DELUSIONAL

.

According to a recent article in the UK’s Daily Mail, “Tony Blair could be crowned first President of Europe at a special summit of EU leaders next month.”

Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the nations comprising the European Union would replace the current rotating presidency with a “permanent president” having a term of two and one-half years.

One of the front-runners was former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who reportedly enjoyed the support of French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel. However, even if Blair were nominated, his nomination would not take effect until ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all 27 member nations.

The possible consideration of Blair for president of the EU caused quite a lot of whining and complaining among British leftists, who hate Blair almost as much as American liberals hate George W. Bush — and for the same reason. They're invested in the lie that Saddam Hussein did not have "weapons of mass destruction", i.e. chemical and/or biological weapons.

It never fails to amaze me that these folks have such selective memories that they can totally dismiss the FACT that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own Kurdish population several times. This has been well documented by international groups such as Doctors Without Borders.

Libs also overlook the FACT that one of the conditions of the cease-fire in the first Gulf war was for Saddam to destroy those chemical weapons stockpiles and to present to the United Nations proof that he had done so. He never complied.

In fact, he violated a number of UN resolutions in the years leading up to the war. I refer you to http://www.c-span.org/iraq/timeline.asp and http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html for a list of Saddam’s violations.

Those who insist that Bush and Blair led their nations into an “unjustifiable” war "based on a lie" are living a fantasy of their own creation and have deliberately and consistently ignored the facts, preferring liberal lies to the truth. (I have never understood the propensity of some people to deliberately choose to believe outrageous lies instead of acknowledging simple truths.)

Equally difficult to understand are those who feel compelled to destroy those brave men who courageously stand by their convictions. During the past decade, I've seen these attempted character assassinations over and over again. Rather than debate FACTS, which seem to be in dangerously short supply on the left, they launch personal attacks and spread outright lies. This is a very disturbing trend and, I think, is an indication of the moral bankruptcy of those who employ such tactics.

At any rate, it's really no concern of mine whom the Europeans choose to head the EU -- no more than it should be any concern of the rest of the world whom we elect as president. However, the rest of the world, in their lust to bring the U.S. down a few pegs, vociferously supported Barack Hussein Obama (Ummm! Ummm! Ummm!) and celebrated his election. Now, Obama, who was and is completely unqualified for the office of the presidency, is systematically taking over private industry, usurping civil liberties, and destroying our economy.

Has it occurred to the rest of the world that when our economy tanks, theirs may follow? Or is their anticipation and joy at watching Obama preside over our downfall so great that they don't care how it affects their own economies?

President Obama is presiding over a trashed economy with a multiple-trillion-dollar national debt. His policies have caused over a hundred banks to fail this year alone. He has allowed the Fed to monetize the debt, which can only result in hyperinflation and the collapse of the dollar. He is vilifying everyone who disagrees with his failed policies. He has explicitly stated his intention to "redistribute the wealth" and, to implement that plan, he has surrounded himself with avowed communists who openly revere mass-murderer Chairman Mao and madman Hugo Chavez.

Yet the world considers Obama a "man of reason". I cannot help but wonder what criteria the world used to arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps that conclusion is based on Obama's outstanding teleprompter-reading skills?

In this nation, there is unrest, anger and slowly rising panic among the populace. We aren't as stupid as Barack Hussein Obama (Ummm! Ummm! Ummm!) seems to think we are. We can see quite clearly what is happening.

To prepare for the coming economic collapse over which Obama is determined to preside, economists are advising people to buy gold. Those who cannot afford to invest in gold are buying seeds, dried food, guns and ammo. People are developing a bunker mentality. It's getting strange.

As one prominent commentator recently said, "There's a time coming that's going to really suck. It's going to suck really bad." Not the most eloquent statement, but true, nonetheless.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

RACISM AT WALMART?

'

Wasn’t the election of Barack Obama supposed to usher in a new post-racial in America? Aren’t we all supposed to be judging each man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin, as Dr. King once dreamed?

Why, then, are we bombarded by charges of racism at every turn? Could it be that racism has simply become a convenient excuse for bad behavior in the black community?

Consider this news item: A twenty-something black woman named Heather Ellis cut in line at a Walmart in Kennett, Missouri, her hometown. She pushed in front of another customer who had already placed her items on the conveyor, shoved the customer’s merchandise back, and placed her own purchases in front of it. When other customers complained about Ms. Ellis pushing in front of them, a shoving match ensued. When Ms. Ellis’s objectionable behavior continued, a security officer and the store manager asked her to leave the store. When she refused, the manager called the police.

Walmart spokesman Lorenzo Lopez is quoted as saying, "In this matter, there was a disturbance and law enforcement was contacted, in accordance with our normal procedures.”

According to the police report, Ms. Ellis resisted arrest, cursed at a police officer and threatened to beat him if he laid his hands on her.

Did Ms. Ellis apologize for her behavior? Of course not! Instead, she played the race card. Rather than admit that her behavior was rude and inappropriate, Ms. Ellis filed a written complaint with the NAACP contending that she had been “hassled” by the store’s employees and “mistreated” by the police. She concluded by complaining, "What a shame the system can destroy a young person's future like this because of bad cops."

I beg your pardon? You shove in front of other customers, push their merchandise that’s already on the conveyor back and place your own stuff ahead of it, and when people complain, you conclude it must be because of the color of your skin?? They can’t possibly be complaining because you’re a spoiled brat who doesn’t know how to behave appropriately in polite society, could they?

Sadly, Ellis’s father, Rev. Nathaniel Ellis, is supporting her in this outrage. I can’t help but wonder what gospel the Rev. Ellis preaches. His daughter’s behavior certainly isn’t appropriate by any standards MY Bible contains. Perhaps Rev. Ellis, like the infamous Jeremiah Wright, preaches “black liberation theology”, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ?

And what idiot lawyer would file a lawsuit based on such ridiculous charges? Any reasonably successful attorney should have better things to do with his time than to encourage such immature behavior!

Another recent example of behavior in the post-racism era of Obama was the black professor in Massachusetts who was questioned by police because a neighbor, who noticed not the color of his skin but only the fact that someone was behaving suspiciously outside the professor’s home and, like any good neighbor, reported the suspicious activity to the police. Had this been a break-in, the professor would have appreciated his neighbor’s diligence. However, when police requested identification, the professor behaved rudely, hurled racial slurs at the officers and, in general, behaved like a jackass.

Allow me to point out that it is not whites, but blacks, who continually harp on race. The black community, especially men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who have made careers out of trumped-up charges of racism, don’t WANT a post-racial era in America. They don’t WANT to be treated like everyone else. As soon as the rest of us treat them without regard to race, require the same qualifications or demand the same appropriate behavior as is expected of everyone else, charges of racism are made.

I, for one, am sick to death of blacks using race as an excuse for bad behavior and failure to achieve. It is irrational to demand equality in one breath and then, in the next, object because you’re being held to the same standards as everyone else.

Try this, instead: Forget about skin color — your own and others’, behave like a responsible adult, and stop looking for excuses for inappropriate behavior and lack of achievement. Only when the black community embraces this attitude will we live in a post-racial society.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN HAPPY VALLEY

.

Why do liberals consistently equate freedom of speech with sacrilege, all the while condemning any and all valid forms of Christian religious expression as a violation of their rights.

Apart from the obvious hypocrisy and intolerance of this stance, the question which springs immediately to mind is, "Which right?" Could they be referring to their perceived right not to be offended?

As you may recall, the so-called "free speech movement" had its inception on the Berkley campus of the University of California back in the 60s. According to the university's history of that era (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/calhistory/60s.html), the original goal of the movement was freedom of political expression, which soon morphed into freedom to offend.

Somehow, the quest for freedom of speech, like so many other causes in which the left becomes involved, became perverted. Rather than championing freedom of speech and expression, political or otherwise, the left now uses the notion as a cudgel to suppress any speech or expression they find personally objectionable — and they find anything remotely evocative of Christianity objectionable.

For people who decry the very idea of God, these folks seem to feel unduly threatened by the sight of an empty cross — and they see empty crosses everywhere. They're worse than those nut cases who see the image of the Virgin Mary on a slice of burnt toast or in the hoarfrost on a window pane!

The most recent example of this regrettable tendency is their objection to a Penn State T-shirt that's for sale to the student body.

The shirt is white, with a blue stripe down the front and back, representing the single blue stripe on Penn State's football helmets, and the words "Penn State" in blue letters across the stripe. In the lower right corner of the intersection of the stripe and school name are the words, "White Out!" On the back are the words, "Don't be intimidated… It's just me and 110,000 of my friends."

