|
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary Like others on the left, Obama has an unfortunate habit of projecting his delusions onto the American people. He was in Turkey as part of his recently concluded America-sucks tour, during which he pandered shamelessly to Euro Anti-Americanism. ("We've been arrogant and we promise not to torture terrorists ever again and to always listen to the allies' who almost lost two World Wars the Cold War. And, have I said how sorry I am for Wounded Knee in the last 15 seconds?") In the overwhelmingly Muslim country, Barack Hussein Obama, as he was introduced (now that the election's over, it's okay to use his middle name), declared the concept of "Christian America" a myth.
Obama: "Although, as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation." Seriously, if the "we" who don't consider ourselves a Christian nation refers to the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the editorial board of The New York Times, Obama is on target. On the other hand, if he means the nation at large, he's had some bad weed. An April 3 Newsweek poll showed 62% of us do consider America "a Christian nation." But for those like our president, the nation's mood is determined not by the majority, but by the cultural elite - individuals who, by education and refinement, are entitled to shape the national consciousness for the rest of us. Due to ignorance or willful blindness, throughout our history, most Americans, including our leaders, didn't understand that we are a secular republic - one nation under Rousseau, Darwin and the Humanist Manifesto (I and II). Patrick Henry remarked: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religions, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." The Constitution is dated "in the year of our Lord, 1787," in reference not to Allah, Krishna or Buddha, but to Jesus. Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story, in his 1833 treatise on the Constitution, observed that the Founding Fathers believed "that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state." In the 1931 case of U.S. v Macintosh (decided before the federal judiciary began to deconstruct the First Amendment), the Supreme Court declared, "We are a Christian people." Every President of the United States, including B. Hussein Obama, took an oath to uphold the Constitution on a Bible. In every case save one, it was the King James Version. Speaking of Obama's predecessors - clearly less enlightened and worldly than the Messiah-in-Chief and probably in thrall to the religious right - their opinion is unanimous: George Washington: "It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible." By the Bible, the Father of our Country was not referring to the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita. John Adams: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were...the general principle of Christianity." John Quincy Adams: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." Andrew Jackson: "The Bible is the rock upon which our Republic rests" - again, in reference to the Christian Bible, not the Lotus Sutra. Abraham Lincoln: "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty." The "present difficulty" that Lincoln believed Christianity would resolve favorably was a civil war in which more than 600,000 Americans died. Before the McGovernite takeover of the Democratic Party (now under the direction of George Soros), the presidents of Obama's party also sang in the Christian-America choir. Woodrow Wilson: "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify the devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelation of Holy Scripture." Franklin D. Roosevelt, speaking of World War II: "Today, the whole world is divided, divided between human slavery and human freedom - between pagan brutality and the Christian ideal." Harry S. Truman, writing to Pope Pius XII: "This is a Christian nation. ... It is not without significance that the valiant pioneers who left Europe to establish settlements here, at the very beginning of their colonial enterprise, declared their faith in the Christian religion and made ample provision for its practice and support." John F. Kennedy, in the midst of the Cold War: "And yet the same revolutionary belief for which our forbearers fought is still at issue around the globe, the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." Thomas Jefferson said something strikingly similar: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God." Still, the Great Community Organizer can blithely proclaim that America - which is 75% to 80% Christian - is no more a Christian nation than it is a Moslem nation. In a 2007 speech, Obama qualified this opinion --"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation." The president thereby allowed for the possibility that America once was a Christian nation, but is no longer. But when did Christianity's dominance over American life end - with the Supreme Court's 1962 school-prayer decision, its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision or Bill Clinton staining an intern's dress with his bodily fluids circa 1995? While insisting that "we" do not consider America a Christian nation, Obama praised the religion of peace. "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country." Besides being loopy, Obama's declaration was conveniently vague. Shape the world for the better? How? By spreading its creed by the sword? By establishing the concept of dhimmitude - that unbelievers must either convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule? By turning women into chattel? By subjugating the Balkans, Greece, most of Spain and parts of Eastern Europe for hundreds of years? By the destruction of Constantinople and Byzantium, the Eastern Roman empire, expunging the glories of a millennium? By fostering the bloody fanaticism of Shiitism and Wahabism, and monopolizing international terrorism since at least the 1970s? Islam has shaped America for the better? At least Obama didn't say "had a profound impact" - like an airliner colliding with a tall building. It's hard to imagine a religion which has done less to mold America than Islam, including Zoroastrianism and Scientology. Many of the principles on which America was founded, or came to represent - religious tolerance, democracy, liberty and equality - are abhorrent to