Sunday, January 27, 2013
Lutheran Chuch Charities (LCC) K-9 Comfort Dogs
Comfort Dogs: One Month Anniversary of Sandy Hook TragedyK-9 Comfort Dogs Have Been Serving in Newtown for 24 Days and Have Been Requested to Stay Through January at Sandy Hook Elementary and Newtown High School.
Lutheran Church Charities and the K-9 Comfort Dogs remember all the people of Newtown on the one month anniversary of the Sandy Hook tragedy. On Monday January 14, the one month anniversary day, K-9 Comfort Dogs and handlers spent time in the schools with students and paid a visit to the First responders at the Newtown EMS station. This station, pictured here, is one of five EMS stations in Newtown and is staffed 24 hours a day and 7 days per week. The EMT's at the station thoroughly enjoyed their visit with the K-9 Comfort Dogs.
Please consider helping with K-9 expenses in Newtown. Click here to donate
Lutheran Church Charities' K-9 Comfort Dogs have been in Newtown since December 15th, with a short break over Christmas. By request, the handlers and K-9 Comfort Dogs returned to be on hand when school resumed after the break. Additional requests have been received for the K-9 Comfort Dogs to stay longer. The current plan is to continue serving at Sandy Hook Elementary School and Newtown High School and the community as long as needed - at least through the end of January.
Lutheran Church Charities continues to seek donations for the travel expenses of the K-9 Comfort Dogs and handlers, as multiple teams travel in a rotation back and forth from their homes in the Midwest to Connecticut over the next several weeks.
The staff and volunteers of LCC, and the K-9 Comfort Dogs applaud everyone we have meet for their friendliness in making us feel at home and for the privilege of allowing our Comfort Dogs to be there to serve during this time! The people of Newtown are an inspiration to all of us and to the world! We stand with you through this.http://www.lutheranchurchcharities.org/
Opinion on the Warrior Culture
You're In the New Army Now
Sending women into combat, like the end of the ban on official homosexuality, has been met with worried remarks about its impact on the "warrior culture". But the new military that the left has been building for some time now is not interested in warriors; it wants peacekeepers.
The old army fought for a nation. The new one fights for vague concepts such as human rights or international law. Its goals are as intangible as those of the ideology it serves. It doesn't fight actual enemies, but concepts and social problems. It fights against climate change, poverty and obesity. It fights for education, tolerance and the right of everyone to the gender of their choice. It isn't really the army, it's the hall monitors of the United Nations, the State Department, NATO and every liberal group on the planet.
Their ideal new soldier is not a warrior; he speaks three languages, appears non-threatening and can direct refugees, hand out aid to them and quickly pick up the local culture and religion. He is uncritical when witnessing child molestation, human sacrifice or any other quaint local custom. He is willing to die, not for his country, but to win the hearts and minds of the locals. He will not fire in self-defense if there is a single unarmed man, woman or child within twenty miles.
American soldiers have played the role of peacekeepers before, but in the new military that is their only role. They are the Peace Corps, riding in under a U.N. flag when the video game boys back across the ocean have used remote drones to take out that portion of the enemy force that didn't manage to find a human shield in time. Their mission is to set up generators, dig wells, patrol roads and smile a lot, unless smiling is not approved of by the local culture.
A warrior culture is supplementary to peacekeeping requirements. Warriors try to kill things. They want to win wars, instead of accepting that conflicts can only be resolved through negotiations and that their presence is a negotiating tactic, not a fight for survival.
The new soldier is a policeman of the world, watching crimes that he isn't allowed to stop. He is a diplomat with a gun. He isn't there to shoot anyone, except as an absolute last resort. Rather he is there to represent the United States on that great mission that is the only task of worth in a fatherless country, to be a role model. He is there, smiling and handing out candy, to convince the locals that even though we bombed their country, frightened their sheep and wiped out a lot of their smuggling income, that they should not hate the United States of America.
