I am only speaking for myself, but I, for one am getting really sick and tired of people who constantly demand apologies from anyone who says or does something they disagree with. It's BS.
If a person is pro-gay, they have every right to speak their mind without being vilified by those who disagree. And those who are anti-gay have the same right. There is never any need to apologize for standing up for what you believe in. The ONLY time an apology is in order is if and when someone says or does something that is inconsistent with their own beliefs - not being true to self.
And the only thing worse than those demanding apologies are those who cave in, and apologize for having stood up for their beliefs. The apology is almost always insincere. It's like someone saying they love you only because you asked them to - it's meaningless.
The Washington Redskins have nothing to apologize for because of their name. People who favor gay marriage have nothing to apologize for, nor do those who oppose it. When we allow a few whiny malcontents to dictate what we must think and say, for fear of being called "racist", "homophobe" or other derogatory term, then we become a nation of sheep, rather than a nation of lions. And I need not remind you that sheep have another name - PREY!
Look, if a person says he believes a politician to be a moron and says so, he should never apologize for that, nor does anyone have a right to demand such an apology. If, on the other hand he calls the person a moron but does not really believe them to truly be a moron, then perhaps an apology is in order.
America used to be a nation of people who stood up for their convictions, and that made us strong. Now I am afraid we have become a nation of apologists - and that makes us weak. The most important reason America has lost so much respect in the world lately is simply because we have a leadership that has shown a penchant for apologizing, and retreating. No one can respect someone who cowers to the will of others.
/
Monday, January 27, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Lawless White House Enforces A Law That Does Not Exist
Headed to the Supreme Court is the question (which is no question at all) as to whether or not a person can buy a hunting rifle for someone's birthday.
I say this is not a question because transfers of rifles - even handguns - is completely legal. In fact, Congress shot down the liberal attempt by Obama to require background checks on any transfers.
But that does not hinder Mr. Obama or his henchman, Eric Holder, neither of which has any use for the Constitution or Congress. Or the law, for that matter. The feds are taking this to court because a police officer purchased a hunting rifle for his uncle and they busted him for it, even though it has never been illegal. I might add that the uncle is not an ex-con or anything that would preclude him from owning guns. He is a legal, honest citizen.
Last year Congress was faced with legislation that might have made such transfers illegal by requiring background checks for any transfer. But even the Democrats voted against it, as it was a blatant violation of our rights. But the lawless Obama administration does not care - to them, the law does not matter. All that matters is what THEY want.
Ever since the first percussion weapon was invented, people have had the right to transfer them. When my Dad passed away, I inherited his rifles and shotguns. There was no background check. But according to the anti-2nd Amendment morons, that should be illegal. Under their reign, if they were to succeed, a father would no longer be able to buy his son his first target rifle, or hunting rifle. People would not be able to inherits guns from those who have passed away - they government would have to confiscate them. You would not be able to sell a gun you no longer want or need. You would not even be able to buy a purse gun for your wife, for her personal protection.
Fortunately, the anti-gun nuts have not succeeded, not even among most Democrats. But again, that has not stopped Holder or Obama from bullying legal gun owners, threatening them, and even having them arrested.
And as ridiculous as it may seem, since there is no law against transferring guns, the Obama Administration is wasting the courts time on a non-issue - an issue that Congress already decided.
I can't wait until we toss those lawless clowns to the curb in 2016 and return America to a country that respects the law, instead of being brow-beaten by the corrupt and lawless bunch in the current administration.
/
I say this is not a question because transfers of rifles - even handguns - is completely legal. In fact, Congress shot down the liberal attempt by Obama to require background checks on any transfers.
But that does not hinder Mr. Obama or his henchman, Eric Holder, neither of which has any use for the Constitution or Congress. Or the law, for that matter. The feds are taking this to court because a police officer purchased a hunting rifle for his uncle and they busted him for it, even though it has never been illegal. I might add that the uncle is not an ex-con or anything that would preclude him from owning guns. He is a legal, honest citizen.
Last year Congress was faced with legislation that might have made such transfers illegal by requiring background checks for any transfer. But even the Democrats voted against it, as it was a blatant violation of our rights. But the lawless Obama administration does not care - to them, the law does not matter. All that matters is what THEY want.