Anyone who's a Penn State fan is familiar with the student "white out" at home games, and knows that 110,000 is the capacity of Beaver Stadium. The shirt, which was designed by a Penn State student, combines the simplicity of the Penn State football uniform with the enthusiasm of the student body.

But the left has managed to find objectionable this shirt which epitomizes Penn State football. Despite the Nike swoosh at the top of the stripe, liberals claim the single blue stripe and the words "Penn State" form a cross — and they are offended by the cross.

Not to be outdone, the Philadelphia branch of the Anti-Defamation League also filed a complaint. I’d love to know what they find anti-Semitic about the shirt.

Michal Berns, a member of Penn State Hillel, a Jewish organization, is quoted as saying, “At first glance, you don’t necessarily think that’s what it looks like, but when you look at it more, it does look like a cross.”

In other words, you have to TRY REALLY HARD to find anything offensive in the design.

Is it possible to be any more dim-witted than these so-called proponents of "free speech" who find a student T-shirt objectionable? I doubt it.

The solution is simple: If you don't like the shirt, DON'T BUY THE SHIRT!

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

TONY BLAIR PRESIDENT OF THE EU?

.

According to the UK’s Daily Mail, “Tony Blair could be crowned first President of Europe at a special summit of EU leaders next month.”

Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the nations comprising the European Union would replace the current rotating presidency with a “permanent president” having a term of two and one-half years.

One of the front-runners is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who enjoys the support of French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel. However, even if Blair is nominated, his nomination would not take effect until ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all 27 member nations.

This turn of events has caused quite a lot of whining and complaining among British leftists, who hate Blair almost as much as American liberals hate George W. Bush — and for the same reason. They're invested in the lie that Saddam Hussein did not have "weapons of mass destruction", i.e. chemical and/or biological weapons.

It never fails to amaze me that these folks have such selective memories that they can totally dismiss the FACT that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own Kurdish population several times. This has been well documented by international groups such as Doctors Without Borders.

Libs also overlook the FACT that one of the conditions of the cease-fire in the first Gulf war was for Saddam to destroy those chemical weapons stockpiles and to present to the United Nations proof that he had done so. He never complied.

In fact, he violated a number of UN resolutions in the years leading up to the war. I refer you to http://www.c-span.org/iraq/timeline.asp and http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html for a list of Saddam’s violations.

Those who insist that Bush and Blair led their nations into an “unjustifiable” war "based on a lie" are living a fantasy of their own creation and have deliberately and consistently ignored the facts, preferring liberal lies to the truth. (I have never understood the propensity of some people to deliberately choose to believe outrageous lies instead of acknowledging simple truths.)

Equally difficult to understand are those who feel compelled to destroy those brave men who courageously stand by their convictions. During the past decade, I've seen these attempted character assassinations over and over again. Rather than debate FACTS, which seem to be in dangerously short supply on the left, they launch personal attacks and spread outright lies. This is a very disturbing trend and, I think, is an indication of the moral bankruptcy of those who employ such tactics.

At any rate, it's really no concern of mine whom the Europeans choose to head the EU -- no more than it should be any concern of the rest of the world whom we elect as president. However, the rest of the world, in their lust to bring the U.S. down a few pegs, vociferously supported Barack Hussein Obama (Ummm! Ummm! Ummm!) and celebrated his election. Now, Obama, who was and is completely unqualified for the office of the presidency, is systematically taking over private industry, usurping civil liberties, and destroying our economy.

Has it occurred to the rest of the world that when our economy tanks, theirs may follow? Or is their anticipation and joy at watching Obama preside over our downfall so great that they don't care how it affects their own economies?

Barak Hussein Obama (Ummm! Umm! Ummm!) is presiding over a trashed economy with a multiple-trillion-dollar national debt. His policies have caused over a hundred banks to fail this year alone. He has allowed the Fed to monetize the debt, which can only result in hyperinflation and the collapse of the dollar. He is vilifying everyone who disagrees with his failed policies. He has explicitly stated his intention to "redistribute the wealth" and, to implement that plan, he has surrounded himself with avowed communists who openly revere mass-murderer Chairman Mao and madman Hugo Chavez.

Yet the world considers Obama a "man of reason". I cannot help but wonder what criteria the world used to arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps that conclusion was based on Obama's outstanding teleprompter-reading skills?

In this nation, there is unrest, anger and slowly rising panic among the populace. We aren't as stupid as Barack Hussein Obama (Ummm! Ummm! Ummm!) seems to think we are. We can see quite clearly what is happening.

To prepare for the coming economic collapse over which Obama is determined to preside, economists are advising people to buy gold. Those who cannot afford to invest in gold are buying seeds, dried food, guns and ammo. People are developing a bunker mentality. It's getting strange.

As one prominent commentator recently said, "There's a time coming that's going to really suck. It's going to suck really bad." Not the most eloquent statement, but true, nonetheless.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE INTOLERANCE OF THE LEFT

.
As I’m sure everyone in America knows by now, Rush Limbaugh was part of a group that had entered a bid to buy the Saint Louis Rams. The parties involved were forbidden to speak publicly about their bid. However, someone of dubious integrity leaked the information and ESPN reported it. After being bombarded with questions, Rush simply confirmed the report but refused to discuss it further.

Rush has been a long-time NFL fan, so the appeal of being part-owner of a team is understandable. What is NOT understandable is the speed with which the left-wing attack machine swung into action.

Al Sharpton, who purports to defend civil rights and oppose discrimination, announced that he would urge NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to reject Rush Limbaugh’s bid to be part-owner of the Rams.

According to the Associated Press, Sharpton claimed Limbaugh’s “track record on race should exclude him from owning an NFL team.” And what “track record” is Sharpton referring to? Perhaps he means Limbaugh’s consistent color-blindness and refusal to define any man by race, as Sharpton does.

Not to be outdone, that shining beacon of tolerance, Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson, who has a long history of anti-Semitism, joined the opposition. Not only did he oppose Limbaugh’s bid, but he contacted players in an effort to stir up anger and opposition among them.

According to the Associated Press, Jackson claimed that Limbaugh “made his wealth appealing to the fears of whites with an unending line of insults against blacks and other minorities.” That’s odd. I listen to Rush almost every day, and I’ve never once heard him insult anyone because of his race — unlike Jackson, who consistently uses race and religion to stir up prejudice and hatred.

Even Democrat Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) joined the racist coalition opposing Rush by making a fool of herself on the floor of the House Tuesday. It was not clear how the esteemed representative thought Rush’s bid for ownership of an NFL team was any business of the legislature.

As is their habit when they are determined to destroy a conservative, the left-wing attack machine saturated the airways with lies. They manufactured racist “quotes” and lied about the content of his radio program in their attempt to malign Limbaugh’s character — but they provided no proof for any of their accusations.

My question is this: Why did Jackson and Sharpton turn what was a simple business transaction into a three-ring circus? Why did they so vociferously oppose Limbaugh’s bid for an NFL team? What was their motive?

We KNOW their actions had nothing at all to do with civil rights, for they were running rough-shod over Limbaugh’s civil rights.

And we know their actions had nothing to do with Limbaugh’s suitability as an owner, for a number of genuinely unsuitable people have become owners or part-owners of teams with no objection from Jackson and Sharpton.

Most recently, trashy Black Eyed Peas singer, Fergie, was “pre-approved” as part-owner of the Miami Dolphins. She admits to having been involved in “wild sex” and drugs, but Jackson and Sharpton apparently don’t think that violates the NFL’s “high standards” for potential owners — perhaps because Fergie is a left-wing Obama supporter.

That leaves us with the conclusion that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are nothing more than race-baiting hypocrites and opportunists who are attacking the most popular radio host in the nation for no better reason than to stir up controversy and inflate their own importance.

It was announced Wednesday evening that the consortium that had placed the bid for the Rams, under pressure from the hypocritical left, had asked Limbaugh to withdraw.

I hope Rush Limbaugh sues Sharpton, Jackson, Lee and all the others who slandered and maligned him for no better reason than that he’s a conservative. Someone needs to take a stand against these idiots and, hopefully, put a stop to their nasty habit of trying to destroy everyone with whom they disagree.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

AMERICAN PRIMITIVE

10/10/09

The circular fluorescent bulbs in my kitchen light fixture need to be replaced, so I picked up a set of replacement bulbs. GE. The only brand available at Wal-Mart.

GE was once a highly-respected company, but they tarnished their reputation by selling machine parts to Iran while Iran was shipping men and weapons to Iraq to kill American soldiers. In any other war, this would have been considered treason.

