Primary reason: "BANG! BANG! BANG!" went the handgun.
Given the tendency of young able-bodied public assistance recipients to “foul their own nests”, what reasonable corporation wants to endanger their workers while being robbed blind.
That ...“beautiful” store the First Lady was going on and on about will be torn to pieces within five years.
What if Clinton had said something like that to Connie Chung?
Huckabee probably has the larger chest anyway.
If Huckabee is to show Frau Obama his, does Huckabee get to see hers?
It should be remembered that it wasn't White Repulicans that pushed for school busing. Interesting how its OK to be opposed to school busing now that Blacks don't like it but immoral to be when Whites didn't like it.
However, according to Eagle Forum, parents doing this in their own homes would be violating Article 13 of the UN convention on the rights of the child by blocking "information of all kinds through media of the child's choice".
Many of Obama's New Worl...d Order friends no doubt endorse this globalist covenant.
For being the consort of supposedly the greatest orator to ever walk the earth, she doesn't express herself much better than George W. Bush. Would Martha Washington or Abigail Adams have said that America is "really cool"?
So basically you up you know what creek without a paddle if you have a home where primarily White folks roam.
Can anyone tell me why it is less tragic for someone to lose their home in a state "less hard hit" with mortgage problems?
Then why should I care if my pizza is made by real Italians?
Besides, what would an "artificial Italian" be?
To carry this to it's logical conclusion, ought a hamburger made by an authentic German actually be more desireable?
Wonder if she would have gotten by with it for so long if she did not look the part of an expert in her area of expertise.
How many other U.S. postage stamps are there of non-American citizens (those once broadly categorized as foreigners.
Furthermore, are they any commemorating Protetants or do we only pander to Catholics in this manner?
If not, where are the C.S. Lewis or Francis Schaffer stamps?
This conjecture is made on the hyothesis that Dr. Mohler rides his early marriage high horse when things hit a rough patch in his household as in my experience those that pester singles the most about marriage are those from the most miserable marriages.
While there are lovely sentiments expressed in the article Mohler references, for most, they are just not reasonably possible.
Of the article, Mohler writes, "He adds, 'Instead of trekking to Africa or exploring Rome alone, why not marry the person of your dreams and take him or her along?'."
All well and good, but for the majority these days the ripe old age of 23 is an unnecessarily low deadline.
In most urban areas of the country, this just isn't possible.
Why should a fairly moral individual of Euro-American heritage have to settle for an Afro one that has already parented numerous children by the mid 20's or for someone that barely speaks a lick of English who is only showing you the time of day because they see you as their meal ticket to staying in the country.
If theologians are going to trod down this path of guilt-tripping the young into early matrimony, perhaps we should also exegete what happens the young make these decisions not out of love or the leading of the Holy Spirit but rather from the result of ecclesiastical busybodies that can't mind their own business.
My mom was accused of being a lesbian because she did not have a boyfriend of a teen.
And there is the case of someone my family was close to that ended up marrying such an outright whore, who unbenownst to him had already had a child in her midteens, that one almost had to consider it a blessing from God for him when he died in a carwreck at the age of 28 just so he could be relieved of that hell-hole of a marriage. Yet even that did not end the pain as the shrew fled town and the grandparents ended up not seeing those grandchildren for nearly 30 years.
Contrary to the swill spewed from the average American pulpit, following God's will is rarely as happy as it is made out to be whether one remains single or gets married.
by Frederick Meekins
An an enthusiast of NAMBLA and failing to report an incident of statutory rape to authorities, the categorization above is exactly what Obama administration offical Kevin Jennings is.
If one cannot say things like this about the President without correctly having the Sercret Serive work you over with a rubber hose investigating it, why is it proper to say it about anyone else.
Just observe the tone of the so-called advocates of tolerance, inclusion, diversity, and just about every other thing that makes one want to puke these days.
No, and its not a form of religious persecution.
A number of churches are turning to Ultimate-Style fighiting as a way to attract young men back to the pews.
Eventually, as in the case with so-called "Christian tattoos" (ones added after conversion rather than prior too), one will be catergorized as not being devoted enough to the Lord if one is not willing to have one's body mutilated in this manner.
If pastors really want to draw in testosterone oozing crowds, why not have two chicks whacking on each other? But that goes too far some may respond.
How so? It is no more incorrect to have two women fighting each other without legitimate cause as two many. And in this day of anything goes and sloppy theology, any undue titilation that results could simply be explained and celebrated as the God-bestowed appreciation of the female form inherent to any red-blooded American male.
