tried and true principles that have been passed down throughout history and it is as much a morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest ideology as any of the more infamous ones that preceded it. When mankind fails to build upon the wisdom of the ancients and rejects the most basic of tried and true principles and institutions, then it loses its way as it blunders blindly into the future. In reality, history does not have sides, only historians do. I care not what some historian may someday declare of my ideological views or advocation of timeless principles. What I do care about, in the end, is having been a champion of what is right and true no matter what.