Archive | April, 2012

Even More Censorship

30 Apr

Who Is On The President’s Enemies List? Romney Donors

By Steven Birn

April 28, 2012 1 Comment

The President has an enemies list and he’s gone public with it. Who are the enemies? People who donate to the Romney campaign. His campaign has named eight Romney donors who have allegedly committed the sin of shipping jobs overseas. The President’s campaign suggested these people have “less than reputable records.” The Wall Street Journal does a good job pointing out the danger of having a President publicly attack private citizens and the potential chilling effect it could have on speech and donations to the Romney campaign. The President does after all have the power to indict and the power of the IRS. The alternative of giving to the Romney campaign though may be donating to a Super PAC, which doesn’t disclose donors.

Just a few months ago the President stepped into the silly Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke situation declaring he didn’t like to see private citizens attacked. Two months later and it’s acceptable for Obama’s campaign to attack Romney donors. Truth be told, Obama has never had a problem attacking private citizens. Remember Joe the Plumber? The Obama campaign spent much of October 2008 trying to discredit him. Obama’s campaign has posted a number of “updates” on the Koch Brothers. Never mind that the Koch’s are private citizens. Obama’s outrage over Limbaugh attacking Fluke is comical in light of the public attacks he’s made on private citizens.

In attacking Romney donors, the President opens himself up to attack over his donors. Romney ought not do it himself, his surrogates ought to. We don’t know any of Obama’s specific donors but we do know that disgraced MF Global head Jon Corzine, who lost $1 billion in client money, has bundled $500,000 for Obama. We know that in 2008 BP and Goldman Sachs employees donated quite a bit to Obama’s campaign. It’s a safe bet that if Romney surrogates combed though the Obama campaign donor list they would find any number of “objectionable” donors. Based on the Obama campaign’s definition of objectionable the list ought to be large.

Obama’s campaign is making a huge mistake in attacking Romney’s donors directly. It’s always much better for a President to keep some distance between himself and the campaign fray. Peggy Noonan recently said we have a ‘bush league’ President. She cites other examples, but attacking your opponents donors directly is bush league. It’s something for the bloggers and third party organizations to do, it’s not something the President’s campaign ought to be doing. It looks like an enemies list, with the enemies being Republicans. The last President with an enemies list resigned office in disgrace. The President immediately before Nixon also was one to have an enemies list, the public didn’t much like him either. That should be a lesson for Obama, unfortunately this President is generally obtuse on political matters.

The office of President is one of great trust. It’s an office that historically has been revered by Americans. When the President attacks private citizens, it comes off as unseemly and potentially dangerous. Obama often forgets that the tradition in America is distrust of power. When his campaign attacks private citizens, people don’t see a campaign attacking but rather they see the President attacking. Especially so since he’s the head of his campaign. Being distrustful of power, the American public generally frowns upon such attacks, especially for people who have committed no crime. Obama doesn’t seem to understand that or he doesn’t care. He’s attacked private citizens throughout his term, whether it’s the Koch brothers or other private Republicans.

There’s something very unpresidential about this but he’s done it throughout his term. So perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised when his campaign attacks specific Romney donors. This is a President who has attempted to chill any attack against him through intimidation and various bush league tactics. Think inviting Paul Ryan to a press conference than attacking him throughout, think telling the opposition he won and therefore won’t listen to him, think about his speech to latino voters where he told them to vote against their “enemies.” Obama has consistently tried to intimidate Republicans into silence, when the GOP won’t be silent he throws a hissy fit. His campaign has reflected the President. It has attacked private citizens and Republican donors for four years. It has tried to intimidate people into silence (think Attack Watch). Unfortunately attacking specific Romney donors isn’t a surprise. What Romney needs to do in response is nothing. Romney should not issue a press release attacking Obama donors. He should remain above the fray.

Like this:

One blogger likes this post.
  • LD Jackson

About Steven
I am a Christian saved by grace through faith. I am a conservative, lawyer, husband, father and political junkie.

One Response to Who Is On The President’s Enemies List? Romney Donors

LD Jackson says:

I think that is good advice, Steven. Mitt Romney needs to stay above this. It should work to his advantage, if played correctly.

THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WAS NOT ALLOWED BY STEVEN BIRN:

john552atrocketmailcom says:
April 30, 2012 at 2:25 am

“The President does after all have the power to indict” Steve-give me a break!-You are a LAWYER.The President is not a prosecutor nor a grand jury-HE CANNOT INDICT. “and the power of the IRS-what does that mean? Are you suggesting that Obama is going to engage in the kind of rampant criminal activities that the Republican wonder boy Richard Nixon did? Really? And just what kinds of activities has Obama engaged in during his lifetime that would make you believe that he would stoop to such lowly criminal behavior? What is he going to have the IRS do to help him in the election? Audit tax returns? Give me a break!
Did someone in the Obama campaign call a Romney supporter a slut and a prostitute? Did I miss that? Here’s your chance to join in Birn. Why not just jump on the band wagon and add a couple of more juvenile insults?And just what are the attacks against the poor defenseless mulit-billionaire Koch brothers who are pouring millions and millions of dollars into far-right campaigns? Are you comparing your attack and Limbaugh’s attach against one college student to legitimate criticism of billionaires who are corrupting our entire political system?

The Paul Ryan press conference? Yes, that was terrible. Can you imagine confronting someone with the truth? Poor Paul Ryan!

Hissy fit?  Steve could you explain the political meaning of that? Thanks.
Best regards!
Reply

john552atrocketmailcom says:
April 30, 2012 at 2:43 am

Found this little article on Frank Vandersloot in “Veterans News Now” Romney’s main man.
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2012/02/20/frank-vandersloot-billionaire-romney-donor-is-a-disgrace/
By Glenn Greewald

http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2012/02/20/frank-vandersloot-billionaire-romney-donor-is-a-disgrace/

By Glenn Greewald    censorship

Frank VanderSloot, Billionaire Romney Donor, Is a Disgrace

Frank Vandersloot, Pedophile-protecting Mormon and Willard Romney funder
Frank Vandersloot is an Idaho billionaire and the CEO of Melaleuca, Inc., a controversial billion-dollar-a-year company which peddles dietary supplements and cleaning products; back in 2004, Forbes, echoing complaints to government agencies, described the company as “a pyramid selling organization, built along the lines of Herbalife and Amway.” VanderSloot has long used his wealth to advance numerous right-wing political causes. Currently, he is the national finance co-chair of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, and his company has become one of the largest donors ($1 million) to the ostensibly “independent” pro-Romney SuperPAC, Restore Our Future.

Melaleuca’s get-rich pitches have in the past caused Michigan regulators to take action, resulting in the company’s entering into a voluntary agreement to “not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid”‘; it entered into a separate voluntary agreement with the Idaho attorney general’s office, which found that “certain independent marketing executives of Melaleuca” had violated Idaho law; and the Food and Drug Administration previously accused Melaleuca of deceiving consumers about some of its supplements.

Editor’s Note: It our considered opinion that Frank VanderSloot is an ugly, shameless character, and should accelerate the time he visits fellow Mormons on the planet, Kolob.