But I digress. Since GE was the only brand available, I had no choice but to purchase the bulbs.

They’re made in China. And they don’t work. The small one gives off a dim flicker and the larger one won’t light at all. So I’ll have to return the defective bulbs and try another set.

An aside: China can’t seem to make light bulbs that work. They export toys coated with lead-based paint. Yet the government expects me to trust a swine flu vaccine that’s manufactured in China?? I don’t think so!

When I bought the defective fluorescents, I also picked up some incandescent bulbs. You know. . . the kind Congress elected to ban? I wanted 60 watt bulbs, but there were no 60 watt bulbs on the shelf. Instead of the standard 40, 60, 75 and 100 watt bulbs I’ve purchased all my life, there were with wattages of 34, 52, 67 and 90. What’s with that??

Since I wanted the bulbs for lamps by which I intended to read, 52 watt bulbs were out of the question. That left 67 watt bulbs, which apparently are intended to replace 75 watt bulbs, thereby forcing me to reduce my electricity usage.

There are two glaring problems with this approach:

1. The government does NOT have the constitutional authority to legislate to manufacturers what kind of bulbs they must produce.

2. The government does NOT have the constitutional authority to legislate to me what kind of light bulbs I can use nor how much electricity I am permitted to use.

You may be thinking, ‘If you can get the same amount of light from a lower wattage bulb, why not do it?’ and I would totally agree, if only to lower my electric bill. However, these bulbs do NOT produce the same amount of light. The label states, in fine print, that a 67 watt bulb produces 1015 lumens, compared to 1170 lumens produced by a 75 watt bulb. That’s 155 lumens LESS. In other words, they’re dimbulbs, just like the Congressmen who legislated them.

Now to the Rule of Unintended Consequences: Because 60 watt bulbs are no longer available, I will be forced to replace my 60 watt bulbs with 67 watt bulbs — thereby INCREASING my energy usage, rather than reducing it.

If our socialist legislature and communist executive branch have their way, besides telling us what kind of light bulbs we’re allowed to buy, they’ll soon dictate to us how much energy we’re allowed to use, what kind of car we’re allowed to drive, what foods we’re allowed to eat, and what appliances we’re allowed to use. If they have their way, we’ll soon be living like our Amish brethren, who, I’m sure, make a very small “carbon footprint’.

The population of America, the greatest nation in the world, the most innovative nation in the world, the richest nation in the world, will be reduced to a standard of living on a par with Third World countries. That is, after all, the expressed intention of our president.

All this nonsense is supposedly being perpetrated in the name of the hoax known as “global warming”, but is that really the reason, or does our government have an ulterior motive, such as greater control over our lives?

Think about it.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

PSEUDO SCIENCE

.

Scientists have discovered a baby wooly mammoth frozen in the Siberian ice. The carcass was so well preserved that there were still traces of it’s mother’s milk in the stomach. Scientists announced they have been able to learn much more about wooly mammoths than they did from any previous discoveries.

Daniel Fisher, head of the team studying the mammoth, told reporters, "We had no idea from preserved skeletons and preserved carcasses that young mammoths had a discrete structure on the back of the head of brown fat cells."

Okay... so here we are. Scientists have been studying the woolly mammoth for decades, yet the recent discovery of an extremely well-preserved carcass reveals that they "had no idea" about some of the animal's basic physical features — even though they've had other carcasses to work with in the past. This is one of the very few times I've heard a scientist admit that he was wrong.

Having missed the mark while studying actual carcasses, just how accurate would you say their reports have been on various dinosaurs, when they've had only a few bones to work with? Yet they create entire creatures from those few bones and expect us to accept their imagination as fact.

Or how accurate do you think their descriptions of "cave men" are, when they have only a single bone to study? You might recall "Piltdown Man", which was presented as evidence of evolution, but which turned out to be nothing more than the jawbone of an orangutan attached to a human skull. Similarly, the remains of "Nebraska Man" turned out to be a pig's tooth.

No evidence of macroevolution has ever been produced. As someone once pointed out, if the leg of a reptile were to evolve into the wing of a bird, it would become a very bad leg long before it became a good wing. Common sense. Mere common sense.

How accurately do you think scientists can predict the temperature of the sun 50 million years ago? (That’s one of the factors some of them use to extrapolate the catastrophes they think will be caused by so-called climate change.) Or how accurately do you think they are able to predict earth's temperature 10 or 20 years from now — especially when they can’t even accurately predict next week’s weather? The plain fact of the matter is that scientists know far too little about the earth and the environment than they would like us to believe.

According to the Planet Earth series, entire colonies of coral suddenly die off and spring up a short distance away, and scientists have no idea why. Yet these same scientists want us to believe they understand the composition of the ocean and how that vast ecological system works? I don't think so.

I find the world around me endlessly fascinating and I've discovered that my little woods does best when left alone. The woods provides an ever-changing vista. For a few seasons, the woods was filled with great ferny stalks of hemlock. It was a beautiful site! But gradually, the hemlock gave way to dame's rocket, a tall wildflower with magenta and white blossoms. There also appeared lady's slipper (a type of pitcher plant), white violets, and a small but hardy patch of wild narcissus. The woods is ever-changing and is beautiful in all its phases, and who could possibly say which phase is "correct" and should be preserved? Surely not I!

But environmentalists would have you believe that Earth, as it is today (or as it was a couple of decades ago, depending on whose imaginings you believe) is the "perfect" temperature and that we should all strive to prevent that temperature from ever changing. That is nothing less than idiocy.

Our government once tried intervention in some of the national parks, and nearly destroyed Yosemite in the process. Man does not understand the extreme complexities of the environment sufficiently enough to interfere with nature. That fact is borne out every day. The best thing we can do is to control blatant pollution (no brainers, such as factories dumping pollutants directly into the water supply) and then stand back and get out of the way. Anything else is pure idiocy.

I believe in dealing with facts, not science fiction.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

GOVERNMENT WASTE

.
I’m sure that, by now, we’ve all heard of the illegal conduct that seems to be the standard operating procedure of ACORN, from facilitating the smuggling into the country of minors for the purpose of prostitution to their eagerness to provide mortgages to unqualified applicants for illegal purposes.

The excuse given for the misconduct of ACORN employees was that they are assigned a quota of mortgages they must process each day. Thus, their advice, "You won't get a mortgage if you don't lie."

But… wait a minute… Wasn't that precisely the problem with the recent "housing crisis"? Mortgages were given to people who were not qualified for them, who lied on their applications? And many of those unqualified borrowers defaulted on those mortgages because they couldn’t make the payments, and so investors were left holding billions of dollars of worthless paper. So, why is ACORN still processing mortgages for unqualified applicants? Won’t that only exacerbate the problem?

A better question might be this: If it's necessary to assign a quota and if ACORN employees are having such a difficult time filling that quota legally — is it possible that low-income housing programs are being OVERFUNDED??

And take the food stamp program. I've seen large billboards advertising the program at who-knows-what cost to the taxpayers. Most people who are in extreme financial trouble go to the public welfare office. There, they are offered a variety of assistance, from food stamps to fuel assistance. If you don't know you need food stamps, or if you don't think you qualify for food stamps, YOU PROBABLY DON'T NEED FOOD STAMPS!!! Could this possibly be another government program that is grossly overfunded?

Yet every time conservatives try to limit the excess in these programs, they’re accused of wanting to starve children. I mean, what’s that about?! Even if it’s suggested that the federal government simply hold the line on such programs, liberals and their allies in the media complain about welfare “cuts”. Since when is “no increase” synonymous with “cut”?

I have no problem with providing a safety net for families in need and people temporarily unemployed, but something definitely needs to change when welfare becomes a way of life for entire neighborhoods. Here’s a heads-up for liberals: “promote the general welfare” does NOT mean “put everyone ON welfare”!

As for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and programs such as the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, I can find no constitutional authority for either the federal or state governments to engage in the mortgage business. The Constitution does NOT guarantee that every citizen should have his or her own house! If you can’t afford to buy a house then, for crying out loud, rent an apartment!

If Congress wants to cut spending — and I see nothing to suggest that they do, they could begin by taking a long, hard look at their motives for funding such corrupt organizations as ACORN and then deal with the superfluous spending on welfare and housing.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

CHOOSING TRUTH OR FICTION

.
It seems that so few people think for themselves nowadays. They find it easier to let others do their thinking for them.

Oh, they may say they want the truth — but do they? The answer is most easily revealed in the sort of thing with which they feed their minds.

When you Google a subject, do you take the time to cull out the whacko sites on either end of the political spectrum that offer the most outlandish and ridiculous notions, or do you feed off those with harebrained ideas and outlandish accusations? .

