I thought so!

I thought so!

I thought so!

Of course Michelle clarified her remark:

Michelle Obama Retools "I'm Proud" Remark

But what is so, so funny is this: RetiredArmyMaj, Denise, the beav and the beeper, et al. are in exactly the same position as Hillary Clinton! No matter how hard they protest, it doesn’t seem to matter.

All these people fellow travelers with Hillary.

I don’t care who you are, that’s funny.

That's twice you've cracked me up with that line. Now let's get serious.... You mean to tell me you finally found a Democrat you wouldn't vote for? LOL!

Hope your trip has improved. I'm heading out that way over spring break.
________

"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs

"I realize that FORTY YEARS probably seems like an eternity to you worldly twenty-somethings who know all the answers."

I'll just have to take your word about that. I'll let you know one day, a loooong time from now.

About racism -- I'll have to take the word of people like Herman Cain (such a gracious man to talk with), Alan Keyes (such an inspiring speaker and so intelligent -- wonderful to talk with), Star Parker (inspiring to hear tell about her "welfare" life), Dr. Alveda King (so gracious and an ardent defender of the rights of all children, before and after birth), and so many others whose writings and speeches have inspired me, as well as "ordinary" people who raise their children and grandchildren and care enough to be my friends. Sadly, most of these "black" people have experienced pejoratives from people of all colors, including their darker-skinned associates.

"Because I feel that things haven't changed all that much since then."

What about the FACTS?

Strange that you'd be the one to use "the N-word." I wonder if Cal would approve? Haven't heard a word of complaint from your fellow liberals.

You sound just like Robert Byrd with your "white -----" comment. Did you also engage in similar extra-curricular activities?

That disgusting word is my "favorite pejorative"? You're lying and have no evidence of your charge. You're the champion name-caller on here.

"The ones who used to shout the N-word from the upper stands...I guess it made them feel important."

Lying again, Basmati. Maybe that's what you did, but not me or the people that I associate with.

Is that why you're so much for "Obama the 'Magic Negro'" -- "white guilt"?

Don't worry, your hatred is definitely NOT "underlying." It's evident for all to see.

If you don't approve of my language, relating a first person incident in proper historical context, feel free to indulge your "inner hall monitor" and report my post to the Citizen staff.

Nice attempt to reconstitute yourself as a color-blind advocate of inclusion. Many people who are unaware of your history of barely disguised race-baiting commentary on this site might even believe your earnest revisionism! (You might have been just a tad more believable had you not concluded your ode to racial harmony with a slimy "Magic Negro" comment, your momentary lapse spoils the effect somewhat...but gives us insight into just how insufferably patronizing you can be!!)

Finally, I want you to know that I don't hate you, Denise. I have nothing but Christian love for you!

_______________________________________________________
Truthsleuth Speaks!
Don't Click This Link, Denise!

__

I also was in high school in the late 70's none of that went on at the school I went to about the race- we got along with people. Actually, most were the popular ones- played football etc.

That is what we are people.

Sky a race-baiter- as you call it, I don't see that. I see Sky has questions and concerns about a person who will probably be our next President- like I do also- it does not have anything to do with race.
I doubt we will get our answer.

It's who Obama is associated with and what Obama church stands for- I am sure if you saw that on SBC what would you say? But again we have Pastors that are of every race- we don't see color. We see people.

Life is too short to argue over things like race- my house this does not happen- I think it would be good if all the USA would get this.

These are just questions we want answers for and all we get is that we are racist?

Again Sniffles- I value people more than that- this is written again with respect that you can disagree-

_____________________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

I knew basmati was wrong.

Isn't he usually?

Have a pleasant evening!

May I ask were you living back in those day- and by the way- everyone knows about the slave time-

We are not living in the slave time now- nor would I have done it way back then- and other denominations did the same thing- as a matter of fact I don't agree with it. I do have a friend not my race that told me that there were people like me that did not stand for it.

We don't have slaves now.

Jimmy Carter is not Southern Baptist he is Cooperative Baptist- Google CBF Baptist- he is something totally different.

Also go to this site for more on Southern Baptist- SBC.net-

I value people and so do the people I go to church with- would you like to come and see? I welcome you as everyone else.

It's not about denominations, it is a about a relationship with Jesus.

It's okay if you see things different- I still respect you- and everyone else.

That's why it's called "Land Of The Free" Freedom to worship the way we choose.

If you go to these sites you won't find one racist thing- with Southern Baptist Today- Love sees no color..