But it is VanderSloot’s chronic bullying threats to bring patently frivolous lawsuits against his political critics — magazines, journalists, and bloggers — that makes him particularly pernicious and worthy of more attention. In the last month alone, VanderSloot, using threats of expensive defamation actions, has successfully forced Forbes, Mother Jones and at least one local gay blogger in Idaho to remove articles that critically focused on his political and business practices (Mother Jones subsequently re-posted the article with revisions a week after first removing it). He has been using this abusive tactic in Idaho for years: suppressing legitimate political speech by threatening or even commencing lawsuits against even the most obscure critics (he has even sued local bloggers for “copyright infringement” after they published a threatening letter sent by his lawyers). This tactic almost always succeeds in silencing its targets, because even journalists and their employers who have done nothing wrong are afraid of the potentially ruinous costs they will incur when sued by a litigious billionaire.

( Read the rest and do your own research.)

Advertisements

More Censorship From Steve Birn – Could He Be Nuts? You Be The Judge

30 Apr

Earth Worshippers A Cancer On Mankind
APRIL 23, 2012 19 COMMENTS
Yesterday was Earth worship day. The Birn’s celebrated by burning two charcoal chimney’s and grilling animals. Earth worship confronted us all last week as NBC went “green” throughout the NHL playoffs. It’s interesting that NBC never mentions Christian holidays, only pagan Earth worship gets a weeks worth of coverage. It is of course absurd to worship the creation over the Creator as any Christian will tell you. The origins of modern Earth worship however are much worse than that. They are rooted in a hatred of man kind. The left-wing Club of Rome has declared that Earth has cancer and the cancer is man.
This cancer of course must be destroyed according to Earth worshippers. As such the far left has sought to destroy mankind by making it more difficult for him to survive. It’s no secret that DDT wiped out malaria in South America, Asia and Africa. It saved half a billion lives by the 70′s. Then came Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” which falsely alleged DDT was killing birds. The newly Nixon created EPA banned DDT and the left tied American foreign aid to the ban of DDT. In short, if African nations wanted to receive American aid that had to eliminate DDT. Malaria has been on the rise ever since, killing an estimated 100 million Africans and millions of others. All in the name of mother Earth.
The racist eugenics crowd (think Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood) come together with the Earth worshippers when it comes to abortion and forced contraception. Not content just getting rid of as many “inferior” black and Asian babies as possible, the Earth worshipping left always uses abortion to further their anti-man agenda. Once again, US foreign aid is tied to population control programs which include forced sterilizations in many countries and abortions. While under GOP President’s the Federal government doesn’t directly fund abortions, it still encourages them via population control requirements tied to foreign aid.
We could look at energy and how much the left hates cheap energy. Less than a decade ago the left pushed hard for natural gas via shale rock deposits in New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Natural gas represented a safe way for the left to “support” energy as at the time extracting gas from shale rocks was expensive and thus was unlikely to amount to anything. Then it became cheap and easy to extract natural gas from shale rocks and the price of natural gas dropped dramatically. The result? The left turned on natural gas and now claims that mining shale is an environmental disaster. Anything that aids mankind the Earth worshipping left opposes.
Religion is banned at the government schools, teachers all over the country remove the word God from song lyrics, books etc. But children are being taught a religion at the government schools, they’re being taught to worship the Earth. Millions of school children spent the last week learning greatly exaggerated stories of environmental disaster. When I was in 5th grade in 1989 we were told the Amazon rainforest was being cut down at the size of England every year. It was an outright lie but who in 5th grade would question what a teacher tells them? Radical environmentalist propaganda is being fed to children in government schools that otherwise ban religion.
Mankind has a disease and that disease is liberal Earth worship. Earth worshipping environmentalists are responsible for the deaths of more humans than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined via their DDT ban. They’ve caused countless more deaths as well as human rights abuses by forcing population control on third world nations. Here in the US when they aren’t teaching children to worship Earth in school, they’re turning on any energy that becomes cheap and increases our quality of life. Christians must be particularly mindful of what the Earth worshippers are up to. It’s one thing to be a good steward, it’s another thing to worship and center our lives around the creation over the Creator.
Like
One blogger likes this post.

FILED UNDER FOREIGN POLICY TAGGED WITH ABORTION, DDT, EARTH WORSHIP, EUGENICS, FAITH, POLITICS,RELIGION
About Steven
I am a Christian saved by grace through faith. I am a conservative, lawyer, husband, father and political junkie.
19 Responses to Earth Worshippers A Cancer On Mankind

genne says:
April 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm
I remember when I was a kid living in Milton, New York near the Hudson River, we could watch oil patches, garbage, suds and feces flowing down the Hudson River. It was known as an open sewer.Thank God for an environmental movement that forced the government to enact laws that have now made the Hudson River nearly pollution free, usable for recreation and given us back a priceless natural resource as God intended it to be. Cleaning up the Hudson River has created a major natural attraction thus creating thousands of jobs along its beautiful path. Thanks to the “whacko” environmentalists our children will have this priceless resource to enjoy forever.
Reply

Steven says:
April 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm
That’s lovely strawman you set up. Unfortunately this post didn’t talk about river clean ups and similar activities. Try staying on topic next time.
Reply

genne says:
April 23, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Strawman? You are talking about people who give a damn about the earth. You want to call that paganism-be my guest. There is a reality to the pollution of the earth. No amount of harebrained right-wing theology can erase the truth about the destruction of the earth’s environment. I would love to see your sources-or are are you just summarizing again? As far as your blog is concerned-you seemed to be linking environmental activism with abortion. Very strange logic indeed.
“Mankind has a disease and that disease is liberal Earth worship. Earth worshipping environmentalists are responsible for the deaths of more humans than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined via their DDT ban.” Where did you get your numbers from? This is absolutely the most outrageous nonsense that I have ever read. You should really be ashamed of yourself. Show me the proof! If DDT would cure the disease of conservatism I would gladly vote to allow it to be used in extreme cases such as yours.
You know its true that no other individual even bothers to write in response to your lunacy. When they do, they get a completely illogical response from you and then leave. Maybe you are under the impression that somehow you have made a mockery of the response. Maybe you really do not know when someone has responded to your nonsense in an intelligent and logical way that has been absolutely devastating to you argument. Maybe every day you look in the mirror and say to yourself each morning, “Boy I made a mockery of those jerks on my blog didn’t I ?” Maybe you don’t care. Maybe you just want to get your propaganda out in public.
Reply