Ever since the first percussion weapon was invented, people have had the right to transfer them. When my Dad passed away, I inherited his rifles and shotguns. There was no background check. But according to the anti-2nd Amendment morons, that should be illegal. Under their reign, if they were to succeed, a father would no longer be able to buy his son his first target rifle, or hunting rifle. People would not be able to inherits guns from those who have passed away - they government would have to confiscate them. You would not be able to sell a gun you no longer want or need. You would not even be able to buy a purse gun for your wife, for her personal protection.
Fortunately, the anti-gun nuts have not succeeded, not even among most Democrats. But again, that has not stopped Holder or Obama from bullying legal gun owners, threatening them, and even having them arrested.
And as ridiculous as it may seem, since there is no law against transferring guns, the Obama Administration is wasting the courts time on a non-issue - an issue that Congress already decided.
I can't wait until we toss those lawless clowns to the curb in 2016 and return America to a country that respects the law, instead of being brow-beaten by the corrupt and lawless bunch in the current administration.
/
Monday, December 30, 2013
Stonewalled On Benghazi - Is There A Reason?
It's been well over a year since four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, and not a single person has been held accountable. Moreover, the folks running the show - President Obama and his minions - refuse to allow any answers to come forth in regard to the important questions. Questions like:
What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi when his place was in Tripoli?
Why were numerous pleas for beefing up security ignored?
Moreover, why was security actually reduced?
And why did Obama not even make any attempt to aid our people?
And, of course, why did the administration put so much effort into the lie about a video being responsible?
A 4-star General by the name of Lyons stated last year that there are reasons for all of the above. He claims the Obama administration willfully and with intent encouraged an abduction of Ambassador Stevens, in an attempt to hold a "hostage exchange" so the enemy could get their "blind sheik" back. If true, this would answer all the questions, above.
And the general's story implies the only reason Stevens was murdered is because the enemy storming the consulate felt betrayed, because despite an order to "stand down" (why?) two of our guys fought, killing dozens of the attackers.
Well, that's the story according to a general, and one that answers all the questions - including the question as to why we have no answers to any of those questions.
When we consider many other facts, things begin to clear up a bit.
Obama was born and raised a muslim
His first official act was to try and appease the muslims in his speech in Egypt
His administration led the way to the fall of the Egyptian secular government
His administration led the way to the fall of Libya, now in enemy hands
His administration pulled our troops from Iraq, now a stronghold for Iran
His administration has insured that Afghanistan is not an ally
His administration kept out of the Syrian uprising, making way for terrorist groups to settle in
His administration spent 2 years in secret negotiations with Iran that get us nothing, yet gives Iran permission to continue producing fissile materials
His administration has consistently been at odds with Israel
AND NOW - remember that lady lawyer who went to prison until 2018 for helping the terrorist "Blind Sheik" smuggle messages to Al Qaeda? Well, the Obama Administration just sprung her from prison. She's free. Go ahead, libs - tell me which side Obama is on..
In fact, it could be said that the Obama administration could not have done more for Islam and jihadists if they had actually been part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group declared as terrorist, with whom Obama spent many hours in the White House.
Sometimes, things just are not as they appear.
And sometimes - they are!
Just sayin'...
What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi when his place was in Tripoli?
Why were numerous pleas for beefing up security ignored?
Moreover, why was security actually reduced?
And why did Obama not even make any attempt to aid our people?
And, of course, why did the administration put so much effort into the lie about a video being responsible?
A 4-star General by the name of Lyons stated last year that there are reasons for all of the above. He claims the Obama administration willfully and with intent encouraged an abduction of Ambassador Stevens, in an attempt to hold a "hostage exchange" so the enemy could get their "blind sheik" back. If true, this would answer all the questions, above.
And the general's story implies the only reason Stevens was murdered is because the enemy storming the consulate felt betrayed, because despite an order to "stand down" (why?) two of our guys fought, killing dozens of the attackers.
Well, that's the story according to a general, and one that answers all the questions - including the question as to why we have no answers to any of those questions.
When we consider many other facts, things begin to clear up a bit.
