Manna in the Morning

04-20-12

The Eagle’s Fate

Ezekiel 17:9-10, You are to say: This is what the Lord God says: Will it flourish?  Will He not tear out its roots and strip off its fruit so that it shrivels?  All its fresh leaves will wither!  Great strength and many people will not be needed to pull it from its roots.  Even though it is planted, will it flourish?  Won’t it completely wither when the east wind strikes it?  It will wither on the bed where it sprouted.”

One of the parables Jehovah God gave to the prophet Ezekiel in a series concerning future events is a parable of two eagles.  One eagle dropped or planted a seed that grew into a great kingdom that was fruitful and glorified God while later a second eagle dropped a seed that grew and flourished, until its roots turned and followed a path not set before it by God.  This past week the USA celebrated “Patriot’s Day,” a day set aside to remember the initial battles that began the long, arduous ordeal the original Colonies endured to establish the United States of America.  The US was founded upon and recognized as a Nation whose founding fathers relied upon Biblical Principles enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Strict prohibitions were put in place to keep the newly-established Federal Government from interfering with the religious principles of the many churches and denominations that existed while at the same time encouraging Biblical Christian principles and precepts be followed by the governing bodies and leaders.  For over a century the Government followed the intent of the founders, but succumbed to the slow, insidious infestation of humanism and its determination to remove all Godly influences from Government at all levels, claiming the Constitution and other documents forbid the influence of our great God in governmental decisions and statutes.

Today it seems as if our leaders have turned their back on Biblical principles, degraded Godly precepts and gone against the convictions of a citizenry that overwhelmingly believe in those Biblical precepts.  In this pivotal election year the United States must choose to either flourish and bear fruit or to continue its path and let its leaves dry up and roots shrivel, losing all Godly protection and influence not because God changed, but because the USA was lured away from His place of blessing.

Our Lord God, we acknowledge the sins of our Nation, ask for your forgiveness and pray for restoration of your grace and mercy upon our Nation and people, In Jesus’ name we pray.

Advertisements

Wait until you read this…

  A  retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish.

The Truth About the Health Care Bills – Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it!  I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.  I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying.  The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system.  All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals.  Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface.  In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices.  Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated  If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government.  The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with!  I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital.  All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.  You can also forget about the right to privacy.  That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide…

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you.  It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law  It doesn’t stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea.  This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights…  Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation.  If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton , Texas 

AFTER HAVING READ THIS,  PLEASE FORWARD….

If you don’t care about our constitution, or your rights under it, just do nothing.

WE MUST HOLD CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
 

April 14, 2012

 

                                                                  By:   Ralph Reed
Date:   April 13, 2012
Source:   Washington Post

History, we are assured, is written by the winners. But when it comes to   American presidential politics, the losers have plenty of say.

Rick Santorum’s exit from the Republican presidential   contest this past week cleared the way for Mitt Romney to win the party’s nomination. But over the   course of a low-budget campaign that relied almost entirely on volunteers and   was met with disdain by the GOP establishment, Santorum won more than 3   million votes and 11 state primaries — the most by a conservative insurgent   candidate since Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford in 1976.

Santorum has been denounced as a sore loser, a religious extremist, a crank.   MSNBC host Martin Bashir referred to him as a theocratic version of Stalin.   One columnist alleged in the Daily Beast that Santorum would use the   power of the presidency to impose “his ideal of a Christian America” on the   nation. The New Yorker compared him to Islamic extremists who seek to execute   their opponents, adding that we need separation of church and state so that   “Santorum and his party can’t impose dominion of one narrow, sectarian,   Bible-based idea of the public good.”But Santorum and his supporters may have   the last laugh. From John C. Fremont to William Jennings Bryan in the 19th   century to Barry Goldwater, Gene McCarthy, George McGovern and Ronald Reagan   in our time, losing presidential candidates have previewed the ideological   trajectory of their parties — and often of the nation.

