Tag Archives: Walter Myers III
The problem, in my view, with the LGBT movement is not that they have a particular view they are advocating for, but the manner in which they pursue it. Regardless of whether I agree with their ends, which I don’t, I could at least respect them if they didn’t have to demonize the church or anyone else that doesn’t agree with them. There is something to be said for being gracious when you’re fighting for a cause, and the LGBT movement scores a big goose egg in that department. The odd thing is that they make a moral argument to justify their ends, while rejecting any contrary moral arguments. We see this clearly in that they constantly denigrate Christian values, while saying that their values are superior. But how can they do this? They say their values are “progressive” values that have evolved over time culturally, but what exactly are progressive values? On what are they based? Christian values are based on thousands of years of history and observation of natural law, and were validated by the resurrection of Christ. Now many may argue that they don’t believe Christ resurrected, but they cannot argue the historical accuracy of Christianity, and they cannot deny that Christian values, when properly applied, promote love, patience, hope, perseverance, and tolerance of others with whom they disagree. So while the Christian has a set of timeless principles to work from, the LGBT movement has no objective basis on which to moralize. So why should anyone listen to them? Demonizing those who disagree with you and seeking government to force people to accept your point of view is hardly a sustainable moral ethic.
I know the rejoinder from someone in the LGBT community will be that Christians are filled with hate and discriminate against gays. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. Christians are called to love and accept all human beings, and simply see the gay lifestyle as being one of many different sinful lifestyles. But Christians don’t seek to ban gays from living their chosen lifestyles, and don’t see their sin as any worse than premarital sex amongst heterosexual couples or adultery. These are all forms of sexual sin and I don’t see any Christians clamoring for laws that prevent consenting adults from entering into whatever relationships they wish to enter, even if they are wrong (which they obviously are in the case of adultery). They say that Christians are against “gay rights.” But Christians are not against “gay rights.” This is because “gay rights” are not any different from the rights of any other human being. We all have the same rights in this country by virtue of being human. So I don’t see anything special about being gay. If you’re gay, then you’re a human, and it doesn’t make you any different than anyone else. The LGBT movement would have us believe gays are somehow different and special, but I don’t see how they can rationally justify that. Being gay has no affect on one’s ability to get a job, love who they want, or live the life of their choosing. There simply is no broad or systematic discrimination today against gays any more than there is against blacks.
To continue reading, please click HERE.
My Conservative BFF Walter Myers III shared a brilliant post on Facebook regarding President Barack Obama’s sequester gambit & I had to share this with you all:
The sequester that President Obama HIMSELF suggested, championed, and signed into law, is now the Republicans taking a “meat cleaver” to the budget. This is what Obama does, and he does it well because those who support him simply will not believe that the man is operating in bad faith and not in their best interests. How can he possibly blame this on Republicans? Even if it were their fault, it is 2.3% of total spending! That is $85 billion of $3.6 TRILLION of government spending.
Let me tell you why he is doing this. He has NEVER had ANY plans of cutting spending, period. The idea has always been to tell the American people he would cut spending, and then when it comes time to deliver the cuts, he trots out policemen, firemen, and public servants as sacrificial lambs, hoping to appeal to your heart strings: “Oh my God, we can’t cut these people’s salaries!” Now the reason he does this is because you are stupid. He doesn’t expect you to then think to yourself, “Why does he ALWAYS threaten to do the maximum damage to people instead of cutting government waste where the waste really does exist? That’s hardly a good leader he always threatens the least of us just to get his way.” Well if you’re a liberal, then he knows you won’t think that way.
And of course, even though he got a tax increase last month, he is now crying for more taxes on the wealthy instead of making those cuts, because he knows if he says the Republicans don’t want to raise taxes because they want to protect special interests such as big oil, you, like a Pavlovian dog, will say “Yeah, those Republicans are for special interests.” Well, this has NOTHING to do with special interests, period. But he just knows he can throw that in and a liberal won’t even recognize that was a purely political remark to appeal to emotions. Again, this sequester was HIS idea, and HE signed it into law. So how can this have anything to do with Republicans and special interests? It doesn’t. And again, he got his tax increase last month but is using this as an opportunity to raise taxes while making completely false charges against Republicans. Shameful. But you liberals apparently like that.