traditional Islam. In a Washington Post/U.S. News Poll (March 26-29), while a majority approved of Obama's outreach to the Muslim world, 48% confessed to having an unfavorable view of Islam, the highest percentage since 9/11. In the same survey, 55% said they lacked a basic understanding of the religion of peace. Knowledge will breed contempt. As the Muslim population of the United States (now estimated to be around 1 million) grows, Americans increasingly will encounter the rich religious/cultural heritage the followers of Mohammed are bringing to these shores - like honor killings. Last year, in the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, a Pakistani immigrant strangled his 25-year-old daughter with a bungee chord, for trying to escape an arranged marriage. On New Year's Day, 2008, the bullet-riddled bodies of Sarah and Amina Said (ages 17 and 19) were found in an abandoned taxi. Their father, Egyptian immigrant Yaser Abdel Said, was arrested for the murders. Said had reportedly threatened to kill his daughters for having boyfriends. The hussies! Muzzammil Hassan, of the Buffalo-area, was the very model of a modern, moderate Muslim. In 2004, Hassan founded Bridges TV to counteract negative images of Islam and showcase the many stories of "Muslim tolerance, progress, diversity, service and excellence." Stop, you're killing me! - an unfortunate turn of phrase when discussing Islam. Hassan was such a credit to his faith that, in April 2007, he received the first annual excellence-for-pulling-the-wool-over-the-infidels'-eyes award of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, some of whose leaders have been tied to terrorism. Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell was present and Congressman Joseph Stestak the guest speaker. On February 12, 2009, the paradigm of moderate Islam was arrested and charged with decapitating his wife, who claimed he was physically and emotionally abusive, and was in the process of divorcing him. The motto of Bridges TV is: "Connecting people through understanding" - ironic, in that Aasiya Hassan's head is no longer connected to her body. According to The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project, genital mutilation - practiced in some Muslim societies to keep women submissive by making it impossible for them to experience sexual pleasure - has arrived in the U.S. In November 2006, Khalid Adem, an Ethiopian living in Atlanta, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for cutting off the clitoris of his two-year-old daughter. In a video posted on YouTube, taken covertly at a mosque in Nashville Tennessee, a 7-year-old tearfully tells how girls are beaten during shariah class. The child also speaks of her "husband." The mainstream media only cares about allegations of abuse when the Catholic Church is involved. Pedophilia and child-abuse aren't the only quaint customs practiced in Muslim houses of worship. Of the more than 2,300 mosques and Islamic schools in America, over 80% of those constructed in the last 20 years were built with Saudi money, which also financed the 9/11 terrorists. The Center for Security Policy sent Arabic-speaking operatives around to over 100 of these institutions. It found 3 out of 4 infected with extremism and preaching hatred of America, Jews and Christians. Thus is Islam shaping America for the better - bang-bang, swoosh, smack. If we aren't a Christian nation, what are we? Obama told the Turks, "We consider ourselves nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." Values aren't free-floating. They must have a point of origin. Throughout our history, most Americans were never in doubt about the origins of our national ethos - Sinai, Jerusalem, The Ten Commandments, The Sermon on the Mount, The Torah, The New Testament - collectively known as our Judeo-Christian heritage . For the secular left, which now occupies the White House, America's heritage is not found in the Bible, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (in its original sense), but in secular humanism, collectivism and multiculturalism - values based not on timeless standards but on prevailing cultural norms, as determined by a political/media/academic elite. Obama doesn't want us to consider ourselves a Christian nation because the Judeo-Christian ethic conflicts with his worldview. Whatever Joel Osteen and Rick Warren tell us (Pastor Ken Hutcherson calls them "evan-jellyfish"), Obama is not a Christian - unless you consider the hate-filled ravings of his former pastor, at the church he attended for 19 years, to be Christianity. Christian America does not condone civil unions or same-sex marriage. (It does not regard as equal all sexual acts.) Obama's America does. Judeo-Christian America believes in the defense of innocent human life - including the most defenseless, the unborn. Obama's America does not - witness the reputation he's acquiring as the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history, and his votes against an anti-infanticide bill as a member of the Illinois Senate. Christian America believes in limited government. It does not mistake government for God. Obama's America believes there's nothing the state can't do, no power the state shouldn't have and no limitations on its power to tax, spend and control. Christian America understands the Biblical mandate to support Israel. Obama's America views the Palestinians (anti-Semitic, anti-American, bloodthirsty, exalting jihad) as the moral equivalent of the Israelis (democratic, pro-American, governed by the rule of law). Obama's fantasy of Israel and Palestine living "side by side in peace and security," is either delusional or a euphemism for a temporary settlement which will lead to the demise of the Jewish state. Like Lincoln's proverbial house divided, these two America's can't coexist forever. During his presidency, Obama means to bury Christian America, with an imam presiding at the memorial service. I can hardly wait for the president's next magical mystery tour. As former House Speaker Joe Cannon is reputed to have said of a colleague, "Every time the man opens his mouth, he subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge." Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
Comments (20)
  written by Jeffrey Scott Brockmeier, April 15, 2009
I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. Thank you for it.
 written by Kelly Howell, April 17, 2009
Dear sir or madam,
I find it interesting that, while there is not one single statement in this editorial, to which you can point and say - untrue, or unsupported or not factual, you castigate the entire concept. Each point the author made was supported with an historically verifiable quote, giving original author and context. Or don't you consider our history, the founding fathers, their motivations, aspirations, and inspirations for doing what they did to get this country going of any importance or having no relevance? If so, to deny historical fact in that fashion, you are the deluded one. I find it interesting that instead of calling to the specific(s) of the above article with which you disagree and then explain your point of view, how it differs and your supporting facts for those conclusions, and entering into a discussion in which you (have the 1st amendment right to do, by the way) present your opinion and then offer the support, facts and truths upon which you base those opinions, instead of that, you simply scream those "magic" words of the mid to late 20th century which were designed by people like you to instantly stifle ALL opposition to your own racist, bigoted and apologist position. Throughout history there have always been words that small-minded, fearful, controlling power mongers have used to force all others into submission and "keep them in their place", the only difference between then (15th, 16th, 17th you pick a century) when they used words like "heretic", "blasphemy", "idolater", (and of course the really big one) "SINNER" is that NOW the "magic" words are "racist" (oooooh /shiver!), "bigot" (ahhhh /cower!) and the REALLY powerful one "Islamophobe" (aaarrggghhh! please stop! I'll do whatever you want! just don't call me NAMES anymore!!) I have said this before and I will say it again, and since you apparently are not familiar with any of the historical quotes given in the above article and give no credence to their bearing on all that was said, then feel better about knowing that you can quote ME in this: Truth is not racist, bigoted, hateful, or intolerant. It is simply the truth. Those who are offended by truth are usually the first to cry and accuse others of racism or bigotry or of being hateful and intolerant. They do this because they hope that such an accusation, if uttered first and loudly enough and repeated often enough, will silence truth. More people need to recognize this as the dishonesty it is. Truth will not change just because YOU are distressed that it has exposed you, the lies you believe in or your shallow or non existent thought processes. Are you totally bereft of original thought? Or are you just lazy? So, it was easier to slap a few meaningless, unsupportable accusations into the box, than to consider and make valuable contribution? Lies never become the truth just because someone repeats them loudly and often. Truth can be the best weapon, when turned full force on lies, it will prevail. We must learn to seek the truth, not to stifle it, we must learn to recognize it, not be scornful of it. Apparently you believe that truth does not matter, as long as you can subdue it with the threat of branding it racist or bigoted or hate speech or intolerant. How disrespectful, condescending, elitist and arrogant to believe that just because YOU don’t want to hear or disagree with someone else’s opinion you can shut them down with rhetorical mud-slinging. We could all do with more of it. Truth is the basis of our freedoms ("We hold these truths to be self-evident. . ."). Our freedoms are precious, our forefathers fought, bled and died to protect them. They were not free for them and they are not free for us. They come at a price, and it is NOT a higher "tax". We must be willing to defend those freedoms, even with our lives. So, to stand up to the likes of you, is no inconvenience for ME at all! And I’m proud to say, THAT is my right in MY America.