Romney would be wise to remember this in his general-election campaign. Of   course he can’t neglect independents, or women, or Hispanics, or other   nontraditional Republican constituencies. But his immediate task is to   consolidate conservative support and unify the party. The best way to do that   is to appropriate the best parts of Santorum’s message.

Santorum follows the trailblazing evangelical candidates Pat Robertson and   Mike Huckabee, who personified the rise and the maturation of social   conservatives as a critical component of the Republican coalition.

In the Democratic Party, Howard Dean — his candidacy fueled by fiery online   enthusiasm for his antiwar views — signaled the decline of the centrist New   Democrats, foreshadowing the emergence four years later of a freshman U.S.   senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. Today Obama governs as the most   left-of-center president in history, while the Democratic Leadership Council   is shuttered.

In the primaries, Santorum outperformed Romney among two key demographic   groups, one religious and cultural, the other socioeconomic — and Romney   needs both to win in November.

The first group was evangelicals and tea party voters; there is remarkable   overlap between them. According to the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s analysis   of network exit polls, more than half of voters who cast a ballot in a   Republican presidential primary or caucus through mid-March were   self-identified evangelicals. In 2008, they made up 23 percent of all voters   in the general election. Romney will need them to turn out in even larger   numbers to defeat Obama. (He already has a running start; Romney won almost a   third of the evangelical vote during the primaries and a majority of tea party   voters in Florida and other critical states.)

The Republican presidential contest has been incorrectly depicted as a battle   between Romney’s economy-focused message and Santorum’s emphasis on social   issues and family values. That is a false dichotomy. Social scientists have   long noted the social pathologies that underlie chronic poverty. According to   the U.S. Census Bureau, for instance, more than half of Americans living in   extreme poverty are children in households headed by a single parent.

This link between economic and social policy was a unique theme of Santorum’s   campaign, an innovation that broadened his appeal. On the stump, he often   cited a 2009 Brookings Institution study that found that   Americans who failed to complete high school, did not work full time and had   children out of wedlock had a 76 percent chance of living in poverty. By   contrast, those who earned a high school diploma, had a full-time job and   waited until marriage to have kids had only a 2 percent chance of living in   poverty.

There is no way to restore America’s economic prosperity, Santorum argued,   without strengthening marriage and family. “It’s a huge, huge opportunity for   us,” he said when he described the findings in a January   presidential debate in South Carolina, drawing big applause from the crowd.

Rather than causing tension within the GOP coalition, the party’s pro-family   and pro-growth messages work together. Romney must run a general election   campaign in which the cultural agenda and the fiscal one reinforce each   other.

He must also avoid retreating from his defense of unborn life, the   institution of marriage, and the right of religious organizations and   charities to be free from the Obamacare mandate governing their health-care   coverage. Otherwise, he will confirm the worst fears of those faith-based   voters who wonder if his positions are based on convenience, not conviction.   He need not lead with these issues; but when they arise, he should lean into   them and forthrightly state his views. (Think John McCain at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum in 2008.)

As he works to close the gender gap with Obama, Romney and his team must keep   in mind that the largest chasm in the electorate is actually the “marriage gap,” in which Republican presidential   candidates have historically won married voters with children by wide   margins. As the kerfuffle this past week over a liberal pundit’s comments   about women who work at home amply demonstrated, the gender gap can be   narrowed by appealing to women who value their family and children as much as   they value their careers outside the home.

The second group with which Santorum performed extremely well was voters who   did not graduate from college and who earn less than $100,000 a year.   Working-class voters in battleground states such as Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin   and Iowa will be a key vulnerability for Obama in the general election.   Romney needs them. Carrying only college-educated voters making more than   $100,000 a year is a recipe for electoral death for the Grand Old Party.