If churches want to be serious about luring actual manly men back to their congregations how about more songs and lessons that emphasis objective doctrinal or historical content rather than the lyrical equivalent of Jesus blowing in your ear as is the case of many of these praise and worship choruses as well as providing study opportunities where one is free to share what's on one's heart if one feels led to but one is not branded as a heretical individualist if one decides not to.
While Obama can't be held responsible for the shooting at the University of Alabama, the media certainly doesn't mind attempting to link conservative populist thought with acts of violence. So we should certainly return the favor by highlighting one of their's when there is a rampage.
The New York Times headline writers say, "Tea Party Movement Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right".
Can't say I closely monitor this media dinosaur, but one must ask if the old gray lady as the paper is called pointed out during the presidential campaign that some of Obama's supporters such as Bill Ayers have lit actual fuses.
Doesn't he realize that, under the current Congress, the targets would be talk radio, the Tea Party movement, and independent bloggers?
No doubt a dry run for the Khmeresque plans they have for the rest of us where, in good Communist fashion, we will be forced to sit in a circle and criticize our friends and family as our Maoist overlords look in, taking careful notes for each of our files.
Thought the Scott Brown election proved pleasing the Kennedy's was no longer the highest purpose of the American political system.
Heaven forbid we actually have a branch of government that projects power. Have to brown-nose our new Chinese overlords.
A British supermarket is banning nightwear and any other clothing that makes customers uncomfortable.
However, will this regulation be enforced against Africans and Middle Easterners that essentially wear their nightshirts all day long or is this going to be yet another rule that is imposed only on White people?
Obama certainly looks down his nose in a condescending manner. Why do I hear "KNEEELLLLLLLLL BEFORE ZOD!!!" from Superman II in my ear?
In opening the State of Union, Obama mentioned the Speaker of the House, the Vice President and the American people. What, no acknowledgement of illegal aliens? Obama apparently is not as tolerant as made to appear.
Isn't Chris Matthews forgetting that Obama is Black more offensive then Harry Reid saying "negro dialect"?
By invoking Bull Run & the Bloody Sunday of the civil rights movement in the State of the Union, Obama implies disagreement with him is racist.
Obama claimed he took office amidst growing government debt. It's getting even worse under him.
Biden certainly seemed gleeful about hosing the banks. Biden looked like a bobblehead the way he couldn't keep his neck still.
Guess we’ll see at tax time if Obama is blowing smoke up our rears about not raising taxes.
If Obama is supposedly one of the greatest orators of world history surpassing Bush’s limited elocutionary abilities, why did he use the word “cops” rather than “police”?
President plans to toss $30 billion here; $30 billion there. Reminds me of the Simpsons bit about Internet stock.
And what if the job bill Obama demands “without delay” is delayed?
I guess all that clean energy technology China is inventing was the cause of all that smog at the Beijing Olympics.
Will Obama really allow offshore drilling or is this a phantom promise like clean-coal technology?
Pelosi’s grin is scarier than the Joker’s.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplotano applauds like a lethargic Walrus.
Why does Obama pronounce “Colooombia” with an Hispanic accent?
If everyone needs a college education since Obama decrees that high school is no longer enough for career success, won’t college become as worthless when the government “gives” it to everyone?
Why should future government workers have their student loans forgiven sooner than those in other occupations?
Obama promised to make mortgages more affordable. Didn’t steps like this cause the housing and banking crisis to begin with?
Frau Obama is to lead a purge against childhood obesity. May start out as pleas to exercise more, but will likely end with the government monitoring what youngsters eat, threatening to remove from parental custody those not within established guidelines, and eventually the program will be expanded to include adults. As a former porker now out to change the world, Huckabee will likely endorse this as he also thinks your weight is the government’s business.
If Bush’s prescription drug program was expensive, wouldn’t Obamacare be even more so?
If we are freezing government spending with the exception of outlays related to national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, is that really freezing any government spending at all?
Why is $250,000 considered ostentatiously rich?
Obama's said "The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away." This really means that to disagree with Obama is subversive. Look for more attempts at resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine in the name of diversity, national security, and assorted communitarian drivel.
Are Obama's comments about pundits spreading cynicism "respectful". Why don't these "turn people away from the process"?
It is claimed that the military will be out of Iraq by the end of August. Expect the next Iraqi uprising to begin the first of September.
When Obama's claims the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination, does this include cases on behalf of White people whose rights in the workplace are trod asunder? If the case of where the charges of voter intimidation were dropped against Black Panthers threatening White folks on election day 2008, it is highly doubtful.