Steven says:
April 23, 2012 at 5:53 pm
There are various estimates out there on Malaria deaths which have occured because DDT has been banned. They range from 60-100 million. Are you disputing that several million people die annually from malaria? All you have to do is add up the numbers since 1972, when malaria deaths began to skyrocket after nearly zero. What happened in 1972? DDT was banned in the US and the US government began attaching foreign aid to banning DDT. You could add up the deaths yourself or you could have a “scholar” add them for you.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html
http://junksciencearchive.com/malaria_clock.html
Reply

genne says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Yes I do. You have relied upon right-wing nonsense. Repeated over and over again by such intellectual luminaries as Ann Coultar. You really should be functioning at a slightly higher intellectual function then the average American. Only 15% of Americans have an advanced degrees. Yours is a disgrace to higher education.You went through college mocking your professors-why did bother going if you already knew everything there was to know?
Read the following and weep for your fellow ignorant Federalist:
Click here to read a reply from Roger Bate of Africa Fighting Malaria
Rachel Carson launched the modern environmental movement. She was posthumously awarded the US presidential medal of freedom, and has conservation areas, prizes and associations named in her honour.
Yet Carson has also been accused of killing more people than Hitler. Her detractors hold her responsible for a “ban” on the use of the insecticide DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), which, they claim, halted a campaign that was on the verge of eradicating malaria in the 1960s.
Some mainstream journalists have accepted this story, which in turn has led to pressure on the World Health Organisation (WHO) and other bodies to change policies and personnel. Yet perhaps the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted. It takes only a few minutes with Google to discover that DDT has never been banned for anti-malarial uses, and that it is in use in at least 11 countries.
It takes only a little more time to discover that the postwar attempt to eradicate malaria by the spraying of DDT was a failure, largely because Carson’s warnings that overuse of insecticides would lead to the development of resistance in mosquito populations were ignored. Modern uses of insecticides are far closer to the methods advocated by Carson than to the practices she criticised.
How, then, did the idea that Carson was responsible for millions of deaths gain currency? Any good myth requires a few grains of truth, and the DDT malaria story has a couple. First, the 2001 Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants prohibits the use of DDT except for disease control, and calls for all DDT use to be phased out. The phase-out commitment is often loosely referred to as a “ban.”
Second, by virtue of its massive misuse in the 1960s and 1970s, DDT gained a bad reputation that was hard to shake. As a result, says WHO’s Allan Schapira, donors have sometimes insisted on the use of an insecticide other than DDT, even in “countries where the government wished to use DDT, and there was evidence that it was the best option for malaria-vector control.”
But these grains of truth are scarcely enough to generate a myth as widespread as that of “Rachel Carson, baby killer.” So what accounts for the campaign against Carson? The story begins in the 1940s. Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller won the 1948 Nobel prize for medicine for his discovery of the efficacy of DDT against several arthropods. It was used in the war by Allied forces with striking success to protect troops and civilians from the insects that transmit malaria, typhus and other diseases.
After the war, the use of DDT continued apace. In 1955, the WHO adopted a global malaria eradication campaign, based on spraying DDT on to the interior walls of houses to protect residents against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. The insecticide was well suited for this task because it was “persistent,” meaning that a wall sprayed with DDT would kill mosquitoes that rested on it for six months after spraying.
The programme was never extended to sub-Saharan Africa, where malaria was most acute. But the failure of the programme was not the result of underuse: quite the opposite. In the first flush of enthusiasm for DDT in the 1950s, the range of applications was rapidly extended from disease control to agricultural and other uses. DDT was widely used in both developed and less developed countries to protect crops against pests. Indiscriminate use in agriculture led to the evolution of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.
Rachel Carson, a prominent American science writer, had long been concerned about the impact of DDT and other pesticides on the environment. In 1962, her ideas were crystallised in the bestseller Silent Spring, which made the case that overuse of pesticides was a threat to wildlife, human health and even their own usefulness against malaria. Within a year, the US president’s science advisory committee called for a reduction in the use of persistent pesticides. In 1972, the use of DDT in US agriculture was banned, though an exception (which has never been used) was made for emergency public health applications.
Meanwhile, the DDT-based eradication campaign against malaria ran into the trouble Carson had warned about. The high-water mark of the campaign came in 1964. Sri Lanka had reduced its number of malaria cases from millions after the end of the war to just 29. The country declared victory over malaria and suspended spraying. WHO called the eradication programme “an international achievement without parallel in the provision of public health service.”
But then malaria returned to Sri Lanka. In 1968-69, there were half a million cases. The country went back to spraying DDT, but because it had been extensively used in agriculture, mosquitoes had evolved resistance. The insecticide became less and less effective, eventually forcing Sri Lanka to switch to an alternative, malathion, in the mid-1970s. Other countries in the eradication program suffered similar setbacks, and by 1969, the 22nd World Health Assembly concluded that the goal of global eradication of malaria was not feasible.
By 1990, it seemed that the public health issues surrounding DDT had been largely resolved. In developed countries, DDT had been replaced by less environmentally damaging alternatives. But soon the situation changed radically. The tobacco industry, faced with the prospect of bans on smoking in public places, sought to cast doubt on the science behind the mooted ban. But a campaign focused on tobacco alone was doomed to failure. So the industry tried a different tack, an across-the-board attack on what it called “junk science.” Its primary vehicle was the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a body set up by PR firm APCO in the early 1990s and secretly funded by Philip Morris.
TASSC, led by an activist named Steve Milloy, attacked the environmental movement on everything from food safety to the risks of asbestos. One of the issues Milloy took up with vigour was DDT, where he teamed up with the entomologist J Gordon Edwards. With the aid of Milloy’s advocacy, Edwards’s attacks on Rachel Carson moved from the political fringes to become part of the orthodoxy of mainstream US Republicanism.
Tobacco companies created a European version of TASSC, the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), led by Roger Bate, another tobacco lobbyist. In the late 1990s, Bate established “Africa Fighting Malaria,” a so-called “astroturf” organisation based in Washington DC. His aim was to drive a wedge between public health and the environment by suggesting that by banning DDT to protect birds, environmentalists were causing many people to die from malaria. Between them, Milloy’s TASSC and Bate’s Africa Fighting Malaria convinced many that DDT was a panacea for malaria, denied to the third world by the machinations of rich environmentalists.
For both groups, the big opportunity came with the 2001 Stockholm convention. The treaty banned most uses of organochlorine pesticides such as DDT and dieldrin because of their persistence and toxicity. It was agreed that the use of DDT for malaria control should be exempted from the general ban until affordable substitutes could be found. The only point of dispute was whether an explicit target date for the phase-out of DDT should be set.
The pro-DDT brigade pounced on the phase-out proposal, describing it as a “ban,” and news stories made it appear that the ban was imminent. Yet during the negotiations, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the main supporters of a targeted phase-out date, abandoned its proposal, focusing instead on more stringent attempts to control the illegal use of DDT in agriculture. The outcome was an eminently sensible one.
But the debate had given Milloy, Bate and others the start they needed. Successfully conflating the use of the term “ban” to describe the eventual phase-out proposal with the 1972 ban on agricultural use in the US, Milloy produced his “malaria clock,” which blamed the “ban” for all malaria deaths since 1972. Meanwhile, Bate and Africa Fighting Malaria continued to claim that the widespread use of DDT was being prevented solely because of the opposition of western environmentalists.
The high point of the pro-DDT campaign came in late 2006, with the appointment of Arata Kochi as head of the WHO malaria program. Kochi saw the need to placate the critics associated with the Bush administration, and issued an announcement describing a renewed commitment to DDT. The “new” position was little more than a restatement of long-standing policy. Nevertheless, it appeased critics and mobilised support for additional funds, particularly from the US government.
Kochi’s announcement was hailed as a triumph by the promoters of the DDT myth. But the environmentalists and scientists started fighting back. The idea of DDT spraying as a panacea for malaria threatened, they said, to derail the tentative progress that was being made with campaigns incorporating improved treatments, insecticide-treated bed nets and a range of public health measures.
The response of the pro-DDT campaigners was revealing. Milloy, who has long shown himself to be utterly shameless, maintained his malaria clock, adding footnotes to indicate that he knew his claims to be false. By contrast, Bate began to adjust his position, noting in a recent interview that, “I think my position has mellowed, perhaps with age.”
Sanity now appears to be returning to the malaria debate. At meetings on the implementation of the Stockholm convention, WHO put out another restatement of its position, this time stressing the commitment to an eventual phase-out of DDT, while noting that its use would continue until adequate substitutes were found.
In 2007, the WHO concluded that long-lasting insecticide treated bed nets were more cost-effective than DDT spraying in high malaria transmission areas. Earlier this year, it announced dramatic progress against malaria in Rwanda and Ethiopia based on a strategy of long-lasting insecticidal nets and artemisinin-combination therapy drugs.
Following these successes, the goal of global eradication of malaria has been revived. The hope is that a combination of existing measures, like bed nets, insecticides (including DDT among others) and drugs, can drive down the number of cases and shrink malaria’s range across Africa and Asia. The new strategy is based on a judicious mix of tactics against malaria, rather than a knockout blow based on a single weapon. Rachel Carson would surely have approved.
Reply