Most of the time, it’s easy enough to find honest-to-goodness information and discard craziness. It requires only a little discernment to sort out the crazies.

If I’m looking for factual information on global warming, I can immediately disregard sites maintained by obvious proponents and, instead, read those that rely on scientific fact.

If it’s information on politics or current events I’m seeking, I can immediately discount The Huffington Post and Aryan Nation.

However many folks, rather than seek out factual information, deliberately choose to feed on the absurd lies of one side or the other. The results of filling the mind with garbage are painfully obvious to others. Statements like, “It’s the first time in history that fire melted steel!,” (Rosie O’Donnell) causes others to quietly ask, “What rock did SHE just crawl out from under?”

Thousands exhibit an appalling lack of intellectual curiosity and, instead, seek out men like Jeremiah Wright, who accuses the government of creating the AIDS virus in a deliberate attempt to kill black people, and Van Jones, one of the president’s advisors, who claims that pollution and toxins are deliberately funneled into black neighborhoods.

I don’t think we can attribute the popularity of such men solely to intellectual laziness. Their following can only be explained by the unfortunate propensity of so many people to deliberately seek out lies.

Deliberately feeding on garbage is not only stupid, it’s dangerous. The Bible speaks of such people in the second chapter of Second Thessalonians. By turning from the truth and making wickedness your “deliberate choice”, by deliberately feeding on lies, you are leaving yourself open to delusion. That delusion will cause you to accept the greatest Lie, the false messiah who will come to lead mankind to destruction.

This is serious business. You have a choice between lies and truth. Choose truth.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

POURING MONEY DOWN A RAT HOLE

.
Have you ever thought about how much money this nation spends on foreign aid each year?

I did a little research and discovered that in 2006, the last year for which complete records are available, we gave away over $39,000,000,000.00 That’s right. Over thirty-nine BILLION dollars.

Here’s a list of only a few of the recipients of our generosity. The complete list is much more extensive.

Israel, $2,600,000,000
Egypt, $1,800,000,000
Colombia, $1,350,000,000
Jordan, $562,000,000
Georgia, $426,000,000
Kenya, $390,000,000
Philippines, $338,400,000
Ethiopia, $322,000,000
Ukraine, $280,000,000
Indonesia, $268,400,000
Nicaragua, $247,000,000
Haiti, $243,000,000
Mexico, $238,000,000
Bolivia, $223,600,000
Nigeria, $187,000,000
India, $173,000,000
Congo, $171,000,000
Nepal, $60,000,000
Russia, $53,000,000
West Bank/Gaza, $48,000,000
Uganda, $10,600,000

Note that we give Mexico $238 million annually. That’s in addition to the tens of billions of dollars Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, send home to their families in Mexico. That stream of dollars flowing into Mexico has recently surpassed oil as that nation’s largest source of income. Is it any wonder that Mexico has little interest in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants across its northern border? That nation has become a leech subsisting on the lifeblood of the United States.

And Nepal — $60 million? Nepal has a population of only 28 million and the last time I looked, they were being run by Maoists. Why not let China support them?

And then there’s Haiti with a population of only 9 million. We’re giving them $243 million of our taxpayer dollars. Why?

Added to this is the nearly $250 billion in charity the NonProfit Times estimates the American people give annually, and you have an astounding amount of money pouring out of this country to the rest of the world.

This outpouring of wealth from the American people is simply the result of our desire to help those we deem less fortunate than ourselves. However, the stated purpose of foreign aid is to support our foreign policy goals. If that’s our purpose, the program hasn’t been very successful. What have we received in return for these investments?

Israel is our friend — or was, before Obama threw it to the dogs. The others? The others wouldn’t care if we crash and burn. Seventy-five percent of the recipients of our largess oppose us in the United Nations. Perhaps the Beatles said it best: Can’t buy me love.

Okay. I hear you. You’re saying we have an obligation to help feed the world’s poor. How many of those billions and billions of dollars of foreign aid do you think make it past the greedy, corrupt governments of some of those nations and actually reach the poor? Not very much, I’d wager.

I suggest that Congress should end hand-outs to corrupt regimes and petty dictators, and let charity be handled by those who do it best — the American public.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFULLY TAUGHT - PART 2

.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

—Oscar Hammerstein II

There was so much material and so many dubious conclusions in the Newsweek article that it wasn’t possible to cover it all in one column, so here’s the follow-up.

Newsweek entitled its outrageous cover story “See Baby Discriminate” and included the subtitle, “Kids as young as 6 months judge others based on skin color. What's a parent to do?”

I think the key word in that subtitle is “judge”. Liberal researchers concluded that because children NOTICE color differences in people’s skin, they necessarily JUDGE people according to those differences — and they expect you to interpret “judge” in the worst possibly way. Here’s a heads-up to all you liberal researchers: NOTICE is not a synonym for JUDGE.

The second study cited by Newsweek was carried out by Phyllis Katz, a professor at the University of Colorado. Katz showed photographs to 6-month-olds and determined that because they stared “significantly longer” at photos of people who were of a different skin color than their parents, the babies were somehow judging those people on the basis of race. We’re not told how long is “significantly longer”, nor are we given any indication of what kind of people were depicted in the photographs or whether there might have been other aspects of the depictions, besides race, that might have given the children cause to look longer at certain photographs.

Let me add another personal experience here. When my older son was less than a year old, I was sitting outside our on-post duplex with my son on my lap. When our neighbor came home, my son became very excited because he thought daddy was arriving. He didn’t notice the neighbor’s dark brown skin; he noticed the army uniform.

But back to the “study”. When these same children were 3 years old. Katz showed them photographs of other children and the 3-year-olds were asked to decide which ones they’d like to have as friends. This study is flawed on its face. Who in their right mind encourages children to choose friends solely on the basis of physical appearance? Any reasonably competent parent would encourage their children to choose friends based on character and commonalities, not appearance.

An interesting aside: On a particular online dating site, the “personality test” included four photographs of smiling people, head shots only, two male and two female, and you are asked to choose which ones are “sincere”. Both my son and I took the test, failed it, and then compared notes. The determination on the site was that the two with “crinkle lines” around the eyes were sincere, while the other two were not. However, that’s not the way we judged it. The two with the biggest smiles, despite the crinkle lines, struck both my son and me as “used-car salesmen” types who were simply TOO happy to be sincere. The two with the hesitant smiles stuck us as more honest. The surprising determination of the “experts” on the site indicates to me that the “experts” seldom make determinations based on real-life experience.

Back to the “study”. When the children were 5 or 6 years old, Katz gave them decks of cards with “drawings of people” on them and asked them to sort the cards into stacks. Katz noted that 68% sorted the cards on the basis of race, rather than gender.

The problems with this “study” are legion. Why did Katz use drawings, rather than photographs? How realistic were the drawings? Were the drawings depictions of faces only or of the entire person? If they were drawings of the entire person, did they include skinny, overweight, and unattractive people? If so, isn't it possible the children made certain judgments based on those aspects? Did the drawings give any indication of activities, such as sports gear, drawing tools, etc.? Did it occur to Katz that the children might react to the skill of the artist and the quality of the drawings, rather than to race or gender? If the drawings were of facial features only, gender would have been more difficult to determine. And, again, why would any reputable researcher use drawings, rather than photographs?

Because the focus of Katz’ study was race, it apparently never occurred to her that children might form judgments based on the quality of the art, rather than on the depiction of the color of someone’s skin. When I was 5 years old, my favorite storybook was one with outstanding illustrations, and I chose it as my favorite solely on the basis of those illustrations. Race, even storyline, had nothing to do with it; I was enamored of the drawings. I’m sure the possibility that 5-year-olds might select cards based solely on the quality of the artwork never even occurred to Katz.

Katz said of her studies, "I think it is fair to say that at no point in the study did the children exhibit the Rousseau type of color-blindness.” By “color-blindness”, does she mean the children did not notice variations in skin color? What? Is she crazy? Of COURSE, they noticed! But noticing skin color is NOT the same as bigotry.

In yet another “study”, an Ohio State University professor observed a first-grade class’s reaction to a black family portraying the family in Clement Moore’s ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas and to a black Santa Claus.

This is yet another flawed study. Children are not stupid. Even setting aside the fact that Santa Claus is a European tradition and, as such, is traditionally white, Moore’s poem clearly says of Santa, “His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry.” When we read or listen to a story, we form pictures in our minds. After having listened to that line, is it any wonder the children objected that Santa couldn’t be black?

