Recent Primaries a Sign of Improvement...?

I spent the last month at my grandparents' lovely home in Orlando FL. While there, I watched the news (mainly FOX) nearly every evening (and some mornings too!) because my Grandpa enjoys knowing everything that's going on. Primaries for many states took place in late May and I watched along with my Grandpa for who would come out tops in the Republican field. And what I saw deeply disturbed me.

The Bible speaks plainly, as follows, on the issue I am about to address...

9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves. 10 Tell the righteous it will be well with them, for they will enjoy the fruit of their deeds. 11 Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them! They will be paid back for what their hands have done. 12 Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. O my people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path. -Isaiah 3:9-12

16 In that day the Egyptians will be like women. They will shudder with fear at the uplifted hand that the LORD Almighty raises against them. -Isaiah 19:16

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. -1 Timothy 2:11-15

3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
-Titus 2:3-5

Feel free to look all of these verses up. None are taken out of context. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So back to my story... What deeply concerned me was the number of "conservative" women who came out on top--over other conservative men in the republican primaries. What I am about to state is very anti-cultural, offends most Christians, and nearly all women: Women were not meant to be in leadership over men, but to be in submission TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS (or fathers). Did you read the Bible verses I posted above? And those are not even all the ones I have found in my studies. Believe me, I didn't enter the Scripture with the firm conviction that women were not to lead men, and then just back up my presupposed thought with these Scriptures. No no, the belief and conviction I hold in this area is a direct RESULT of seeking God's word in this area of what I, as a woman, am to do with my life!

Did I always like this result? NO WAY!! When I was little I used to think to myself they needed someone with SENSE in that legislature, and that maybe, just maybe, I'd be the one to spark the revolution of our political system!

It's very popular in our day and age (it's all over movies and books) to justify our ACTIONS by what the GOAL is. That whatever actions it took to get a "good deed" done were necessary and therefore OK. This is extremely unBiblical! Jesus is always always always looking at the heart of the issue and of each and every one of our actions. I think of the movie Eragon which is actually a great film--minus one MAJOR issue. The lead character, Eragon, is told by his older and wiser mentor to stay put for his own safety and not attempt a rescue of another good guy. Eragon disobeys, completes a successful rescue, and then says to his enraged mentor, "Better to ask forgiveness than permission." We as Christians are doing the same exact course of action in this matter of politics. Men are not doing their jobs, rising up to do the right thing and beat the bad guys, so women are stepping in and doing it for them. Sure it worked out in Eragon, but that is a fictional movie and not ultimately based on the Bible. Just as Jesus condemns disobedience of authority, I firmly believe he condemns women stepping into a man's role. He MADE them different and to have different roles! And when humans step in and say "we have a better way than God's way" ooh my, that is very bad business and I fear for our country....

From the verses above it is clear to me that women ruling a kingdom is a sign of judgment from God. That is what sobers me the most. That Christians are not only taking women running for office lying down and without question, but are actually voting for them in the bargain! I don't claim to have it all figured out, but I cannot reason away the verses above. As for that nonsense about women being submissive to their husbands being a thing of the past/history, if you take that line with part of the Bible, where will it end, I ask you? How many commandments from God are just "cultural" and how many are actually "for life."

The bottom line is that if we TRULY believe that every single line in the Bible is the inspired word of the most Holy and Jealous God, there is not a single thing in that book which we are not required to live by. And I know you're thinking about all those things the Jews did in the old Testament, and do we have to do all that now--no. Christ makes it very clear that he fulfilled the traditions and that they are no longer necessary, as he has bridged the gap which could never be filled, by dying on the cross. But that is a whole other topic :)

A quote from Noah Webster comes to mind...

"The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good, and the best book for regulating the concerns of man. The principles of genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations, are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore, who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be subject to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer. There are two powers only, sufficient to control the men and secure the rights of individuals: the combined force of liberty and law."

If by trying to bring about "good" in this country, we forsake the law of God and re-write it to suit our own ambitions and vision, we are lost and our country with us... "What good will it do you to gain the whole world and forfeit your soul?" Jesus asks in Matthew. What good indeed...

I ask you to consider this unpopular teaching, and test your own beliefs constantly in this world that wants desperately to turn us from Christ and all that he stands for.

Kingdoms will rise and fall, but what matters is that we obeyed God's commandments with eternity in mind. Not with the next election in mind.

A New Thought, or a Lazy/Frightened One?

I am the personality such that anything that looks remotely lazy I rise up against and will often seek an opposite solution to. But unfortunately I seem to have the same laziness/fear about openly sharing my faith. This may come as a surprise to some of you, but to those who know me well, probably not...