On the night of the Iowa caucuses (which he would only later learn he had   won), Santorum spoke movingly of his Italian immigrant   grandfather, who came to America as a young man and worked in the coal mines   of western Pennsylvania until the age of 72. Santorum also called for   revitalizing the U.S. manufacturing base by cutting federal taxes on those   companies to zero. Whatever one thinks of his policy prescriptions, he   auditioned a compelling theme for Romney’s general-election campaign — one   that could combine the details of Romney’s father’s humble beginnings with a   plan for economic renewal based on lower taxes and fewer regulations, not on   Obama-style bailouts.

Predicting vice presidential selections is a little like playing fantasy   football on a Ouija board. But whether it is Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Paul   Ryan, Mike Huckabee or yes, even Rick Santorum, Romney would be wise to   select a well-qualified running mate who can energize evangelicals, faithful   Roman Catholics and conservatives, while also appealing to women and   independents.

His choice will be subjected to an all-out assault — just ask Dan Quayle,   Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. But adding a compelling running mate who can   help drive a winning message about economic prosperity and stronger families   would serve Romney well in his battle against Obama’s well-funded attack   machine.

Check it Out

April 11, 2012

It seems very important to pursue the exact definition of this word, which is employed in the controversial health care bill on page 107, but not easily found in any English or American dictionaries.
Check Snopes and Google, but don’t stop there, take the time to visit your Library.
DhimmitudeWhat does it mean?  Obama used it in the health care bill. Now isn’t this interesting? It is used in the health care law.

Dhimmitude — I had never heard the word until now. Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It’s on page 107 of the healthcare bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists.. It is a REAL word.
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.

ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be “gambling”, “risk-taking”, and “usury” and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. 

How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude.

I recommend sending this onto your contacts. American citizens need to know about it —

Subject: A Black perspective on the Obamas

                                                                                                                                                     

Categorized       | Daily RantFeatured

Why I Do Not Like The Obamas

23 February 2012

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked       me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to       ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal, not policy related.       You even dissed their Christmas family pic.”

The       truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology,       and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.

I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the       Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned       question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental       change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist       state.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because       they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with       contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the       sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit       same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t like them because they comport       themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the       Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the       leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan       displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans       made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could       accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice       Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians       are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not       outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken       lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new       depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an       animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display       bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he       accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak       pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement       and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country       where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny,       could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most       powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and       disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their       blood to ensure her right to do same.

I have a saying, that “the only reason a person       hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in       history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past       sealed.

And       what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied       about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and       problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly       $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about       his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad       nauseum. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the       Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He       has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist       academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed       rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood       did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and       aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady, as       her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious       credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are       suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his       family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes       about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor       retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We       should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his       willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the       Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for       Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the       color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior,       attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race       card.

It       is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one       term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the       strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as       they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label       them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby       a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position,       and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for       their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero       In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics,       have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most       mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low       standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic,       contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would       have to be elevated to sainthood … Many in America wanted to be proud       when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they       have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of       America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality       hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their       life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go       homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)

Oh,       and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator       from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate       you and your family. Because you had written a syndicated column titled       “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)  As I have written before, To vote or not votefor a person on the superficial basis of skin tone is racial, baseless and wrong!  to vote for a person whose heart is to destroy America is wrong! – Sundogger