You are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else.

I find you a very valuable person.

I respect you differences. I choose to be civil and do that.

Cooperative Baptist- Carter click here. Different from Souther Baptist.

click here

I knew basmati was wrong about Southern Baptists, but I don't have personal experience to speak from.

Jimmy Carter:

click here- No longer Souther Baptist- if you read the difference he changed to- it's alot different- that's fine. That is what he chooses.I respect that.

I found this site for "Southern Baptist Chruch"- Now again, I am not saying you have to believe it- but I don't see anywhere that color is an issue- I have looked and looked and looked, not there.

Where I go to Church race is not an issue- btw if you want to know we are not all white- God see our hearts and not our skin- but I don't see on this site anything about race.

Have a good day.

click here for site.

sorta sounds like South Africa and Apartheid.

Yes there is a lot wrong with it, and I leave you with WWJD ?

Jackyldo, Georgia Republicans feel your pain! "Whites in the minority" is a concept too terrible to envision!

Thats why Georgia Republicans are rallying around HR536, legislation that will curtail both abortion and birth control in the state of Georgia. The white birth rate will skyrocket!

I won't bight.
However, I would make a bet that you plan to change one word in much of these "beliefs" to something like Islamic, or black!

Could be KKK or Birch!

Because blacks are caught in a Catch-22 that racists can use against them. Everybody knows exactly what is meant if you were to say "Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian" because of the historical context. Substituting another ethnic group for "white" does not connote the same thing because the historical context changes. For instance, would you consider "Unashamedly Polish and Unapologetically Christian" or "Unashamedly Spanish and Unapologetically Christian" racists? Of course not. How about a black-inclusive only name, "Unashamedly Ugandan and Unapologetically Christian". Nope, still not racists. Substituting "black" for "white" is only controversial and racist to the extent that the historical context of the usage of "white" is considered. This is not the fault of blacks or Africans.

Yes, that system of beliefs are racist.

Interesting - they look suprisingly familiar.....

United Church of Christ Black Value System

--------------------------------------------------------
“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

Jeff,

Stick to the topic - Barack did not put his hand over his hear or sing the national anthem. He is ashamed to be identified as an American.

Picture of Hussein Obama without his hand over his heart during the national anthem - source - SNOPES

Typical liberal - trying to change the subject when they can't refute facts.

You and your terrorist appeasing father need to stick to spreading peace around the world.

“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the DUMB masses.’”

Here it is again from another source (not that facts matter):

Obama Nabbed by the Patriot Police

I still maintain that you’re behind with the slander and innuendo. I checked the klan website, sure enough it’s down. However they promise to add content soon. Hopefully that’ll help you keep up.

So.... Obama is unpatriotic because of the placement of his hand, during the National Anthem... at a steak fry?

So.... what does this photo say about Bush - help us out here. (hunger pains...um...IBS...checking his fly...um....I don't think he's covering his heart...)

OMG! BUSH MUST BE UNPATRIOTIC - PUTS HAND ON TUMMY DURING NAT'L ANTHEM

------------------------
GOD BLESS THIS MESS

The more I read about Trinity "christian" (???) church the more disturbing I find their message to be.

You know if this country is so bad they can always go back to where they came from.

This country is not perfect, but I would never go back to Germany the country that slaughtered my relatives. I do salute the American flag, this country is still the best country to live in.!!

The more I listen to him and read about him, I think he may be the deceiver sent to destroy the world.

back to find you've both gone batty on me! Please tell me you jest; yu kid; you joke with us. Please? I want to feel like we can once again have reality based conversations.

"Read the book of Revelations to see the true face of obama. The similarities are frightening."

No nice way to say it, Sky. This quote from you makes you sound as if sanity has taken a leave of absence from you.

Kevin "Hack" King

Sorry there is no nice way for me to say what I am thinking.

I will not vote for someone who will not salute the AMERICAN flag. (yes I have seen the snopes links both ways,...one says that the non-salute was a one time thing, the other says he won't salute the flag)

I will not vote for someone who goes to a church that has sermons titled "Death to White America" there is a link here on the citizen, and also I have relatives in Chicago who claim Trinity United is well known for controversy. What does it mean when obama's minister says that 9/11 was the white mans due, or deserved??

I will not vote for someone who wants to "disperse" my hard earned tax dollar for people who don't want to work.