I have a fear about sharing the Gospel. There, I've said it and admitted it! Five years ago I wouldn't have done that :)

No really though--let's get serious. I know I am not the only Christian with this fear, yet it runs so strangely with me to not attack this (perhaps lazy?) fear/dislike of not wanting to get caught up in people's problems and conflicts. I usually like to confront my petty fears and go directly against them in order to counter them--that is why I took public speaking!! *gulp* But I must admit that in this area I have made little progress, always pushing it to the back of my mind. Sure I try and be a light wherever I go etc, but sharing the Gospel with the person next to me on the plane, or with the cashier, or whoever I come in contact with, has never been a natural thing for me, and honestly my heart beats quickly whenever I even consider it. But I have done little about it, allowing the business of changing my fear to be pushed back and back by life.

Well, I had a thought today. I am definitely not accepting it as THE ONLY truth. Let me say that I do know it's within every Christian's duty to be ready to answer for the hope that is within him or her, and I am not trying to say here that this is no longer necessary, by any means.

Today the pastor spoke on Joseph and his resistance to Potipher's wife in Egypt. And something got my attention: that Joseph, and now that I think about it, many if not all of the the historical Biblical characters, never actually come out in the stories and share the Gospel straight up with whoever the authority or peer is in their life. I do believe Paul does with the Romans who are holding him captive, and again I am by no means saying that sharing the Gospel straight up with people is WRONG. I guess God is showing me perhaps, that sharing the Gospel can be done more ways than out and out words and sentences. It can be a way of life!

Sure I knew this; but to actually realize fully that many of the famous stories between godly men and women, and pagans don't involve an actual sharing of the Gospel (at least, not that we hear in the story), but an actual LIVING OUT of the Gospel, which is SO EFFECTIVE. For example, the Joseph story--Potipher knows that God is with Joseph. The same for Daniel, and I am sure there are others I just can't think of right now :) These men simply lived out their faith unashemedly. We never hear them share the "four spiritual laws" (sorry, couldn't resist *smile) or the steps to salvation. We, along with the authorities and peers of their day, simply see something different and incredible, and credit it to God.

I hope my rambling has made some sort of sense! Let me say in closing that all in all I was encouraged today that while my heart and mind are perhaps too weak and afraid of man to engage every stranger that comes my way, that by my dress, attitude, character, and way of living, I can express something that may make people think to themselves, as they thought of Daniel and Joseph: God is with this man (in my case woman). If I can dare to put myself on the same level of these incredible men, this is my hope and prayer!

Oh may that truth be so! "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it..."

Infants are Smarter than we Think!

Six months old and he can tell good from evil

The new research contradicts the theories of Freud and others that humans begin with a moral 'blank slate'

May 9, 2010

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7120735.ece

The new research contradicts the theories of Freud and others that humans begin with a moral 'blank slate'

Maurice Chittenden

Mothers and fathers might think they have few higher duties than teaching a sense of right and wrong to their children. But research suggests that their offspring may already be a step ahead of them.

Scientists have discovered that babies can start to make moral judgments by the age of six months and may be born with the ability to tell good from bad hard-wired into their brains.

Infants can even act as judge and jury in the nursery. Researchers who asked one-year-old babies to take away treats from a “naughty” puppet found they were sometimes also leaning over and smacking the figure on the head.

The research is being pioneered by a team of psychologists at the infant cognition centre at Yale University in Connecticut. Their findings go against the received wisdom that humans begin life with a moral “blank slate” and are shaped by their parents and social environment.

In their research, the scientists used the ability to tell helpful from unhelpful behaviour as an indication of moral judgment. In one experiment, they tested infants less than a year old playing with cuddly animals and puppets.

Babies are unable to press buttons or pull levers to show their preferences so the scientists measured the amount of time a child was gazing at one object. Typically they stare longer at things that please them.

In one test, groups of babies aged between six months and a year watched an animated film of simple geometric shapes. A red ball with eyes tries to climb a hill. At different times, a yellow square gets behind it to help push it up the hill and a green triangle forces it back down again.

The babies watched it between six and 14 times, depending on their powers of concentration. They were then asked to “choose” between the “good guy” square, and the “bad guy” triangle. In 80% of cases the infants chose the helpful character against the unhelpful one.

In a second study, a toy dog tries to open a box. One teddy bear helps him but another sits on it to stop him getting inside. After watching it at least six times, the babies were asked to choose which bear they liked. Most opted for the friendly bear.

Paul Bloom, professor of psychology who heads the study team, said the research flew in the face of psychologists such as Sigmund Freud who believed humans began life as “amoral animals” and William James who described a baby’s mental life as “one great, blooming, buzzing confusion”.

