Saturday, February 13, 2010

From BreitbartTV

Former Marxist encounter with young Obama: "He was one of us"

John Drew, Ph.D has now revealed his former acquaintance Barack Obama's Marxist background.

Drew being interviewed yesterday on Breitbart TV:
I visted her [ex-girlfriend] at her home in Palo Alto, and young Barack Obama showed up with basically his closest friend Hasan Chaandu. And they both showed up, and ya know, we all went out to dinner, and parties, and smoked cigarettes, and did what young Marxists do. We basically argued politics...

I did not take my status as a Marxist Revolutionary lightly in 1980. For me it was a serious business. It meant to me that I was an enemy of the US Government in a sense. It meant that I was an enemy of the wealthy people who were ruling the country... and it meant that I was willing to take the sacrifices necessary to... be part of a revolutionary movement that overthrew it. So for me, being a Marxist college student wasn't a light-hearted romp n the park... it was a dead serious statement.

When Carolyn told me Barack was coming up for a visit, she basically introduced him as "he's one of us." And what she meant by that was that he was on our team, a blood brother, member of this revolutionary elite that was going to turn around our country when the revolution hit.

When I met him, he wasn't just some sort of idle explorer of intellectual Marxism; he was good. I know this is kind of incendiary, but he was basically a Marxist-Leninist.

He believed that there was a revolutionary class that was going to turn around our whole nation, ya know redistribute wealth, change control over private property. I think in Dreams of My Father he explains that he liked to "hang out" with Marxist professors. But where he's deceiving the public is that he doesn't explain that he's in total, 100% agreement with those Marxist professors.
Earlier in the interview, Drew explains how he tried to get this information out through repeated faxes and emails during the 2008 campaign, but was ignored by major media, including Fox News.
Drew first recounted the story on Anonymous Political Scientist blog on Sunday, Feb. 7. Three days later NewsMax broke it nationally.

According to his Twitter site, he is now booked for numerous national media appearances next week.

Drew is a researcher, grant writer and author who now lives in California. He is no longer a Marxist, and says that his conversion away from Marxism came while researching the affects of welfare programs on society.

See the full interview at BreitbartTV.com

Posted by

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Separation of Church and State

The phrase separation of church and state is NOT in our Constitution.

Today, many Americans think that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State". The Courts and the media will often refer to a ruling as being in violation of the Separation of Church and State. A recent national poll showed that 69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says Separation of Church and State. You may be surprised to learn that these words do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution! Here is what the First Amendment actually does say.

The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So where did the words "Separation of Church and State" come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase "Separation of Church and State." When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson's letter.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

If actions speak stronger than words, it is interesting to note that 3 days after Jefferson wrote those words, he attended church in the largest congregation in North America at the time. This church held its weekly worship services on government property, in the House Chambers of the U.S. Capital Building. The wall of separation applies everywhere in the country even on government property, without government interference. This is how it is written in the Constitution, this is how Thomas Jefferson understood it from his letter and actions, and this is how the men who wrote the Constitution practiced it.

By the way, do you know what constitution DOES have the phrase "separation of church and state"? Why yes, the Soviet Union has this phrase in their constitution.

The 1936 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."

The 1977 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."



Thanks to schoolprayerinamerica where I found this info

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

FY2011 Federal Budget

From The Office of Management and Budget

Note the deficit in 2007, when the Democrats took control of both houses, is down to $161 billion

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

More Paul Ryan Stuff

National Review Online

This Quote From Representative Paul Ryan Says It All!

"This budget presents a choice of two futures," Ryan says. "Don’t look at the president’s rhetoric, look at his actions. His substance implies a different reality. Not only is this budget worse than the last one, but it triples our debt within ten years, features gushers of tax increases, and relies on some partisan commission to do the heavy lifting on fiscal policy after the next election. Make no mistake: This is a budget aimed to advance the administration’s philosophy and ideology. By increasing taxes and letting the country spiral into debt, this budget is a firm step toward transforming America into a collectivist society overseen by a social-welfare state."

Representative Paul Ryan's Statement On The FY2011 Budget Proposal

The Committee On The Budget
See Also The Charts From The Committee On The Budget

Monday, February 1, 2010

Official recovery.gov Funding Paid Out

I don't get it! Why do we need another jobs bill? There are still $201.8 billion still in the till for Contracts, Grants and Loans! Does this make any sense? Overall, 34% of the funds have been paid out!