While our values "allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe", those values did not originate from every corner of the globe. Like it or not, those are largely Western in that they are predominately Judoe-Christian and Greco-Roman.
Obama should be ashamed if he accepts the donation to Haiti from the 8 year old boy. Notice how Obama did not recommend people send their charitable donations through a private organization instead.
America still faces a potential Obama dictatorship. His attitude towards the Supreme court is quite chilling. Now leftists are condemning Justice Alito for not taking his rump kicking with a "Please sir, may I have another."
Congress needs to get a handle on this presidential executive order thing irrespective of the administration issuing these decrees or our Republic is through.
In the Republican response, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell used "her" as a universal pronoun. If one is not using designations for both genders, "him" is the grammatically correct one to use.
Fox News counted 86 rounds of applause. I tabulated 93 instances of clapping. Some of it seemed more subdued than in previous years.
Karl Rove claimed Obama said "I" 96 times. Reminds me of that scene in the series finale of the original Prison. In my college days, one usually got points deducted for overuse of the first person personal pronoun. At least Bob Dole had the decency to begin his sentences with "Bob Dole".
by Frederick Meekins
If government assistance doesn't encourage profligate procreation, lets cut out additional subsidies for each additional child.
If it is objectionable to liken human beings to animals, then why are these very same liberals the same ones pushing Darwinian evolution in the public schools and that nature, unconstrued through any kind of divine revelation, is to be the source of our morality and ethics.
One must also ask are these students academically deficient through no mental or biological defect inherent to their own ontology or rather is it because they are just lazy and think "the Man" will fund their way through life.
If a male member of Congress said they could get more done if women and other assorted miniorities were sent home since these tend to be the demographics that tend to think the government owes them a living even if they could provide it for themselves, we'd never hear the end of it.
If Leftists are going to give the green light for the propagation of stereotypes, one of the inferences of Rep. Carol Shea-Porter must be addressed.
In her remarks she insinuates that only the female members of the legislative body have been responsibile for taking care of family.
It should be pointed out men that go out to work each day are also taking care of their families.
Anyone that argues otherwise should support the abolition of child support laws as well as govenment welfare handouts and see just how long children thrive without any kind of material and nurtitional sustenance.
This brings us to yet another observation.
It is safe to say that most of the female members of Congress did not come from the ranks of scrubwomen earning minimum wage.
As such, many no doubt possess professional backgrounds where they actually placed their careers over and above that of their children.
Rep. Shea-Porter (with her hyphenated last name indicating her identity derived from that of wife and mother is not sufficient for her) can pull the public leg all she wants; however, it is actually the babysitters and nannies that have taken care of the female members of Congress.
Thus, when this Novemeber rolls around, we should toss out both genders also irrespective of how the plumbing is hooked up.
By Frederick Meekins
Those still not convinced should ask themselves before they run off and join such groups how much control they want to cede over their lives to the beneficence of the collective. For once one signs over the very right to ownership to one’s dwelling and possessions, where does it end?
Willing to relinquish rights to the conjugal affections of your spouse to the group? Don’t snicker.
In many cults, those not willing to surrender their spouses to the group are labeled as being insufficiently devoted to the group or "too individualistic" in orientation. Interestingly this allegation is invoked increasingly in the churches of today as they totter ever closer to the edges of apostasy and unbelief.
Those enamored with their own smug progressivism will claim such excesses are more characteristic of the religious mindset. Secularists would never stand for such outrages and the infringement on the most basic of relationships?
Think so do you? Though he might have started off religious, before the last drop of Kool-Aid was slurped, Jim Jones' position on the Scriptures and the beauties of socialism had more in common with the National Counsel of Churches than Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition. And for those that think Marx is the cat's whiskers, what do they have to say about this thinker's proposal that the individual family and private marriages should be abolished?
And even if one happens to have a proclivity to these bizarre living arrangements without all the kinky wifeswapping and such, on what grounds does one object when these compounds lay claim to your children? Some of these COMMUNITIES conspire to undermine familial bonds between parents and offspring in a group setting or by minimizing the time parents spend alone with their biological progeny.
Yet one does not have to be locked away on some dope-smoking commune to be influenced by this kind of childrearing mentality. The perspective is already prevalent throughout the social welfare establishment that children do not belong to the parents but rather to the COMMUNITY as manifested by the state. If anything, a child enjoys a status barely above that of a library book since the parent is granted permission to enjoy the child for a time but forced to surrender the youngsters to the state on the terms of the state as evidenced in laws establishing lower and lower ages for mandatory preschool and bureaucratic homevisits.
