Friday, December 5, 2008

Genesis Predicts the Bailout

Genesis explains the bailout years before the corporate heads belly up to the bar in Washington. I am not talking about the Bible here folks. I am talking about the Phil Collins' Genesis. Way back in 1987 on the album "Invisible Touch" the song "Tonight,Tonight,Tonight" was released and made its way up the charts to number three in the U.S. Many of you thought is was a song about a man struggling with his addiction to drugs and meeting with his dealer, but oh no, you couldn't be farther from the truth. Phil was prophetically speaking about the bailout of businesses by the tax payers that would occur over twenty years later. You don't believe me? Well take a gander at these lyrics and decide for yourself.

"I got some money in my pocket, ( Congress)
about ready to burn
I don't remember where I got it, ( from Tax Payers )
I gotta get it to you
So please answer the phone,
cos I keep calling,
but you're never home
What am I gonna do

Tonight, tonight, tonight -
oh I'm gonna make it right
Tonight, tonight, tonight - oh.

You keep telling me I've got everything,
you say I've got everything I want
You keep telling me you're gonna help me, ( AIG, GM, Fannie )
you're gonna help me, but you don't
But now I'm in too deep ( Big Three Automakers )
You see it's got me so that I just can't sleep

Oh get me out of here,
please get me out of here
Just help me I'll do anything, anything ( Including building cars that no one wants )
If you'll just help me get out of here.

That is pretty obvious to me. The part about "You keep telling me you are going to help me but you don't. Now I am in too deep" sounds like the Big Three Automakers, no?

This Phil Collins guy is like Nostradamus. I am now rifling through other songs to see what I can glean from them about America's financial future. I will report back as soon as I find something substantial.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

For the Hard to Buy For on Your List...Planned Parenthood Gift Certificates

We all have one or two on our shopping list. The hard to buy for. The ones that have everything. I know what you are thinking...Gift Certificates, right? Great choice, but forget Home Depot or Kohl's. What you want is one from Planned Parenthood of Indiana. That's right, nothing says Happy Birthday Jesus quite like $50 towards your next abortion. Here are all the disgusting details from Cyber News Service.

Home » News » Culture
CNSNews.comIndiana’s Planned Parenthood Offers Holiday Gift Certificates for Clinic ServicesWednesday, December 03, 2008By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

( – “Looking for an unusual, yet practical gift this holiday season? Planned Parenthood of Indiana is now offering gift certificates for services or the recipient’s choice of birth control.” That’s the pitch on Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s Web site, inviting visitors to purchase gift certificates in $25 increments for all services – including abortion – at its 35 clinics across the state. “The gift certificates are intended for basic, preventive health care, such as annual exams,” a spokeswoman from Planned Parenthood of Indiana (PPIN) told “But it’s up to each patient how they use them.” Planned Parenthood Federation of America said PPIN is one of a “handful” of its chapters around the country offering the gift certificates. But critics said Planned Parenthood should not use Christmas as a marketing tool. “The word inappropriate hardly describes Planned Parenthood’s scheme,” said Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr., who works for a number of pro-life causes, including Priests for Life. “To give someone a gift card from the nation’s largest abortion business to is to give death for Christmas.” In an Associated Press story, Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, defended the gift certificate campaign, saying it would help the people in the state without health insurance gain access to health care. The Associated Press also reported that Indiana Health Commissioner Dr. Judy Monroe praised the gift certificates as “a really meaningful gift.” But King said she finds them offensive, especially as a taxpayer who contributes to the money the U.S. government gives to Planned Parenthood each year through its Title X funding, which does not include paying for abortions. “No amount of spin can turn this promotion into anything other than an abomination,” King said. “Congress gave Planned Parenthood $3 million last year, and now a chapter of this group is defiling the celebration of our savior’s birth. As one of America’s taxpayers, I want my money back.” Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, told “I think in this holiday season where we’re celebrating the birth of our lord and savior Jesus Christ, it’s ironic that Planned Parenthood would take it upon themselves to offer gift certificates that would include giving money to someone who would be looking to have an abortion or seeking an abortion. “I think it’s ironic, it’s a diabolic scheme or scam, however you want to put it, and I just think it’s really sad,” Gardner said.

Here is the direct link

How brash can these people be? First it was taking donations over the phone for abortions of babies that were of a certain race. Now it is making murder a gift of the season. How far will these people go? And they do it all with a huge influx of your tax money.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Quote of the Day

Is Mike Ditka getting senile in his old age? He took away footballs when he played, now he just wants to take away Constitutional rights from NFL players. Here he is referring to Plaxico Burress and other players involved in gun incidents.

From Yahoo Sports:

Mike Ditka, the Hall of Fame tight end and former Chicago Bears football coach, advocates banning NFL players from owning guns. Ditka said, “I don’t understand the league, why can anybody have a gun? I will have a policy, no guns, any NFL players we find out, period, you’re suspended.”

And that is why you are not the commish.

Defamation of Religion Resolution or Criminalizing Christianity?

The United Nations General Assembly will once again take up the matter of "protecting religion" sometime this month with another vote on the Defamation of Religion Resolution. This resolution is being put forth by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The measure calls on all countries to ensure their legal systems provide protection against “acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions,”

What is being talked about as a tolerance plan is actually quite the opposite. Although the OIC says the campaign is aimed at protecting all faiths, once again only Islam is cited by name.
The resolution contains language forbidding anyone from speaking negatively about Islam. The punishment ranges from prison time to death. This is an open door for those that wish to persecute Christians or any religion that does not follow the Islamic faith.

U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based organization that monitors the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, acknowledged that the resolution is “aimed at the Western world to intimidate anyone from criticizing radical Islam....”

UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer called the resolution and the growing opposition to it “just the latest shot in an intensifying campaign of U.N. resolutions that dangerously seek to import Islamic anti-blasphemy prohibitions into the discourse of international human rights law.”In Islamic countries, he said, “Muslim moderates, bloggers, women seeking basic freedoms – all of these will be the first to suffer from the worsening climate of state repression in the name of state-supported Islamic orthodoxy.”The move was also “aimed at the Western world, to intimidate anyone from criticizing radical Islam and those who commit violence in its name,” Neuer said.

Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them

Will it be His Way or the Clinton Way?

Hillary Clinton was announced yesterday as nominee for the Secretary of State post in what might have been the worst kept secret in Washington. But, what is not a secret is Hillary's feelings about Obama's foreign policies and his intent to legitimize rogue leaders.

"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive." Hillary Clinton July 24, 2007. Referencing Barack Obama's statement that he would be prepared to meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela in his first year in office.

No big deal...let bygones be bygones. It would be irresponsible for the president to sit down with those leaders, so now Madame Secretary gets the honors. But, what about Iran. Hillary has an interesting take on the little man in Tehran. Mrs. Clinton once called for a new Palestinian state when her husband was president, now she says she will come to the aid of Israel. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." That question was asked by Chris Cuomo on ABC News' Good Morning America about what she would do as president if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

What does Obama think of Iran..."Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We're going to wipe you off the planet." He said that at a campaign rally in Kansas in May of 2008.

So whose philosophy will win in the end. I prefer the hawk. I am a Reagan guy. Peace through strength. My gut tells me that Hillary will have to bend to the president. My hope is that Robert Gates can stand his ground.

Monday, December 1, 2008

Today's Quote

"The art of government is to make two-thirds of a nation pay all it possibly can pay for the benefit of the other third." Voltaire 1694-1778: attributed; Walter Bagehot The English Constitution (1867)