Obama was born and raised a muslim
His first official act was to try and appease the muslims in his speech in Egypt
His administration led the way to the fall of the Egyptian secular government
His administration led the way to the fall of Libya, now in enemy hands
His administration pulled our troops from Iraq, now a stronghold for Iran
His administration has insured that Afghanistan is not an ally
His administration kept out of the Syrian uprising, making way for terrorist groups to settle in
His administration spent 2 years in secret negotiations with Iran that get us nothing, yet gives Iran permission to continue producing fissile materials
His administration has consistently been at odds with Israel
AND NOW - remember that lady lawyer who went to prison until 2018 for helping the terrorist "Blind Sheik" smuggle messages to Al Qaeda? Well, the Obama Administration just sprung her from prison. She's free. Go ahead, libs - tell me which side Obama is on..
In fact, it could be said that the Obama administration could not have done more for Islam and jihadists if they had actually been part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group declared as terrorist, with whom Obama spent many hours in the White House.
Sometimes, things just are not as they appear.
And sometimes - they are!
Just sayin'...
Sunday, December 22, 2013
When A Liberal Is Not A Liberal
There are liberals, and there are far-left liberals. Liberals on the far left are anything but liberals. They are communists and socialists looking to dominate the world by controlling all individuals from cradle to grave.
In the dictionary, the definition is as follows:
lib·er·al (adj) - broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
Now ask yourself - whenever a far-left liberal tries to shut down or penalize opposing viewpoints, would you call that "tolerant of different views"? When a so-called liberal calls respected scientists who dispute the Global Warming theory as "backward deniers", would you call that "broad-minded"? And when these same loons believe that it is okay for personal freedoms to be sacrificed for the sake of some political agenda (TSA, NSA, IRS scandal etc), would you say that is "protecting person freedom"? And when a "liberal" calls the self-proclaimed slut*, Sandra Fluke, a hero, but calls Sarah Palin, who has been true to one man for 24 years a slut, would you call that honest? (*The unmarried Sandra Fluke gave a speech that said she had sex so often she could not afford birth control.)
No. Those "liberals" who espouse such things are not liberals - they are tyrants, with an appreciation of the principles of communism.
So, if you consider yourself a liberal, you may want to re-evaluate your beliefs to see if you are truly a broad-minded person, respectful of others views and rights, and a protector of personal freedom. If not, then you may need to accept what you really are - an intolerant bigot that believes in the right to oppress others and force others into obedience and virtual slavery.
/
In the dictionary, the definition is as follows:
lib·er·al (adj) - broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
Now ask yourself - whenever a far-left liberal tries to shut down or penalize opposing viewpoints, would you call that "tolerant of different views"? When a so-called liberal calls respected scientists who dispute the Global Warming theory as "backward deniers", would you call that "broad-minded"? And when these same loons believe that it is okay for personal freedoms to be sacrificed for the sake of some political agenda (TSA, NSA, IRS scandal etc), would you say that is "protecting person freedom"? And when a "liberal" calls the self-proclaimed slut*, Sandra Fluke, a hero, but calls Sarah Palin, who has been true to one man for 24 years a slut, would you call that honest? (*The unmarried Sandra Fluke gave a speech that said she had sex so often she could not afford birth control.)
No. Those "liberals" who espouse such things are not liberals - they are tyrants, with an appreciation of the principles of communism.
So, if you consider yourself a liberal, you may want to re-evaluate your beliefs to see if you are truly a broad-minded person, respectful of others views and rights, and a protector of personal freedom. If not, then you may need to accept what you really are - an intolerant bigot that believes in the right to oppress others and force others into obedience and virtual slavery.
/
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Homosexuality On The Rise - Why?
Is there a conspiracy between the government and certain corporations to control population growth by "forcing" homosexuality? Before you laugh it off, perhaps you should mull over a few things.
Ever since the early 1900's "progressives" have espoused population control. Many have even called to allow euthanasia of the "useless elderly". And ever since the 60's, those same progressives have been pushing "abortion at will". But it goes much deeper than that.
Every educated person knows it to be a fact that soy is full of female hormones. They also know that an infusion of female hormones can actually alter a persons sexuality. That is simple science. Yet, despite that, almost every brand of baby formula is made with soy as a primary ingredient. And almost every major food producer includes soy in their products. Heck, don't take my word for it - read the labels! Pick up ANY jar of "natural mayonnaise" and you will find the first and primary ingredient is soy.