I will not vote for a muslim who supports another country. Obama's minister and I can only assume obama himself wants to only send cash to africa to help the poor. We have plenty of poor people here if this is your country of choice. The churches here should support the poor people here first, if they are good Americans. The churches should put their money where their mouths are, and support the poor people. I prefer this to the government re-distributing my tax dollar.

While we are at it I'm sick of the term "african american" either you are an American or you are not...which is it??

I'm not a German Jew, or an Israeli Jew, I'm an American Jew, and this is where my loyalty lies. Not with a country that slaughtered my relatives.

I will not vote for someone who wants my tax dollar to supply health care for everyone.

The more I hear of obama the more he sounds like the anti-christ. He has empty promises of peace....

I am whacking that hornet's nest just one more time, it just dawned on me that the answer to all our problems with Obama (and politically) is the same answer to all our problems with the Fair Tax...READ THE BOOK. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

The hornets aren't buzzing and the Fair Tax is gaining firmer traction all the time with the people, regardless of how it is misrepresented. But, fear not.... Your IRS and our corrupt tax system are in safe hands. Congress and especially the Senate will protect the powers of their 'manipulation wing' of the government to the end.

That is something you can safely put your faith in.

________
In regards to Democrats, Republicans, gangs, and other scads of coterie Kool-Aide drinkers; Remember this..... Eagles Don't Flock

it is, most certainly, not MY IRS. And the fact that the Fair Tax is gaining traction, I think, attests more to the fact that many people are joining the movement (and, incidently, becoming Christians) without first critically reading the book (s). bbbbuuuuzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Keep the faith

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

I was on with the Fair Tax before reading the book and after reading the book I am on board even more. We have a system that is completely broke. I can't figure out why this does not make sense to you. To me it's just common sense, but hey, like Git said, not to worry, our corrupt governmet won't let it happen. It takes the power away and keeps them from spending money frivously. Just look at yesterdays debacle at the senate hearings with Clemens and McNamme, that was just one of probably tens of thousands of ways our government spends with absolutley nothing to show for it. But as long as we keep voting these morons into office we get what we pay for. Another example, more local, was yesterdays vote to abandon the roads. Another issue, yes, but still the same result. Men and women that gain power and stop listening to the people. Read and read again the Fair Tax, at some point it will begin to make sense for you. I promise. Keep the faith, I enjoy reading your points of view.

Let me briefly explain why the FairTax doesn’t make sense.

It will reduce your gross pay to your net “take home pay,” after which you will still have to pay the 23% FairTax on everything.

It imposes a 23% tax on rent.

It imposes a 23% tax on gasoline.

It imposes a 23% tax on your mortgage interest.

It imposes a 23% tax on the interest on your credit card debt.

It imposes a 23% tax on medical insurance payments made to you.

It imposes a 23% tax on accident insurance payments made to you.

It imposes a 23% tax on disability insurance payments made to you.

It imposes a 23% tax on long-term health care insurance payments made to you.

It imposes a 23% tax on all services including accounting and legal fees.

All of your utility bills: gas, electric, telephone, internet service, etc. would be subject to the 23% FairTax.

When the 23% “revenue neutral” figure was calculated, the FairTax people added the tax to all government purchases to inflate the amount of good being taxed (reducing the overall tax rate necessary). However, when calculating the cost of government they did not include the cost of paying the tax. This fraud was specifically condemned by Bush’s Treasury Department.

The Treasury Department and the President’s Advisory Committee on Tax Reform (headed by Republican senator Lindsey Graham) both conclude it would be the largest shift of taxes from the wealthy to the middle class in history. Middle class was defined as those making between $50,000 and $200,000.

President’s Advisory Committee on Tax Reform rejected the proposal mainly because the prebate program was calculated to be the largest welfare program in the history of the United States.

All of your savings, which you have already paid income tax on, is subject to the 23% FairTax.

Incidentally, the FairTax people often mention the work of Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff in support of the tax. What they neglect to tell you is that Kotlikoff himself does not support the FairTax.

You may still be for it but hopefully this explains why some people are not.

Jeff C. maybe the fair tax will curb the type of consumer spending that is causing families to go deep in debt and not plan for retirement.

Think about it, if consumer spending went down and the government had less funding, limited government would become a reality.

I wish I that was not the case.

I call BS..

In everyone of your comments, you fail to recognize the federal income taxes that are incumbent on everything we deal with on a day to day basis.

But I'm sure you'll say whatever JIMMY has told you to say.

All that being said, why does this CHANGE scare so many people so much? Does it rob some of power? Something scares the you know what out of many. The mind wanders.