What Obama knows implicitly is that liberal are willing to even sacrifice the health of the economy to get “social progress.” That’s why he spends into oblivion and doesn’t give a damn about debt or deficits, except when he could score political points against George Bush. So let me ask you liberals this one question. If he runs the economy into the toilet, then what the hell good will be of your social programs and “social progress.” We will all be in starving and the country will be broke and in deep debt. What you SHOULD be doing, my liberal friends, is fighting your social battles at the state level, and stopping any Republican or Democrat from bankrupting your country. What you have made is a Faustian bargain, and you are bringing the whole country down in the process because you want to force your social views on every single American, instead of going to bat at the state level so people can have 50 choices that they can choose from that fits within their particular sensibilities.
You can’t get social progress and NOT get the concomitant profligate spending that Democrats do that has already bankrupted numerous cities, with Detroit and LA two huge Democratic cities set to fail. In time, within a generation, it will be this nation. You think it’s bad in Greece, just wait until it happens in the US. It won’t be pretty.
To put this in perspective, this sequester is the equivalent of you making $24,000 a year, putting $12,000 on a credit card and having a financial counselor ask you to cut $828 out of your budget so you can take on less debt. Yes, it may hurt, but you know you can’t continue this and need to get your spending under control. Just add nine zeroes to that and you see where our federal government is going, because we know what would happen to you eventually in that scenario.
Walter recommends “President Armageddon” from the Wall Street Journal.
My friend & fellow blogger Walter Myers III shared some wonderful commentary on Facebook regarding the Yahoo article on the recent meeting of Chick-Fil-A CEO & a gay rights activist & I wanted to share his thoughts:
“I just learned about this today, and I think it is a great thing. What I think gay activists need to understand is that when one is a follower of Christ, one cannot pick and choose what they believe. Regardless of what we believe, we are called to love all people, and being for traditional marriage does not make us “anti-gay.” The Bible is clear about homosexuality, so when a Christian opposes same-sex marriage, it is not because we don’t like those who are gay or are against them having equal rights under the law. With respect to marriage, we don’t believe that same-sex marriage is equal because it is clear that it is not the same thing as heterosexual marriage. Just calling two things equal doesn’t make them equal.
A friend of mine argued today that I am discriminating against a group of people, and used the example of heterosexual couples who can’t have children to say that marriage is not about procreation. My response was that the fact that some couples can’t have children is because something went wrong, but the design of man and woman is to be able to continue the species. It’s the same as saying that a football game that produces a score of 0-0 is not a football game because no one scored. The design of the game IS to score, but that doesn’t mean it is NOT a game because no one scored. By the same token, the fact that some heterosexual couples can’t have children in no way detracts from the fact that they are married and that is the institution designed to produce children.
Some compare the fight for interracial marriage as equivalent to same-sex marriage. Interracial marriage is not actually “interracial,” because there is only ONE race, the human race. Just because people divide themselves into racial categories has nothing to do with the fact that regardless of these racial categories, all men and women of any race can procreate naturally. So interracial marriage has always been a false distinction because there is no such thing as “interracial marriage.”
Some say that because about fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, even in Christian marriages, that this shows marriage is not a special institution. But the fact that we as people, who are fallen and fallible, end up in broken relationships in no way affects the ideal that is marriage. Just imagine if everyone gave up on other ideals in life because they weren’t successful in more than fifty percent of their endeavors. Life is a struggle, and nothing is promised in life, so we make the best of it we can, and we always hold out hope for the best.
So regarding discrimination against gays because I may be against redefining the definition of marriage, I think it is instructive to point out that discrimination occurs in all walks of life, and that there is not always ill intent. Aren’t women that are not very attractive excluded when they can’t make it to the Miss America or Miss USA pageant? That, indeed, is discrimination of some sort. When white women won’t date black men because they are black, or black women won’t date white men because they are white, is that discrimination? Am I being excluded from joining the Pacific Club in Newport Beach because I can’t afford the $15,000 membership? In each case, there is some exclusion, but the “discrimination” in these cases is simply meeting some particular criteria that has no intent expressly meant to cause harm to others. And in the same way, marriage being between a man and a woman is simply a way to distinguish a particular type of union (not to “exclude” or “discriminate against” anyone), which is the only union that can possibly produce children naturally.
