Category: Hypocrisy

Why “Non-Profits” Are Lies

For those who believe in the inherent goodness of academia and trust the altruism of those who run “non-profits” we are here to bust your bubble and remove the scales from eyes which can be done by simply pointing out that Graham Spanier, the enabler of child abuse who ran Penn State for 16 years, was the highest paid college administrator in the nation when he was forced out in November 2011.

Spanier received $2.9 million in 2011-12, including $1.2 million in severance pay and $1.2 million in deferred compensation.

And how can we seriously call an institution that pays it top dog nearly $3 million a “non-profit”.

People have got to wake up and understand that our institutions are abusing our trust.

Why "Non-Profits" Are Lies

 Why “Non-Profits” Are Lies

Link Of The Day

An example of how those who seek to rule others falsely accuse their opponents of doing what their proponents do.

Hat tip Tom C

PepsiCo Beaten Women Are Funny

PepsiCo Beaten Women Are Funny — PepsiCo contracted rapper Tyler, The Creator, to make a commercial for Mountain Dew.

Oh boy, did he. It featured a  white woman with bruises on her face, a brace around her neck and leaning on a crutch trying to pick  her assailant from a police lineup that featured young black men dressed as thugs and a goat. The goat mouths gangster-type threats at her and the ad ends with her fleeing from the room while a detective sips on a Mountain Dew.

PepsiCo pulled the ad and scrubbed it from YouTube as some strangely found it offensive.

It is offensive.

Drink Coke. Heck, drink Sam’s Club or some other store brand. It beats supporting this garbage.

PepsiCo Beaten Women Are Funny

PepsiCo Beaten Women Are Funny

 

PepsiCo Beaten Women Are Funny

Military Losing Freedom Of Conscience?

Military Losing Freedom Of Conscience? — Sharon Sebastian has forwarded this alert from Family Research Council regarding attempts to take away freedom of conscience for our military personnel.

Thank you again, Obama voters.

FYI, Family Research Council in Washington D.C. was the victim of a left-wing terrorist  attack last August. The shooter, James Corkins, a gay activist, said he picked them as a target because the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center labeled them a “hate group”. Why? Because they opposed gay marriage.

Corkins said he was wanted to kill as many as he could and smear Chick-fil-A sandwiches in the faces of their corpses. He was foiled by a security guard who tackled him despite being shot by Corkins.

The very troops who defend our religious freedom are at risk of having their own taken away.

Last week, anti-Christian and left-wing activists met at the Pentagon with military officials to discuss pressing issues in the military. What issues would be of such importance to gain such a high-level hearing?

According to these far-left consultants, religion is one of the chief problems plaguing our troops. As the Washington Post reported, some are saying that “religious proselytizing” is at the top of the list of problems in the armed forces — even on par with sexual assault.

As a result of such complaints from the left, the Air Force has — according to the Post –published, but not yet distributed a new document with the directive that leaders of all levels (including chaplains) may not “promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.” The penalty these secularists are seeking for those who don’t comply with their view of religious speech is court-martial.

If this policy goes forward, Christians within the military who speak of their faith could now be prosecuted as enemies of the state. This has the potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military.

Our brave troops deserve better. If chaplains and other personnel are censored from offering the full solace of the Gospel, there is no religious freedom in the military.

Please join me in signing the petition to Secretary Hagel urging him to protect the religious freedom of our troops – and not to proceed with the purge of religion within the ranks called for by anti-Christian activists.

Sincerely,

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William “Jerry” Boykin
Executive Vice President

 

Military Losing Freedom Of Conscience?

Newspaper Exploits Texas Tragedy

Newspaper Exploits Texas Tragedy — The oh-so-liberal, oh-so-compassionate Sacramento Bee, which is the 27th largest newspaper in the nation, has published a cartoon featuring Texas Gov. Rick Perry saying “Business is booming in Texas,” with the next panel depicting the explosion of the West Fertilizer Co. explosion which killed at least 15 and seriously injured scores of others.

Ho ho ho. How incisive. Being ironic about the suffering of others is just so hip.

These people, these Democrats, who influence so many, make any decent person sick.

Here’s a link to the cartoon at Breitbart.com.

Newspaper Exploits Texas Tragedy
Newspaper Exploits Texas
Newspaper Exploits Texas Tragedy

Congress ObamaCare Exemption Plotted

Congress ObamaCare Exemption Plotted — Politico.com reported April 24 that congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul,

Seems that’s the sort of thing that happens when you pass a bill without reading it.