Steven says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:59 pm
We should dismiss your argument out of hand because leftist “intellectuals” such as Al Gore believe and repeat it.
Reply

john552atrocketmailcom says:
April 30, 2012 at 1:42 am
Why vilify Al Gore? Do you have some factual information that would actually discredit Al Gore or are you just going along with the knee-jerk far-right opinion makers? Al Gore is not a leftist. Al Gore is a moderate member of the Democratic ( not Democrat ) party who appears to feel passionately about the destruction of the earth’s environment. Now if you have some real facts to discredit Al Gore then lets see them. I know one thing though-Al Gore is a hell of a lot smarter then you are and most of the people on the far-right who ridicule him. He was just born that way. Whoever said life was fair?

genne says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:52 pm
You really should know by now Steve that when some supposedly political or scientific argument or fact is so devastating to your opponents that it can hardly be believed-such as the alleged crass ban of DDT by environmentalists-that you had better take a very hard second look at what is being said because most likely it is nonsense. Just like your story on the ban of DDT. The internet is now completely infested with far-right lunacy. You wasted my time doing the research to refute you. Most people would not bother. I do not know how much longer I can waste my time responding to all the hopeless drivel you post.
Reply

Steven says:
April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm
You’ve refuted nothing. Anyone can cut and paste from the scientific equivalent of Media Matters. The fact is DDT saved millions of lives. When DDT was legal the malaria death rate was very low. When DDT was made illegal by leftists and our government tied foreign aid to banning DDT, malaria rates rose dramatically. You can try to dance around that all you want, the numbers are out there and speak for themselves.
In the meantime, stop cutting and pasting dissertations into your comments. Speak for yourself or don’t speak at all.
Reply

genne says:
April 24, 2012 at 12:16 pm
I am not going to write my own refutations. They have existed for a long time. You refuse to read them. The fact is nothing pal. You write nonsense repeated from other ignorant fools on the far right.
Reply

genne says:
April 24, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Oh yes, Media Matters, started by a reformed right winger, David Brock, who couldn’t stomach the lies and insanity of the far right people like you.
Reply

Steven says:
April 24, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Do you really want to play a game of side switchers? David Brock, never much of a conservative, left the GOP camp. David Horowitz was a Communist and switched sides. What would be the point of playing this game though?
As for science, it’s very amusing to watch the left-wing science worshippers in action. Science is fine and dandy with you people until it reaches a conclusion you don’t like. Then it’s “right-wing” and can’t be trusted. I think we should be skeptical of it all. Nevertheless, the numbers speak for themselves concerning Malaria deaths. If you don’t like them, that’s your problem but please don’t bother me with it.
Reply

Shleigh bin Field says:
April 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm
I went for a long sunday drive in my classic 1967 V8 Mustang on Earth Day and wasted a full tank of gas in just 3 hours!
Reply

8. genne says:
April 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm
David Horowitz a communist-fine I”l take your word for it, So he goes form being an extreme ideologue on one side to becoming an extreme ideologue on the other. Which just proves the oft stated maxim that the far right and the far left are two sides of the same extremist coin. Do you really think Steve, that you have any capability of looking at or reacting to any situation at all without your extreme right-wing bias filtering your emotional and intellectual response? You absolutely cannot. How in the world can you tell the difference between something that may be truthful and something that is just plain nonsense? You can’t. Why you cannot even have a family barbecue without it becoming an ideological poke in the eye of the hated environmentalist and animal rights activists. I’ll bet you even refuse to buy recycled toilet paper for your home bathroom!
Reply

Steven says:
April 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Imagine that, I didn’t even know I had the option to protest the left with my tp purchases!
Reply

genne says:
April 24, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Hey Shleigh: That’s great! I’ll bet you would have loved living in London in the 50′s. You could have put your high beams on your Mustang when cruising and no one would have been able to see them through the smog! Also, if you happened to have been in the funeral business there were several thousand extra deaths a year in London from the excess smog caused by the burning of coal-you would have made a fortune. Of course some of the dead might have been young children-but hey, business is business. Los Angeles would have been a great place for you too to burn up that gas in the 50′s and 60′s. Unfortunately those whacko environmentalist put an end to that smog that we all loved and now we have to breath clean air. Disgusting! Our children will never know what it was like to breath air that tastes and smell like it just came out the tail pipe of a classic 1967 Mustang with a smidgen of lead to boot..
Reply

genne says:
April 24, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Shame on you Steve for not knowing the difference-your Federalist friends would be very disappointed.
Reply

john552atrocketmailcom says:
April 29, 2012 at 12:03 am

Darwin and Emerson express wonder at God’s creation:
An excerpt from “Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion” by Jonathan Haidt
In the 1830′s, Ralph Waldo Emerson delivered a set of lectures on nature that formed the foundation of American Transcendentalism, a movement that rejected the analytic hyperintellectualism of America’s top universities. Emerson argued that the deepest truths must be known by intuition, not reason, and that experiences of awe in nature were among the best ways to trigger such intuitions. He described the rejuvenation and joy he gained from looking at the stars, or at a vista of rolling farmland, or from a simple walk in the woods:
Standing on the bare ground,—my head bathed by the blithe air and uplifted into infinite space,—all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God.”
Darwin records a similar experience in his autobiography:
In my journal I wrote that whilst standing in midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, “it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of won¬der, admiration, and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.” I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the breath of his body.”
One can find the magnificence of God in the magnificence of his creation! Worship God and treat his creation with respect.
Reply

12. john552atrocketmailcom says:
April 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm                                        THE FOLLOWING WAS CENSORED BY STEVEN BIRN

From the Diary of Ann Frank: 1944 – On a bright sunny day while living in the attic.