From the Christian perspective, we are all sinners, and we all have to deal with our sin. There are various types of sin, some obviously more heinous than others. But why would a Christian, whose charge is to bring others into the kingdom, treat gays differently from anyone else when it comes to sin? Homosexuality is just one of many types of sin that keeps that person separated from God. Gays need the love of Christ just as much as anyone else, and must face their sins as I have to face my own. So any Christian would be doing someone who is gay a great disservice by accepting either homosexuality or same-sex marriage as normative, even though it may pain us to do so. Either a Christian is going to be true to God’s word, or they are not going to be true to God’s word. But in being true to God’s word, there should be no greater friend to gays than Christians, and we should be the ones who are the first to help if gays are treated in an intentionally harmful or hateful manner. Just because we disagree on same-sex marriage does not mean we are not to serve a gay person as our fellow man or woman in goodness, in love, and in truth.”
Please read the Yahoo article by Chris Good HERE.
My friend Walter Myers III knocks it out of the ballpark & I concur!
Last week, a high school friend of mine (someone that I thought was a friend), commented on Facebook that I was “heartless” for not agreeing with him that taking care of the needy can best be administered by the federal government. In his view, only the federal government has the “necessary resources” to feed the poor in America. Of course, I reminded him that every penny the federal government takes in comes from individuals that live in one of fifty states with any number of localities that also have the power to tax, so each state obviously has the necessary resources to feed and clothe the truly needy. Moreover, it is the height of naiveté to believe that a federal government can take money out of each state, run that money through its bureaucracy, and then give it back to the state without a considerable percentage going to waste that would not have happened at the local or state level. The federal government was not designed to be a charitable organization and it is not good at it either for the obvious reason that it is so far away from the point of need, it could not possibly know what the varying needs are on the ground in any given state and how to best administer help to those in need. Charity is, at best, something that is done as local as possible (city, then county, then state) and should never be a federal matter that will become invariably become wholly politicized. It only complicates things when you concentrate more and more power into the hands of the few. That is precisely why our founders had a limited role for the federal government.
In previous posts, I wrote about the book by Arthur C. Brooks, titled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Brooks notes that America has become essentially two nations—one charitable, and the other uncharitable. He was disturbed by many of the facts and trends that emerged from years of analysis indicating how an identifiable slice of the population does not donate to people in need, does not volunteer, and does not give in informal ways either. That identifiable slice is, namely, those who label themselves as liberals (or progressives). In a nutshell, liberals give dramatically less than conservatives, even though as a group they have 6% higher income on average than conservatives. And liberals are not privately charitable either, an argument that some liberals use to deflect what the hard numbers demonstrate. Conservatives give more because of their worldview, which centers around four forces as noted by Brooks: religion, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurship. Liberals give less because they believe charity consists mainly of government redistribution. And even if the government does not do what they think it should, they still won’t give. So the next time a liberal tells you they want their taxes to go up to help the needy, you should see it for what it truly is: their desire to appearcompassionate in words because they are simply not compassionate inaction. Ask them to write a check out to their local charity to alleviate poverty in their own city, and see just how much pushback you will get.
To continue reading this wonderful, thought provoking blog, please click HERE.
As many already know, the LGBT movement has now set its sights on the Chick-fil-A company ever since President Dan Cathy made recent comments in a (quite beautiful) interview with the Baptist Press about his company advocating for family values rooted in the Bible. Specifically, what raised their ire was his company’s support of the traditional family led by a man and a woman, a position on which he said the company was “guilty as charged,” with no plans to change course despite opposition from various groups. Now we see a constant barrage from the liberal media, gay advocacy groups, and even public figures charging that Chick-fil-A and Christian organizations that it donates are “anti-gay.” Well, I don’t see being pro-traditional marriage as necessarily being anti-gay, but it is clearly opposed to gay marriage. And this is a critical distinction that the gay advocacy groups refuse to make or allow because it doesn’t fit into their narrative. While Cathy may be against gay marriage, Chick-fil-A welcomes customers of all types without reservation, and has not exhibited any discriminatory hiring practices, treating both gay employees and customers with the same “honor, dignity, and respect” as everyone else. So Chick-fil-A is hardly being “intolerant,” or lacking in “diversity” or “inclusiveness” — words now used as verbal cudgels.
In reading various articles about this issue, what surprised me was just how much moralizing was going on by those who abhor morals specifically when advanced by Christians. One article in BusinessWeek correctly stated that while it is not surprising that a company that holds to biblical values would disapprove of gay marriage, the problem is that Cathy “crossed the line” by openly condemning the beliefs of a big chunk of Chick-fil-A’s audience. Yet I don’t recall them saying that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, or Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, crossed a line by their donations to a campaign to defend the same-sex marriage law in the state of Washington. So should Christians now boycott Amazon and Microsoft for their CEO’s actions, as LGBT advocacy groups are encouraging gay marriage supporters to do against Chick-fil-A? Cathy has a specific moral position that is opposed by Ballmer and Bezos, but Cathy is the one who is supposed to give up his moral code in favor of the moral code of Ballmer, Bezos, and gay advocacy groups? It appears to me they feel this is a requirement, and thus Cathy does not have the right to have a view that is discordant with theirs. Now where is the tolerance in that?