The hacks claim that not exempting themselves and their aides will result in a “brain drain”.

Ha

Ha ha

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Hey, here’s an idea: exempt EVERYBODY from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of Obamacare.

Any hack voting to exempt himself without extending the same right to all should be voted from office and tarred and feathered.

Vice versa works to.

Obamacare must go. It must go because it hurts the poor, it hurts the needy, it hurts the suffering, it hurts the elderly and, especially, because it hurts the children who are already burdened with a $16.8 trillion national debt due to the actions of this generation.

 

 

Congress ObamaCare Exemption Plotted

Congress ObamaCare Exemption Plotted

Pastors Targeted by Obama’s Justice Department

Pastors Targeted by Obama’s Justice Department

By Sharon Sebastian

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is leading the fight and all Americans have a stake in the outcome. The junior Republican is already a frontrunner in the defense of faith, freedom and patriotism — all of which are under threat today in America. Cruz has exposed six attempts of unprecedented power grabs by the Obama administration in six cases before the Supreme Court:

“If the Department of Justice had won these cases, the federal government would be able to electronically track all of our movements, fine us without a fair hearing, dictate who churches choose as ministers, displace state laws based on the President’s whims, bring debilitating lawsuits against individuals based on events that occurred years ago, and destroy a person’s private property without just compensation.”

(Scribd.com posts the Senator’s full report, The Legal Limit: The Obama Administration’s Attempts To Expand Federal Power)

Cruz, a Harvard Law graduate whom Professor Alan Dershowitz calls “off-the-chart brilliant,” exposes the Obama Justice Department’s hit list. On the hit list is freedom of religion with Christianity as the primary target.  Long a bane to the liberal Left is that the Ten Commandments — that are foundational to the Judeo-Christian faith — served as the biblical inspiration for both the U.S. Constitution and Capitalism. True Christians stand with Israel much to the disdain of Democrat Presidents from FDR, to Jimmy Carter, up to Obama who treats the Jewish nation as an irritant at minimum. True Christianity is a blockade to bigotry and tyrannical aspirations.

In an outrageous attempt to increase its power, the Obama administration attempted to usurp the right of a church to choose its own pastors. In the case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Justice Department reportedly argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that it “had the right to oversee a church’s choosing of ministers.” The Supreme Court foiled Obama’s egregious attempt to curtail a fundamental right of churches.  In a 9-0 opinion, the justices sided in favor of the Lutheran Church. For further details on the case, click here.

Christianity is under siege by the Obama administration. The day Barack Obama swore on the Bible to uphold the U.S. Constitution — which includes the freedoms of speech and religion — the assault began. Obama’s gibes at Judeo-Christian belief and scripture are well documented by a list of affronts, which are easily verified by existing video and audio recordings. Gaining control of who preaches in Christian churches would have given the Obama administration control of the message. Obama acolytes in the pulpit would be in position to convolute scripture to serve their political ideologies.

The takeover of churches has been a longtime goal of Socialist-Progressives in the Democrat Party. In early 2010, I wrote the article, Hijacking the Faith: The Obama Way. In it, I revealed the Obama administration’s assault on Christianity and what was to come:

“Years ago, the head of a major Gay rights organization told Pacifica radio that he thought Bill Clinton could deliver what his group wanted, but when a sitting president failed, he suggested he now understands that you “have to go after the churches.” That is a strategy that the Obama administration appears to have adopted.” (Read more…)

The article, Christian Purge: The Obama Factor, revealed that the hijacking was underway through Obama’s Socialist policy to “redistribute the wealth.” It reads in part:

Christianity is not a call to street activism or Socialism (social justice), Christianity is a call to the Cross. Coercing or manipulating the faith towards anything else is egregious to Biblical doctrine. The Obama administration would be wise to understand that administrations come and go, but no matter how doggedly they wage war against it – the Christian faith based on salvation by Jesus Christ – does not.” (Read more…)

As witnessed by the anti-God vote at the 2012 Democrat Convention, Progressives leading our government today are going to great lengths to escape the authority of God, preferring to live by their own countenance and self-devised morality while attempting to subjugate or eliminate God out of society. In a head-fake to voters, many assume the role as pretenders of faith. Those who outsmart themselves in matters eternal, including Presidents, cherry-pick the Bible and mismatch or purposely convolute scriptural intent to serve their political agenda. Both the Old and New Testaments are clear that God’s Word is the final authority and that He is unchanging. The Bible is the Word of God written through the instruction of the Holy Spirit. The Bible reveals that God, Jesus Christ, is the Word:

JOHN 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

All of us, including those claiming world-class intelligence, fall desperately short of the wisdom of God. Time and again, many of higher intelligence have proven that they are not wise. The tragedy is that that the arrogant have outsmarted themselves and want the rest of us to join them. They have become too smart for the narrow gate as they fancy themselves superior to their Creator. Christianity is a loving faith that looks to share its great blessings. Christians pray for all who may never understand the teachings of Jesus to: “Love one another, even as I have loved you.” Matthew 7:13-15 reveals that it is a narrow gate that leads to Him and all should take heed:

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

God’s message to all is: “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts higher than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55: 8-9

Everyone hears the echo of eternity – even Liberal politicians seeking to deny religious freedom to others. Deeming themselves a greater power over the people than God — is a presumption of all Socialists-Marxists in government. Called pastors belong in the pulpit, not frauds seeking to distort, mock or obscure scripture.

Sharon Sebastian is a columnist, commentator, author, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, “Darwin’s Racists: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow,” highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington.
Pastors Targeted by Obama’s Justice Department

Medicaid Non-Profiting Is Where The Big Bucks Are

Chuck Martini of Upper Providence has informed me that Peter Campanelli is pulling down $2,876,700 as CED of Institute for Community Living in Manhattan which provides Medicare-funded services for New Yorkers.  He also notes that Dennis Verzi, who is vice president of continuing care at Maryhaven Center of Hope on Long Island, which also provides Medicare-funded services for the Empire State, pulls down $1,003,980. And just a vice president mind you. Why Verzi makes more than his CEO Lewis Grossman who gets a measly $643,484.

If you can’t take $2,876,700 to the bank, here’s something you can — one-percenters who support government social programs because they claim to “care”, don’t. At least about others.

You can also bet your bippy this crowd supported Obama and his fellow Democrat thieves.

Medicaid Non-Profiting Is Where The Big Bucks Are

Medicaid Non-Profiting Is Where The Big Bucks Are

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism — Bob Guzzardi has received the email below  from Northampton District Attorney John Morganelli concerning what appears to be an attempt to manipulate the law to extend the term of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief  Justice Ron Castille and four other Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices who will be turning 70 by invalidating the Constitutionally mandated retirement age of 70  (six of the remaining unconvicted justices will be gone in eight years under the mandatory retirment rule so there is a lot of self-interest in the mandatory retirement case as DA Morganelli points out.)

There are solid reasons to retain the mandatory retirement age, not the least of which is restraining the power of government by diluting the power of a few.

Supreme Court Justice Castille and Justice Max Baer will be seeking retention in November 2013.

Morganelli is a Democrat. He also happens to be right on this issue.

From District Attorney John Morganelli:
Pennsylvania’s Constitutional Crisis: Will Judicial Self-Interest Trump the Constitution?

Judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect our constitutional form of government.  But what happens when judicial self-interest collides with the Constitution? Pennsylvania may be  on the precipice of a constitutional crisis.

In 1989 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania’s Constitution which prohibits a judge to remain in office after the age of 70. Since then,  numerous judges have  retired at 70. But recently, a number of jurists  filed lawsuits challenging the restriction.  Then, the Chief Justice, who coincidentally  turns 70 next year, announced that he would seek retention for another 10 year term on the high court even  though next year would be his last if the age restriction remains in place. Next, the eyebrows of many attorneys were raised when the Supreme Court  reached down, bypassing the lower court, and agreed to hear and expedite one of those cases. Is there  anyone who actually believes that despite the clear precedent, all these judges  suddenly woke up one morning and, independently of each other,  decided to sue?

When these actions were filed,  many lawyers questioned  “why” when similar challenges had always failed. A previous panel of the Supreme Court upheld the age restriction in the  Constitution which was approved by the people at the ballot box. In 1991, the US Supreme Court upheld a similar restriction in Missouri’s state constitution. The question is: What has changed? And, what is the rush ? Judges have been retiring for decades at 70.  Pennsylvania judges campaigned knowing their terms were limited by mandatory retirement. Most of them would not have had an opportunity to be a judge but for the age restriction which forced judges to retire and created vacancies.  Now, some want to change the rules and strike down the Constitution on the way.