“As long as this exists, I thought, and I may live to see it, the sunshine, the cloudless skies. While this lasts I cannot be unhappy. The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy is to go outside, somewhere where they can be quite alone with the heavens, nature and God. Because only then does one feel that all is as it should be and that God wishes us to be happy amidst the simple beauty of nature. As long as this exists and I am certain that it always will, I know that then there will always be comfort for every sorrow, for whatever the circumstances may be, and I firmly believe that nature brings solace in all troubles.”

Such wisdom from the mind of a fourteen year-old teenager. Imagine if she had lived!
Written by Ann Frank while madmen filled with ideological fanaticism fueled by hatred ruled Europe.

The following are the words of just such a madman:
“It is of course absurd to worship the creation over the Creator as any Christian will tell you. The origins of modern Earth worship however are much worse than that. They are rooted in a HATRED of man kind. The left-wing Club of Rome has declared that Earth has cancer and the cancer is man.” —That man of course is, Steven Birn.

Steven Birn Gets Clobbered – An Attorney Without A Clue From Grand Rapids

29 Apr

To My Readers: The irrational, idiotic and false representations made by Steven Birn and his pal LD in the following blog discussion is  typical  of the propaganda that the far-right is filling the Internet and radio with-day in and day out. The far-rights efforts have caused a huge segment of the American population to be convinced that any middle-of-the-road news organization such as the New York Times, NBC, ABC, The Washington Post etc.is completely controlled by a cabal of deceitful lying liberal/socialist. That segment of our citizenry is now convinced that the only credible information to be had is from the far-right radio talk shows and the far-right blogs on the Internet. It could be that not since the Nazis controlled the media in Germany has so much intentionally deceitful propaganda been directed towards the citizens of a country. The political outrage demonstrated by the Tea Party, I believe, is a direct result of the far-right medias’  intentional misrepresentation of our government, our politicians and the facts surrounding important issues of the day such as health care reform. It is time to stop the name calling. Its time to stop fanning the irrational hatred of our fellow citizens. We are all Americans. President Obama is not a communist. Liberals are not evil and Rush Limbaugh has become a very rich and important man by delivering his adoring misinformed and misled listeners to his advertisers.

The following blog entry is typical of the shallow and misinformed entries made by Steven Birn. Mr. Birn is an attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He claims to be a Christian.

I did not demolish Mr. Birn’s argument below. Someone by the name of  ELTV did.

Federal Debt Increases More Under Obama Than Bush

MARCH 20, 2012 25 COMMENTS

In Obama’s three years and two months in office the Federal debt has increased more than it did under eight years of President Bush. In eight years the debt went up just under $4.9 trillion, in Obama’s term so far the debt has increased by just over $4.9 trillion. It’s scheduled to rise another $700 billion or so before the end of the year. This is a major issue but you wouldn’t know it listening to the mainstream press. They’re to busy following Obama’s NCAA Tournament brackets and writing stories, then mysteriously deleting them, about the President’s 13 year old daughter going on a spring break trip to Mexico. (who sends their 13 year old on a spring break trip, much less a spring break trip to a foreign country?)

There are three major issues heading into the 2012 election. Obamacare is potentially one of them, although this could be partially eliminated by a Supreme Court ruling against it. If Obamacare goes down, health care generally will replace it as a major issue. Jobs and the economy generally is going to be a major issue. We have millions of unemployed, far more than the government unemployment rate indicates and we have inflation that’s hurting middle class families. The third and largely forgotten issue is the Federal debt.

The Republican debates and the endless stump speeches have focused on Obamacare and jobs. What they haven’t done much of is focus on the Federal debt. The numbers are simply staggering. Obama in just four years in office will have raised the debt by over $5.5 trillion. It will be an increase of over 30% in just 4 years. Obama’s debt creation will only get worse with a second term. Not only will he be able to push for even more spending but Obamacare will kick in beginning in 2014. The CBO recently doubled the estimate of Obamacare’s cost, which will only add to the Federal debt. Obama’s budget estimates, even if they’re accurate, would see the Federal debt rise by over $9.3 trillion in eight years should he be re-elected.

Our debt is over 100% of GDP. And yet Obama wants to spend more money. The administration has never offered any serious cuts to the Federal budget. Unfortunately our weak Speaker of the House refuses to hold Obama’s feet to the fire. The end result is that we’re going to have an over $1 trillion budget deficit again this year. That is unacceptable with Republicans controlling the House. Unfortunately we have weak leadership, the sort of leadership that will ensure Nancy Pelosi will return as Speaker next  year.

Mitt Romney needs to start hitting the debt  hard. He needs to come up with a solid plan to reduce Federal expenditures. So far, he doesn’t seem to have a plan at all. He talks about going through each Federal program one by one but that’s a lot of nonsense talk and no one buys he’s going to do that. What Romney needs to do is offer a plan that actually reduces government spending. He needs to cut from all areas of the Federal government, including modest cuts in the military. He needs to push for welfare reform, we have far to many people on food stamps and other benefit programs who don’t need to be. Eligibility should be stricter. We have far to many bureaucrats in DC, Romney should propose an across the board cut in government employees and a hiring freeze on non-political jobs.

The only way Romney can win is if he has a solid plan and vision for the future. He doesn’t seem to have this year. The GOP has only unseated one sitting President in the last century. That was Ronald Reagan, we all know the vision he had in 1980. The Federal debt is astronomical, it’s gone up so much under Obama that it ought to be easy to come up with a simply plan to reduce Federal spending. Romney’s lack of a simple, serious plan ought to trouble fiscal conservatives. If Romney has no vision, Obama is destined for re-election. If Obama is re-elected we’re going to see a Federal debt above $20 trillion by the time he leaves in 2016.

Like

One blogger likes this post.

FILED UNDER 2012 ELECTION TAGGED WITH CONGRESSECONOMYFEDERAL DEBTGOVERNMENTJOHN BOEHNER,MITT ROMNEYOBAMAPOLITICSTEA PARTY

About Steven
I am a Christian saved by grace through faith. I am a conservative, lawyer, husband, father and political junkie.

25 Responses to Federal Debt Increases More Under Obama Than Bush

1.      ELTV says:

The increases in deficits under Bush and Obama must have clear causes. What are the biggies?

o    ELTV says:

Bueller?

o    Steven says:

Forgive me, I missed your question earlier. The deficits in both administrations are unacceptable. The problem begins with entitlement spending, including Medicare. Bush added to the problem with his ridiculous Rx program. Obama refuses to truly reform Medicare, which is what’s necessary if the program is to be saved without single payer socialist health care. Oh wait, that’s what he wants. So Obama won’t be reforming medicare anytime soon.

From there we can take a look at the absurd number of subsides we have as well as government bureaucracy. We have billions being spent on wasteful business subsidies wherein government picks winners and losers while thousands of bureaucrats write regulations to benefit one business over an other. It’s a recipe for a massive amount of waste.