The old army projected the hard power of killing the people who wanted to fight us until they were either dead or willing to switch to competing with us by making transistor radios and electric shavers. The new army projects the soft power of winning over the locals so that they don't want to fight us anymore. It's not about winning wars, it's about preventing the need for wars; even when already in the middle of a war.
To do all this our military has to become less American and more European, less imperial and more multilateral, an international consensus building exercise with bullets that aren't meant to be fired. It has to become more tolerant and accepting. It has to lose the "warrior culture" and swap it in for the urban liberal culture that values consensus over performance and ideological conformity over all else.
The left is not comfortable with an army that is out of step with its values. A large standing army is a dangerous thing. Neutering it will take generations, but the left just won another four years in which it can have its way with national defense. And its way is to hollow out every institution, religion, workplace and family until they exist for no other reason than to pass on and implement its ideas.
The only way that liberals will ever accept the military is through the liberalization of the military into a force that projects their social values and fights to promote them abroad through human rights peacekeeping operations, rather than national defense. And when the peacekeeping force arrives in Timbuktu, Aleppo or Ramallah, it has to carry with it the liberal standard and convey to all the natives that the United States is wonderful because it represents gay rights, girl power and the wars on obesity, poverty and cholera.
The natives will not be impressed, nor will the men and women who will have to do far more shooting and dying than the plan called for, but Washington D.C. will be gratified, and the worst of the bunch, the ones who eagerly take to the party line and do none of the fighting but all of the talking will move up the promotion ladder, those who do not will be tried for war crimes in a new army that reflects the liberal belief that war is the ultimate crime.
Much of this has already happened. The United States no longer fights wars, it engages in military reconstruction projects. The aftermath of World War II has become the template for every war with the conflict as a prelude to the nation-building exercise. Occupation becomes the purpose of war and also the bloodiest part of the war. And the wars can hardly even be called wars because they are never truly fought.
The "Shock and Awe" punch is always pulled as the jets fly overhead but never hit hard enough in the new soft power age. The war is taken to the enemy just enough to cost a lot of lives, but not enough to defeat him. Instead of a definite trajectory, there is only an endless twilight, a holding action being fought by a new generation of men realizing that like their fathers, they are no longer in it to win it. The real war is being waged by politicians using troop deployments as counters for cobbling together coalitions of the people they are fighting into a working government.
Yesterday's insurgent is tomorrow's ally arriving to be armed and trained as a police officer or soldier and the day after tomorrow's enemy, unexpectedly turning his weapon on the men who trained him. There is no sense in such wars, and less honor and fulfillment in fighting them. These are not the wars of a warrior culture, but of the police patrols in the more dangerous parts of Detroit, Miami or Chicago. Long senseless conflicts in which victory is not even a relevant concept, and the only hope for going home lies in following the rules of community policing when breaking bread and working out truces with the local gangs and their drug dealing warlords long enough for them to throw together a sham government that will allow Washington D.C. to declare another humanitarian mission accomplished.
The new general has all the problems of an empire, without any of the power and freedom of action of an empire. The new colonel is looking to write a book about the lessons he learned from meeting other cultures in the hopes of getting the attention of the boys upstairs who are always concerned with finding new ways of winning the hearts and minds of the people sending soldiers home in body bags. The new captain is growing a beard and learning Urdu. The new lieutenant is making sure that all the transsexual servicethings are comfortable and serving in a friendly welcoming environment. And the new soldier is there to represent a country that he no longer recognizes in a country where everyone is trying to kill him.
Warrior culture is still necessary, even mandatory, but it's also outlawed. Like the urban police force, the ethos must be smuggled in under a disguise of community policing and midnight basketball. It's there because without it nothing will happen except a tripling of the murder rate. It's there despite the social reformers and social workers, the progressive policymakers and the visionaries in ivory towers. It's there because when things get bad enough, the politicians who demonize guns and shame the little boys who still want to play cowboys and aliens during recess need them to save the day. And that's the new army too.