With that I say, Good Day..

Jeff, please review This article, this type of rhetoric certainly wouldn't be coming from someone who supports the Fairtax, would it?

This article is for Sniffle's review. If I remember correctly, he linked an article by Bartlett on the Fairtax, and I would be interested in a response to this article.

Jeff, Here's another one for you to comment on. Specifically, how can the conclusions reached by this committee hold any water if ONE aspect of the Fairtax was changed to reach said conclusions?

I respect you researching this item before discussing it - which is more than some do before speaking on it.

Rock I have beaten the FairTax to death here and FYI I am listing the blogs for you if you’d like to see what I have to say about it. Like my positions or not, I think it’s safe to say that I have adequately studied the issue and researched my conclusions.

Frankly what I have found (as you can see if you go through the blogs) is that the FairTax supporters almost universally have no idea what the FairTax is or what it does. Go through the blogs and you will see that every single challenge to my comments was proven by me to be false no matter how sure or adamant the FairTaxers were to begin with. This started out with the Huckabee people who called in the state FairTaxers who then called in the national FairTax pundits. None could refute a single thing that I said. Read the blogs and see for yourself. They would start off with adamant claims, move to obfuscation, refuse to answer direct questions, quit blogging, and finally, for those who stayed, resignation that I was right. Every single time.

Further, the FairTax is dead and gone. There is simply no chance at all of it ever being enacted. None whatsoever. Somehow the FairTax people seem to have convinced themselves that there is a grand conspiracy by Republicans, Democrats, the Bush administration and everyone else in the United States to deny them a fair hearing. You will see this over and over in the blogs. Just look at Spyglass’s comment above. No substance at all, just the statement implying that my short listing of some of the many flaws is probably part of a conspiracy between my father and me bent on denying people the wonders of the FairTax. The reality is that many, many people and virtually every national elected official have reviewed the FairTax; many with the hope of supporting it. The reason they do not support it is that it is a huge fraud, a huge and massive shift of taxes from the wealthy to the middle class.

Just to give you an indication, I looked at the article you posted and found this: “The beauty of the FairTax is that taxing wealth at 23% …… this is dramatically lower than the 30 to 45% … confronting most workers…” etc. etc.

Total crap. 80% of the people in the US who pay taxes pay 15% or less. Read the blogs below and you can find the links to the Treasury Department, IRS and Congressional Budget Office to prove it.

FairTax Follies

Shelby, Gene, Don and the FairTax

FairTaxers Gene or Don help me out here

Giving up on the FairTax argument

10 FairTax questions for dculling

Disappointed in FairTaxers response

So, Kotlikoff is full of crap and he doesn't support the FT? Hmm...

The articles that I linked clearly showed an error in your original post. Also, I never suggested that you hadn't thoroughly researched this subject, as you certainly have!

Next, what about the president's committee that you have used in your past objections? They didn't study the fairtax in its true form - yet their findings are still accurate?

I find it interesting that you and others are so vehemently against the FT, yet you offer no other solutions or ideas about how to improve the current system.

To each their own I suppose.

I did not mean to imply that Kotlikoff is full of crap just because I think his proposal unworkable and I was in error about his support for the FairTax. I was thinking about Dr. Dale Jorgenson, another sponsor who has renounced support for the FairTax and come out with his own tax plan which he calls “Efficient Taxation of Income”, described in his book Investment, Vol. 3: Lifting the Burden: Tax Reform, the Cost of Capital, and U.S. Economic Growth

Oops, sorry.

If you’ll state the specific error in my original post you are referring to I’ll try to address it.

As to the claim that the president’s commission did not study the FairTax, I believe that you are clearly mistaken. They specifically studied the FairTax and other proposals. I have responded to this specific assertion in great detail with references here (scroll down to “The problem dculling”):

The problem dculling

You are not the first to find it interesting that I offer no alternative solution as you will see if you read my previous blogs. The fact that I oppose the FairTax does not obligate me to invent another tax system for the United States.

Incidentally, do you dispute any of the facts about the FairTax I listed above in the “Blazing” blog? If not, do you support the FairTax in spite of them? And if so, then we have arrived back where I began this months ago. What started this all off was when I contended originally that because of those facts about the FairTax it could not ever, ever be implemented. Do you disagree?

You, sir...

Specifically, those you made on HR 25/S 1025 Sec 206

I'll provide specific quotes so those who are uninformed will have an idea of what I am referencing:

Sec 206. Insurance Proceeds Credit.

"For Fairfax purposes, insurance premiums have two components: (1) dollars paid back as claims, and (2) dollars kept. The dollars kept are what is paid for the service of insuring the policyholder. The Fairfax is paid on THE PURCHASE OF THIS SERVICE, but not on the dollars paid back as claims. This applies to all types of insurance: Life, Health, p & c (Property & Casualty), liability, marine, fire, accident, disability and LTC (Long-Term Care)".

Jeffc, the above assumptions are consistent with our current tax policies. For instance, employer paid DI policies (LTD & STD) are Taxable, whereas employee paid DI policies aren't taxable...I only mention this item as you reference "disability payments made to you".

Jeffc, I attempted to edit my earlier post before you responded, but I didn't have the chance. I wanted to give you kudos for ignoring the personal attacks on this blog. I'm sure you've dealt with them for years, but you do a good job of shrugging them off and sticking to the discussion(s) at hand....

That's all I have for tonight...

Have a good weekend, my friend!

I am looking at a copy of the FairTax legislation here on the Congressional website:

HR 25

The part you quoted as appearing under Sec 206. “Insurance Proceeds Credit” does not seem to exist. Where did you get it? You can’t look at the FairTax propaganda websites and be sure of anything. They just make it up, thinking rightly that people will not read the legislation. I have complained about this over and over. For instance here:

The problem dculling

In fact, I complained about this specific topic when Ashford Schwall, one of the national FairTax bloggers was (let’s be generous and not say lying), expressing a deliberately misinformed opinion about insurance claims:

The problem Ashford

Sec. 206 (a) clearly and specifically applies the FairTax to, “a payment from an insurer by virtue of an insurance contract”. Sec. 206 (b) (A) then allows a credit against the payment for the “the amount of the payment made by the insurer to the insured,” in other words the premiums that you have made.

Sec. 206 (e) applies the FairTax to payouts from “life insurance contract, a health insurance contract, a property and casualty loss insurance contract, a general liability insurance contract, a marine insurance contract, a fire insurance contract, an accident insurance contract, a disability insurance contract, a long-term care insurance contract, and an insurance contract that provides a combination of these types of insurance.”

If you get any type of insurance payment from an insurance company, deduct the premium you paid and then give 23% of what’s left to the government for the FairTax.

There is absolutely not a provision to exempt "dollars paid back as claims" as you stated. At least I cannot find it. The legislation seems clear that dollars paid as claims are taxed.

The item that I am referencing is the FT in "plain english" - call it propaganda if you will, but it summarizes the FT nicely.

Essentially, the FT is NOT payable on goods & services when said payment is made by the insurance company directly to a provider of goods and services. The tax has already been paid by the policyholder when the insurance was purchased. I'm not sure if you are interested, but the document is linked below:

Click

I read the link from FairTax.org concerning section 206 and it says the “For FairTax purposes, insurance premiums have two components: (1) dollars paid for claims and (2) dollars kept. The dollars kept are what is paid for the service of insuring the policyholder. FairTax is paid on the purchase of this service, but not on the dollars paid back as claims.”

I defy anyone to find this distinction in the actual legislation HR25. It is simply not there.

There is no provision in HR25 that exempts insurance payments made to you from being taxable as income. The break out of the insurance premiums into two components as stated by the FairTax.org website is simply not in the legislation, they just made it up.

You may be entirely right and insurance payouts are not taxable. There is a specific provision in HR25 which exempts businesses from paying taxes on insurance payments. I would suspect that if this applied to individuals there would not be a distinct provision differentiating businesses.

But, you have moved my position to one of uncertainty and so I am going to go toast your acumen with a nice glass of Pinot. Quite possibly two.

Anyway, the whole point is moot. Why argue about legislation which is never going to be implemented?

And now I’ve got to get together my records and stuff so I can take it to my accountant next week so he can do my taxes.

I wish there was some better way…..

That's one of the unfortunate items at hand, the FT will most likely never be enacted. There are just too many hands in the cookie jar for the legislation to become law. With that being said, in the near future, I'm hopeful that some type of meaningful tax reform will happen...

So my auto insurance premiums will go up 25-30%?
Life Insurance also?
You know that dab of prebate won't buy my beer and all this?

You don't understand these people, being a democrat.
The only thing they want is for taxes to be lowered on those earning two to ten times the average earnings.

Now the deficit thus occurring can be made up from borrowing from China, or from those making average earnings! That is it. Maybe cutting out entitlements entirely.