written by Kelly Howell, April 18, 2009
Actually Cedric, while the founding fathers were Godly men, and 9 of 10 Christian (by their own writings of themselves, the 1 in 10 being Deists) the founding fathers first acknowledge God in the Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to a*sume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...." Of course, if you read any of the papers, books, articles, journals and histories of those who founded this nation, you will find hundreds of references to not only God, His laws [as the basis for the documents and laws they generated to establish this country] and "the Lord" [Jesus Christ] as being the sustainable foundation upon which they endeavored to construct the framework upon which this country would be built. Each one involved with not only the original congresses, but the drafters of the documents, were, by their own accounts and testimonies of their a*sociations, Godly men, men who believed devoutly in God the creator, and most agree that 51 of the 56 were Christian.. There were both Christians and Deists among them, with the preponderance being Christian. In point of fact, some few of those holding out to the public as being Deists, in their private diaries or journals, call to Jesus Christ as being integral to their faith and their salvation. Samuel Adams, in his 1772 work "The Rights of the Colonists", wrote in paragraph II "The Rights of the Colonists as Christians". And then of course, there is the final line of the Declaration of Independence: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." It states clearly that they are "relying" upon Divine [God] Providence, and they pledge no only their lives, but also that which was most valuable to them while they lived, their "sacred" Honor. With the references already established that they do what they did with what they called upon as God's protection and referencing not just their honor, but relating that it was blessed or justified of God, making it sacred. So, can I absolutely say that I KNOW as indisputable fact that the founding fathers included God and established this country based on a belief in God? I say, yes I can. Can I say this was established as a Christian nation? Again, based on the information surrounding those who formed our nation, I choose to say yes. I say "choose" because, again, while there were Deists among them (although in the minority), and as a concession to their conscience, I believe that while they based and founded this country upon Christian principles as a Christian nation, they referenced God (in multiple ways) instead of Christ. I also concede that through their documents, declaring themselves Christian, and acknowledging this as a Christian nation, I also believe that they were cautious and not wanting to allow any opportunity for any Christian to become the despot and impose through either governance or force that ALL must be Christian. I don't know if you consider this a real or even a reasonable answer to your question. It is what I believe. There is an excellent article, written by James Watkins, take a look at it, if you are truly interested and not just trying to "toss out" some sarcastic rhetoric, thinking that is the same as earnest discussion. Mr. Watkins site is: http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm There are others, but that is a good one that is objective (something difficult to find). Thank you for the question, I enjoy lively and serious discussion. I often learn from debate and discussion, which to my mind, is one of the most valuable reasons to hold both.
 written by albert, April 18, 2009
fantastic. it is a shame that most people will not hear about this in there local paper.
when i think of america and its people in australia, i think of a wonderful people that jesus christ has blessed.
 written by ltcedricdaniels, April 18, 2009
Hi Kelly,
Thank you very much for your post, and the article you linked me too. It was very objective, and I enjoyed in thoroughly. Like a lot of events in history, making a judgment on what happened is very difficult. Suffice to say that almost all Americans were Christian at this time, and the Founders wanted a Republic with religious freedom but supported by a morality based on religious belief. Which I think is the best way to go. Except certain aspects of Christianity are incredibly destructive and oppressive, while others are not. For example, do you feel that the Christian evangelical wing of the Republican party has had a positive impact on public policy in the last 50 years? Thanks for discussing, Cedric
 written by Jack D. Ripper, April 21, 2009
For telling the TRUTH. I love how you get Liberal ,name calling Sodomites, frothing at the snout. Enjoyed you peice, the effort and reseach. Everything checked out. I am gonna read a little Ann Coulter, and get to Bed. And dream of "NOBAMA"!
written by ltcedricdaniels, April 21, 2009
From Merriman-Websters Dictionary:
Main Entry: sod·omy Pronunciation: ˈsä-də-mē Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11 Date: 13th century : anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex ; also : copulation with an animal — sod·om·it·ic ˌsä-də-ˈmi-tik or sod·om·it·i·cal -ti-kəl adjective
written by Kelly Howell, April 21, 2009
rudeness or try to make the insult a personal attack, Cedric. Jack Ripper was simply complimenting the article. Thanks for the comment Jack Ripper, I appreciated your compliment. I too enjoy Ann Coulter, she is a winner. However, Cedric, I'm not sure, and it may not have even entered Jack Rippers thoughts as he commented, but like many of us who have our "standard" references to those with whom we disagree
 that perhaps he was only using one of those "automatic" generalized references. However, recently, the main stream media launched into one of the nastiest, most obscene hate filled name calling of everyone who attended the recent tax day protest, The TEA Party. The leftist reporters were not able to even "report" on the event without getting nasty and using obscene, gross and vile homosexually specific references to the event. They thought they were being "witty" by renaming the event "tea bagging" party. It is my opinion that the reason that this particular obscenity came so readily to the reporters mind is because he has an intimate knowledge and understanding of not only the term, but also of the act itself. To have done this at all was out of line, for any legitimate reporter to have done, but for this to have happened in a regular time newscast, one in which younger children were watching, to fill the news report with sexual innuendo, double entende and obscene references to a disgusting homosexual practice was inexcusable. So, while it is possible that Jack Ripper was thinking of this recent horrible behavior, it is just as likely that he just feels that way about his political opposition in general. Regardless, we should maintain, at least, basic courtesy when engaged in a one to one discussion, such as this forum.
written by ltcedricdaniels, April 21, 2009
I did not insult anyone. I merely defined the word, and exclaimed what I thought his sexual practices were. It would be the same as if Jack the Ripper talked about the evils of stock trading, and I pointed Jack's 40 shares in General Motors, for instance.
He may want the word to be a term of insult, but it is not. It just means a different form of sexual enjoyment for people to share. There is nothing dirty about it except what people's tastes may be. Our culture has a serious problem with denigrating sexual pleasure and promoting violence. Make love not war! In the story of Sodom, Lot eventually stops the "homosexual mob" from sexually a*sualting him, by giving his young daughters to be raped. God apparently doesn't have a problem with that. Those are part of the Bible's contradictory, confusing, ancient, and often immoral values. The media's coverage has become more and more based on entertainment over the decades, as the media conglomerates are corporations, and they wish to shield the people from real news, and thus real knowledge. This will keep the ma*ses believing what they SHOULD know. There isn't a liberal media bias, there's a corporate media bias. After all, whoever dies with the most toys wins.
written by Kelly Howell, April 22, 2009
Actually, you did insult the other commenter. So, don’t be insulting twice with that childish “I didn’t do anything! ALL I did was define blah blah blah†I didn’t buy that when my 8 year old tried it, and I would imagine other adults see through it as well. It is not only transparent exactly what you intended, but an affront to anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature. Of course, by YOUR own example, does that mean that we should all understand that because of what you titled your comment that you are familiar with, practice and endorse sodomy, which is why you proclaim it great? Hmm, no problem, but you might want to be careful how loudly you proclaim that little bit of self incriminating information, because sodomy is against the law in many states, even today. It is not the same to infer stock trading based on a persons ownership of stock. That is evidentiary. But to say “I bet you practice. . . .†[fill in the blank, it hardly matters] and make such an odious comment about someone because they simply referred to others who openly acknowledge their “practicesâ€, is not only insulting, it is hateful to make the unrelated leap of a*sumption. And for you to “exclaim†what you thought his practices were is unrelated to the topic of this thread.
And, frankly sir, what you believe is or isn’t a term of insult or why you believe it is of little interest to anyone. If you are not “comfortable†with what “our culture†believes is unacceptable or “dirty†(your word, not mine) then perhaps you might consider relocating to a more permissive culture. Try one of the middle eastern ones, that should prove more in line with your particular exhibited mindset. Regarding the story of Sodom, you really shouldn’t bring up topics for which you exhibit such a dismal lack of knowledge. For the record, Lot “offered†his daughters to the evil, debased men who attacked his home, demanding that Lot turn over to them the angels God sent to speak with Lot. Lot was attempting to save God’s angels from the perverted and degenerate men of the city, who wanted what they perceived as “beautiful young men†visiting in Lots house. Why do you think God’s judgment was being pronounced upon that city? It was because there was not one righteous or good man in the whole disgusting place. These morally corrupt men believed that they had the right to sexually molest (“bring them out unto us, that we may know themâ€) any male that came within their evil, disgusting city. And because they ALL were of that mind set, maybe they justified their actions (speculation on my part only) with the age old “well everyone does it, so it must be ok!†Do YOU believe that is justification for immoral (against God) behavior? Just because others do it? That, too, is childish and immature thinking. You think God destroyed two cities filled with people just for the hell of it? No. It was because there was not ONE single person, save Lot, who looked to God. And last, did it ever occur to you that Lot may have offered his daughters because he knew the nature of that mob and they would NOT accept them? (The fact is Lot’s daughters were NOT raped, so it is a moot point to suggest that “God apparently doesn't have a problem with that.â€) Lastly, do not try to justify your beliefs that immoral or obscene acts are okie dokey because in your towering intellect you have determined “Those are part of the Bible's contradictory, confusing, ancient, and often immoral values.†What drivel. Especially since you spew such a conclusion based on obvious ignorance of what the verses actually state. Information which could have been confirmed and referenced had you just taken the time to read it for yourself. You could have saved yourself the embarra*sment. Remember what Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) said? “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.†“Make love not war!†Now THERE’s a really clever cliché. You should not EVEN try to go there, that happens to be from MY generation. What stupidity! Yeah, that is such an astute, profound philosophy, let’s see, what has THAT attitude brought us? New highs of infection rates of sexually transmitted diseases (Syphilis, Chlamydia, Crabs or Pubic Lice, Genital warts, Hepatitis, Trichomoniasis, Scabies, Gonorrhea, Herpes, Aids, et al. Did I overlook any of YOUR favorites or ones with which you’ve had personal experience?), unwanted pregnancy, unmarried women with multiple children from multiple fathers perpetrating generational welfare (tax supported), or abortions “on demandâ€, fostering irresponsible, dismissive attitudes towards family, marriage, children, morality. These concepts may be ridiculed by people like you, but as I said at the beginning, what you believe on other topics is of little interest, try to focus, sir. Stay on topic, if you are having trouble remembering what that topic is, scroll up.
