Blog Chez Jacq'

I am not aware of whom Bill Wilson represents, but my daughter forwarded this truth to me. May I share it with you.

Greetings in the Name of Him Who Is Truth!

Americans have voted a president in Barack Hussein Obama that has told them he would rather let babies who survived abortion die than put the validity of abortion in jeopardy; that he would support homosexual unions; that he would tax the entire coal industry out of business; that he believes spreading the wealth around is good for everybody; and that he believes there is more than one way to God with Christ being a historical figure who serves as a bridge between man and God. Yet the world is celebrating the progressive Americans for electing the first ever Arab African to the office of President of the United States.

But to this nation, founded under God, the election of a man with such social, political and spiritual beliefs to its highest office will have lasting and serious implications. If he is successful in leading this nation the way that he has outlined to the public, America will fall further away from its founding roots, further from its belief in God, further from holding to traditional values of family and marriage, further from embracing the founding economic principles of working hard and smart and creating wealth by pursuing the American dream-a dream that until of late has been weighted in favor of rugged individualism and significantly less government intervention.

The times ahead will be challenging for believers in Jesus Christ. Religious liberties will be pressured in all directions at a faster pace than ever before in American history. Freedom of speech will be challenged, especially in areas where the Bible is counter to the culture of homosexuality and the false religion of Islam. Persecution of those who believe the Bible could become legal through the hate speech initiatives spelled out by Obama's campaign website. And Israel will oft find itself isolated as America accelerates its pace toward diplomatic resolutions to the Middle East by direct talks with terrorist sponsoring states. These are not prophetic utterances, they are what Obama promised to do if elected.

The foundational tenets of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are about to change for every American. Patriots of the America of the Founding Fathers and citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven must aspire to boldness in the uncompromising mission of the Great Commission. Romans Chapter 13 explains how to be subject to the higher powers for they are ordained by God. Romans 13:11-12 says, "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light." Armor, you know, is for battle. And light conquers darkness.

Have a Blessed and Powerful Day!
Bill Wilson

This may be about Bill Wilson

Labels: abortion, constitution, government tyranny, mendacity, religion, western culture, world gov'ment

For the U.S. Congress, news media, pundits and much of the American public, a lot of economic phenomena can be explained by what people want, human greed and what seems plausible. I'm going to name this branch of economic "science" wackonomics and apply it to some of today's observations and issues.

Since July this year, crude oil prices have fallen from $147 to $64 a barrel. Similarly, average gasoline prices have fallen from over $4 to a national average of $2.69 a gallon. When crude oil and gasoline were reaching their historical highs, Congress and other wackoeconomists blamed it on greedy oil company CEOs in their lust for obscene profits. But what explains today's lower prices? The only answer, consistent with wackonomic theory, is easy: Oil company CEOs have lost their lust for obscene profits. Or, maybe, since many of these CEOs are getting up in years, they might have begun to heed Matthew's warning (19:24), "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Speaking of CEOs, there's the "unconscionable," "obscene" salaries they receive, in some cases over $10 million a year. Wackonomics has an easy answer for these high salaries: it's greed. However, CEOs don't have the corner on greed. There are other greedy people we don't scorn but hold in high esteem. According to Forbes' Celebrity 100 list, Oprah Winfrey receives $275 million, Steven Spielberg gets $130 million, Tiger Woods $115 million, Jay Leno $32 million and Dr. Phil $40 million. I need to talk to these people and learn their strategy. I've been making every effort to get that kind of money. I go to bed greedy, dream greedy dreams, awaken greedy and proceed through the day greedy. Despite my heroic efforts, it's all been for naught; I earn a pittance by comparison.

Wackonomics can help us understand what some people call the income distribution. The logical extension of wackonomic thought is that the unequal or unfair distribution of income is the handiwork of a dollar dealer who distributes dollars. The dollar dealer might deal one person a million dollars a year while dealing most others a mere pittance like $10, $20 or $30 thousand a year. Thus, the reason why some people are wealthy while others are poor is because the dollar dealer is a racist, sexist, a multi-nationalist, or just plain mean. Economic justice requires a re-dealing of the dollars, income redistribution or spreading the wealth, where the government takes the ill-gotten gains of the few and returns them to their rightful owners. Wackonomics might have a greed-based explanation for income inequality. There is a pile of money called income and greedy people got there first and took their unfair share. Similarly, economic justice requires a redistribution of income.

Wackonomics isn't just practiced by the uninitiated. This year's Nobel Laureate, Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman, after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, gave one rendition of wackonomics in his column "After the Horror," New York Times (9/14/01). Krugman wrote, "Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could do some economic good." He went on to point out how rebuilding the destruction in New York and Washington, D. C., would stimulate the economy through business investment and job creation. For practitioners of non-wackonomics, this reasoning doesn't even pass the smell test. If Professor Krugman's vision is correct, and extending his logic, the terrorists would have made an even larger contribution to our economic well-being had they been able to fly a plane into the White House and destroyed buildings in other cities.