But perhaps the professor tweaked Clement Moore’s poem to suit herself? After all, she ended her little play with, “"Merry Christmas to all! Y'all sleep tight." “Ya’ll sleep tight”???? Pray tell, where is THAT line found in the original poem?

I’m sick to death of all these useless liberal “studies” and their dubious conclusions. Say. . . think how much money we could cut from the federal budget by simply eliminating funding for all these ridiculously useless "studies"!

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFULLY TAUGHT

.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

—Oscar Hammerstein II

Oscar Hammerstein had it right: I think any sane person would agree that bigotry DOES have to be carefully taught.

Incredibly, Newsweek ran a cover story this week in which they cite a study by Birgitte Vittrup of the Children’s Research Lab at the University of Texas in which researcher’s concluded that children are bigots at birth.

Like many modern “studies” in which liberal “researchers” arrive at preconceived conclusions which the “studies” were designed to support, this conclusion is based not only on faulty data but on faulty logic.

Vittrup’s research was based on only 100 families, all white, and all from the same geographic area. (I find it interesting that liberals are able to see only white-on-black discrimination but never black-on-white prejudice.)

Vittrup instructed the families to show their 5-to-7-year-old children “multiculturally-themed” videos and then discuss race with them, based on a list of topics she provided. She was taken aback when some of the families refused, saying they didn’t want to point out skin color to their children.

Martin Luther King, Jr., dreamed of a world in which a man would be judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. Liberals refuse to allow that dream to come true. They delight in pointing out skin color at every opportunity and insist that people be granted admission to universities and employed in the workplace not on the basis of their qualifications but on the color of their skin.

It comes as no surprise that since Ms. Vittrup’s world revolved around racial identification, she was appalled that some parents simply refused to label people according to their skin color.

Vittrup's mentor at the University of Texas, Rebecca Bigler, experimented with pre-school children by giving half red T-shirts and half blue T-shirts then, after a few weeks, questioning them about which group, the reds or the blues, were better. The children naturally exhibited “team pride” by responding that their group was better, smarter, etc. However, Bigler, whose focus was race, rather than human nature, interpreted these responses as the seeds of bigotry.
Frankly, I’m appalled at Vittrup’s and Bigler’s unfortunate habit of interpreting everything through the lens of race, rather than looking at white children simply as children.

My own child-raising experience is proof positive that children are not born bigots nor is refusing to focus on skin color a sure-fire way to turn them into bigots. I never mentioned skin color to my own two sons unless it was an absolutely essential part of a person’s description. I referred to people by their qualities, citing their words, actions and attitudes, rather than their race. I often wondered whether I was succeeding against the left’s nearly constant focus on race. I got my answer one day while watching a Steelers pre-game show with my older son. I was only half watching the program, which featured two sports commentators, a black man in a blue polo shirt and a white man in a red shirt. “Did you hear what he said!” my son exclaimed. I’d been only half-listening, so I asked him, “What who said?” His response was, “The guy in the blue shirt.” It never occurred to him to identify the men by race, because that aspect had never been given prominence and had never been made the focus of anyone’s identity or worth.

Children are NOT born racists; they must be carefully taught — and it’s liberals who, by their incessant focus on race, are doing the teaching.

If liberals — and blacks — truly want to move beyond race to Rev. King’s dream of being judged solely by the content of their character, they would do well to stop focusing solely on skin color and, instead, focus on each human being’s character and actions.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

CIVILITY & DECORUM

.
The House of Representatives voted to censure Representative Joe Wilson for shouting, “You lie!” during Obama’s rambling speech to the joint session of Congress. The excuse given was that “civility and decorum” must be maintained in the House.

Aside from the fact that Representative Wilson was only saying out loud what many of us were shouting at our TV screens, one wonders why the Democrat majority in the House decided this particular bit of speech should be condemned, when so many other outrageous statements have gone unremarked. Here are a some examples.

Nancy Pelosi:

• "I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."

• "Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.''

• “I think the time has come to speak very frankly about the lack of leadership in the White House, the lack of judgment.”

• “The president of the United States [is] a total failure."

Harry Reid:

• “[Bush is] dangerously incompetent".

• “I really do believe President Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had.”

• “I think this guy [President Bush] is a loser.”

• “President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.”

These are examples of the kind of “civility and decorum” the Democrat leadership practiced while George W. Bush was president.

Where was their outrage then? Where were their calls for civility and decorum? Have either Pelosi or Reid ever apologized? Were they ever censured by their colleagues?

The House’s censure of Representative Joe Wilson is just one more example of the left’s inconsistency and outrageous double-standards.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE 9-12 MARCH

On Saturday, September 12, 2009, people from all over America came together in Washington, DC, to make their voices heard.

They were not organized by any national group. They fit no mold. They were white and black, Republican and Democrat, libertarians and independents, laborers and professionals. Their only commonality was the fact that they all were Americans and they all were alarmed about the direction in which our nation is going.

The crowd stretched for a mile and estimates ranged from 60,000 to over a million. Besides the protest in Washington, there were concurrent demonstrations in villages, towns and cities across the nation.

In an article on World Net Daily on Saturday, Chelsea Schilling and Alyssa Farah reported, “A million or more rock Washington, Taxpayer march could be biggest rally ever in capital.” The article continued, “The capital was rocked today by a taxpayer march and rally that could be the biggest protest ever – potentially dwarfing the Million Man March and the Promise Keepers Rally.

“Though crowd estimates vary from as low as 60,000 to 70,000 according to ABC News to a high of 2 million by London Daily Mail, photographs and videos of the march and rally demonstrate its enormity.“ In fact, a spokesman for the National Park Service is quoted as saying, "It is a record.... We believe it is the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever."

The largest event ever held in Washington, DC – and yet World Net Daily reported that on Friday, the White House insisted it was “unaware” of the rally. If the Obama administration isn’t aware of an event of that enormity that’s happening right under its nose, one necessarily wonders about its awareness of events taking place elsewhere in the world.

How did the national media report the largest demonstration in years, perhaps ever, in Washington? What kind of coverage did they give this unprecedented protest by American citizens?

Interestingly, the most comprehensive report was found in the UK Daily Mail online. Here in the US, aside from Fox News Network, which covered it live, the event was virtually ignored.

After the fact, the Los Angeles Times opted to bash the man who’d suggested the protest by gleefully reporting, “Glenn Beck’s ‘9-12' logo based on communist and socialist designs.” However, the logo they depicted was NOT Beck’s 9-12 logo, but someone else’s poster advertising the march.

The Portland Progressive Examiner happily reprinted the Times’ fallacy, then expanded on the Times’ ignorance and stupidity by observing, “Good and decent Americans, the reasonable and wise, have known all along that Beck was a dangerous demagogue. But now the evidence points to something much worse.” They then revealed to the world their opinion that Beck is a closet communist. (Hmmm... that must be the reason he’s always citing the founding fathers!) And that, folks, pretty much sums up the intellectual capacity of those in today’s media.

At 11:47 PM Saturday, CNN posted a brief article on their website but rather than headline it, they hid it under Politics/Health Care in America”.

ABC News posted an article that attempted to portray the protestors as racists who were opposed to Obama simply because he’s black and noted that they were protesting “what they say is over-the-top spending.” Apparently, ABC doesn’t consider multiple trillions of dollars of national debt excessive.

I find it incredible that the media in this country can virtually ignore an event of this size. We heard about the so-called Million Man March for weeks, even though, by all accounts, it was poorly attended, yet that same press very deliberately suppressed news about one of the largest protests ever to occur in Washington. Remember when the press fancied themselves the watchdogs of democracy? Whatever happened to journalistic integrity?

David Axelrod, Obama’s senior advisor, when asked by Bob Shieffer on Face the Nation what he thought of the demonstration, dismissed the event by saying, “I don’t think it’s indicative of the nation’s mood... They don’t represent a mainstream view of this healthcare plan, and so I don’t think we ought to be distracted by that.” The citizenry is rising against Congress and the Obama administration, but Axelrod views it only as a distraction to be ignored?! Axelrod continued, “My message to them is, they’re wrong!”

Doesn’t it just give you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know your government holds you in such high esteem and is listening to your concerns?!

Glenn Beck has expressed optimism that we can take back our country, that we can drag it back from the brink of destruction. I’m not so sure.

Our nation was once a bright beacon of liberty to the rest of the world. However, we left the Constitution behind decades ago in our effort to set in place a nanny state. Since January 20, 2009, we’ve raced toward that communistic goal at break-neck speed. I fear our nation has passed the point of no return.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

Obamacare

09/10/09

Wednesday night President Obama gave yet another speech on the health care “crisis” in this nation and attempted to browbeat into submission those who disagree with his plan to nationalize the health care industry.