written by ltcedricdaniels, April 22, 2009
Wow, based on my recent test of 3 non-profane vocabulary words, this site censors out "profanities" to the point that it can't accept "ma*ses" because "a-s-s" is within that word. What kind of Puritan message board is this?
written by Kelly Howell, April 22, 2009
You ask what kind of website is this? It might be that if you are not able to figure out alternatives for some words, in order to be able to express yourself, then apparently this is a website that proves a bit too challenging for those who are linguistically inadequate or have a derth of vocabulary. Or perhaps just not for anyone who is unfamiliar with how to use a thesaurus. Of course, failing the mastery of the dreaded synonym finder, you could just use the original word and allow the reader to determine the meaning as it is used.
I feel confident that the majority of the readers here are quite capable of discerning that much.
written by ltcedricdaniels, April 23, 2009
Brevity is apparently not the soul of wit, with your responses.
 First, sodomy isn't against the law in any state, look up the landmark decision Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003. I can thank God for that decision, because the Supreme Court upheld individual liberty as required under the 14th Amendment. This respect for liberty and privacy goes along with its original intent, which was to protect the rights of African-Americans against hostile state governments in the South. And second, I agree that "make love not war" is a total cliche, but designed to elicit a response, which I did. I agree with the negative effects of the “free love†philosophy, such as the spread of disease, I know full well, my dad worked in the New Jersey State Health Department to control sexually transmitted diseases. But what about the harmful effects of war? Do I even need to list those, each one exponentially more terrible and costly than anything free love ever did. Destroying the traditional family? Try almost destroying the world in 1962! Third, we can go down the “sex in our culture†discussion route if you wish…I would like to. Fourth, you ignored some of my other points and questions, such as the one about media. Fifth, I find it fun to dicuss on these message boards, but what appear to be my insults, are really a bit of tounge-in-cheek humor. Do you ever watch Steven Colbert? And do you look like your picture, which is some sort of 1980s muscular blonde goddess. Someone who could rock my world, play some heavy rock music, and also throw around a large rock. In short, someone who totally rocks.   Can you tell what my picture is of? 
 written by Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave.. , April 24, 2009
You never heard of Separation of Church and State? This is one of the chief values of this country and you side swipe it like it is road kill. I'm not suprised. Like everything on this website, it's all ENTERTAINMENT. If it was legitimate commentary, you would have taken some responsibility in getting us in a never-ending-war in the Middle-East. Yes it was you and people like that have us spending billiions of dollars on a war based on a bunch of lies. You have no credibility.
 written by Christopher, April 25, 2009
I have heard of separation of Church and State and there is none under Islam. So what is your point?
When people say Christian nations they mean Judeo-Christian values, not Islamic "values'. They mean that most of the country identifies themselves as Christians. But obviously that was too hard for you to figure out. If you actually knew about the history of Islam you would know that Islam has been at war with the world for 1400 years. Thomas Jefferson knew this..... http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2008/09/islam-big-misunderstanding.html It is you who has no credibility.
 written by billthered, April 25, 2009
seem really happy that sodomy is not illegal. They also seem uninformed on where exactly the "separation of church and state argument is derived from... (hint, it isn't in the constitution...)
and like liberals of all stripes they refer to the war in Iraq as "endless war" and don't consider what the result would be if their policy had been pursued. Personally, I am pretty happy we will never know what living with an Iraq under Uday and Qusay would have been like...
Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 15:09 |
April 14, 2009
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Login Form
Search the RSN Database of 7,000+ Articles