Obviously there have been two wars which have been costly, I won’t get into the merit of those wars other than to say they contribute to the deficit problem. We can reduce military costs without reducing military capability. The amount of waste in the military ought to disturb us all and neither party is willing to really look at that. The GOP simply offers up more money while the Democrats offer indiscriminate cuts to legitimate weapons programs and troop numbers. During WWII we had 7 support troops for every 1 on the front lines. Today it’s 11 to 1. Surely we can cut back on some of the support staff and their costs as well as other forms military waste.

Those are the problems. Or at least they’re the beginning of an outline of them.

§  ELTV says:

I understand your philosophy – we all do. You are here lambasting the President for exploding the deficit, asserting that his policies are directly responsible. So, tell us which they are. Give us numbers.

For instance, I can go to the CBO, which you like just fine when it is saying the ‘cost’ of Obamacare is 1.7T, and conclude that by far the largest drivers are economic downturn, Bush era tax cuts and unfunded wars. The stimulus comes in somewhere below. Obamacare doesn’t even enter into it as it is a net deficit reducer (per the CBO).

End of the day, put the money where your keyboard is and show us the specific programs enacted by Obama that have blown up the deficit and led to all this debt – you must know to be so certain, right?

2.      ELTV says:

“The CBO recently doubled the estimate of Obamacare’s cost…”. Actually, I don’t think it did. In reading the report, the punchline is in Table 1, I think. Looks as if the net cost of the coverage provision is actually forecasted to be $48B lower than they put forward in 2011.

You can find the report here if you don’t have it: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

o    Steven says:

Government cost is double Obama’s $900 billion projection.

In 2008 Obama said the debt created under Bush was irresponsible and unpatriotic. What exactly is Obama’s debt, which was racked up in less than half the time? Give Obama four more years and the debt will increase over $9 trillion in his eight years.

§  ELTV says:

But that isn’t what you said. You said, and I quote, “The CBO recently doubled the estimate of Obamacare’s cost…”. That simply isn’t true.

Look at Table 2, ‘Net cost of coverage provisions’. This is the line used for the $900B baseline you cite. You will see a net cost over 10 years (2012-2022) of 1.25T, which is not remotely close to the doubling of cost being thrown around by the media.

Now why did it go up from $900B to $1,252B? It is because the current 10-year forecast added 2022 and dropped 2011. In all forecasts there was essentially zero net effect in 2011, because nothing came on line, while in 2022 there is an effect. As a result, the total for the NEXT 10 years goes up. The small remaining portion is a function of all the various assumptions in the model. Nothing nefarious here.

Ultimately, the punchline of the report you are using as evidence of the implementation of the Socialist Regime and Obamacare destroying the country is exactly the opposite of what you conclude. The CBO estimated annual effect of Obamacare on the debt actually DECREASED between the 2011 and 2011 estimates.

So, I guess the question becomes: why are your sources lying to you about the CBO report?

3.      Shleigh bin Field says:

Anybody but Obama in 2012. A fire hydrant would be a better President.

4.      Steven says:

The cost of Obamacare went from $900 billion to $1.76 trillion. That’s from the CBO as reported by every news outlet, conservative, liberal and otherwise.

5.      ELTV says:

Nope. Even the CBO says you are wrong: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43104

“The estimated budgetary impact of the coverage provisions has also changed little…. Again, the latest projections extend the original ones by three years, but the projections for each given year have changed little, on net, since March 2010.”

6.      Steven says:

You need to stop reading Democrat talking points. The cost has doubled.

o    ELTV says:

Oh my, that is really rich, Steve. And a complete cop out. The last ditch effort of a man who clearly has no argument to make.

I’m quoting from and pointing you directly to the proverbial horses mouth – the very CBO report you are using. The CBO who simply could not be clearer in their attempt to correct you folks.

You’ve got nothing on this one, amigo – even calling me biased ain’t gonna change reality.

7.      LD Jackson says:

Hmmm, let me have a go at this. When you strip away all of the rhetoric, it comes down to plain and simple math. Yes, President Bush increased the debt and deficit, as Steven has pointed out. ELTV, you may want to ignore the facts, but doing so will not make them go away. During Obama’s first term, which isn’t even over yet, the debt has increased more than during all of the Bush years. That’s a fact that can not be ignored.

You ask what specific policies from the Obama administration caused this. I can give you one glaring policy. That would be the uninhibited willingness to spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax. That is his only answer to every problem. That’s why the debt has continued to grow at an unprecedented pace. Until that spending is reined in, it will continue to grow.

8.      ELTV says:

Hi LD. So, show me where I say that the debt did not increase more during Obama’s term than during all of Bush’s years. Hint: you can’t. I’m not denying anything.

What you guys are desperate to do is hang the entirety of the debt increase during his term on Obama and that isn’t supported by the “plain and simple math” offered by the CBO. The CBO conclusion is that the significant majority of the debt you attribute to Obama is in fact due to existing tax cuts, unfunded wars (both explicit policy choices that Obama continued) and a wicked recession. There simply is no spectacular increase in spending due to Obama’s own policies, except in that they continue the prior administrations policies.

If “spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax” is the “only answer to every problem” and that this is “why the debt has continued to grow”, prove it. If you are going to rail away at the President for increasing the Federal debt, at least have the decency to be able to cite specific policy and quantifiable impact on the debt. Otherwise, it is just word salad – the very rhetoric you claim you are interested in stripping away.

o    LD Jackson says:

The common theme seems to be to blame Bush for everything. Yes, his tax cuts were to blame for part of the deficit and the debt, but not entirely. What happens when you have reduced revenues? Most people reduce their spending. Bush should have done that and didn’t. President Obama should have done that and hasn’t. In fact, he shows no inclination of doing so. Instead, he is looking for ways to increase taxes and fees on the wealthy, just to make sure they are paying their fair share. Never mind that they are already paying the majority of the taxes in this country.

Obama knew this going in, or he should have. Due to the recession and the Bush tax cuts, revenues were down. He should have adjusted his spending levels accordingly, but he hasn’t. Let me point out again that he shows no interest in doing so. That’s why I call him a tax and spend President.

§  ELTV says:

I’m asking you and Steve to show me specific policies enacted by Obama – not failure to undo Bush policies (e.g. tax cuts and war) – that are significant drivers of the debt. The whole premise of the post is that Obama has done a ton to drive debt, but I’ve given you analysis from neutral (CBO) and conservative (Heritage Foundation – see below) sources and directly contradicts the premise of this post and your comments. You all have made the assertion – I’m asking you to back it up with specific policy and debt impact. Neither of you have managed to do so to this point.

o    Steven says:

Obama spent $800 billion on a Stimulus program, you’re telling me that isn’t a significant increase in spending? It’s nearly 20% of the debt created during his term so far.

Bush’s tax cuts don’t amount to very much. Obama wants to repeal them, even though he signed an extention on them in 2010. But even the administration acknowledges that eliminating the Bush tax cuts would net the government less than $100 billion a year. That’s assuming the super rich don’t shift their money into tax free investments like bonds or various IRS loopholes. You’re looking at at best $350 billion of what will likely be a $5.5 trillion debt created during Obama’s term had he repealed the tax cuts immediately. We’ll leave for another day whether the government makes more money off of tax cuts long term than tax increases.