“There is a growing body of scientific evidence that supports the idea that perhaps some sense of good and evil is bred in the bone,” Bloom said.

To establish whether babies were really responding to niceness and naughtiness the scientists devised another test in which a toy cat plays with a ball while a cuddly rabbit puppet stands on either side. When the cat loses the ball, the rabbit on the right side returns it to him but if the ball rolls the other way the rabbit on the left side picks it up and runs away with it. This time, one-year-old babies were asked to take a treat away from one puppet. Most took it from the pile of the naughty rabbit, who also ended up with a smack on the head for his bad behaviour.

Kiley Hamlin, author of the team’s Infant Morality report, said: “We spend a lot of time worrying about teaching the difference between good guys and bad guys in the world but this might be something that infants come to the world with.”

However, Nadja Reissland, a behavioural psychologist at Durham University, cautioned that adult assumptions may have coloured how a child’s actions were interpreted by the researchers.

“Everything hinges on who decides what is moral,” said Reissland. “By saying pushing the ball up the hill is helpful, the researchers are making a moral judgment. The babies might just prefer to see things go up rather than down.

“In the other test, perhaps the bear closes the box to prevent the dog from getting in there because there is something dangerous inside. It is like a mother keeping children out of an area where there is something harmful.”

Reissland added that children started being socialised into knowing good from bad as soon as they were born.

Peter Willatts, a senior lecturer in psychology at Dundee University, said: “You cannot get inside the mind of the baby. You cannot ask them. You have to go on what most attracts their attention.

“We now know that in the first six months babies learn things much quicker than we thought possible. What they are born with and what they learn is difficult to divide.”

Unbelievable...

"There Will Be No Apology"

By Tom Bevan

May 6, 2010

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/06/there_will_be_no_apology_105472.html

Those are the words of the mother of Matt Dariano, one of the five kids at Live Oak High School in the San Francisco Bay Area who were sent home for having the temerity to wear American flag tee shirts on the

"Mexican heritage day" of Cinco de Mayo.

"There will not be an apology," Mrs. Dariano told the camera crew outside the school. "Matthew is part Hispanic, OK? He's an American. So, no, there will be no apology from any Dariano."

Guess who else uttered the exact same phrase last year? James Crowley, the white Cambridge cop who arrested black Harvard professor Louis Gates, Jr. and was singled out in a nationally televised press conference by President Obama for "acting stupidly."

On July 23 of last year outside his home, a reporter told Crowley that Gates had asked for an apology from him for his handling of the incident.

"There will be no apology," Crowley replied.

After a beat, the reporter followed up: "Is this now and ever, 'no apology,?"

"Yes," Crowley replied flatly.

The fact is, Americans are increasingly fed up with the racially divisive, politically correct insanity pulsating through the country today. After years of being pressured and browbeaten by the left-wing PC police about what they can say, do, think, and wear, many Americans have had enough. And they're especially furious with being asked to apologize for things that aren't or shouldn't be in the least bit offensive.

The idea that high school kids anywhere in America would be called the principal's office - let alone that they would be asked whether they should apologize - for wearing clothes bearing the image of the United States flag, is a perfect case in point.

It's the kind of insanity that rankles the sensibilities of millions upon millions of Americans, and has them cheering when someone - whether a Cambridge cop or a Bay Area mother - stands up, refuses to back down, and says, "there will be no apology."

Soy not such a healthy food item after all...

Genetically modified soy linked to sterility, infant mortality

By Jeffrey Smith

April 26, 2010

http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey130.htm

NewsWithViews.com

"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths - a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010) --so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.

He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

"Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly."

He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile."

The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.

Hair Growing in the Mouth

Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in the mouths of hamsters.

"Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of a mucous."

(The photos of these hair bundles are truly disgusting. Trust me, or look for yourself.)

At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, "This pathology may be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.)." Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.

Preliminary, but Ominous

Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, "It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself." Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.

In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they're called "Roundup Ready." Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering.

Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed

Surov's hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not

reproduce.

In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.

Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior." Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.

In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up

Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive studies.

In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!

Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.

Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment

Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don't think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry's massive uncontrolled experiment.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Alexey Surov says, "We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them."

Puns for an Educated Mind :)

I did not make these up, for the records. But they sure are a hoot! Enjoy and let me know if you GET every single one!