As gay marriage advocates would have it, Christians are supposed to sit idly by and watch them actively advance a social agenda that is anti-biblical, as if Christians have no say so even as citizens of the United States. Gay advocacy groups, indeed, are making a moral argument as are Christians. Yet they seem to think their moral arguments are superior, and if Christians don’t agree with theirs then we are necessarily hateful and homophobic for opposing same-sex marriage. But what other position would they expect a Christian to have? The Bible is explicit about God’s view on homosexuality as a sin, so gay marriage isn’t even a consideration. If a person is a Bible-believing Christian, then that person will necessarily look on homosexual sin in the same way that they look on the sins of idolatry, premarital sex, and adultery. To see this, let’s take a look at 1 Corinthians 6:8-10:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, noridolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, norrevilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
To continue reading this great article click HERE!
I signed up in 2008 on Barack Obama’s website to receive email updates on the campaign and four years later, I still receive the emails. For the most part, I delete them but sometimes I read them (depending on the topic) and I’ll forward them to my Conservative BFF & fellow blogger (a superb writer in his own right) Walter Myers III. Walter & I often have discussions about many political topics of the day and for my part I enjoy these discussions because no matter how much we may agree (or disagree), we always learn from one another and it’s great to have someone else’s perspective before I expound on a topic in a blog. I received the following email after the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare:
I’d love to take a moment to savor yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, but we don’t have time.
Already, Mitt Romney and Republicans are out with outright falsehoods about Obamacare — their favorite distortion being that this is somehow a broad tax on the middle class. In reality, this is all about personal responsibility — and the “tax” they are trying to scare everyone about is actually a penalty for the 1 percent of people who can afford insurance but still choose not to buy it, leaving the rest of us to pay for their health care when they head to the emergency room.
Just like they did when the bill was before Congress, Republicans are playing fast and loose with the truth, making up scary consequences to keep you from knowing all the good things Obamacare does. They’re not telling the truth about what this reform means for millions of middle-class Americans, so I need you to help get the facts out there.
Let’s break it down.
I forwarded this “Truth Team”email to Walter and we discussed these five points which ironically, couldn’t be further from the truth and decided to collaborate. Here’s how Walter and I both feel about Obama’s alleged “truth” regarding the GOP and future president Mitt Romney:
#1 Republican distortion: “The President promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class by a penny with this health care law. Well, that’s been proven false now.”
The facts: President Obama has cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle-class family over the last three and a half years, and the Republicans fought him nearly every step of the way. From cutting taxes for every working American through the Making Work Pay and payroll tax cuts, to the American Opportunity Tax Credit which gives up to a $10,000 tax credit to help families pay for four years of college, the President has put more money in the pockets of middle-class Americans.
Here’s another fact: Obamacare includes the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. According to the independent Congressional Budget Office, 19 million people will receive tax credits — worth an average of about $4,800 each — to help afford health care. These tax credits will finally put health insurance within reach for millions of American families. In short, Obamacare cuts taxes for middle-class families. Period.
Around 1 percent of people — those who can afford to buy coverage but instead choose to opt out, shifting their costs to the rest of us — will pay a penalty. The Supreme Court acknowledged yesterday that this penalty will be charged through the tax code — but that doesn’t change its purpose (to ensure everyone who can afford insurance buys it) or its effect (to lower costs for everyone). It’s also the same policy Mitt Romney implemented when he signed health reform in Massachusetts. For many folks in Massachusetts, the penalties under Romney’s reform were even bigger. In fact, here’s a video of him extolling the virtues of his penalty.