The American public is being fed a huge amount of soy, complete with its female hormones. And since it begins with soy formula at birth, is it any wonder that a larger percentage of our children are growing up homosexual? Studies indicate that homosexuality has more than doubled in the last two generations.
Understand - the food manufacturers could not be doing that without the full consent of the FDA. And you certainly know that the FDA is aware of the female hormones in soy.
So here is what we have - progressives (both Democrat and Republican) wanting to control the population. And they have controlled the government 70% of the time since Teddy Roosevelt. They control the FDA which allows, even encourages the wide-scale use of soy in all food products. And virtually every food manufacturer puts soy in almost every product they make. In fact, the two most harmful ingredients for human consumption - soy and processed wheat - are also the most prevalent. Wheat, as most informed people know, is the primary cause of obesity and many of today's ailments. But just try to find any food (other than natural fruits, veggies and meats) that does not include it.
So, you tell me - is there a correlation? Could it possibly be an intentional conspiracy to control population growth in an over-populated world?
I understand the possible desire to control population, but when you consider our enemies - China, Russia, and every Muslim nation - is actively TRYING to over-populate while America dies on the vine, then all I can say is the days of American sovereignty are sorely limited.
/
Ever since the early 1900's "progressives" have espoused population control. Many have even called to allow euthanasia of the "useless elderly". And ever since the 60's, those same progressives have been pushing "abortion at will". But it goes much deeper than that.
Every educated person knows it to be a fact that soy is full of female hormones. They also know that an infusion of female hormones can actually alter a persons sexuality. That is simple science. Yet, despite that, almost every brand of baby formula is made with soy as a primary ingredient. And almost every major food producer includes soy in their products. Heck, don't take my word for it - read the labels! Pick up ANY jar of "natural mayonnaise" and you will find the first and primary ingredient is soy.
The American public is being fed a huge amount of soy, complete with its female hormones. And since it begins with soy formula at birth, is it any wonder that a larger percentage of our children are growing up homosexual? Studies indicate that homosexuality has more than doubled in the last two generations.
Understand - the food manufacturers could not be doing that without the full consent of the FDA. And you certainly know that the FDA is aware of the female hormones in soy.
So here is what we have - progressives (both Democrat and Republican) wanting to control the population. And they have controlled the government 70% of the time since Teddy Roosevelt. They control the FDA which allows, even encourages the wide-scale use of soy in all food products. And virtually every food manufacturer puts soy in almost every product they make. In fact, the two most harmful ingredients for human consumption - soy and processed wheat - are also the most prevalent. Wheat, as most informed people know, is the primary cause of obesity and many of today's ailments. But just try to find any food (other than natural fruits, veggies and meats) that does not include it.
So, you tell me - is there a correlation? Could it possibly be an intentional conspiracy to control population growth in an over-populated world?
I understand the possible desire to control population, but when you consider our enemies - China, Russia, and every Muslim nation - is actively TRYING to over-populate while America dies on the vine, then all I can say is the days of American sovereignty are sorely limited.
/
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Christians Take Note - The Bible vs Homosexuality
As an American, and as a Christian, I am getting fed up with the BS from both sides concerning homosexuality. Please bear with me a few moments, and perhaps a few things will become clear enough to help clear the air - which would do us all a lot of good.
The LGBT community spews its hate and intolerance of Christian beliefs, and say we should stay in the closet. They, of all people, should know that it is wrong to be relegated to the "closet". They want to make their beliefs and desires as public as possible (have you seen a "gay pride parade?), but demand that religious people should not have the same right of freedom of speech and the right to express oneself. To them I say BULL!
On the other hand, many Christians are also on the wrong side, as they have been misled by their "leaders". Most Christian (and Muslim) leaders teach that homosexuality is a sin, because God (or Allah) says so. WRONG! Nowhere in the Bible is God attributed with saying homosexuality is a sin. What the Bible DOES say, however, is that homosexuality, and a man laying down with another man is an "abomination". Look it up - an abomination is not necessarily a sin.
A "sin" is a wrongful act and generally considered morally reprehensible. An "abomination" is nothing more than something that is an abnormality of nature. Big difference, folks. If homosexuality were considered a sin by God, there would be Eleven Commandments.
A mutation is an abnormality of nature, but it is not a moral sin. And therein lies the difference.
Homosexuality is an abomination of nature because the primary purpose of life is to continue life - survival of the species. The Bible calls it "going forth to multiply", to propagate. Any living thing that does not propagate is not normal in nature. It is an abomination, by definition. But failing to propagate is not a sin.
So, here is the crux - homosexuality is not a sin, in and of itself, and should be tolerated better by Christians. But on the other hand, homosexuals should not try to put forth that their lifestyle is in any way normal, or natural. It simply is not. And it is a sin to try and force their beliefs down our throats as much as it is a sin for us to try and force our beliefs upon them. Homosexuality does not make them sinners, but being intolerant of those who do not accept their lifestyle is, indeed, a sin. Insisting on others being tolerant of you while being intolerant of them is wrong. Period. And that goes for both sides.
Christians do not - and should not - have to be accepting of the LGBT lifestyles if they find it to be an abomination, but they should accept that people who are different have a right to be different. They should not be condemned for their lifestyle, provided it does not include anything that IS morally reprehensible and sinful, such as child molesting or bestiality.
And the LGBT community does not have to accept the tenets of any religion, but neither should they be intolerant of them, nor call upon religious people to hide in a closet. In fact, THAT would be a sin, since every major religion includes a requirement of its followers to "spread the word" and convert people. To do any less would be a disservice to ones religion.
That said...
Each of us is unique - different from everyone else. If you do not want to be vilified for your differences, do not vilify others for theirs, unless theirs is morally reprehensible. Homosexuality may be abnormal, but it is not morally reprehensible. If you doubt that, try actually READING the Bible yourself.
/
The LGBT community spews its hate and intolerance of Christian beliefs, and say we should stay in the closet. They, of all people, should know that it is wrong to be relegated to the "closet". They want to make their beliefs and desires as public as possible (have you seen a "gay pride parade?), but demand that religious people should not have the same right of freedom of speech and the right to express oneself. To them I say BULL!
On the other hand, many Christians are also on the wrong side, as they have been misled by their "leaders". Most Christian (and Muslim) leaders teach that homosexuality is a sin, because God (or Allah) says so. WRONG! Nowhere in the Bible is God attributed with saying homosexuality is a sin. What the Bible DOES say, however, is that homosexuality, and a man laying down with another man is an "abomination". Look it up - an abomination is not necessarily a sin.
A "sin" is a wrongful act and generally considered morally reprehensible. An "abomination" is nothing more than something that is an abnormality of nature. Big difference, folks. If homosexuality were considered a sin by God, there would be Eleven Commandments.
A mutation is an abnormality of nature, but it is not a moral sin. And therein lies the difference.
Homosexuality is an abomination of nature because the primary purpose of life is to continue life - survival of the species. The Bible calls it "going forth to multiply", to propagate. Any living thing that does not propagate is not normal in nature. It is an abomination, by definition. But failing to propagate is not a sin.
So, here is the crux - homosexuality is not a sin, in and of itself, and should be tolerated better by Christians. But on the other hand, homosexuals should not try to put forth that their lifestyle is in any way normal, or natural. It simply is not. And it is a sin to try and force their beliefs down our throats as much as it is a sin for us to try and force our beliefs upon them. Homosexuality does not make them sinners, but being intolerant of those who do not accept their lifestyle is, indeed, a sin. Insisting on others being tolerant of you while being intolerant of them is wrong. Period. And that goes for both sides.
Christians do not - and should not - have to be accepting of the LGBT lifestyles if they find it to be an abomination, but they should accept that people who are different have a right to be different. They should not be condemned for their lifestyle, provided it does not include anything that IS morally reprehensible and sinful, such as child molesting or bestiality.
And the LGBT community does not have to accept the tenets of any religion, but neither should they be intolerant of them, nor call upon religious people to hide in a closet. In fact, THAT would be a sin, since every major religion includes a requirement of its followers to "spread the word" and convert people. To do any less would be a disservice to ones religion.
That said...
Each of us is unique - different from everyone else. If you do not want to be vilified for your differences, do not vilify others for theirs, unless theirs is morally reprehensible. Homosexuality may be abnormal, but it is not morally reprehensible. If you doubt that, try actually READING the Bible yourself.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)