Many believe that the high court wants a speedy decision  so that a potential ruling can benefit the Chief Justice and the  other 4 Justices who are turning 70 in the next few years.  All of this has fueled speculation by the legal community that the litigation may have been encouraged by a member of the Supreme  Court  itself.  Will any of the Justices recuse themselves? Or, will  the court  assert that the “Rule of Necessity” permits them to hear this case even though all of the Justices have a personal and financial interest in setting aside the prohibition? The “rule of necessity”  is  an exception to the disqualification of a judge who has  a conflict of interest. But it only applies when no other tribunal is available to hear the dispute. Here, there exists a companion  federal action which has now been stayed to allow the Supreme Court to act first and make moot the federal case.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has ordered  the lawyers to specifically  address Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Declaration of Rights  which provides in Section 26  that neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision may discriminate against any person in the exercise of any “civil right.” However, the Supreme Court previously  held that the age restriction   did not violate the Declaration of Rights Discrimination provision. It recognized that that provision was intended to restrain “government”, and that the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Rights do not restrain the power of the people themselves as expressed in the Constitution. Gondelman v. Commonwealth 554 A2d 896 (1989). This provision was intended to prevent “government” from transgressing individuals’ basic “civil rights”. The US Supreme Court in 1991 settled the question that being a judge is not a fundamental right. Gregory v. Ashcroft  501 US 454. Nevertheless,  the Supreme Court now may be  poised to overrule years of precedent by proclaiming that the age restriction is inconsistent with the discrimination clause thus allowing them to get what they want, trample on the Constitution,  and  at the same time maintain that they are actually upholding the constitution.

It appears imprudent  for the Supreme Court to hear this case. This court has been tarnished by the recent conviction of one of the Justices. The Pennsylvania  judiciary in general has been harmed by the  “Kids for Cash” scandal, the Philadelphia Traffic Court report as well as other matters.  The integrity of our courts and of the  judges who sit on them is fundamental to our  system. Taking this case and setting aside the Constitution will be harmful. The  Justices sit at the pinnacle of power, and it is understandable how some may not want to relinquish it.  Like it or not, our Constitution, passed  by the people sets age limits on the ability to exercise that power.  For those who believe that the age restriction is subject to fair debate, the proper method is to amend Pennsylvania’ s Constitution through  the process established: approval by two consecutive  sessions of the legislature, and approval of the people at the ballot box. Setting aside Pennsylvania’s Constitution via judicial fiat by Justices with a personal and financial interest in the outcome is dangerous and wrong.  Only time will tell whether self-interest trumps the Constitution.

John M. Morganelli is the District Attorney of Northampton County and Past President of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. He was the  Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania Attorney General in 2008.

 

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism

 

Jeremy Irons Gay Marriage Open Debate

Jeremy Irons Gay Marriage Open Debate — Actor Jeremy Irons mused some concerns about gay marriage that actually got to the heart of the issue, namely money.

“I mean tax-wise it’s an interesting one, because you see, could a father not marry his son?” Irons said.

Steve Colbert, who is a major source of news for Democrats and low-information types  immediately missed the point and began merciless mocking.

“So, if gay marriage is legalized in England, Jeremy Irons’ son Max, get ready to make your father the happiest man alive!” he said.

Mocking is about the only response supporters of gay marriage have. That and twisting the motivations of opponents.

Few, and nobody serious, wants to prohibit ceremonies. They are private. matters of speech and protected by the First Amendment.

The issue is the money part. For instance, if a father marries his son, as Irons noted, the son escapes paying inheritance taxes. He might even be eligible for other tax breaks, health coverage and certain survivor benefits not originally expected to go to adult children.

Now, some may — like Colbert —  say that a father marrying his son is  silly and  unfair and violates the spirit of this compassionate policy. So explain the rational as to why two unrelated men should be allowed these breaks?

With a widow whose work consisted of bearing and raising children rather than pulling in an income it should be obvious as to why she should get them but clueless and callous one-percenters — like Colbert — have the ability to insulate themselves, at least for the short term, from the consequences of the policies they push. They fail to comprehend the very good reasons why social norms and traditions developed. And except for sneers and mocking, they will be unable to provide a good answer as to why two gay men should be allowed the civil benefits bestowed upon a man and woman who have joined together for the serious and difficult job of creating the future.

Jeremy Irons Gay Marriage Open Debate

Jeremy Irons Gay Marriage Open Debate