REAL FACTS: First of all, Obama attempts to fool the public by calling a tax a penalty because he knows that raising taxes is toxic. However, when his legislation is being questioned in from of the court, his lawyers say it is a tax even though he sold it as a penalty. Even once the court says it is a tax, Obama, his administration, and his campaign team continue to lie about it not being a tax. It is the height of hypocrisy, then, to say that Romney is lying. The entire law is based on a lie because it does not make healthcare more affordable and it pays for it through a myriad of new taxes. Moreover, they lied about the costs because now we see that the costs are at least double from what we were originally sold when the legislation passed. Furthermore, in 2010 Mitt Romney stated that his plan was for Massachusetts only and he’d never roll it out as a federal plan. Some of us may not like Romneycare but it was a state decision, which is a reflection of Mitt Romney’s respect for empowered states as the constitutional framers wanted. The “Truth Team”, in it’s rush to demonize Romney and Romneycare, neglects to tell us that 62% of Massachusetts residents surveyed support the healthcare law there.
#2 Romney distortion: Romney said Obamacare meant “a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life — separating you and your doctor.”
The facts: Totally dishonest. In fact, this is one of the most dishonest claims in American politics. First, this isn’t about government. Obamacare builds on and improves the nation’s private health care system.
Second, here’s what it fixes. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had free rein to arbitrarily cap and cancel coverage, and they could waste our premiums on overheads and big CEO bonuses. With Obamacare, there will now be clear rules of the road to give patients and doctors more control over their health care. These rules will make sure that you and your doctor — not your insurance company, and certainly not a Washington bureaucrat — have control over your health.
REAL FACTS: This is absolutely about government so Romney is on target. How can it not be with 150+ new federal agencies to regulate insurance and medical care? And what about the IPAB, a 15-member commission appointed by the president whose purpose is to make annual “legislative proposals” starting in 2014 that will result in reducing the per capita rate of growth in Medicare? That is not more and bigger government intruding into your life between you and your doctor? Please. The best way to improve the nation’s private health care system is to make it more competitive, not coerce it to do the government’s bidding through artificial constructs only Washington bureaucrats could dream up. Also, it really is none of Obama’s business what insurance companies do with their money as long as they follow the law and do not cheat their customers. Bringing up CEO bonuses is nothing but another example of the class warfare that Obama likes to shamelessly foment. The bottom line is not just a Washington bureaucrat, but numerous Washington bureaucrats have control over your health, and Obama is lying if he is telling you that is not the case.
#3 Romney distortion: “Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have.”
The facts: Outright false. If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. The only thing that’s changed is that your coverage is stronger. Here’s how:
— If you had a lifetime limit (and about 60 percent of employer-based plans did), it’s been lifted.
— If you have a child under the age of 26, they can stay on your plan.
— Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.
— Starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny anyone insurance based on preexisting conditions, helping up to 129 million Americans get the care they need.
— Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge women more than men for the exact same coverage.
— 54 million Americans already have access to better preventive services, free of charge.
— And if you get sick, your insurance company can’t drop your coverage, and if they deny you a treatment, the law makes sure you have a chance to appeal.
Republicans who tell you Obamacare won’t let you keep your plan if you like it are lying to you — and it is shameful.
REAL FACTS: Obama continues to perpetuate a known lie because millions of Americans will lose some or all of the insurance coverage they have enjoyed. Obamacare causes employers to spend more money on healthcare plans for their employees because of the myriad taxes Obamacare imposes. Thus, costs will necessarily go up. Just look at the list above. When you impose all of these regulations, they will cause prices to rise significantly (which has already happened with the partial implementation of the law thus far). If you lift the lifetime limit, then premiums will have to rise. If you add children to a plan under the age of 26, premiums will rise. If insurance companies can no longer exclude anyone with a preexisting condition, then it will be impossible for an insurance company to stay in business without massive increases in premiums. What’s worse is that since the “penalties” for those who refuse to purchase insurance begins at a low teaser rate, smart people will just wait until they get sick, wreaking havoc on insurance actuarial tables. I don’t know how they will survive this and how any fool could think this is even workable.
It is a known actuarial fact that women have more healthcare needs than men simply due to the different makeup of their bodies, so why can’t they be charged more? If not, then everyone else will have to be charged more. These provisions above are the most egregious of the healthcare and are entirely unworkable, almost designed to make the private insurance industry fail so the government can create a single-payer system. Finally, if you are now giving preventive care to everyone for free, how can costs not rise? Yes, you can say this will lower costs over time, but can you really expect that once people are given “free” healthcare that they will be more responsible? I hardly think so. If you don’t earn your healthcare, you will never appreciate it as you would if you earned it. Thus, I believe that overall health will NOT increase because there is no incentive to be healthy. If premiums are manipulated so that one person can’t be charged the true actuarial cost based on their health, then why would a smoker quit since he/she wouldn’t have to pay appreciably more than the next person who doesn’t smoke? Their is no true price signal that would deter them, and they can also just wait until they get sick to buy healthcare. That is how perverse the healthcare law is since it is NOT market based.