1. The roundest knight at King Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his size from too much pi.

2. I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island, but it turned out to be an optical Aleutian .

3. She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

4. A rubber band pistol was confiscated from algebra class, because it was a weapon of math disruption.

5. No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery.

6. A dog gave birth to puppies near the road and was cited for littering.

7. A grenade thrown into a kitchen in France would result in Linoleum Blownapart.

8. Two silk worms had a race. They ended up in a tie.

9. Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

10. Two hats were hanging on a hat rack in the hallway. One hat said to the other: 'You stay here; I'll go on a head.'

11. I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger. Then it hit me.

12. A sign on the lawn at a drug rehab centre said: 'Keep off the Grass.'

13. The short fortune-teller who escaped from prison was a small medium at large.

14. The man who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran

15. A backward poet writes inverse.

16. In a democracy it's your vote that counts. In feudalism it's your count that votes.

17. When cannibals ate a missionary, they got a taste of religion.

Vote for Hayworth!

How to put the fear of God into the GOP

Exclusive: Jane Chastain points to J.D. Hayworth race as potential party game-changer

Posted: April 15, 2010

1:00 am Eastern

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=140701

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

By Jane Chastain

Ouch!

That check I just put in the mail to the IRS really hurt!

Unfortunately, if something isn't done, and done soon, to roll back the size of our bloated government, that is the smallest check I'll be writing to Uncle Sam in my lifetime.

Rolling back the government is easier said than done. It's a lot easier to take a bone away from a hungry dog. For that matter, it's a lot easier to take a chunk of meat away from an angry lion. Many well-meaning politicians have tried only to discover that the folks on the receiving end of the government's largess make those carnivores seem like pussy cats.

A lot of good people are pinning all their hopes on Republicans taking back control of Congress in the fall election. Even if that happens, it is unlikely they will make a lot of progress.

Let's rewind to 1995 – the first year the GOP controlled both the House and the Senate after spending 40 years in the tall grass of the congressional wilderness. Ah, so many dedicated fresh faces arrived in Washington, it was hard to tell the congressmen from the visitors.

An amazing thing happened that year. The GOP actually passed some rescissions. In other words, they took back some money that had been appropriated the previous year but hadn't gone out the door. That year, everyone was a fiscal conservative. Then, the invincible force met the immovable object, President Clinton.

Our boy Bill had presented a budget that had red ink as far as the eye could see, and the Republicans put their collective foot down. A good old-fashioned brawl ensued that lasted into the Thanksgiving holiday. Clinton refused to budge and shut down the government, not once, but twice. By then, we the people were busy decking the halls for Christmas and completely lost interest.

The battle over spending extended into the next year and the next budget. In March, the Washington Post did a poll that showed that the public was completely unaware that there had even been a vote on a budget that would reach balance.

At that point, these fresh faces were so haggard, they simply threw up their hands and said, "What's the use!" It wasn't long before they began spending like, well, Democrats. In fact, before they lost control of Congress, they were outspending Democrats.

It is time to send a message to the GOP that will long be remembered, and the best way to do it is to help J.D. Hayworth defeat John McCain in the Arizona Republican primary. It will cause more shock waves in the GOP than Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts did in the Democratic Party.

Hayworth is a bona fide conservative. McCain is, well, McCain.

It is nothing short of amazing that the 28-year Washington lawmaker and 2008 Republican nominee for president has a serious challenger. It's even more amazing that by March 16, in a Rassmussen poll, Hayworth pulled to within 7 points of this political icon.

Hayworth is everything McCain is not: He is strong on illegal immigration. In fact, as a congressman, Hayworth helped lead the fight against the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. He opposes the McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill and rejects the McCain-Feingold legislation, which curbed free speech and helped incumbents get re-elected. Hayworth helped write the Bush tax cuts and supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, while McCain opposed both. Hayworth opposed the nomination of Eric Holder as attorney general, big bank bailouts and the death tax. McCain voted for the former two and against the latter.

This battle is the political equivalent of David and Goliath. Hayworth has managed to raise $1 million in political donations. To McCain that's chump change! Nevertheless, McCain is running scared. He called on Sarah Palin to campaign for him in Arizona and give him some cover with conservatives. He is spending the big bucks on TV, hiding behind heavy-hitting attack ads and refusing to debate Hayworth.

Meanwhile, Hayworth has the support of most politically savvy conservatives, but with his checkbook, for the most part, he must rely on radio. Unfortunately, not everyone who supports Hayworth, in principle, does something tangible.

If you have ever thought about giving a political donation to a candidate that could change the direction of the country, now is the time to do it. If just 1 million true-blue conservatives put their money where their mouth is and gave Hayworth $25 each, he would have $25 million. Now that would help level this playing field.

The primary is Aug. 24. There is not a moment to lose!

From a Russian who knows his history... How appropriate for tax day.

American capitalism gone with a whimper

Stanislav Mishin

27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru

Retrieved April 13, 2010 from http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights.

Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the

American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina