I just can't tell anymore. Our Union seems to be slowly drifting away down hill towards certain oblivion. I then hear those saying that it's best times are to come. I've come to the conclusion that the state of our union has stagnated. The gridlock in Washington has brought the rest of America to a standstill. Five years ago we had a man promising to bring change to America, hope as well. I've looked all over, far and wide for this hope and change; but yet, I see that the union still remains hopeless and changeless and more divided.
This leftist President will claim the state of the union as being strong, but even he knows that’s a lie.
The same petulant liars, cheats, fraudsters and crooks are being elected to office every two to four years. and as in today’s case eight years. The same promises and lies are being told. The utopian promises are made but never kept. This stagnation has breached the hearts and minds of the average American citizen. The State of our Union is divided...fractured. Dishonesty and propaganda prevail. Truth, and those who tell it, are despised. Americans no longer see each other as compatriots, but as enemies. The same things that many presidents (including this one) have promised to stop, still rage on in this Union to this very day.
I have yet to ascertain the state of this union. For something to have a state, it needs to have a noticeable direction. One can say "well, America is regressing." No it isn't. This type of regression has reached it's end result. The bickering, infighting, lying, cheating and political scandals are now the norm. But then one could say, "well, America is progressing." No, it isn't. When Presidents and politicians are willing to violate our constitutional rights, it serves to sate the status quo of our final regression. When parties refuse to work with one another, the same is also true.
What actually is the State of Our Union? Right now, it appears to be ensnared in the hands of those who would rather it stay the way it is. America is stuck in a limbo that only the people can pull it out of. What will be the state of our union in the future? For there to be a state (as I said before) there needs to be direction. If our elected officials can't take this country where it needs to go, then the state of our union will never change. It will remain forever hostile and unchanging. If the people learn to think for themselves and reach for the truth, the state of our union would be something to look forward to. I'm hoping that one day it will be.
What is the state of the union? Simple a sad state of affairs, with a leader who hasn’t any clue as how to run this country. .
What IS the state of our union? That's up to you, America
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
If You Are A "Extreme Conservative" Then You Are No Longer Welcome Here!
You Are No Longer Welcome! Oh Really!
If You Are A "Extreme Conservative" Then You Are No Longer Welcome!
Who are they, those extreme conservatives, who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, then they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."
Those were the words uttered by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. These words have also signaled to me the arrival of something I've feared in America. This something is an era of hyper-partisanship, where mere political affiliation can warrant someone telling you "you have no place here." Has our partisanship reached such a level where we tell someone they no longer belong in the same state as you? Where will those of similar political leanings be speaking out against this?
Do Democrats and Republicans alike not have the same right to live in New York or anywhere? It was bad enough segregating blacks and whites some 50 and 60 years ago, now we must segregate between the letters "D" and "R"? This is why I speak in support of bipartisanship. This is why I favor it. For this is what partisanship will reap.
One will say "I will never get along with them." But I say you don't have to. However it isn't right or moral to begrudge them a place among their fellow Americans that they have made for themselves to live because of what their political beliefs are. The law notwithstanding, a man of any idea or philosophy should be welcome in America.
What Governor Cuomo demonstrated to the rest of America is an utter lack of tolerance, a lack of goodwill. No aspect of partisanship towards his fellow New Yorkers. The onus rests with the people who elected him, those people being the Democrats themselves. He is the manifestation of the intolerance they profess to combat. Cuomo represents an aspect of hatred that Democrats claim not to possess towards those of different beliefs.
First Obama, then Rahm, and now Andrew Cuomo. Liberals really think they own this country, don't they? I should leave MY State or MY Country leave America because I dare to criticize something that this government does.
Like Father, Like Son! What the HELL is going on in this Country
Who are they, those extreme conservatives, who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, then they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."