I can’t help but wonder how he arrived at the conclusion that the American people wanted to hear another speech full of vague promises, childish finger-pointing and outright lies.
It was clear from his speech that the president had recently arrived from Neverland.

He promised to provide government-run health insurance to all Americans – without adding a single penny to the deficit.

He promised to twist the arms of insurance CEOs to force them to insure people with pre-existing conditions – without any increase in premiums.

He promised to save money by eliminating government waste – but refused to tackle government waste in Medicare, Medicaid, the food stamp program, and other welfare programs. Why not streamline those programs first? Isn’t that a logical first step?

He promised bipartisanship – while refusing to entertain suggestions from the opposition.

He insisted his plan would NOT insure illegal aliens – even though Democrats had voted down an amendment specifically designed to prohibit coverage of illegals.

And he told us our tax dollars would not pay for abortions under his plan – even though Democrats also voted down an amendment to the bill which would specifically prohibit coverage of abortions.

However, he was specific about one point. He clearly stated that everyone will be REQUIRED to purchase health insurance, whether or not we want it. His reasoning (dare we call it that?) was that young, healthy Americans with no interest whatsoever in health insurance must purchase it, anyway, so they won’t be a burden on the rest of us and “drag” the system down. What he REALLY meant to say was that government-run health care would require a sizable tax on all of us, young and old alike.

Obama made quite a big deal about his willingness to discuss “the truth” about the health care bill – but then excoriated those who, in recent weeks, .have actually read the bill and have been pointing out precisely what that bill contains.

Some glaring omissions included his failure to mention that this nation has the best health care in the world, so good that many people from all walks of life – including heads of state – travel to this country for health care.

He also failed to mention the long waits for treatment and the rationing of care in those countries that already have socialized medicine.

He failed to mention that if I neglect to purchase GOVERNMENT-REQUIRED health insurance, the IRS will levy a fine against me and it will collect it from my bank account when I file my federal income tax return.

Could this president have been any more disingenuous, any more confrontational, any more untruthful?

I doubt it.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE GREAT AIDS HOAX

03/17/09

As he left on a trip to Africa, a continent besieged by AIDS, Pope Benedict XVI drew the wrath of liberals by declaring that the distribution of condoms did nothing to stop the spread of AIDS but, instead, were part of the problem. He recommended abstinence as the only certain protection against the disease.

Mentioning the word "abstinence" in the presence of the liberal press is like waving a red cape in front of a bull. They immediately attacked what they viewed as the Pope's ignorance of the subject and cited the World Health Organization's claim that "consistent and correct" use of condoms reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 percent.

That is a blatant lie.

Being an innately curious person, when AIDS first appeared on the national scene, I avidly read all the material I could find on that deadly disease.

I discovered that the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, is what's known as a "retrovirus". That means it's much smaller in size than the viruses we were used to dealing with.

In fact, according to scientists, the virus is so small that it is able to slip between the molecules of a latex condom. The HIV virus is one-tenth of a micron in diameter. The pores between the molecules in a latex condom are five microns in diameter. You do the math. Condoms provide no protection whatsoever against AIDS!

This fact was made public at the outset of the epidemic but then was effectively squelched by those who find the advocacy of abstinence offensive, unsophisticated, and an excuse to push the moral values of the religious right on the rest of the country

The truth did not serve the political agenda of the left, and so the truth was buried and a lie was deliberately promoted.

Several years later, a government-sponsored poll was taken to determine the degree of AIDS awareness of American households. I was one of the people they polled.

When the young man asked me if I thought AIDS could be prevented by the proper use of condoms, I answered in the negative. Since I had thus far exhibited an acceptable level of awareness of the disease, my answer elicited surprise from the young pollster.

"You don't think so?" he asked, to be sure we'd understood each other.

I went on to explain to him what I'd read about the size of the AIDS virus with relation to the latex molecules of a condom. He told me he'd never heard that before and duly noted my response on his sheet.

If we know that condoms provide no protection whatsoever against contracting AIDS, aren't we doing the gay community a great disservice by leading them to believe they can avoid infection if they engage in "safe" sex?

And take a look at what's happening in Africa. For decades, millions of condoms have been distributed in a misguided effort to stem the spread of the deadly AIDS epidemic on that continent. Despite those efforts, the epidemic has grown worse. Perhaps the truth would have served better.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, it is estimated that 26.6 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS. Approximately 3.2 million new infections occurred in 2003. In that year alone, the AIDS epidemic claimed the lives of an estimated 2.3 million Africans. Infection is also increasing at an alarming rate in Asia and Russia.

In view of this pandemic, why do gay rights advocates, who purportedly want to protect and defend the rights of the gay community, cry foul whenever anyone declares abstinence to be the only sure way to avoid contracting this deadly disease? Why do they continue to advocate such a dangerous lifestyle? More importantly, why do these so-called "advocates" continue to perpetuate a myth?

A political agenda cannot possibly be more important than the truth, more important than lives… can it?

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

ARROGANCE OR IGNORANCE?

03/13/09

How many of you recall the glee with which the left celebrated the election of Barack Hussein Obama, gushing that it would be wonderful to once again have an intelligent president who could speak proper English and who would restore America's image in the world?

Not being a nit-picker, I won't bother to mention the number of glaring grammatical errors Obama has made or the fact that he's hard-pressed to construct an intelligent sentence when no teleprompter is available to tell him what to say. Today, I'll only discuss the President's embarrassing rudeness to the prime minister of one of our closest allies.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid Obama the honor of an official visit to welcome the new president — and was roundly snubbed. Obama's deplorable lack of manners has infuriated our British friends. One British spokesperson complained that Obama treated their prime minister as though he were nothing more than a "tinpot third world dictator".

Prime Minister Brown presented Obama with thoughtful, expensive, suitable gifts, which included a pen made from the timbers of a British warship which fought the slave trade off the coast of Africa and whose sister ship provided the wood for the desk in the Oval Office.

In return, Obama gave the Prime Minister a box of 25 DVDs of "classic American movies". Do you suppose Obama actually thought this was an appropriate gift for a foreign head of state?

Not to be outdone, First Lady Michelle presented the Browns' two young sons with toy models of the presidential helicopter which, the British press complained, were "no doubt plucked from the White House gift shop at the last minute." She is being portrayed in the British press as Lady Macbeth.

Oh, yes. . . Obama did give the prime minister something else. He removed from the Oval Office and returned to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill which had been gifted to the United States by Prime Minister Tony Blair shortly after the attacks of September 11 as a symbol of solidarity and of the "special relationship" between our two nations. Certainly, Obama may have wanted to move the bust to a less prominent spot — but to return it? I cannot even imagine what Obama was thinking!

Obama did not bother to fete the British PM at a state dinner, and he refused to hold the traditional joint press conference with the visiting head of state. In short, President Obama behaved like an ignorant lout and offended one of our closest allies. The British people and press are so infuriated by Obama's treatment of their prime minister that one news commentator has urged the American people to send letters of apology to the British Embassy in Washington, DC. If you would like to do so, you may write to:

British Embassy
3100 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington DC 20008

My question to Bush bashers and Obama supporters is this: Can you cite one time when President George W. Bush behaved in such a deplorable manner that it was necessary for the American public to apologize for him?

My next question is this: Is Obama so arrogant that he doesn't care about anything but himself and his own agenda? Or is he simply stupid and ignorant? You decide.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM

03/09/09

Today, while signing an executive order that would provide taxpayer money to researchers to kill human embryos in order to use their tissues for stem cell research, President Obama said of his action, "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

That's great. Why don't we apply that guideline across the board?

We can begin with stem cell research.

Though certain embryonic stem cells have been available to researchers for years, not one viable treatment or cure has resulted from that research.

On the other hand, adult stem cell research is already providing promising treatment for stroke, brain injury, spinal cord injury, diabetes, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and much more.

With these facts in mind, wouldn't our money be better spent funding adult stem cell research?

Or take global warming. Global warming has now been renamed "climate change", because it's become increasingly difficult to sell the notion of "global warming" to a population dealing with one of the coldest winters in decades.

The extravagant, pork-filled spending bill that was pushed through Congress has earmarked over $78 billion to fund projects to combat "global warming" and "climate change". President Obama has proposed a "cap-and-trade" carbon tax that would destroy some industries, under the excuse of controlling carbon emissions that contribute to "global warming". And toxic mini-fluorescent lightbulbs are being foisted on us under the excuse of saving the planet from "global warming".