With America's relative prosperity, citizens are pretty much able to ignore such kooks. But what will happen when these lunatics acquire more and more power unto themselves and connive to impose their cherished deprivations upon the rest of us?
For if these neo-primitives have their way, you won't even be permitted to procure the same quality of sustenance to which you and your family are accustomed. Rather, you will be compelled to gnaw on the twigs and shrubs beneath your very feet if you are fortunate to be deemed worthy enough of the privilege of continued existence.
For a while now, it has become popular in eco-socialist circles to whine incessantly about how far food must be transported to reach the masses of humanity. Instead of marveling at the bounty and variety of food available year round and in the most hostile of climates, environmentalists lament this fact.
Anybody that is anybody these days has a website (I wonder if the ones run by these people function on moonbeams and fuzzy thoughts since the rest of us are suppose to cutback on electricity), an organization, and a cadre of propagandists to spread the message. The mass starvation racket (or the inconvenient food syndicate) is no different.
One such outfit fomenting this hooey is Slow Food USA, described as “supporting and celebrating the food traditions of North America.” Let me point out they are not referring to a burger, fries, and a Coke.
The organization’s executive director Erika Lesser (“lesser” is the amount of food you’ll be eating if her organization has its way) gave a lecture titled “Live Slow: On The Path To A Delicious Future”. Those in attendance were invited to “Join the slow food table on biodiversity issues and the benefits of good, clean, and fair food." This ought to be considered because, "Education in taste is the first step towards transforming consumers into co-producers who can help safeguard food traditions and the health of the environment. By choosing wisely and eating with pleasure, you --- as well as your community and the planet --- can reap the delicious and healthful rewards of responsible coproduction.”
From that litany, the primary thing that stands out is how the consumer will be “transformed” (New Age socialistic euphemisms meaning revolution imposed from above whether you want to participate or not) into a “coproducer”. In other words, it is the intention of this to drag you out into the fields for a little conscripted labor.
For some reason, upon reading about being transformed into being a coproducer, I can’t get out of my head images of what I’ve read about the placards that use to hang on the gates of the concentration camps run by the Nazis reading “Work shall make you free” or how the Khmer Rouge use to march the people out to labor in the rice paddies. You know, the entire reeducation through labor bit (or as it is called today, “community service”).
Though slow food fronts disguise themselves in an agrarian or proletarian cloak, as with most that make playing unscrubbed revolutionary their life’s work, the movement is quite elitist in nature. For example, on the website the organization laments the advent of low-cost chickens consumed by the masses.
Rather, the group advocates more expensive breeds. Most likely since the consumption of meat will be limited to the revolutionary vanguard whereas those of us deemed to possess a consciousness of insufficient awareness and sensitivity will be compelled to simply piddle in the dirt for a root or a grub; but we will probably be forbidden that as well since disturbing the soil to even a miniscule extent will be an example of the butterfly affect that could lead to an erosion-based environmental disaster.
As with most of the other groups mentioned in this epic epistle, Slow Foods USA has a phobia about people doing things by themselves. This is for pretty much the same reason the Nazis did not want people listening to the radio alone. When you are alone, you are more likely to be critical since in that context you are more apt to pay attention to the message rather than taking cues on how you are to respond from those around you.
Rather than eat alone, the socially responsible are obligated to join and take their gastronomical orders from a group called a “Convivium”. Since everything to these people is group and movement oriented, if food is now to go in one end in the presence of the group, I guess it won’t be long until one will be obligated to have the remnants emerge at the other end in the presence of the COMMUNITY. After all, only those with something to hide want privacy we are constantly reminded by the radical communalists.
Use to be, one ate meals with one’s family. Maybe if these hags had not aborted themselves into sterility, supper time would not have had to be turned into an act of COMMUNITY service measuring one’s devotion to the good of the cause.
Slow Food USA prides itself on being everything fast food is not. Thus, one good thing about the movement is that the shrill biddies comprising the membership might be forced back into the kitchen where hussies with too much time on their hands belong and won’t have enough energy to undertake their idiotic activism.
As stated, left to themselves and cordoned off from the rest of us, these radicals would not present all that much of a problem. However, as with other useful idiots manipulated by the elites, these halfwits play a vital role in bringing an end to life as we know it when they form strategic alliances with the other mouthpieces of perdition for the purposes of getting the American people to surrender their freedom with a wink and a smile.