Those were the words uttered by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. These words have also signaled to me the arrival of something I've feared in America. This something is an era of hyper-partisanship, where mere political affiliation can warrant someone telling you "you have no place here." Has our partisanship reached such a level where we tell someone they no longer belong in the same state as you? Where will those of similar political leanings be speaking out against this?
Do Democrats and Republicans alike not have the same right to live in New York or anywhere? It was bad enough segregating blacks and whites some 50 and 60 years ago, now we must segregate between the letters "D" and "R"? This is why I speak in support of bipartisanship. This is why I favor it. For this is what partisanship will reap.
One will say "I will never get along with them." But I say you don't have to. However it isn't right or moral to begrudge them a place among their fellow Americans that they have made for themselves to live because of what their political beliefs are. The law notwithstanding, a man of any idea or philosophy should be welcome in America.
What Governor Cuomo demonstrated to the rest of America is an utter lack of tolerance, a lack of goodwill. No aspect of partisanship towards his fellow New Yorkers. The onus rests with the people who elected him, those people being the Democrats themselves. He is the manifestation of the intolerance they profess to combat. Cuomo represents an aspect of hatred that Democrats claim not to possess towards those of different beliefs.
First Obama, then Rahm, and now Andrew Cuomo. Liberals really think they own this country, don't they? I should leave MY State or MY Country leave America because I dare to criticize something that this government does.
Like Father, Like Son! What the HELL is going on in this Country
Saturday, January 11, 2014
So it boils down to this, when your deciding who to vote for president, your going to have to decide which political scandal is worse and just dealt with it.
Scandal
A) is when you are a corrupt douchebag, and you hire, promote and give bonuses to other corrupt douchebags, and when you to do corrupt and douchebaggy things and pretend none of it is going on (Like our current President)
Scandal
B) Maybe drawn our attention away from Hillary 'What Difference does it Make?" Clinton (re: Benghazi) The miserable lying, corrupt crook, who didn’t know a thing about the highly speculative commodity market yet turned a Invested $1,000, and Netted $100,000
Scandal
B) The Bosnia sniper story being a mistake, or she “ Mispoke”!
Then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady. When Hillary Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia. Mispoke? Mistake? Ir was a LYE! What not use that word?
And then there is The Chris Christie’s scandal “Bridgegate” Yes there is something
there, And the question is what did Chris Christie know about it and when did he know it?
But does that compare with the Lies and the crookedness of Her Thighness?
Think about it!
Scandal
A) is when you are a corrupt douchebag, and you hire, promote and give bonuses to other corrupt douchebags, and when you to do corrupt and douchebaggy things and pretend none of it is going on (Like our current President)
Scandal
B) Maybe drawn our attention away from Hillary 'What Difference does it Make?" Clinton (re: Benghazi) The miserable lying, corrupt crook, who didn’t know a thing about the highly speculative commodity market yet turned a Invested $1,000, and Netted $100,000
Scandal
B) The Bosnia sniper story being a mistake, or she “ Mispoke”!
Then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady. When Hillary Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia. Mispoke? Mistake? Ir was a LYE! What not use that word?
And then there is The Chris Christie’s scandal “Bridgegate” Yes there is something
there, And the question is what did Chris Christie know about it and when did he know it?
But does that compare with the Lies and the crookedness of Her Thighness?
Think about it!
Sunday, January 5, 2014
An Interesting Observation
After reading the “progressives” blog, I find that the very people
SCREAMING tolerance are so Intolerant, but then again, you can't excuse
stupidity.
It's funny how people are more interested in unity and acceptance than truth.
These Libs or Progressives or Socialists as I prefer to call them, are only tolerant as long as you agree with them. Please! Do whatever the heck you want with your life, but don't try to force me to accept it.
The Nazis were unified as these folks are, but they were unified to do evil. Furthermore, while we should accept people when it means that we have to accept or agree with their lifestyles. Do I accept drug dealers as people for whom Jesus Christ died,? But I definitely DO NOT accept the fact that they are destroying communities all across America.
Now we get to Robertson, Paul Robertson DID NOT say anything more about homosexuals than the Bible said, so if you have a problem let it not be with Robertson, but take it up with God.
For in all honesty, that is Who all these people are mad at. They are mad at God because His Word says that mankind lying with mankind as with womankind (homosexuality) is a SIN just like adultery, murder, etc. Don't get mad at the man who simply carried the message-on that issue--but get mad at the God who sent the message in the first place. Sadly, I get the sneaky suspicion that if some of these people could take God down off His throne, they would accuse Him of hate speech too.
Why is this so hard for these people to understand?
I truly support and hold highly the statements of Paul Robertson. Why must we remain quiet and tolerant of homosexuals, while they are actively flaunting their lifestyles in our faces. Why do these progressives get so Pissed off when we want to respect Paul Robertson’s right to speak his mind. “FREE SPEECH” When a man speaks out against anything he believes in he has the right to do so, he is a Godly man and that is his right. If you were expecting anything less then you shouldn't have asked the question. He is true to God and his family and that I respect him for.
It's funny how people are more interested in unity and acceptance than truth.
These Libs or Progressives or Socialists as I prefer to call them, are only tolerant as long as you agree with them. Please! Do whatever the heck you want with your life, but don't try to force me to accept it.
The Nazis were unified as these folks are, but they were unified to do evil. Furthermore, while we should accept people when it means that we have to accept or agree with their lifestyles. Do I accept drug dealers as people for whom Jesus Christ died,? But I definitely DO NOT accept the fact that they are destroying communities all across America.
Now we get to Robertson, Paul Robertson DID NOT say anything more about homosexuals than the Bible said, so if you have a problem let it not be with Robertson, but take it up with God.
For in all honesty, that is Who all these people are mad at. They are mad at God because His Word says that mankind lying with mankind as with womankind (homosexuality) is a SIN just like adultery, murder, etc. Don't get mad at the man who simply carried the message-on that issue--but get mad at the God who sent the message in the first place. Sadly, I get the sneaky suspicion that if some of these people could take God down off His throne, they would accuse Him of hate speech too.
Why is this so hard for these people to understand?
I truly support and hold highly the statements of Paul Robertson. Why must we remain quiet and tolerant of homosexuals, while they are actively flaunting their lifestyles in our faces. Why do these progressives get so Pissed off when we want to respect Paul Robertson’s right to speak his mind. “FREE SPEECH” When a man speaks out against anything he believes in he has the right to do so, he is a Godly man and that is his right. If you were expecting anything less then you shouldn't have asked the question. He is true to God and his family and that I respect him for.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
What Is the Price of Free Speech?
No, this isn't a post about Duck Dynasty, or Phil Robertson. This post is about the value of free speech. In April of this year, a University at Buffalo Student, a Students for Life; a Pro-Life student group at the University of Buffalo was charged $650 in "security fees" to hold a debate on abortion on campus, and are in the midst of a lawsuit against the school for placing unfair burdens on their rights to free speech. So, what is the price of free speech? What is the price of holding on to an ideal or view you hold dear? What is the price of defending what you believe is right and true? If this case is any indication, we're about to find out.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
I Support Phil Robertson.
"Freedom of opinion, and Freedom of Speech." It is a staple of American freedom. But I've been thinking about that this morning, and well, come to think of it, there is no freedom of opinion anymore. It's impossible for one to have a personal opinion these days. If a person happens to belong to any political party, in reality they have ceded the essences of their opinions to the ideals and directions of the party they belong to. I know, I was a brash young Republican not long ago, my opinions and responses hinged on every ideal the party represented.
I personally do not have ANY problems with homosexuals, but I do have a problem
with ANYONE that wants others to accept their lifestyle by force with their threats.
But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
Phil Robertson was censored and being punished (no, it wasn't by the government, but it was still censorship) and that's no laughing matter. And that is why the far left is dangerous.
Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a FREE pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us
I personally do not have ANY problems with homosexuals, but I do have a problem
with ANYONE that wants others to accept their lifestyle by force with their threats.
But then I had an epiphany: are my opinions really my own? Am I really thinking for myself? The answer to those questions were clearly obvious. Not at all. The disingenuous political stances my 'party' stood for had been dictating my opinions. I was no longer thinking for myself. I had turned into a parrot; a mouthpiece, repeating anything and everything my party was telling me to. Enough was enough. This is what facilitated my transformation into a libertarian. The pattern isn't hard to recognize, really. Politics has a bad way of robbing a person the ability to think for himself. The freedom to have an opinion suddenly hinges on whether someone agrees with them or not. They feel compelled to change the opinions of others and react hostilely to anyone who refuses. Examples of this exist on both ends of the political spectrum.
Firstly, black men, black women, white women and Hispanics have all been co-opted by the Democrats. Their opinions must match the party's platform, or else they're racist, misogynistic, anti immigrant or an Uncle Tom. Examples include Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and Marco Rubio. On the Republican side it is equally as unnerving. Just a few hours ago, I was reading a thread where conservatives were being urged to 'let the gay shit go.' The author dubbed anyone who didn't see eye to eye as a 'hater.' In some ways this could be worse than what Democrats are doing; asking a person to simply sacrifice his or her own ideals and opinions for a little capitulation to the mainstream way of thought. Our Founding Fathers strove for the freedom of thought, not to ascribe to the 'joiners vs. thinkers' mentality. Its as if either party believes they have a monopoly on free thought. Oh, how wrong they are.
Phil Robertson was censored and being punished (no, it wasn't by the government, but it was still censorship) and that's no laughing matter. And that is why the far left is dangerous.
Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a FREE pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
The monotony of the two party system is this: Opinion is fact, fact is opinion. One or the other can be summarily dismissed if it doesn't conform to the established way of thinking and doing things. Many intelligent people are victimized by this mentality, and as a result are using such a gift for deleterious means. There is no freedom of opinion in Politics anymore. People are eager to trumpet the causes of their own side; all the meanwhile completely unaware they are being used as tools, and not for the causes of the nation as a whole. The most prominent people in history chose to think for themselves, to not be dictated to by a fixed set of ideals. Politics has a way of stealing away the most precious gem in dwelling in each of us
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson
I am trying to cover a broad range of issues here that don't necessarily relate to the suspension of Phil Robertson, but cover the issue of religious freedom and expression. And expose the crazy lefty liberals with radical anti-American agendas!
I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.
Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.
More intolerance from the crowd that always demands tolerance...!
There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.
I know some of you watch Duck Dynasty and probably heard that Phil Robertson was suspended by A&E for his opinion on homosexuality. He had the gall to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 and express himself openly about his opposition to gay marriage. Groups like GLAAD came out in support of the suspension. Don't you find it odd that people like Martin Bashir get a pass for their intolerance toward conservative women, but people like Phil Robertson are being targeted for their beliefs?
Should TV Networks silence religious speech for the political sensibilities of others? As most of you were aware, Chick-Fil-A came under similar scrutiny by gay rights organizations for its views on homosexuality last year. The response from the public was overwhelming, as the restaurant experienced booming profits from the ordeal. Suffice it to say, ratings for the show may experience similar results.
Should Phil Robertson be suspended for his comments in GQ? Or should he be allowed to express himself as he is allowed to by the the First Amendment? My personal opinion here is that no TV network should be allowed to censor a man for expressing his religious beliefs.
More intolerance from the crowd that always demands tolerance...!
There have been many instances of people or businesses being targeted for their religious beliefs, all for being "intolerant." Isn't it strange that you can be allowed to be homosexual, but not a person of faith? The real intolerance here, is of those who cannot accept that others aren't forced to tolerate their way of life or their practices. If you are any freedom loving American; Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, you should be disturbed by this recent turn of events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)