The new soldier is expected to be a psychological cripple or a social worker with nothing in between because there is no longer any room for the warrior, only the worrier, the neurotic who knows that he is moral because he is always questioning everything except his own intelligence and his premises. He knows that he will more likely be honored for cowardice under fire, than courage under fire, and that the greatest honors will go not those who dare, but to those who exemplify a political quota. And yet among the ranks of the new soldiers, the old soldiers still predominate, doing the hard thankless work of keeping a national defense establishment that does not care for them from falling apart.
Their ideal new soldier is not a warrior; he speaks three languages, appears non-threatening and can direct refugees, hand out aid to them and quickly pick up the local culture and religion. He is uncritical when witnessing child molestation, human sacrifice or any other quaint local custom. He is willing to die, not for his country, but to win the hearts and minds of the locals. He will not fire in self-defense if there is a single unarmed man, woman or child within twenty miles.
American soldiers have played the role of peacekeepers before, but in the new military that is their only role. They are the Peace Corps, riding in under a U.N. flag when the video game boys back across the ocean have used remote drones to take out that portion of the enemy force that didn't manage to find a human shield in time. Their mission is to set up generators, dig wells, patrol roads and smile a lot, unless smiling is not approved of by the local culture.
A warrior culture is supplementary to peacekeeping requirements. Warriors try to kill things. They want to win wars, instead of accepting that conflicts can only be resolved through negotiations and that their presence is a negotiating tactic, not a fight for survival.
The new soldier is a policeman of the world, watching crimes that he isn't allowed to stop. He is a diplomat with a gun. He isn't there to shoot anyone, except as an absolute last resort. Rather he is there to represent the United States on that great mission that is the only task of worth in a fatherless country, to be a role model. He is there, smiling and handing out candy, to convince the locals that even though we bombed their country, frightened their sheep and wiped out a lot of their smuggling income, that they should not hate the United States of America.
The old army projected the hard power of killing the people who wanted to fight us until they were either dead or willing to switch to competing with us by making transistor radios and electric shavers. The new army projects the soft power of winning over the locals so that they don't want to fight us anymore. It's not about winning wars, it's about preventing the need for wars; even when already in the middle of a war.
To do all this our military has to become less American and more European, less imperial and more multilateral, an international consensus building exercise with bullets that aren't meant to be fired. It has to become more tolerant and accepting. It has to lose the "warrior culture" and swap it in for the urban liberal culture that values consensus over performance and ideological conformity over all else.
The left is not comfortable with an army that is out of step with its values. A large standing army is a dangerous thing. Neutering it will take generations, but the left just won another four years in which it can have its way with national defense. And its way is to hollow out every institution, religion, workplace and family until they exist for no other reason than to pass on and implement its ideas.The only way that liberals will ever accept the military is through the liberalization of the military into a force that projects their social values and fights to promote them abroad through human rights peacekeeping operations, rather than national defense. And when the peacekeeping force arrives in Timbuktu, Aleppo or Ramallah, it has to carry with it the liberal standard and convey to all the natives that the United States is wonderful because it represents gay rights, girl power and the wars on obesity, poverty and cholera.
The natives will not be impressed, nor will the men and women who will have to do far more shooting and dying than the plan called for, but Washington D.C. will be gratified, and the worst of the bunch, the ones who eagerly take to the party line and do none of the fighting but all of the talking will move up the promotion ladder, those who do not will be tried for war crimes in a new army that reflects the liberal belief that war is the ultimate crime.
Much of this has already happened. The United States no longer fights wars, it engages in military reconstruction projects. The aftermath of World War II has become the template for every war with the conflict as a prelude to the nation-building exercise. Occupation becomes the purpose of war and also the bloodiest part of the war. And the wars can hardly even be called wars because they are never truly fought.