Wackonomics isn't all bad. There's an upside to it. It spares people the bother of having to understand the complexities of the world.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
.

Labels: corruption, economics, mendacity

The K C Star "reports" the pure rope-a-dope mouthed by the preacher in an attempt to justify his changing his vote on the coverup bill.

Although he says his constituents were overwhelmingly against the $700 billion rescue package, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said he voted for it Friday out of both “fear and education.”

His constituents are overwhelmingly against…? Is he a representative or a recipient?

The Star says further on:

Cleaver was the only member of the Missouri and Kansas congressional delegation to switch his vote from Monday.

...

The four other House members representing the Kansas City region did not change their votes from Monday. Democrats Dennis Moore of Kansas and Ike Skelton of Missouri voted for it both times, while Democrat Nancy Boyda of Kansas and Republican Sam Graves of Missouri remained opposed to it.

These folks at least have some principles. The unprincipled preacher was congratulated on his original stand and called again to urge him to maintain his position. He dropped the ball. Cleaver must go. Vote for a principled Jacob Turk on the 4th.

The entire article says.

Click here for all you want to know about Cleaver.

Labels: constitution, corruption, federal reserve, mendacity, politics

“What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government’s contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country’s international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the ‘rich’ to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country’s social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?” Michael J. Boskin writes in the Wall Street Journal.

“The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation’s next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements,” said Mr. Boskin, a Stanford University economics professor and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

“From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.”

Cite: The Washington Times Weekly, August 4, 2008, p. 8

Labels: economics, mendacity, politics

An editorial on Patriot Post, the comments, I assume, of Mark Alexander. Well said, Mark:

“Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night’s Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, ‘with all due respect’ the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy. Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that ‘that’s a good one,’ and then adding that ‘I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas... I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.’ The Democrat added that he also wouldn’t have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job. So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his ‘elevation’ to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist. Meanwhile, as he bids to be America’s Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn’t yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a ‘community organizer’ and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas’s judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama’s Presidential rèsumè by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas’s rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama’s story look like easy street. Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat’s answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn’t expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn’t merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing clichè that the Court’s black conservative isn’t up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are. So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama’s advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won’t let slip what he really believes.” —The Wall Street Journal

Labels: constitution, democrats and RINOS, mendacity

Jerry Rivers, uh, Geraldo Rivera, is a mendicant (blatant liar). On a Faux news piece on Drew Peterson he repeatedly claimed Peterson "sawed off" the barrel of his "assault" weapon after falsely describing sawed off shotguns. Then he mouthed off inanities and falsehoods regarding the Texas Supreme Court's decision to return the children illegally kidnapped by the Texas government. I do not advocate polygamy, but the actions in Texas were the acts of tyranny.

Would I have any authority on Faux news he would be canned immediately.

Labels: constitution, government tyranny, mendacity, police state, second amendment

By Paul R. Hollrah

Tuning in to C-Span recently, I found myself listening to a speech by Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. He was standing in the pulpit of a black church in Selma, Alabama, and as I studied the body language of the dozen or so black ministers standing behind the senator, I couldn't help but be reminded of the little head-bobbing dolls that people used to place in the rear windows of their 1957 Chevrolets. If their reactions are any indication, the new "Schlickmeister" of the Democrat Party is actually a pretty accomplished public speaker.

However, as he spoke, I found my b.s. alarm going off, repeatedly. But I couldn't quite figure out why until I actually read excerpts of his speech several days later. Here's part of what he said:

"...something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children.

"When (black) men who had PhD's decided 'that's enough' and 'we're going to stand up for our dignity,' that sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.

"So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great- grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that, (in) the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. Was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma , Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

Okay, so what's wrong with that? It all sounds good. But is it?

Obama told his audience that, because some folks had the courage to "march across a bridge" in Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa, took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child. The problem with that characterization is that Barrack Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, at least five years after Obama's parents met.

Obama went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that they could be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barrack Obama, Sr., to America.

The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So if this African grandfather heard words that ''sent a shout across oceans,'' inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not a Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, nor his brother Bobby, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Obama's speech is reminiscent of Al Gore's claim of having invented the Internet, Hillary Clinton's claim of having been named after the first man to climb Mt. Everest, even though she was born five years and seven months before Sir Edmund climbed the mountain, and John Kerry's imaginary trip to Cambodia.

As one of my black friends, Eddie Huff, has said, "We need to ask some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, and it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince."

Labels: mendacity, politics