It seems that everyone in proximity to a microphone, from environmentalists to politicians to celebrities to has-beens, is trying to snooker us into believing that (1) the earth is growing significantly warmer, (2) this climate change is occurring solely due to man's presence on the planet, and (3) this is somehow a bad thing.
The more extreme viewpoint holds that rather than being part of the ecosystem, man is an intruder — a virus, if you will — whose very presence is contaminating the planet.

These people cite computer models which indicate that if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, the temperature will rise two or three — or perhaps ten — degrees in the next hundred years. No one really knows, because the results of their computer models vary greatly and do not point to a single disastrous result, as proponents would have us believe.

Curiously enough, the geniuses who created the models failed to take into account the effect the sun has on our temperature. How do you suppose they've failed to notice that the sun heats the earth??

The plain fact of the matter is that global warming alarmists are cherry-picking their data. Here are just a couple of examples:

We have been warned that "most models of global warming indicate that the Greenland ice might melt within thousands of years if warming continues." [Reuters] Most? Might? If? Isn't that just a bit vague? And that's presupposing that "global warming" is fact, not fiction. We are bombarded with propaganda about the polar ice caps shrinking — but we are not told that it's only at sea level that the glaciers are melting; the ice cap on Greenland is actually thickening.

In his movie, Al Gore claims "global warming" is causing the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro to melt. However, according to the International Journal of Climatology (a more reliable source than Mr. Gore), the reason there's less snow on Kilimanjaro is because clear-cutting of the rain forest is responsible for reduced snowfall. Yet Mr. Gore's solution to this problem is for me to drive my car less. And that will address the problem of clear-cutting Asian rain forests. . . how, precisely?

We are told that man is responsible for the earth's changing climate. However, according to the Danish National Space Center's report entitled The Persistent Role of the Sun in Climate Forcing, sunspot activity and solar climate are responsible for changing climate here on earth.

If the notion of global warming is such an incontrovertible fact, why do its advocates hide scientific data that does not support their theory?

Even if we were to accept the theory of man-made global warming, who decided that the current climate is ideal? Higher temperatures would mean longer summers, more arable land, longer growing seasons, lower heating costs — all of which are actually quite beneficial.

These so-called experts focus on western civilization — more specifically, the United States and our affluent society — as the root of all evil, while giving Asian nations, which are the greatest polluters, a pass. They would have us believe that only by giving up all our modern conveniences can we stop the threat of global warming.

In point of fact, one volcanic eruption spews more toxins into the atmosphere than the accumulated contamination of all of mankind, and one solar flare affects weather on earth more than anything man could possibly do.

Perhaps Obama's directive that " we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology" should be practiced across the board? I'm sure if those scientists who endorse the theory of man-made "global warming" were to look at their data objectively, rather than through the distortion of ideology, they would arrive at a far different conclusion.

I wholeheartedly agree with the president! Let's base all scientific research on facts, not ideology!

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS

01/27/09

Our priorities speak volumes about us. They indicate our core values and most closely-held beliefs. Obama made the slaughter of the unborn one of his priorities.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan established a policy of banning the use of American foreign aid to fund abortions under the guise of "family planning". During his first week in office, Barack Hussein Obama terminated that ban.

It is interesting to note that Obama signed that executive order without the media coverage that accompanied his announcement regarding the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

It is also interesting that Obama chose the day after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to reverse what had become known as the "Mexico City Policy". Was that a deliberate slap in the face to pro-lifers?

With all the issues facing our government — global terrorism, border security, the imminent collapse of Social Security, the specter of ever-increasing taxes to pay for the government's on-going spending spree, the necessity of procuring our own petroleum — how did Obama decide that U.S. funding of unrestricted worldwide abortion was a priority, something that must be done during his first week in office?

What goes on in the mind of such a man? What passes for rational thought? More to the point, is there a rational thought process in such a man?

With our economy in a shambles and the Congress packing the government's "economic stimulus" bill with more pork every day, with daily announcements of layoffs and plant closings, with record mortgage foreclosures, how can Obama possibly justify using American tax money to pay for the global slaughter of innocent children?

Some have speculated that rescinding the "Mexico City Policy" was a sop to Obama's radical left-wing supporters. If so, how many innocent lives does Obama think that support was worth? How many millions of innocent children will die so that Obama could attain the presidency?

We already know Obama's views on the sanctity of life. He considers infants, both unborn and newborn, as disposable people. While serving in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against a bill that would have provided medical assistance to babies who survived abortion attempts. His rationale for his position was that providing medical assistance to infants would abridge the rights granted under Roe v. Wade.

Huh? Roe v. Wade granted a woman the right to murder her unborn child — but it cannot be construed to guarantee her a dead baby! Even if the baby survives the attempted abortion, the woman has rid herself of the inconvenient life, and so her "rights" have been served. What kind of convoluted thinking would it take to arrive at the conclusion that Roe v. Wade gives a woman the "right" to a corpse?!

The answer to that one is easy: It would take the same kind of convoluted thought process that caused Obama to make the slaughter of innocents a priority.

And now we have Nancy Pelosi defending the inclusion of funding for "family planning" (a liberal euphemism for "abortion") in the "economic stimulus" bill by saying that our state budgets are overburdened with children and that fewer children will ease the burden on the government.

First of all, Ms. Pelosi, if Democrats didn't try so hard to populate the welfare roles, states would NOT be overburdened. Secondly, if Democrats didn't try so hard to destroy family values, we would not have so many unwed mothers with fatherless children to populate those welfare roles. So you see, it isn't a matter of fewer children but of greater parental responsibility.

Pelosi even claims to be a Catholic. I suspect Pelosi is as much a Catholic as Obama is a Christian. Apparently, neither of these devout people understands that the wholesale slaughter of children is an abomination in God's eyes and that He will not withhold His judgment from this nation forever.

God help us when that judgment falls.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE INAUGURATION OF HOPE?

01/17/09

There has been an almost indefinable change in American politics during the last decade.

Our elections have gone from being debates on the issues to nothing more than character assassinations. Facts are blithely ignored in favor of rhetoric. Congress routinely flouts the Constitution whenever it suits them and regularly threatens to impeach the President when he has not. Some segments of our population have become so blinded by hatred that they choose to move through life ignorant of facts and incapable of reason.

On Tuesday, we will witness the culmination of these changes.

The inauguration of a black man as President of the United States should be a momentous occasion, an historic milestone — and would be under other circumstances. Were Obama a man of the same caliber as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose name he bandies about freely, his inauguration would be an occasion for celebration. But he is not, and it is not.

Obama campaigned on promises of "hope" and "change", yet he rose to power from the corrupt Chicago political machine. He has betrayed his promise of "change" by selecting Washington hacks, nearly all from the Clinton administration, to populate his cabinet. His vaunted "team of rivals" was only a nicely turned phrase, after all.

Yet something more disturbs me about the impending presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. Rather than becoming successful on the hope and promise that is America, Obama chose, instead, to ally himself with bitter men such as Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres and to scrabble to power on the backs of those who were fed a steady diet of hatred.

And so this man comes to the presidency not with love and appreciation for this great nation and with a desire to see her succeed, but with bitterness and hatred and a determination to destroy all that has made us great: liberty, independence, self-sufficiency and self-determination.

Yes, this is the end of eight years of the Bush presidency. But of what is it the beginning?

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

DEAR ANONYMOUS

01/03/09

"Do you think [a]theists should just 'shut up and go away' during the holiday season, that they have no rights whatsoever? They should just put up with having religious displays forced down their throats on public property?"

Why not? That's what Christians must do on Halloween, isn't it?

My children attended public schools, because I could afford nothing better. Every year, the public schools celebrated Halloween and forced their small charges to participate in various anti-Christian activities. And every year, I found it necessary to remove my children from school on the day of the Halloween parade and party, rather than allow them to participate.

Often, my children were taught fallacies and outright lies in public schools that, by the way, are funded with my real estate taxes!!

In one class, one of my sons was required to take to class an astrology column from the local newspaper. In lieu of that column, I sent a polite note advising the teacher that the study of astrology was in opposition to the religious beliefs of my family and asked her to give my son another assignment. She kindly agreed.

Note that I did not insist that the astrology assignment be removed from the curriculum, nor did I insist that a Bible study be instituted at the school. I simply requested an alternate assignment for my son. Are you able to understand the difference between standing up for one's own rights and trampling the rights of others?

And, or course, both my sons were taught the fairy tale of the theory of evolution, even though there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support that theory. Certainly, there is microevolution within species, but not one example of macroevolution exists in any of the fossil record. Yet my children were taught that nonsensical theory as fact — in public schools that were funded with my money!!

But back to Christmas.