The "Shock and Awe" punch is always pulled as the jets fly overhead but never hit hard enough in the new soft power age. The war is taken to the enemy just enough to cost a lot of lives, but not enough to defeat him. Instead of a definite trajectory, there is only an endless twilight, a holding action being fought by a new generation of men realizing that like their fathers, they are no longer in it to win it. The real war is being waged by politicians using troop deployments as counters for cobbling together coalitions of the people they are fighting into a working government.
Yesterday's insurgent is tomorrow's ally arriving to be armed and trained as a police officer or soldier and the day after tomorrow's enemy, unexpectedly turning his weapon on the men who trained him. There is no sense in such wars, and less honor and fulfillment in fighting them. These are not the wars of a warrior culture, but of the police patrols in the more dangerous parts of Detroit, Miami or Chicago. Long senseless conflicts in which victory is not even a relevant concept, and the only hope for going home lies in following the rules of community policing when breaking bread and working out truces with the local gangs and their drug dealing warlords long enough for them to throw together a sham government that will allow Washington D.C. to declare another humanitarian mission accomplished.
The new general has all the problems of an empire, without any of the power and freedom of action of an empire. The new colonel is looking to write a book about the lessons he learned from meeting other cultures in the hopes of getting the attention of the boys upstairs who are always concerned with finding new ways of winning the hearts and minds of the people sending soldiers home in body bags. The new captain is growing a beard and learning Urdu. The new lieutenant is making sure that all the transsexual servicethings are comfortable and serving in a friendly welcoming environment. And the new soldier is there to represent a country that he no longer recognizes in a country where everyone is trying to kill him.
The new soldier is expected to be a psychological cripple or a social worker with nothing in between because there is no longer any room for the warrior, only the worrier, the neurotic who knows that he is moral because he is always questioning everything except his own intelligence and his premises. He knows that he will more likely be honored for cowardice under fire, than courage under fire, and that the greatest honors will go not those who dare, but to those who exemplify a political quota. And yet among the ranks of the new soldiers, the old soldiers still predominate, doing the hard thankless work of keeping a national defense establishment that does not care for them from falling apart.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Hundreds of Thousands Gather for Record-Breaking March for Life
More than 500,000 people are attending today’s March for Life in a massive attendance that could be well higher than that estimate and set records for the annual pro-life event challenging the mantra of unlimited abortion.Typically held on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions at any point in pregnancy for any reason, the march for Life typically sees anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 people lining the streets towards the Supreme Court building.
The huge crowd is expected to exceed last year’s 400,000 participants as they mark the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that, along with an accompanying ruling in Doe v. Bolton, allowed abortion on demand in all 50 states.
The official theme of this year’s march is “40 = 55M,” an equation meant to remember the enormous toll on human life that has resulted in nearly 56 million people losing their lives.
Sarah Torre of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, talked about the meaning of this year’s March for Life.
“Like many annual March for Life events before it, there will likely also be smaller groups of counter-protests by abortion advocates holding signs and chanting slogans championing the ethic of Roe that pledges unwavering allegiance to a right of abortion-on-demand, for any reason. But those now-tired slogans are no longer able to convince a new generation that denying life to some will lead to a more just society and freedom for others,” she said.
She continued, “It is a simple witness by a tireless pro-life movement over the past 40 years that has reoriented the hearts and minds of an entire generation toward the dignity and worth of every individual—born or yet to be. Despite obstacles, the pro-life movement has achieved notable victories in public opinion, law, and culture.”
Torre said, “Today, roughly half of Americans now identify themselves as “pro-life,” including many of the millennial generation who will make up the crowds at today’s march.”
“As the March for Life draws to a close and Americans look to yet another year under the waning, yet still deadly ethic of Roe, there remains hope that government will one day soon return to a deeper respect of the principles that founded and sustain America by ensuring the basic rights of liberty and life to everyone—including those yet to be born,” she said.
As hundreds of thousands of right-to-life activists march up Capitol Hill today to the U.S. Supreme Court to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, many carry the iconic “STOP ABORTION NOW!” signs distributed by National Right to Life.“The right-to-life movement remains more committed than ever to protecting unborn children and providing compassionate, life-affirming alternatives to their mothers,” observed National Right to Life President Carol Tobias. “What profoundly scares abortion supporters gives us enormous confidence in the future: young people are more and more pro-life.”
