Obama's Lips Are Moving » Ummm – Your Intolerance is Showing!

“Exposed: How SEIU’s “Corporate Campaign” Used Clinton’s Department of Labor

admin — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 20:00:13 +0000

This is the short version. If you want to view the 3-part series, start here

F.A.R.T. – The Organization that Cares – An Interview

admin — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:06:34 +0000

Newsweek Files for Intellectual Bankruptcy.

admin — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:44:40 +0000

In the December 15the issue of Newsweek, the editorial staff has just proven – beyond a shadow of a doubt – that they are Anti-Christ, Anti-Bible.In conjuction with this article: “Our Mutual Joy – Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side” Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers an editorial note that broadens Newsweek’s responsibility for this atrocity of an article and reveals even more of the agenda: “No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism,” Meacham writes. “Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.” (emphasis mine)

I cannot help but feel personally insulted by Mr. Meacham’s statement. What an ignorant, intolerant buffoon.

I urge anyone who feels insulted as I do to Send an e-mail to Newsweek

Gay, Lesbian Mob Attacks Christians

admin — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:02:50 +0000

Nearly 5 minutes of hate spewing caught on tape. Watch as San Francisco police – some in riot gear - are forced to surround a group of young Christians on a public street.

Anti-Gay Tolerance – A Definition

admin — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:46:41 +0000

I sent a someone an article on some truly despicable things that were being done by a gay and lesbian group in the name of “tolerance.” I heard tell that this person thought that the article was “creepy.” This person obviously did not read the article, because the article was not was not what was so ”creepy.” No, what is “creepy” is what these groups are doing, and the fact that Barack Obama vows undying support to them and their cause.

My clueless friend responded with:

“… I was extremely offended by the anti-gay tolerance e-mail. From the beginning I said that I respected your opinions and thoughts, however the e-mail about anti gay tolerance crossed the line…”

What is “anti-gay tolerance?” This is a new term for me. In reading the English used, the definition would be “tolerating anti-gay sentiment or rhetoric,” at least as far as my knowledge of language goes. Now, if you had said to me: “Because of my anti-gay tolerance, I will dismiss the fact that what you sent offended me,” THAT would make sense, because IF it is true that I am anti-gay, and my friend is the one who excercises tolerance, then this person, as logic indicates, would then be an exemplar model for tolerance. Do I have that right?

But there is one critical flaw in this reason for this person being offended. I am not now, nor have I ever been “anti-gay.” Though I disagree with their lifestyle, they are free to choose their lifestyle, just as I am free to choose mine. No, for me the tipping point – the real line that is crossed – is when they infiltrate the public school system with their radical agenda and propaganda touting their lifestyle disguised as lessons in tolerance.

But many will not get that, because many will not read the article for fear of being unable to tolerate the intolerable. The article goes on to say:

“…One of the teachers asked the assembled students what “fisting” meant. Following a descriptive definition, another of the adult presenters proceeded to demonstrate the proper formation of the hand for this sexual act. After a student of about 16 said that it didn’t sound very appealing, the third adult presenter calmed his concerns. This technique, she explained, “often gets a really bad rap,” and that it was “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.” Other homosexual acts were discussed and described in detail.”

NOW THAT IS “CREEPY!” I would venture a guess that approximately 98% of all Americans would agree. Barack Obama is in the wretched 2%.

And so now a culture that bans Bibles in the public school allows the promotion of “fisting.”

And my friend remains clueless.

Church, State and Constitutional Anathema

admin — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:52:48 +0000

For years, the Separation of Church and State issue has been gnawed on even though there is absolutely no such provision in the Constitution of the United States of America.

The “Establishment” clause reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The current courts’ interpretation has twisted this clause in such a way that the clause is anathema to itself. It’s like that commericial that is on TV… Guy walks into a dry cleaner with a shirt and tells the attendant “I want it starched and not starched.” The attendent asks, “what part do you want starched and what part do your want not starched?” The man replies “All of it.”

What are these people thinking? You can’t have it both ways and all of it at the same time!

One article on the subject of Separation describes it this way:

“During the last generation, the courts, at all levels, have ruled in ways that essentially guarantee the freedom from religion, instead of the freedom of religion.” ChristainAnswers.net

Establishment -

This word can be used as one of the following, depending on the context*:

the act or an instance of establishing. (literal)
the state or fact of being established. (literal)
the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.

So that begs the question: Has government been ruled out of the business of legislating…

…the act or an instance of establishing a religion?
I think as a literal phrase and in the context of the evacuation of England by our country’s first founders and citizen, this makes sense.
…the state or fact of religion being established?
No, the founders were overwhelmingly religious. They were determined to have their churches. They would go on to excercise their religious freedom by establishing churches, having been unfettered by the tinkering of the government. This was the point of the clause.
…the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.
The founders prayed in private, public, and yes, even government gatherings. The first community schools used the Bible as one of their primary subjects of study. These acts on the part of the founders and early citizens did not constitute recognition of a state church then.

Anathema. You can’t have it both ways.

*These are 3 of 12 definitions that are either literal, or relate closest in historical context to Constitutional issues.

If Democracy Doesn’t Work, Try Anarchy

admin — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:59:36 +0000

by Chuck Norris

Protestors of Proposition 8 in California (the marriage amendment) shoved aside a 69-year-old woman who was bearing a cross. They reportedly spit on her and stomped on her cross. They then aligned themselves in a human barricade, blocking the media from getting to or interviewing the woman.