Obama has done a number of other things to increase the debt. We have hired more government employees under Obama. He’s cut back on Federal oil leases, which has cost the treasury in numerous ways. You want to talk about wars, Obama said in 2008 he would end them and he simply hasn’t. In fact, he’s gotten the US involved in other wars such as Libya last year.

So yes, there have been significant increases in Federal spending. He’s also, via his policy, failed to get the economy to turn around which has contributed to the deficit. He’s been in office for over three years now, the recession is his.

§  ELTV says:

Even the Heritage Org backs me up on this. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/the-three-biggest-myths-about-tax-cuts-and-the-budget-deficit

Note that, consistent with the CBO, the biggest drivers of the increase in debt is a) recession, b) defense/war, c) tax cuts. 50% of “Other New Spending” is defense and big chunk of the balance is the the Medicare drug entitlement. Note also that the 2009 stimulus “significant role in 2009-2011 budget deficits, but a small role in the overall deficits”. Nowhere on the radar is hiring employees, oil leases or these other piddly things that have you so worked up.

So, the punchline is that, to the extent that his policies have added to the debt, it has been in continuing Republican policies – you know, fiscally responsible Republican policies.

I understand that none of this will affect your pre-existing need to blame Obama for everything and your view that he is an evil socialist, but them’s the facts, Jack.

9.      Steven says:

Do you deny that Obama spent nearly $800 billion on a Stimulus package? That bill represents nearly 20% of the Federal debt accumulated since Obama took office.

o    LD Jackson says:

I don’t think ELTV understands the fact that it is the overall attitude and fiscal policies of Obama that has caused this explosion in spending. If we listed one specific policy, we would have to list them all.

§  Steven says:

Not only has Obama increased spending, he hasn’t cut anything either. But I guess it doesn’t count if Obama continues forward with Bush’s spending policies.

§  ELTV says:

What? Overall attitude? I don’t know what that means. I’m interested in specific fiscal policies that have driven the “explosion in spending”. You clearly can’t tell me what they are.

I’ve asked you both a simple question and you both clearly have no answer. You just KNOW that Obama is all tax-and-spend and you KNOW that his policies have driven all the debt during his term. I’ve given you hard numbers and quantifiable analysis from multiple sources and you’ve given me philosophical word salad.

As for the stimulus, I certainly don’t deny that it contributed to the deficit, that would be silly. That said, I’ll go with the Heritage Foundation and conclude that it had an impact in 2009-2011 but played a small role overall. If that is really the best you have, it is game over. I won’t expect a ‘Reply’ option on your next comment.

10.     Genne says:

You know ELTV you sound very informed. Someone who tries to bring reliable facts to the table. Your repeated attempts to elicit an honest response from Steven Birn and LD Jackson was of no consequence. I think that Mr. Birn’s ability to assimilate real facts and to deduce logical
conclusions have been severely impaired by his extreme right-wing blinders.

Presumably Mr. Birn has had seven years of college. Instead of using his education to bring clarity and honesty to the public discussion of political issues he has rather whole heartedly jumped on the rant and rage side of the discussion with talk radio and Fox News. What Mr. Birn simply does not know and will not contemplate is what David Hume, the 18th century philosopher said, “It is our passions and not our reason that leads.” Simple example: Anyone with a little knowledge of the current Supreme Court can predict exactly how each member will vote on any case that has a left-right point of view. The Justices could save an awful lot of time and paper by simply foregoing the sixty page decisions. If I have not made myself clear then what I am saying is that the Justices know, even before they have heard any argument or have done any research how they will vote. They might not want to acknowledge it-but any lawyer or interested person has seen it over and over again. The logical reasoning of each Justice is simply the rider of the elephant on which each Justice is perched. The elephant leads and then it is the Justice’s task to justify the path that the elephant has taken. Reverse engineering in a way.

I am not sure , but I really don’t think that Steve Birn is interested in the best facts or an honest discussion that may actually disprove any of his arguments. I think that Birn is trying to run this blog as simply a right-wing propaganda tool. Steve appears to always know that he is right even if he fails to garner the correct facts or refuses to address arguments that suggest otherwise-such as the one above. Any individual, left, right or in the middle who was not extremely blinded by ideology would find Birn’s and LD Jackson’s responses above to be inexcusable. These two will not even look at the very report by the CBO that they are supposedly referring to. They would rather rely on Fox New’s or Rush Limbaugh’s interpretation of the CBO-which of course fits in well with their extreme ideology.

Why am I writing here? Because I have decided that I will, when I am able to, interject in the hailstorm of vicious and uncivilized political rhetoric that is rampaging through this country and in the minds of its citizens. I cannot talk back to “talk radio” . I can talk back in blogs and other publications of the web.

I pray for this country. I pray that we can bring civility back into our political discussions. I respect the Office of the President and our democratic institutions. We need to stop demonizing those with opposing points of view. No one political party or one political ideology has all the answers. Even the biggest fool in the world is right once in a while. If we refuse to listen then we will miss an opportunity to learn something even from a fool.

A little story: I remember learning about Zeno’s paradox in math class. I was fascinated! I couldn’t wait to get to my dads to tell him about this crazy, mind blowing paradox. What happened? He became upset and told me that I was completely wrong. End of subject with him. What happened? I thought my father had a lively intellect and would enjoy this puzzle. Not at all. For some reason Zeno’s paradox just did not fit into his world view at that stage of his life. He said it was nonsense! I said, “But Dad, Zeno’s paradox has been the subject of intense philosophical debate for 2500 years.” He wasn’t interested.

May God shine his grace upon you.

o    Steven says:

You should really get your own blog so you can respond to each of my posts. Your comments are reaching the size of my original posts.

11.     genne says:

Steve, thank you for an opportunity to express myself. I will try to keep my comments on point, short, civil and well researched.

May God grant you peace, compassion.and wisdom.

More Censorship by Steven Birn – Far-Right Simpleton

28 Apr

The following was cut by Steven Birns. The comment was a takeoff on one of Steve’s regular followers who wrote the following:Donna Calvin says:
April 24, 2012 at 12:59 am
geene, I know personally two Jews who accepted Christ as Messiah and one of them is a holocaust survivor. You are insane, genne. Your screen name says it all. Genne is just another name for genie and that’s an evil spirit. BTW, keep writing those long, long answers. It’s taking up your time and you’ll have less time to write on other blogs leading people astray.