“Our movement is re-energized and renewed every year when we see the March for Life and the rallies and marches held by our state affiliates featuring younger and younger participants,” Tobias added.
Since they first appeared at National Right to Life’s “Rally for Life ’90,” hundreds of thousands of “STOP ABORTION NOW” signs have been distributed and displayed at pro-life rallies across the country. The signs have been part of an exhibit at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, she told LifeNews.
In addition to greeting marchers on the National Mall, National Right to Life’s headquarters will play host to the organization, KIDS: Keep Infants with Down Syndrome. KIDS helps raise awareness that, tragically, the number of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. Dozens of children with Down syndrome and their parents will join Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wa.) in a gathering before heading down to the March for Life.
“Our humanity is not defined by the atrocities that have been committed throughout history, but by the shining light of those who recognize injustice and refuse to be complicit through silence,” Tobias concluded.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/25/hundreds-of-thousands-gather-for-record-breaking-march-for-life/
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Obama Supporters Shocked by Tax Increases
Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases by Joseph Curl
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.
With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”
“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”
“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”
So let’s explain something to our ill-informed Democratic friends. In 2009, Mr. Obama enacted a “holiday” on the payroll tax deduction from employees’ paychecks, dropping the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But like the holidays, the drop ended, and like New Year‘s, the revelers woke up the next morning with a massive hangover and a pounding head.
“Bake,” who may have been trolling the site, jumped into the thread posted Friday. “My paycheck just went down. So did my wife’s. This hurts us. But everybody says it’s a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a ‘premium.’ Nope. It’s a tax, and it just went up.”
Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.
“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”
The Twittersphere was even funnier.
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”
“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?
Of course, dozens of posters on DemocraticUnderground sought to blame it all (as usual) on President George W. Bush. “Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!” posted “Orinoco.”
But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the “holiday,” and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.
How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, “More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said,” according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).
A whole new wave of Obama supporters still don’t even know: They’ll get their first 2013 paychecks on the 15th of the month. So when you’re shooting the breeze in the lunchroom with your grumbling co-workers on the 16th, just ask them, “Who’d you vote for in November?” When they say Mr. Obama, just tell them: “Well, you got what you voted for. You did know he was going to raise taxes, right?”
The looks on their faces will be priceless.
*bull; Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/#ixzz2HXpnwYrQ
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.
With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”
“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”
“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”
So let’s explain something to our ill-informed Democratic friends. In 2009, Mr. Obama enacted a “holiday” on the payroll tax deduction from employees’ paychecks, dropping the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But like the holidays, the drop ended, and like New Year‘s, the revelers woke up the next morning with a massive hangover and a pounding head.
“Bake,” who may have been trolling the site, jumped into the thread posted Friday. “My paycheck just went down. So did my wife’s. This hurts us. But everybody says it’s a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a ‘premium.’ Nope. It’s a tax, and it just went up.”
Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.
“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”
The Twittersphere was even funnier.
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”
“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?
Of course, dozens of posters on DemocraticUnderground sought to blame it all (as usual) on President George W. Bush. “Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!” posted “Orinoco.”
But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the “holiday,” and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.
How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, “More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said,” according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).
A whole new wave of Obama supporters still don’t even know: They’ll get their first 2013 paychecks on the 15th of the month. So when you’re shooting the breeze in the lunchroom with your grumbling co-workers on the 16th, just ask them, “Who’d you vote for in November?” When they say Mr. Obama, just tell them: “Well, you got what you voted for. You did know he was going to raise taxes, right?”
The looks on their faces will be priceless.