Prop. 8 supporter Jose Nunez, 37, was assaulted brutally while distributing yard signs to other supporters after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto. by Chuck Norris

Read more of this article »

Hypocricy to the Nth Degree

admin — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:38:19 +0000

More…
“I’ve seen it said that Wright is right about this: The evil done by American leaders damns America. That’s probably too radical as stated.”

Another UI said:

thank you eds. People have focused on the sensational without really listening to his point. I don’t agree with everything he says. But, I don’t fully disagree with everything he says either.

My response:

I find it interesting that you gloss over and dismiss the teaching of this “reverend” but when Sarah Palin says…

“Pray for our military. He’s [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country – that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

…you cry foul and run around calling her too radical to lead.

What a bunch of hypocrites you are.

And yes, Obama bought into and fully committed himself to this radically negative – some might say false – gospel. Twenty years, $27,000 invested in Wrights church. Then Obama LIES about not knowing the Theology of Black Liberation that was being taught and is a very narrow view of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ:

James Cone, a prominent Black Liberation Theologian, believed that the New Testament revealed Jesus as one who identified with those suffering under oppression, the socially marginalized and the cultural outcasts. And since the socially constructed categories of race in America (i.e., whiteness and blackness) had come to culturally signify dominance (whiteness) and oppression (blackness), from a theological perspective, Cone argued that Jesus reveals himself as black in order to disrupt and dismantle white oppression.

He also said that Martin Luther King’s Theology did not focus enough on his “blackness.” The Bible teaches that there is no respecter of persons with God: “For there is no respect of persons with God,” Paul declared (Rom. 2: 11). The Scriptures emphasize repeatedly that God is not judging or treating man, any man, with respect of persons. In other words, God is just and equitable in his dealings with man. i.e. – God does not see color.

What the Bible teaches is that though God is sovereign; man still has real responsibility and freedom in the choices he makes. This was another one of the tenets of Martin Luther’s King’s teachings. And it is MLK’s teaching of this that began to turn the mindset of black and white alike. White people had the responsibility to respect people without regard to color. And black people should practice self-respect and self responsibility.

I don’t question that there is a history of oppression in this country. I am a repentant white person. But in a country where opportunity abounds, Wright continues to teach a theology of victimization instead of the freedom that comes from self responsibility. He teaches a gospel that would continue the division between black and white into perpetuity if he has his way. His way; not God’s way.

Because he is keeping his flock in a mindset of victimization, the fruit that is born of his teaching is one of entitlement. THAT is Obama’s platform. He learned it from Wright. Then he LIED saying he did not know Wright’s theology.

Hit Out on Evangelicals

admin — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:04:02 +0000

Discussion thread:
“Let’s recap all the stunts that didn’t work:
- Mentioning “The Surge” every day
- “Victory” in Iraq
- Calling Obama a “celebrity”
- Palin
- Suspend Campaign
- Save the Bailout package
- Joe the Plumber
- Socialist
- Marxist
- Rev. Wright”

Another UI responds:
”Raising the “white flag of surrender!”"

Another UI responds:
“There are still plenty of morons out there who buy into this crap. “

Another UI responds:
“Specifically the large and growing group catergorized as Evangelicals They basically do not think out their choice, they are told by their church leaders who to vote for. I have friends in this category and this is a known fact, not an assumption.”

And then there was my reply:
“You don’t know squat about Conservative Evangelicals or for that matter that a Pastor’s right to free speech in making such recommendations is squashed do due commie-style laws.

WE, unlike liberals educate ourselves regardless of the political season. You Lefites only show up with your half brain-ideas about who should lead this country when the Kool-aid is free. “

See, I told you I had gone into the trenches. I feel so dirty.

An Alledged Racist Fights the Battle

admin — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:52:41 +0000

When Barack Obama first came into the picture, I figured he was worth a look. I did not know much about John McCain, either.

The first thing I heard was that Barack Obama was rated the most liberal Senator in 2007. I knew right away that there was a good chance that he and I would not see eye-to-eye on a lot of things. So in spite of the color of his skin, I had to choose a different horse in this race.

I have found a complete irony in the actions of voters this election season. Now, I am not naive enough to think that there were not bunches of people who wouldn’t vote for Barack Obama because of the pigmentation of his skin, but I am not one of them.

Nevertheless, I found that it was the very people that WERE supporting him that continuously, repeatedly, sickeningly brought race into the discussion ad-nauseum. Too much hyperbole for you? Imagine the sorts of hyperbole that was used in these little notes:

“How Racism Works:
What if this one divorced and that one wasn’t?
What if this one was this and that one was this?”
…and so on…

And then they’re gonna divide the red states and blue states:

“To sum up briefly: You (red states) get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states…We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs…You get a bunch of single moms …they (Evangelicals) don’t care if you don’t show pictures of their children’s caskets coming home…Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans…

First of all, we will take the slave states…after all, Repuclicans FREED THEM! Republicans have also been champions of civil rights since the mid 1800′s.

The Democratic party gave birth to George McGovern, Robert Byrd and a whole host of other bigots that have been elected to office. Here is a list: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329788/posts Yeah, there have been some Republicans that have said some really stupid things, but let’s not just put a label on one side of the bottle, ok?

I can’t even go on about the rest of these idiotic diatribe I received from someone. Suffice it to say that of all the stuff I saw that she was spewing, only one had any sort of substance – even if it was so weak that she would not refute my response; all the rest hinted at race and other bigoted issues.

Tolerant? PFFFTTT!