What "rights" concern you, Anonymous? You already have the right to worship whatever deity you choose, or to worship none at all. You already have the right to hold whatever beliefs your conscience dictates, do you not? You already have the right to celebrate any holiday you choose, or to celebrate none at all. We all have these rights. I don't trample on your rights or try to ruin your holidays; I simply observe my own. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

So when you clamor for your "rights", I must assume you want the "right" not to be exposed to the 3-month commercial extravaganza that occurs in our nation each year. Frankly, I'd like nothing better myself, but that's not going to happen, is it? The only way to avoid the commercialism is to refuse to participate. I did. Why don't you?

You say you find the public displays at Christmas disturbing? Why? Most of them have nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. The most popular public display is a brightly lit Christmas tree. There is certainly no basis for equating a decorated tree with Christianity. What, then, do you find offensive about it? Decorated trees should offend me, rather than you, springing as they do from Druid tradition.

We used to have a fine tradition of religious tolerance in this country. What has happened to it? Why do you hate Christianity? Why does it disturb you so much?

And you're right, Anonymous. Though I thoroughly enjoy reading your comments, I will not publish them. The reason is simple: This is MY Two Cents, not a dialogue.

I'm sorry this reply is late. You see, I was busy celebrating Thanksgiving, several birthdays, Christmas and New Year's Day according to the multi-cultural traditions of my family and I was paying not a whit of attention to the din around me. I hope you had the pleasure of doing the same.

I look forward to hearing from you again.

© 2009 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH

12/19/08

The Grace Community Church in Jacksonville, Florida, has been threatened with a lawsuit for its plan to discipline a member for engaging in an immoral sexual relationship with her boyfriend.

The church members followed all the guidelines laid out in scripture. The member in question, Rebecca Hancock, a 49-year-old divorcee, was counseled by her "mentor" to discontinue the immoral relationship. When she persisted in immorality, several other female members of the church met with her, pointed out the appropriate scripture passages, and encouraged her to end her sexual sin and restore her relationship with God.

Still, she refused, and so the elders of the church sent her a thoughtfully-worded letter in which they cited scriptural admonitions against sexual sin and pointed out that we are called to live godly lives. The letter reviews the disciplinary steps that had been taken and warns:

"Your refusal to repent and be restored in your relationship to God and His church leave us with no other alternative than to carry out the third step of the discipline process. In accordance with Matthew 18:17, we intend to 'tell it to the church'. Unless you repent of this sin and agree to meet with the elders regarding this issue, this third step will be carried out publicly on Sunday, January 4th, 2008 [sic].'"

The letter concludes:

"Our prayer is that you would repent of your sin, return to God soon, and permit Him to help you in this area."

It is no surprise that community members and the media are appalled that a congregation should confront a member about a relationship that the world considers "normal". What is surprising is the outcry from so-called Christians.

Condemnation of the church's stance is based largely on the opinion that since the woman is a consenting adult, it's no one's business that she sleeps with her boyfriend — or anyone else, for that matter.

Ms. Hancock said she knew the relationship was "against church rules" but she apparently doesn't know or care that her immorality is a sin against God. When confronted by some of the women of the church, she complained that she was being "persecuted" because the woman told her that what she was doing was wrong.

While we might expect that attitude from the world, I'm amazed that professed Christians are so ignorant of the Bible and of the instructions it contains regarding discipline in the church.

Rather than submit to the church's discipline, she insisted that her sexual activity is none of the church's business and that it's her right as an adult to engage in sexual activity whenever she wants. Perhaps. But is it her right as a Christian?

Let's take a look at what the Scripture has to say. What guidelines were the first Christians expected to follow?

In the letter to the church at Rome, in Romans 13.13-14, we read, "Let us behave decently… not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealously. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature."

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul not only addresses sexual immorality but discusses discipline of one who indulges in sexual sin. "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you…. I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral…. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral…. With such a man do not even eat." In other words, the church should not associate with a Christian believer who engages in sexual immorality.

Paul goes on to tell the Corinthians, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you…? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honor God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6.18-20)

In his letter to the Ephesians (chapter 5, verse 3), Paul writes, "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality or of any kind of impurity…because these are improper for God's holy people."

Finally, in his letter (1 Timothy 5.20), Paul discusses church discipline with Timothy. "Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning."

Outraged church attendees quote Jesus when He was presented with the woman caught in adultery: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." They conveniently forget Jesus' instruction to the adulterous woman after He had forgiven her: "Go now, and leave your life of sin."

That is precisely what Grace Community Church is telling Ms. Hancock.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

RIGHTS - OR SIMPLY REBELLION?

12/04/08

Lately, various groups have been making much of demanding their "rights" — "gays" and atheists, to name the two most prominent.

I find it curious that in their effort to obtain what they term "rights", these people find it necessary to attempt to destroy and denigrate the beliefs of others.

When my ancestors left Europe, they came to the New World and settled in Penn's Woods for the purpose of religious freedom. They wanted the right to worship God as their consciences demanded. They did not attempt to redefine the words "God" or "worship", nor did they attempt to foist their ideas of a humble, godly life on others; they simply wanted to avoid persecution for their beliefs.

Today's advocates have quite a different idea of "rights".

"Gay rights" involves revising the ages-old definition of marriage and teaching your children and mine that perversion is normal and acceptable, merely an "alternate lifestyle" — in public schools that are funded by our tax dollars.

As clearly demonstrated in California, they do not acknowledge the democratic process of election in this country, but resort to terrorism, vandalism and persecution in their effort to undermine the will of the majority and overturn the results of a constitutional amendment referendum.

Last night, I watched a curious program called "Sex Change Hospital". This documentary-type program followed two men through sex change surgery. Each of these men insisted he was born to be a woman, that he was a woman "inside", and that hormonal therapy and surgical alteration of his anatomy to make him appear feminine would enable him to be his "true self". Interestingly, both these men-turned-women had GIRLFRIENDS.

Yes, you heard me correctly. They were men who were attracted to women — but who wanted to be surgically altered so that they could engage in lesbian relationships. Talk about mental and spiritual confusion!

And then there are the atheists pretending to be "free thinkers" who want to spoil everyone else's Christmas and Hanukkah celebrations because they feel left out during the big American shop-till-you-drop marathon in December.

They insist on erecting Christmas trees, all the while loudly denying belief in a supreme being and ridiculing those who recognize God.

They insist they're only fighting for their "rights". Dare I ask what "rights"??

In all my life, none of my employers has asked me about my religious beliefs. None of my teachers ever asked me about my religious beliefs. None of my landlords ever asked me about my religious beliefs. I have never been discriminated against because of my religious beliefs or lack of them — and I daresay, neither have they.

In my experience, there was no religious discrimination in this country before "gays" and atheists took to bashing Christians and those they perceive to be Christians.

Each of us has the right to believe as our conscience demands. However, atheists want the "right" to push their beliefs on others. They want the "right" to ridicule believers — more specifically, Christian believers — publicly. They held a "Blaspheme Challenge" to entice gullible teens to deliberately blaspheme God and offered as an incentive a free atheist "documentary" DVD, loudly proclaiming that the only price is "one soul". This isn't an expression of their right to believe in a Supreme Being or not; it's a deliberate attempt to ridicule and undermine Christianity and Judaism.

They want to intrude into what they think is Christianity's major religious holiday, Christmas. Their "enlightened" minds are too dull to realize that this secular holiday has evolved from a minor religious holiday into nothing more than an excuse for excess. They know so little about the Christian religion they're bashing that they aren't even aware that the focus of Christianity is not Christmas, but Jesus' sacrificial death and resurrection, which occurred during Passover.

These people aren't "free thinkers". Their pathetic arguments against the Gospel contain misquotes, outright lies and deliberate deception. They possess no discernment and are unable to discriminate between religious myth and true Christian faith. They are nothing more than intellectually-challenged contrarians.

I was once an atheist. I had been raised in the "church" and had seen nothing of God's power there. All I saw was hypocrisy, and I wanted no part of that. Since I found no evidence of God's existence in organized religion, I decided He did not exist. However, I did NOT demand that others adopt my belief or even accept it. I did not engage in a vendetta against Christians or churches. I did not push my belief on others. It was not necessary. I felt no need to justify myself or my beliefs by defaming others.

A few years later, I found myself face to face with the very real power of the One True God, and I became a believer. My belief in God and my acceptance of Jesus as my Savior and Lord has not required me to put my brain in neutral or to shelve my intellect.

Only atheism demands a closed mind and a stunted intellect.

And only a fool would demand fictitious "rights" by seeking to deny the rights of others.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.