Pages

Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Friday, September 25, 2009

Hannah Giles


I love that we live in a free country and that freedom of the press exists. I find that "true" journalism has disappeared from this country. But we have hope, Hannah Giles 20 and James O'Keefe 25 went undercover and exposed Acorn. Funny how no other news media has reported this. Fox is the only one. Acorn was found to be funding prostitution and human trafficking for underaged girls. It is really hard not to get upset when you find out where our tax dollars have been going.

Acorn is now suing Hannah for exposing them. If you would like to make a donation to help her fight these ridiculous lawsuits you can click on this link.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Movie Review Website

I wanted to post a website I had been helping my brother in law with the last year for you all to see! I helped him with building the pages and writing some of the movie reviews. You can just click on the link below! I hope you like it :) 

Tuesday, April 14, 2009


 Isn't this interesting! A little too familiar.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Rush Is On The Dot!

BIDEN: How is it that the Democratic Party, the party of ethnics basically, how did my party get to be the party of anti-God? How did that happen? I'll tell you how it happened. We Democrats became afraid to talk about faith. We're uncomfortable talking about it. The elites of my party. The elitists of my party took over. I can hardly wait for one of these guys on the other side tell me about family values. I can hardly wait for them to tell me, a guy that's communicated everyday for 34 years to be home to put my kid to bed, I can hardly wait for them to tell me, married to the same woman 30 years, after they've been divorced three times, what values are. I can hardly wait for this to happen.

RUSH: I'm sorry, I can't do anything but laugh. (laughing) And it's not that I'm losing my mind or giddy. I find this genuinely funny, because, senator, let me tell you about the faith business. Your base, the base of your party, the kook fringe, lunatic base and many of what you would call mainstream in your party, hate religion. They're scared of it. They're scared of the faith that people have in God. And I think one of the efforts behind much of liberalism is to wipe out as much as possible of God from American society anywhere they can.

RUSH: I'll tell you what, Joe Biden, I know you're not listening, but the word will get to you. You know what your real problem, pal, is with this values business? He asked, "What in the hell happened to us on the values? What happened to the Democrat Party? I'll tell you what happened. Too many elites in our party." You can't talk about religion. You people cannot justify any religious discussion when you are pro-abortion, when you are going to make the sacrament to liberalism something like abortion, and you're going to support wild, extremist feminazis who make every abortion a political statement and cause, you are canceled out, you're canceling yourself out when you start running around talking about religious issues and faith. You talk about Big Government, not God, liberal Democrats appoint judges who push God out of the public square. And then you run around and you shout pro-choice, which means pro-abortion, then you want people to think you have values, when the number one right, that sanctity of life is something that cannot be trusted with your party, Joe? The right to life cannot be trusted in your party. A baby in the womb is at risk with your party. And you want to run around and talk about values and why the country says you don't have values? Why you have to run around to union members, "they attack our values, not gonna take it anymore." This is why Biden is losing the Catholic vote for his candidate, Obama.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Praise The Lord!!

I am so amazed by Sarah Palin!! I just can't believe it!!! 

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Trivia Questions

Hello everyone!

My husband has been posting a few trivia quizzes about US History. I have found them interesting and fun to do and thought I'd share them with you. Click here to see his page, the first one was on July 7th, and a couple more after that.  Check back regularly and have fun!

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Children In The 'gay marriage' Crosshairs

I was reading One News Now and I found this article and couldn't believe it. If you have time, please read it.
Children in the 'gay marriage' crosshairs
Matt Barber - Guest Columnist - 7/2/2008 9:50:00 AM

You've probably heard the relativist line that goes something like this: "Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Live and let live, already!" Well, don't buy it for a minute.

With its recent 4-3 opinion – which arrogantly presumed to redefine the millennia-old definition of legitimate marriage – the California Supreme Court daftly divined that the framers of the California Constitution intended – all along, I guess – that Patrick Henry really had a constitutional right to "marry" Henry Patrick. In so doing, four black-robed Dr. Frankensteins have loosed that paradoxical abomination tagged "same-sex marriage" on the countryside.

Abomination, you say? Isn't that a bit strong?

Nope. God used it. And I'll give just one example of many as to why He did. Keep in mind, though: If California voters fail to pass a constitutional amendment in November to undo this extremist act of judicial social engineering, we can expect thousands more examples just like it.

Virginia resident Lisa Miller, mother of six-year-old Isabella Miller, was involved in homosexuality for a short time. Thankfully, she found freedom from the destructive "gay" lifestyle – as so many others have done – through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and, along with Isabella, is now a Christian.

