Daily Archives: October 31, 2012

Henri 4, le Chat Noir does Halloween

Henri 4 does not see the resemblance.

Henri 4, L’Haunting [2:12]

Music for this video is “The Haunting of Henri”, by Will Braden

Henri says,

“95% of cat owners admit they talk to their cats. Hopefully, with your help and raised awareness, we can get that number down to 50%.”

Henri on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/henrifb
Henri on Twitter: http://twitter.com//HenriLeChatNoir
Henri’s store: http://store.henrilechatnoir.com/
Henri’s book: http://henrilechatnoir.com/book.html


Filed under Funny Stuff

Oct 31 Pray for Our Nation

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  Galatians 5:13-14

LORD, By Your Revelation, from the fullness of Your love, You address us as friends, and move among us, in order to invite and receive us into Your own company. Bless us today with the graces we need to give ourselves completely, in the obedience of faith, to You, the author of revelation.

Comments Off on Oct 31 Pray for Our Nation

Filed under Prayer


White House source says Benghazi attack was botched kidnapping [1:39]

White House Source states Benghazi Attack was attempted kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens.Arranged with Muslim Brotherhood as ‘October Surprise’ by Obama, who wanted to make release of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman more palatable to American people and to boost sagging approval ratings.

1 Comment

Filed under Armed Forces, Barack Obama, Benghazi, Chris Stevens, Muslim Brotherhood, Terrorism

DEMAND a PAPER ballot!

It takes just 60 seconds to REPLACE the ROM

It takes just 10 seconds to HACK the program

2006: Hacker testified under oath it’s impossible to protect e-voting machines

With early voting underway already, more examples are cropping up of electronic voting machines recording “OBAMA” where “ROMNEY” was chosen. The latest come from Ohio and North Carolina, both hotly contested battleground states each candidate needs to win.

Oddly enough (yeah, right), the “errors” only seem to work in that one direction: ROMNEY votes handed over to OBAMA.

The same problems popped up in 2008 and 2010. And they ALL FAVORED DEMOCRATS.

October 31, 2012: Voter Machines AUTO-VOTE for Obama [2:05]

If you experience anything wrong, report it IMMEDIATELY.

Call the TRUE the VOTE Hotline 855-779-2000.

Or email @ freeandfair@truethevote.org

Visit website for more info @ http://www.truethevote.org/

Did You Know?

In 2008, the Netherlands became the first country in Europe to use electronic voting machines. But when convinced how easily they could be manipulated and tampered with, it became the first country to ban them.

Read more @





Filed under Elections, Vote Fraud

The Morality of Voting for an Imperfect Candidate

There is a principle in Moral Theology — the principle of double effect — which, under certain clearly defined conditions, permits us to perform an act that has both a good and an evil effect. In order for that act to be a moral choice, it must meet all four of the following conditions:

1. The act itself must be good or indifferent.

2. The good effect must not be caused by the evil effect.

3. The good effect and not the evil effect must be directly intended by the agent.

4. The good must outweigh the evil.

The Founding Fathers, by drafting, ratifying and implementing the Constitution of the United States, engaged in the most monumental example in American history of deliberately choosing what is commonly called “the lesser of two evils.”

These courageous and devout Christian statesmen consciously, deliberately, purposefully chose to accommodate slavery – in fact, to constitutionally protect it for the next two decades – in the newly independent United States of America.

Slavery is evil. The founders knew this. They could have proclaimed with righteous indignation, “Slavery is evil, and we refuse to enshrine it in our new Constitution.”

That, of course, would have been the end of the convention as the Southern states would have bolted immediately, and the young nation’s slide into chaos would have continued unabated.

Next Tuesday, some feel they face a similar dilemma. They see flaws in the Romney/Ryan ticket and wonder if they can, in good conscience, vote for flawed candidates.

Moral theology says yes. I think Scripture says yes, too. God picked David to be King of Israel, right? He was hardly perfect. Look how that whole Bathsheba thing turned out.

Every citizen has only one of four choices:

A. Vote for Obama/Biden;

B. Vote for Romney/Ryan;

C. Vote for somebody else who hasn’t got a chance;

D. Not vote.

Each person has to check these against the list above. And don’t try to kid yourself that somehow C and/or D are superior choices simply because they let you stick your nose in the air whenever the next president screws up and sniff about how YOU didn’t vote for him.

Plus, you better be very sure that is NOT why you are tempted to choose C and/or D. Because if it is, your choice fails the moral stink test big time.

There is a famous saying, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

It’s not the evil people who are examining their consciences and scouring Scripture for guidance about God’s will concerning this election. It’s the good ones! Therefore, C and/or D are choices for “good men to do nothing” which, by elimination, is a choice to allow evil where you have the power to prevent it.

Personally, I think Moral Theology allows only one choice, which is to get your butt to the polls and vote for Romney/Ryan, lest the light of liberty be extinguished by four more years of a president so awful that he makes the paranoia of Nixon, the appeasement of Carter and the moral degradation of Clinton all rolled up together look kinda not so bad.

But that’s just me.





Filed under Barack Obama, Constitution, Elections, Mitt Romney

Learn some history!

Oct 29, 2012 Hair of the Dog with Stephen Green on Pajamas Media

In this clip [2:40], Andrew Sullivan says, “If Virginia and Florida go back to the Republicans, it’s the Confederacy … entirely. You put a map of the Civil War over this electoral map, you’ve got the Civil War.”

Andrew, buddy, learn some actual history, wouldja? Please?

The Republican Party was created for the express purpose of ending slavery. The first Republican presidential candidate lost, but the second one, Abraham Lincoln, won. (Surprised, Andrew? Didja think Lincoln was a Democrat?)

The Republican Lincoln had three main opponents, because the Democratic Party was unable to agree on whether slavery should be expanded into new states or not.

  • Northern Democrats nominated Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, who had supported the 1856 Supreme Court’s Dred Scott Decision, which ruled that people of African descent were neither U.S. citizens, nor protected by the Constitution.
  • Southern Democrats nominated the pro-slavery incumbent Vice-President, John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, who won the states of the Deep South as well as the border states of Maryland and Delaware.
  • Some southern Democrats joined the Constitutional Union Party which nominated former Senator, Speaker of the House, and Secretary of War John Bell of Tennessee. Although a slaveowner, Bell was one of the few southern politicians to oppose the expansion of slavery into new states.

When our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, won the election, Democrat-majority slave states seceded rather than accept him. When war broke out, Douglas supported the Union; Breckenridge and Bell supported the Confederacy.

Chrissy’s Site Bites @ http://news.webshots.com/photo/2852045420056011884dGGDdV

After the war, the Democratic Party benefited from white Southerners’ resentment of the Republican-imposed Reconstruction and dominated southern politics with a solidly white-supremacist platform that included all those things (e.g., Jim Crow laws) that today’s Democrat fear-mongers run around bleating Republicans want to bring back.

The thing is … Republicans can’t “bring them back” because they were never REPUBLICAN POLICIES. They were products of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party Platform in 1868:

Chrissy’s Site Bites @ http://news.webshots.com/photo/2073437370056011884yqWEJc

The results of the presidential election of 1868:

And the guys under those white hoods? They were Democrats.

The KKK or Ku Klux Klan is the name of three distinct movements in American history which advocated white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration, historically expressed through terrorism.

  1. The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army. A secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies, seeking to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which suppressed Klan activity. However, new groups sprang up and started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks’ voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.
  2. The second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia in 1915. Because of urban industrialization and increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church. At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation’s eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership and it finally faded away in the 1940s.
  3. The third Klan emerged after World War II and was associated with opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation. During the 50s and 60s, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor’s offices, as with Democrat George Wallace of Alabama.

And what does the face of the Democratic Party look like now that most of them don’t wear those white hoods for their violent partays?

Michael Moore, MoveOn.org Create Most Offensive Campaign Ad Ever


So, Andrew, would you like to rethink your stupid remark?

Or would you prefer to squinch your eyes shut tight, put your fingers in your ears and chant “Obama! Obama!” really, really LOUDLY? It’s your choice cuz, hey, it’s a free country (for now).















Filed under Democrats, Elections, Race Relations, Republicans