#4 Republican distortion: “Costs are going up.”
The facts: Health care costs have been going up for decades — that’s one of the reasons President Obama fought to pass the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare makes targeted changes to hold costs down. The President started by taking on the insurance companies. As he said yesterday, the law ensures that insurance companies spend 80% of your premium dollars on your health care, not administrative costs or CEO bonuses. If they don’t follow that rule, they have to send you a rebate. This month, more than 12 million Americans will receive over $1 billion in rebate checks, and we’re all seeing lower premiums because of it.
The law also takes on waste in our health care system. Let’s take just one example. We spend billions of dollars every year treating people for infections they get while they are in the hospital. The health care law helps hospitals take simple but necessary steps to prevent infections. These types of reforms will save up to $35 billion and 60,000 lives.
REAL FACTS: Obamacare, as discussed above, only adds to the cost and does nothing to lower or contain costs. Also, it is simply common sense that if you bring supposedly 30 million more people into the healthcare system that the cost will go up since these people must now be served. What Obamacare does is just create more complexity and bureaucracy in a system that needs to be simplified and made more efficient. If we can’t make Social Security and Medicare work, what on earth would make someone think another entitlement system will be successful and make costs go down? The problem is not administrative costs and CEO bonuses, even though Obama likes to make this out to be the problem, which only someone who has no knowledge of the insurance industry would fall for. It is pure sophistry. Finally, premiums are already rising, so they can’t say just two years into Obamacare that premiums are going down in any case. In fact, they have had to provide over 1000 waivers to companies who said it was going to be a major burden to them to participate in the law. Ironically, most of the waivers went to union members and also restaurants in the district of none other than Nancy Pelosi:
Despite the “Truth Team’s” untruthful caveats regarding what would happen if Mitt Romney wins the election, Mitt Romney will not only repeal the Obamatax/Obamacare, he does have a plan to replace it with because no American wants to go back to what we had exactly. In an article in the New York Times, Op/Ed Columnist David Brooks gives us a hint of what Mitt Romney’s replacement for Obamacare would be:
“Moreover, there are alternatives. Despite what you’ve read, there is a coherent Republican plan. The best encapsulation of that approach is found in the National Affairs essay, “How to Replace Obamacare,” by James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit. (Mitt Romney has a similar plan, which he unveiled a little while ago and now keeps in a secret compartment in subsection C in the third basement of his 12-car garage).”
Barack Obama’s “Truth Team” is just another part of his smear campaign against the GOP and Mitt Romney but many Americans can see through his political legerdemain and we will not be victims of this “dumbing down” of American citizens. I have faith and trust that Mitt Romney is the man to do the job and I feel confident in saying that my friend Walter Myers III has the same level of trust but either way, unlike Democratic (the majority) blind support of Obama no matter what he does ( or fails to do), we will hold his “feet to the fire” to ensure that these promises are kept along with every other Conservative. To Obama’s “Truth Team” we suggest another career because your lies are transparent and this will only lead you to one place: the unemployment line on November 6th, 2012 behind Barack Obama and all of the rest of his liberal cronies and sycophants.
Here are some updates to some recent media appearances – previous and upcoming!
Tomorrow, Wednesday 7-18-12 join Conservative BFF’s Walter Myers III and myself, Mike Munzing and host Ken McClenton – The Conservative Fab Four! Tomorrow we will be discussing The Newly Released Zimmerman Tapes, Faith & the 2012 Elections, Obama care post-ruling & a number of other HOT political topics! Please join us at 9pmEDT/6pmPDT by clicking here!
This past Sunday 7-15-2012, as per my last post to you all, I held a webinar/conference call with Christian Conservative friends Walter Myers III and Hassan Nurullah to discuss “Should Christians Vote for Romney?”. Well, it was a heated yet very respectful “calmversation”. In cased you missed it, here is the recording:
Tonight, Tuesday 7-17-2012, I had the pleasure of being a guest on the “Southern Sass“show on Romney Radio.US with Host Gina Covell-Maddox & Co-host Joan Whittaker! I had a WONDERFUL time discussing the Romney campaign and the black Conservative movement.I wanted to share the audio with you all in case you missed it! I’m on approximately 20 minutes in to the show, Enjoy!