To the regular American blissfully ignorant of the ideological struggle being waged all around, television news outlets and correspondents exist to convey in an objective manner information of use and importance to concerned citizens. However, often these communicators and the interests they represent are as partisan as those blatantly seeking to persuade you as to the veracity of a particular opinion.
Prominently featured in the top half of page 10 of the 2006 edition of the Green Festival program was an advertisement for a panel discussion conducted by WRC-TV news personality Wendy Rieger. From the text, the reader learns that Rieger’s “Going Green segment features green lifestyles and products.”
However, had Rieger earned a reputation for grilling adherents of this movement and exposing the fallacies in the arguments endangering the nation’s very standard of living, it is doubtful she would be given a place, the promotional literature categorizes, as on the “main stage”. Furthermore, if Rieger is snuggling under the mulch with environmentalists, how can we be sure the remainder of her reportage is not as slanted?
Would the Green Festival allow a correspondent more critical of the celebration’s claims to ascend the rostrum such as John Stossel or Rush Limbaugh? Tolerancemongers will snap, “But its a private function and the organizers are not required to invite anyone they don’t want.”
And they are absolutely correct. Perhaps we should remind them of that as these Reds drag out notions such as the Fairness Doctrine in the attempt to silence Conservative talk radio.
Conversely though, if we are suppose to trust some dyed-blonde newsgirl in the green movement's pocket, would those having no problem with that be as quiet if some newsgal was in Jerry Falwell’s back pocket getting chummy with the Moral Majority gang at one of those kinds of shindigs? The aging beatniks do not consider what they believe to be a bias as anyone that does not believe as they do will be carted off to electroshock therapy once they ascend to unrivaled power.
Some will dismiss this clarion warming, claiming it has gone all over the map and too far afield. However, Francis Schaeffer once pointed out that a shortcoming of the Judeo-Christian mind and thus the conservative worldview as an extension of that perspective is the failure to view reality as a single comprehensive unit.
As such, if the free peoples of the earth give a foothold to these Communitarians in one area, by curtailing our innate liberties in that particular area, it won’t be that long in terms of the totality of history until we will have surrendered all the areas that make life worth living. If today we allow these so-called “guardians of the earth” to alter driving patterns and the like, what will prevent them in the future from coming back to take our cars and even our homes away all together?
by Frederick Meekins
Frankly, I'd rather have cleancut Mormons knocking at my door than some overly-manly "clergywoman" bent on haranguing by buying "locally grown" victuals.
In the spirit of ecumenicalism, don't open the door for anyone you don't know.
Rush Limbaugh is being condemned for raising the issue of whether or not Haitians will be subject to the same kind of assistance limitations as Americans such as healthcare review boards populary referred to as "death panels" based upon their power to deny life saving treatment to those of marginal social utility.
Why isn't this a valid question?
If the first purpose of the United States government is to provide for the general welfare of its citizens however one might decide the scope of that notion, shouldn't foreigners irregardless of the desperation of their their circumstances be subject to similar rigors?
While the victims of the earthquake in Haiti deserve sympathy and charity, engaged patriots must not allow the elites to use this tragedy as an excuse to blunt the discerning criticism of good citizenship.
by Frederick Meekins
Not to sound like a PBS snob or something, but I hope they don't botch an otherwise excellent series.
Wonder if this will replace the old adage about the bull in the China shop?
In Washington DC, crimes directed against the homeless can receive a stiffer sentence.
However, what is to protect the domiciled from these rampages.
There will no doubt be leftists out there who will claim we should thank these vagabonds for these attacks.
Now, they'll just need to figure out how they are being manipulated by their teachers since from the story is seems they thought themselves worthy of presidential recognition simply for being what color they were.
Guess the Obamas aren't the only thing full of it at the White House.
I wonder if they will be leveled a hefty fine and blocked from their home as is the fate that often befalls many of those having contaminated land.
It's going to be little old grannies rather than ragheads that are going to be harassed in airports.
Frankly, this battle was lost when this gibberish was elevated to the status of a dialect.
If we are to loosen criteria as to whom we let into the United States, shouldn't the Papacy follow a similar policy as to who can be admitted as a good Catholic or even the priesthood?
Not to sound like a hippy or something, but unless one can invoke the Bible (which you apparently can't in public school) on what grounds does one ban long hair on a boy but not a girl?
What regulations are there to make sure girl's retain a traditional gender appearance?
Some racemongers are not going to be satisfied until the last White person is dead.
Even stories where the White guy ends up siding with the downtrodden minorities are now denounced.
I hope they miss their welfare checks when we are all gone.
Guess we'll end up sending these people foreign aide payments. No doubt good Obama voters and supporters.