Hey Shleigh: That’s great! I’ll bet you would have loved living in London in the 50′s. You could have put your high beams on your Mustang when cruising and no one would have been able to see them through the smog! Also, if you happened to have been in the funeral business there were several thousand extra deaths a year in London from the excess smog caused by the burning of coal-you would have made a fortune. Of course some of the dead might have been young children-but hey, business is business. Los Angeles would have been a great place for you too to burn up that gas in the 50′s and 60′s. Unfortunately those whacko environmentalist put an end to that smog that we all loved and now we have to breath clean air. Disgusting! Our children will never know what it was like to breath air that tastes and smell like it just came out the tail pipe of a classic 1967 Mustang with a smidgen of lead to boot..
Reply
1.genne says:
April 24, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Shame on you Steve for not knowing the difference-your Federalist friends would be very disappointed.
Reply
2.genne says:
April 25, 2012 at 3:33 pm
You are insane, Steve. Your screen name says it all. Steven Birn is just another name for ever burn and that’s an evil spirit. BTW, keep writing those long, long blogs. It’s taking up your time and you’ll have less time to write on other blogs leading people astray.
Reply

Steven Birn: Gay Basher From the Far Right

27 Apr

Homosexual Agenda Attacks Religious Freedom

APRIL 26, 2012 5 COMMENTS

The homosexual agenda is being pushed by well organized activists with a very clear plan. They’re in the process of targeting small towns, particularly towns known to be surrounded by conservatives. They’ve been targeting Holland, Michigan trying to force a homosexual special rights ordinance. Holland is more liberal than the surrounding area, but it’s hardly San Francisco. They’re also targeting Hutchinson, Kansas with an ordinance which would prohibit churches from discriminating against homosexuals. Thus churches would be prevented from refusing to rent their building to homosexuals for marriages, receptions and such. This is the latest attack on the church from the far left.

The left loves to talk about separation of church and state, as though it’s specifically enshrined in the Constitution. When they talk about separation of church and state what the progressive left really means is that the church stays out of state affairs. They have no problem whatsoever with the state ordering the church around, placing laws and restrictions over it. Thus the left has no problem with ordering churches to pay for contraception even if the church finds it morally unacceptable. Likewise, they have no problem ordering the church to rent space to homosexuals for a fraudulent homosexual wedding even if the church believes that homosexual relations are sin.

First the left came for the Roman Catholics, now they’re coming after conservative protestants. Their goal is two fold. The broader goal of the left is to chip away at religious rights, bringing the church further into the fold and control of the state in the process. In this case, the more direct goal is to gain broader acceptance, even by force, of that which is evil. The left has already been largely successful at convincing young people that there’s nothing wrong with homosexual acts, never mind that they are not what God intended. Now they’re going to attack anyone who disagrees. The free exercise clause of the Constitution means nothing to these people.

In Canada it is illegal for pastors to preach on the sin of homosexual acts. Make no mistake, this is the goal of the left here in America. They not only want government to protect that which is evil but they want to prevent anyone who disagrees from speaking. It’s been largely successful in Canada, pastors are afraid to read certain passages of scripture lest they be arrested for a human rights violation. Is this what we want in the United States? No doubt the left has no problem with it. But those of us who disagree, be forwarned. The ordinance that is being pushed in Hutchinson, Kansas is meant to be a direct attack on conservative Christianity. It’s meant to frighten people into silence. That they’re doing this in the middle of a conservative state is intentional, they’re bringing their war on religious freedom straight to the religious.

Hutchinson Kansas may not pass this ordinance the first time around. Like in Holland, the homosexual activists willcontinue pushing it until the public grows tired of the fight and simply gives up. They’ve been playing this game in Holland for a decade, dividing the city and dividing the city from the surrounding community. All the while they foster hatred of the church and hatred of God. America is at a crossroads concerning religious freedom. Do we truly value religious freedom, even if we disagree with how some people exercise that freedom? Or do we not value religious freedom and wish to have the church subjected to the whims of the state?

One blogger likes this post.
  • LD Jackson

About Steven
I am a Christian saved by grace through faith. I am a conservative, lawyer, husband, father and political junkie.

5 Responses to Homosexual Agenda Attacks Religious Freedom

  1. Dear Steven,
    At the latest world wide homosexual agenda conference we discussed what kind of things us militant homosexuals should be pushing down people’s throat and we came up with a few ideas.
    1. We would like to end the type of homophobic bullying that leads young teens, straight and gay, to take their own lives.
    2. We would like equal rights and freedoms under the law and relevant government policies.
    3. We would like to not be banned from the churches and religions that some of us believe in because we are the way God made us.
    4. We would like to be recognised as people, we are not evil, we are just like you.
    Consider this the homosexual agenda, we hope it will be passed with a significant majority.
    All in favour say aye.
    Lots of rainbows and unicorns,
    The militant gay left.

    • Steven says:

      Homosexuals don’t need to be bullied, they need to have the gospel shared with them. They need to be encouraged to turn from their sin, just like any other unbelieving sinner. Government should not be in the business of favoring people who make sexual choices, which is what the laws being written are an attempt to do. The church should never accept as a member an unrepentant sinner, which is what a practicing homosexual is.

      No one has dened that homosexuals are people. And yes, they are evil. All mankind is according to scripture because of sin. The difference between you and me is two fold. I have repented, not of my will but of His who saved me, and I don’t revel in sin but repent of it. What you want to do is have the church declare that which is sin according to scripture declared not sin. Unfortunately for you God and His word changes not. I would encourage you to repent and follow God’s Holy Word.

  2. LD Jackson says:

    I have long held the opinion that homosexuals are after more than just the freedom to live their lives as they see fit. What they really want is to force the rest of us to accept their sexual preferences as being natural, as if God created them that way. It is not good enough for them to be left alone in their depravity, they want those of us who believe it is unnatural and unholy to accept that depravity as nothing unusual. Their actions over the past several years bear that out, I believe.

    • God did make me this way. He made everyone the way they are, the only difference between me and you is the hatred he gave you and the love he gave me.

      • Steven says:

        That simply isn’t so. Homosexual sex is declared a sin in scripture. The idea that God “made” you a homosexual is simply false. You choose to engage in homosexual relations, no different than any straight person who chooses to engage in sexual relations. That all man is a sinner is not a reason to commit sin and to look the other way when sin is committed.

  3. john says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

CENSOREDxxxxxxxxxxxx BY STEVEN BIRN

  1. HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD NOT ASK FOR FORGIVENESS
  2. You would be very comfortable dude in Saudi Arabia wouldn’t you? Imagine if every law in the old testament was followed verbatim? We could stone adulterers to death. We could cut off the hands of thieves. Slavery would be legal! Every man could have more than one wife! Whoever did any work on the Sabbath day would be put to death! If a women is not a virgin when she married then she would be stoned to death! Great stuff right from the Bible. But, of course these rules are hopelessly antiquated and rejected-except by the Taliban and other extremist Muslims. Yet, Steve, there is one rule from the old testament that you must abide by because of the evil and destruction that it brings to God’s creation-yes-homosexuality. Homosexuality caused the deaths of 60 million in WWII. Homosexuality caused communism to rule Russia for 90 years, the Great Depression and worst of all, homosexuality caused the 911 attack on the World Trade Center. All these terrible incidences are verified to have been caused by the homosexuals. It couldn’t be, could it Steve – that it’s the homophobe in you that causes you to take such strong opposition to homosexuality? you know-its like that yucky feeling you get when you think about two guys kissing. You know, Jesus -he never said one word about gay people. You think there were no gay people in the Holy Land when Jesus lived there? How come no gay people asked to be cured by Jesus? Why didn’t Jesus cure all gays forever? He had the power to do it!