For the past five years or so, Lisa and Isabella have been trying to live their lives in peace at home in Virginia. But unfortunately, they've been unable to do so, as Lisa's dark past has come back to haunt them. They've been the target of a vicious legal attack by militant homosexual activists that places Vermont's civil union laws ("gay marriage" by another name) directly at odds with the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act, and the Virginia Constitution.

Outrageously, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in March that Lisa must share custody of her own daughter with Janet Jenkins, a woman who was, for a brief time, Lisa's lesbian "civil partner." Jenkins is entirely unrelated to Isabella and, for the most part, is a total stranger to the little girl. Although Jenkins is neither a biological parent nor an adoptive parent, Vermont's highest court determined that – because of a brief "civil union" from a weekend jaunt to Vermont back in 2000 – Jenkins, who hadn't seen Isabella since she was little over a year old, must be granted "parental" rights and visitation.

Little Isabella – who is both terrified by this stranger and understandably confused by her bizarre lifestyle – has suffered tremendous emotional trauma as a result. There are even concerns about her physical safety.

But it gets much worse. Because Christianity is biblically incompatible with unrepentant homosexuality, and since Lisa teaches Isabella God's express design for human sexuality (one man, one woman within the bonds of marriage), Jenkins has claimed in the past that Lisa is an unfit parent. Precisely because Lisa is a Christian, Jenkins has essentially argued that she's not fit to raise her very own daughter.

But it gets worse yet. On June 18, in an act that can only be described as pure evil, Jenkins' attorneys filed a "Motion for Transfer of Both Sole Legal and Physical [Custody]" of Isabella to Janet Jenkins. Yes, you read that right. This unrelated, near-perfect stranger and her single-minded homosexual activist attorneys are trying to permanently rip this horrified child from her mother's loving embrace as a sacrifice to the gods of postmodern homo-fascism. Unfortunately, with the history of this Vermont court, the motion may well be granted.

Still, there is a silver lining to this tragic story. Attorneys with Liberty Counsel, the Christian civil liberties law firm representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, have filed an action in Virginia asking the commonwealth to respect its Marriage Affirmation Act, the federal DOMA and Virginia's constitution, which stipulates that Virginia "shall not create or recognize" "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages" from other states, nor can it recognize rulings which stem from such "unions" (such as Vermont's custody ruling).

This pits the laws of Vermont directly against the laws of Virginia. If Virginia does the right thing and tells Vermont to keep its "civil unions" to itself, the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the conflict.

But on a larger scale, Lisa and Isabella's tragic story demonstrates that it's all too often children who are ultimately victimized by state-recognized immorality. It's the children who suffer when adults selfishly depart from God's intended design for human sexuality and marriage – as reaffirmed by Christ's teachings in the New Testament – and enter into counterfeit homosexual "civil unions" or "same-sex marriages."

So-called same-sex "parenting" willfully deprives a child of his or her mother or father and is fundamentally immoral for that reason (among others). We know conclusively that it's best for children to be raised with both mom and dad. It's not always possible, but even with single parenting, there's always the chance that the other half – an adoptive mother or father – will enter the picture.

We need only rely on common sense, but the preponderance of research has proven that a mother and a father each possess unique qualities central in helping to formulate who a child ultimately becomes.

While standing before the Courts of Justice Committee of the Virginia Senate in 2005, Robert Knight, former director of the Culture and Family Institute, testified to the following:
"In 2001, a team of pro-homosexual researchers from the University of Southern California did a meta-analysis of 'gay parenting' studies and published a refreshingly honest article in American Sociological Review, '(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?'

"The authors concluded that, yes, studies show that girls are more likely to 'be sexually adventurous and less chaste,' including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have 'fluid' conceptions of gender roles, and that researchers should stop trying to cover this up in the hopes of pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda. The researchers said, in effect: Some of the kids are more likely to turn out gay or bisexual, but so what?"
Ultimately, though, it all boils down to simple biology. It's impossible for a "gay" pair to have a child without utilizing the mechanics of natural procreation. They have no choice but to bring an opposite-sex third party into the picture. A child like Isabella can't really have two mommies (or three mommies; Jenkins is reportedly in a new lesbian relationship). She can have only one mommy and a daddy (who in this case was an anonymous sperm donor).

Jenkins and others like her are laboring under an unfortunate delusion. They're not mom, mommy, mother or mum. They're not even "step-mom." The closest thing they are to family is, well, kind of like mommy's fun friend who made you call her Aunt Meg.

But none of this matters to today's postmodern moral relativists. They have a specific agenda in mind: to completely redefine reality-based marriage and family into oblivion...no matter who gets hurt in the process.