Things to Consider

April 1, 2012

Here are just a FEW things Obama has done since in the White House. I’m sure you forgot but once you read the list it’ll ring some bells in your head..! And WE all know this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot more he’s done to DAMAGE America..4 more years I HOPE & PRAY NOT..!1. Obama Lying About His Social Security Number2. Obama Lying About His Nation Of Birth3. Obama’s Endless Tyrannical Executive Orders4. The Obama Soros’ Occupy Wall street Mob5. Uganda6. Obama Giving Solyndra 535 Million Of Our Money7. Raising The Deficit To 18 Trillion8. America’s First Credit Downgrade9. Obama’s Fast And Furious Criminal Operation10. Repeal Of DOMA11. Repeal Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell12. Obama Buying His Union Votes With Our Tax Money13. Obama Empowering The Muslim Brotherhood And Al Qaeda14. Obama Swearing That He Would Side With Muslims Against Us Patriots15. Obama’s Hate Speech Provocations16. Obama putting Muslim’s Rights Over All Other American’s Rights17. Obama Ignoring North Korean Aggression18. Obama’s Democrats Voting Against Auditing The Corrupt Federal Reserve Bank19. Obama Giving Brazilian & Soro’ Owned Oil Company Two Billion To Drill Off Shore With The Oil Slated To Go To China20. Lopsided Nuke Deals21. Obama’s Expensive & Unnecessary Trip To India22. Obama’s Illegal Aunt Living Off Our Taxes23. Obama Taking 500 Billion From Medicare And From Our Senior Citizens To Fund His Illegals On welfare24. Obama Having The Cross and the letters IHS covered up that symbolizes the name of Jesus Christ at Georgetown University obama delivering a dismal 45-minute speech. 25. Mosque At 9-11 Ground Zero26. Obama and Hillary calling in the UN to slam Arizona, 22 States & our nation’s laws27. Our Tax Money Being Used To Fund The Democrat Propagandist National Public Radio28. Obamacare29. Abortions paid for under Obamacare30. Suing Arizona31. Obama’s Wealth Redistribution32. No Social Security Cost Of Living Increase For Retired Americans For Two Years33. Bailouts34. Bribes35. Obama’s & BP’s Mishandled Gulf Of Mexico Oil Aneurysm36. 535 Billion Of Your Money Spent On Illegals Every Year37. Obama’s 2.6 Trillion Amnesty38. Economy Trashed By The Democrats39. Democrat Voter Fraud40. No Real Border Security Enforcement41. Siding with the Marxist Zelaya in Honduras against the will of the people their42. No Jobs43. Beer Summit44. Calling Our Returning Veterans Potential Terrorists45. AG Holder setting the 9-11 terrorist trial just blocks from the 9-11 attack site46. Calling Christians Potential Terrorists47. Hands Holding Crotch During Pledge Of Allegiance48. Rev Wright49. Michelle50. Massive & Reckless Spending51. Harry Reid52. Nancy Pelosi53. Sestak Obamacare Death Panels54. Nationalizing Banks55. Nationalizing US Industry56. Obama’s Massive Stimulus Failure57. Calling Tea Party Activists Racists58. New Black Panther Party Thugs empowered by Obama’s AG Holder59. Using the NAACP to spread Racist Propaganda60. Obama’s Dept Of Justice Refusing To Prosecute Black Racist Discrimination Against White People61. ACORN62. Dead People Voting As Democrats63. Calling Terrorism A Man Made Disaster64. Calling America a Muslim Nation65. Obama Giving One Billion Of Your Money To The Hamas Terrorists Of Gaza66. Bowing to the Saudi king of Terror67. The Obama Apology Tour68. Obama’s Marxist Czars69. Obama’s Muslim Czars advocating for Islamic Sharia Law in America70. Cap & Trade Tax71. agenda 2172. Obama’s Terrorist Appeasement73. The Islamization Of NASA74. Muslims exempted from Obamacare75. Obama’s Mistreatment Of Israel76. The NDAA to imprison Americans at will the New Start Treaty in Russia the 111th Democratic Congress77. Violating the rules of the U.S. House•78. Inappropriately handing out the legislative powers of Congress.79. Upending the legislative process Usurping the powers reserved to the states in the U.S. Constitution.80. Barack Obama has advocated that the nation should move beyond the constraints of the founding document .81.President Obama informed Congress and the American people that he and he alone will decide which laws coming to his desk are constitutional or not. 82.FEMA Camps 83.Obama mistreating our friends84. obama apologizing to afghanistanAmericans, hear what your president is saying: I’ll work within the system. But if they won’t move, then…I will dictate where we’re going.The arrogance of this man and the way he rewrites all of American historyand obama adds something new everyday ,, cause he never stops hurting our America.  Pray for our beloved Country!