*bull; Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/#ixzz2HXpnwYrQ
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Serbian Monastery Destroyed by Muslims
Serbian Orthodox Monastery of Assumption of the Virgin Destroyed
Belgrade: Albanians last night completely destroyed the monastery “Assumption of the Virgin” in southern Serbia. Monastery of the Assumption of Virgin” which is located in the vicinity of Vladicin Han was vandalized last night. The door was smashed, and the entire interior were broken. The money from the candle sales and other item inside the monastery is stolen, and all the icons were smashed. Mother Paraskeva (62 years old) confirmed this information. She was very upset fear for her safety. “I’m afraid they will come back, but I’m not going anywhere. I’m here alone and old, but let them come, someone has to defend, “said Paraskeva.
“There’s nothing left, this is terrible! The whole world stood up on his feet because of a cartoon of Muhammad, but when all monasteries and churches destroyed, no one responds,” she added.Asked whether he knows who could have done this, Paraskeva replied that everything is known, but that no one will be interested in this case.
“Albanians from Kosovo were organized with the intention of coming to destroy the Serbian monasteries in this area! This is not the first time something like this happens. Last year on Good Friday they attacked me, I did not have a stick, who knows if I managed to defend myself, “said the visibly shaken Paraskeva.
“Albanians from Kosovo are organized and planned to come and destroy Serbian monasteries in this area. This is not the 1st time something like this happens. Last year on Good Friday they attacked me. If I didn-t have my stick, I would hardly protect myself. The Monastery of the Assumption of the Virgin is under the auspices of Bishop Pachomius, who was accused for rape of boys, which Paraskeva says to be the worst invented lies by the Albanians. “They started all these stories and even payed the people to lie about it. Some have been given 35 000 DM (Deutsche Marks) to create a bad image of the Bishop. The Monastery is located in the village of Mrtvica, 14 kilometers from Vladicin Han town. It originates from the 4th century and it is the oldest shrine in Vranje district.
Source:
OCP News Service
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2013/01/serbian-orthodox-monastery-of-assumption-of-the-virgin-destroyed/
Belgrade: Albanians last night completely destroyed the monastery “Assumption of the Virgin” in southern Serbia. Monastery of the Assumption of Virgin” which is located in the vicinity of Vladicin Han was vandalized last night. The door was smashed, and the entire interior were broken. The money from the candle sales and other item inside the monastery is stolen, and all the icons were smashed. Mother Paraskeva (62 years old) confirmed this information. She was very upset fear for her safety. “I’m afraid they will come back, but I’m not going anywhere. I’m here alone and old, but let them come, someone has to defend, “said Paraskeva.
“There’s nothing left, this is terrible! The whole world stood up on his feet because of a cartoon of Muhammad, but when all monasteries and churches destroyed, no one responds,” she added.Asked whether he knows who could have done this, Paraskeva replied that everything is known, but that no one will be interested in this case.
“Albanians from Kosovo were organized with the intention of coming to destroy the Serbian monasteries in this area! This is not the first time something like this happens. Last year on Good Friday they attacked me, I did not have a stick, who knows if I managed to defend myself, “said the visibly shaken Paraskeva.
“Albanians from Kosovo are organized and planned to come and destroy Serbian monasteries in this area. This is not the 1st time something like this happens. Last year on Good Friday they attacked me. If I didn-t have my stick, I would hardly protect myself. The Monastery of the Assumption of the Virgin is under the auspices of Bishop Pachomius, who was accused for rape of boys, which Paraskeva says to be the worst invented lies by the Albanians. “They started all these stories and even payed the people to lie about it. Some have been given 35 000 DM (Deutsche Marks) to create a bad image of the Bishop. The Monastery is located in the village of Mrtvica, 14 kilometers from Vladicin Han town. It originates from the 4th century and it is the oldest shrine in Vranje district.
Source:
OCP News Service
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2013/01/serbian-orthodox-monastery-of-assumption-of-the-virgin-destroyed/
Friday, January 4, 2013
Thursday, January 3, 2013
WOC's Ordain a Lady
Submitted for your reveiw - this is their video, not their opposition's.
http://www.womensordination.org/
http://www.womensordination.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)