And Lisa and little Isabella are just two of the latest victims of that agenda. Unfortunately, if this perversion of justice in California is left to stand, and if Virginia chooses not to rebuff Vermont's outrageous ruling in the Lisa Miller case, there will be many, many more.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Exposing Obama

I found this video and I thought " Its about time some one spoke out about Barrack Obama's faith in The Almighty!

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Ann Lets Alan Have It!!!!

I couldn't help myself, I had to post this video of Ann Coulter. 

Looks Pretty Good!!!

Monday, April 7, 2008

Tidbits Of Dinesh D'souza


I copied and pasted  from Dinesh D'souza's blog again! Here is some really good, healthy reading for everyone!!!

The real problem with Darwinism in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way. Textbooks by biologists like William Provine and Richard Dawkins routinely assert that evolution has done away with the need for God. The claim is that chance and natural selection have demonstrated that we can have design--or the appearance of design--without a designer. In this sense Darwinism becomes propaganda for atheism.
Typically evangelical Christians seek to counter this atheism by trying to expose the flaws in the Darwinian account of evolution. This explains the appeal of "creation science" and the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. These critiques, however, have not made any headway in the scientific community and they have also failed whenever they have been tried in the courts. Fortunately there is a better way.

Consider this: the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting atheism in any way. How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time forbid the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term "religion" means not only "religion" but also "atheism."
Yet if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers cannot advocate atheism.
I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures. The issue isn't the scientific inadequacy of evolution but the way in which it is being used to undermine religious belief and promote unbelief. If the case can be made that atheism is being advocated in any way, then the textbooks would have to be rewritten and classroom presentations changed to remove the offending material. Schools would be on notice that they cannot use scientific facts to draw metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism.
In this way Darwinism in the public schools would no longer be a threat to religion in general or Christianity in particular.

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Martin Luther King


Here is a post that I copied and pasted  written by Dinesh D'Souza whom I highly respect and enjoy! I encourage everyone who passes by to please stop and read! I thought I would post it from his blog because I thought what he has to say should be read by all my blogging friends!

.............When Martin Luther King Really Died

Posted Apr 4th 2008 12:03PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: History, Controversy, Race Relations

When did Martin Luther King die? It's been four decades since that event, but let's ask the question in its broadest light. Reflections on King's death are focusing on what he accomplished. Basically King led the movement to secure legal equality for African Americans and, by extension, all Americans. As a nonwhite immigrant I have benefited from the civil rights movement, and have never forgotten my debt to King. Without him America would have had Brown v. Board of Education but not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act or the Fair Housing Bill. King accomplished a lot.
But he failed in one key respect. King's dream was for America to become a color-blind society where we are judged not by the hue of our skin but by the content of our character. A telling phrase: many conservatives celebrate King's concept of a merit-based society. Yet King didn't say we should be judged by our merits; he said we should be judged according to character.
What happened to King's idea of a color-blind America? It has been stifled not by the Ku Klux Klan or the Southern segregationists. Remarkably it has been abandoned by the very civil rights activists who fought alongside King. Note that the greatest African American leaders, from Frederick Douglass to Booker T. Washington to Martin Luther King, argued for a century that blacks wanted nothing more than to be treated equally under the law. Yet almost immediately after this legal equality was secured, through King's leadership, the NAACP and the other civil rights groups gave up on the idea of color-blindness and began to demand race and ethnic preferences.
The new civil rights orthodoxy was expressed in Cornel West's book Race Matters. West's argument is that it is naive to have color-blind laws and policies in a society where race till matters. Since race matters, we have to institutionalize race as the basis of public policy. Since race matters, we no alternative than to fight racial discrimination with state-sponsored racial discrimination.
The great irony, of course, is that when you institutionalize race in order to combat racism, you move further and further away from the ideal of a society where race ceases to count. First the civil rights movement fought for decades to get race out of university admissions, job hiring and government contracts; then after King's death, it fought to put race back. Yes, the argument was that "benign discrimination" is better than "invidious discrimination," although let us remember that all discrimination is benign to the one who benefits from it, and invidious to the one who pays for it.
King had his flaws, but in an age of racial charlatans like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright, Americans of goodwill continue to wonder: where are you now, Martin Luther King? Have we lost your kind forever? Perhaps the best way to celebrate King's legacy is to recall and attempt to restore the color-blind ideal that he fought and died for.
Martin Luther King was gunned down on the balcony of his hotel 40 years ago. But he really died when his dream of a color-blind society was killed by his own followers.


Saturday, March 29, 2008

Ronald Reagan

I recommend everyone who has a love for our dear America to please watch this video. It is worth all your time! It sure makes me sad to see who the candidates are for the up coming presidential election. 

Online Videos by Veoh.com

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
online counter

Visit My Polyvore