Monthly Archives: February 2012

“Government Handouts Are a Modern Form of Slavery”


“Government Handouts Are a Modern Form of Slavery”

       — quoted from African-American Allen West, Representative from Florida

Representative Allen West spoke on the House Floor:

“Government handouts is a modern form of slavery. The Republican value of minimizing government dependence is particularly beneficial to the poorest among us;

“Conversely, the Democrats appetite for ever-increasing re-distributionary handouts is, in fact, the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today and it does not promote economic freedom.”

On a 2/16/2012 Fox TV interview with Greta VanSustern he also discussed:  . Bob Johnson former head of BET said about failing urban centers: break the cycle of dependence and poverty. Provide incentive. There is a difference between dependence and opportunity. There is a difference between handouts and inspiring and giving opportunity. Urban employment zones need security because they are like combat zones.

West was born in what is now a poor section of Atlanta, Georgia.  He got out of the cycle of poverty, he said, because he had two parents in a military family background, he became part of the ROTC program and had a strong church environment.

Congressman West is a black African-American elected from Florida.

The interview may be seen by logging on to:

He quoted the former Daniel Patrick Moynihan in saying that the Government  record of rewarding young ladies having children out-of-wedlock is to have an initiative for the breakdown of family. The strength of black families was in the family unit. Now 65% to 75% of blacks do not have two parents.

Is It Possible To Abort A Nation Out of Existence?


400 words

The fear-mongering, counter-culture activists in the 1960’s once spread the poison idea that normal and natural reproduction would create a population explosion that our land could not handle. They claimed there wouldn’t be enough trees to clean the air and provide fuel, or enough pasture land to feed the cattle and grow crops necessary to feed our growing masses.

They advocated that married couples limit offspring to three; two to replace themselves with only one to grow on, or as a spare. This is the thinking which I believe set the stage for decriminalizing abortion and homosexuality, anything went as long as we didn’t multiply ourselves.  We couldn’t risk becoming an over populated country like China, or like India with their opium dens.

The results are in. Illegal immigration brings into our country, foreign speaking people with no regard for legalities; and in numbers rapidly equaling that required to replace our own aborted Americans.

And guess what?  There ARE still enough trees to clean the air with wood to burn, and there IS enough pasture land to feed the cattle and grow the crops.

The fear-mongering activists were wrong. And we believed them. Too bad we didn’t apply to our Christian Nation then, the Christian Scripture  “In a multitude of people is a king’s honor, But in the lack of people is the downfall of a prince.” Proverbs 14:28 NKJ.

A group called Californians for Population Stabilization, ( which contends that high levels of immigration are ruining the quality of life in that state, released a report with studies that estimated there are from 20 million to 38 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

“While various sources place the number of abortions anywhere between 40-48 million, the centers for Disease Control and Prevention would approximate the number of abortions performed since 1973 to be 40,944,029.”  Source;  Centers for Disease Control and prevention: Abortion Surveillance – United State 2003 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report Vol 55,  November 24, 2006.

Lessons that should be learned?  Beware of activists, even politicians, who cry ‘no more status quo’, beware the ‘counter culture’, even those who peddle ‘hope’, thus implying there is no current hope. Will we believe hype again?  Beware the unknown or we may become exiles in our own land because we once again believed a lie. Our “Hope” should be in God alone when life is lived by His rules.

Is Gingrich Guilty of Double Standards?

Is Newt Gingrich Guilty of Duplicity?

–                      Mary A. LaClair

One dictionary describes hypocrisy as: double standards, duplicity, pretence, two-facedness.

Let’s take a look at this in the face of Gingrich’s words versus his actions.

In the last Florida debate Gingrich may be quoted as saying:

“It would be nice if you had the same standard for other people that you would like applied to you…”

Let’s check it out.  When ‘googling’ the words “Gingrich $300,000 ethics fine”, I found the following:

“The case against Gingrich began on Sept, 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones, who was then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint. OnDec. 6, 1995, the ethics committee said the allegation was worth “further inquiry” and on Dec. 22, hired Cole to conduct the investigation. (On that) Last Sept. 26, the probe was expanded to investigate whether Gingrich provided “accurate, reliable and complete information’ to the panel.

“Gingrich is only the second House speaker to be charged with wrongdoing.  The first was Jim Wright who resigned in 1989 just 45 days after the ethics committee accused him of using bulk sales of books to get around House honoraria limits. That probe was triggered by a complaint filed by Gingrich.”

I also consider the fact that Gingrich was leading the charge against Clinton for having an extra-marital affair while Gingrich himself was still legally married and having an extended extra-marital, and not his first affair at that; but please be clear, I am not defending Clinton.

In view of these two cases of duplicity that we know of let’s take another look at Newt’s recent statement that:

“It would be nice if you had the same standard for other people that you would like applied to you…”.

            Is Newt Gringrich guilty of duplicity or double standards?  Is this the kind of personality we want as a diplomat to negotiate for us with foreign dignitaries?  You decide by the evidence.

Do you think the attitude of: “It’s OK for me, but wrong for you” thing that is troublesome? He appears to want to keep everyone else honest (yea) but he himself is a different story?

He continued on in that statement to say that ‘it would be nice if we didn’t enter into personal attacks’ yet that statement itself may be considered a personal attack. The more I listen to Newt Gingrich, the more he sounds to me like a fighting fifth grader and not an experienced debate person. I do not think he could conduct a refined debate with the party of the opposition, or with leaders of other countries.

In a refined debate, the two men on the end are far better competitors. Ron Paul has defused more than one hot argument. They are both squeaky clean.  Maybe that’s why the press steers away from them; perhaps there is less fodder for yellow journalism both now and in the future? What a sad reason for letting the press influence us!

I believe God is looking to prove both His power and His desire to be involved in mankind’s affairs, with man’s approval. To say that we like Santorum but say also that we don’t think he could get elected is like the Israelites not going down to the Red Sea. If the Israelites did not go down to the Red Sea because they didn’t see a way to get across, we would not have seen the Red Sea parted.                                                    – end –