All the gibberish about what congress MAY pass when it is a bill, is all conjecture.

Bigger lies have been sold before (Hitler).

All three of those are using (posting from) the same connection.

What are you saying?
I've seen nothing on here from a Nitpicker or a dollardayandfound---whatever that is!
You are just wildly guessing about other people's business. What do you get out of that?

thanks for the kind words. It is certainly true that I have some major philosophical differences with some folks on here, but believe me, it is not personal. All I try to do is to get people to think and see another side of the issue. In order for democracy {or representative democracy} to work. we have to realize that all points of view must be considered before getting to the decision-making. The more people we get involved in the discussions, the more representative the ultimate decisions will be {and this is why I am a Democrat, incidently}. Keep the faith

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Please explain exactly how my post "insult(s) every black voter"

It isn't about blacks in general. It's about Hussein Obama. He is a fruitloop, and a nutcase that doesn't want to offend people in other countries by showing that he loves his country. Anyone who doesn't have a problem with that is voting for him based purely on the color of his skin, like 85% of blacks in Fayette did.

“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

If you are a true American, there is only one side to choose. You salute the AMERICAN FLAG!!!!!!!

If you are a true American the choice is easy. If your commitment and heart belong to another country, you need to go and live in that country if it is so great.

Did I say anything about saluting the flag?
Are you saying Obama never salutes the flag?

Yes that is what I'm saying I have never seen this muslim salute the American flag.

The more I learn about the filth being preached at his church, I doubt we will ever see him salute the American flag.

It’s Obama saluting the flag! Multiple pictures!

Fact Checker

I know that facts are totally irrelevant but it’s a little unsettling to read you call him a Muslim in one sentence and object to his church, which you must surely know is not Muslim, in the very next sentence.

May I humbly suggest that you accuse him of being Muslim in one blog and then condemn his church in another separate blog? It may make the cognitive dissonance a little less jarring.

For those interested, here’s some info on Holy Trinity church which is affiliated with the United Church of Christ:

Holy Trinity

Or find the Newsweek article about it.

From the website: Obama's Church

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

is that he's the most liberal of ALL the 100 Senators.

I read the National Journal’s rating with suspicion simply because they did not rate him as high as Dennis Kucinich (apples/oranges Senators/Representatives.. even so). In previous years he was rated 16th and 10th most liberal by the Journal. Hillary was placed 32nd last year. Out of the 65 votes in the rating that both Senators cast a vote, how many would you think were voted differently between Obama and Clinton? Two. A measure that sought to establish an Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints and a measure that sought to allow certain immigrants to stay in the United States while renewing their visas.

The National Journal did the same thing last time against Kerry; rating him back in the pack until he looked like he was going to be the nominee then suddenly jumping him up to the number one most liberal.

After criticism, the Journal has promised to release its methodology in late March.

Nevertheless, Obama is liberal, no disputing you there. Just adding a little info.

Incidentally, the Journal refused to rate McCain’s conservativeness saying he had missed too many votes. When it was pointed out that McCain missed less than Clinton or Obama (who they did rate) they issued a statement saying McCain seemed “sufficiently conservative” to be rated and that rating will be forthcoming. Last year he was rated more liberal than all but two of his GOP colleagues. I’m not sure where that put him on the overall Senate scale.

I could not disagree more. The National Journal is a top-notch non-partisan publication.

If you can think of a more non-partisan publication - please, share it with us and do it often.

National Journal is a weekly magazine that provides "Insight for Insiders" through nonpartisan reporting on the current political environment as well as emerging political and policy trends. National Journal was first published in 1969 and is now part of National Journal Group, a division of Atlantic Media Company. It was purchased by David G. Bradley in 1997.

The magazine has been recognized for excellence with three National Magazine Awards in its history.

The published ratings are the published ratings. What is the controversy? Its all public for everyone to see.

But, partisan or non-partisan, if I had to be limited to a single source for news and commentary, I'd pick The Economist.

was in the top 40 for most Conserative Senators. Just a guess. I hope I'm wrong.

Example 1

Example 2

Obama is usually ranked about 10th - not number one but more liberal than about 85%-95% of the US Senate depending on what poll you look at.

Just keeping the facts straight.

Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

You can C&P if you like.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Did anyone else see the picture of his grandmother in Kenya?
She was sitting and holding a chicken.

Yes, you can see her here.

Click Below:

Sarah Obama

and I agree with the statement UNDER the picture, too. Politics as usual will change only when we, the people, demand that it change. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.