"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (II Tim 3:16) "The sum of Your word is truth" (Psalm 119:160)
Well, it was only a matter of time until the 1984 Miss Alaska swimsuit photos of Sarah Palin surfaced. With the media and every Liberal blogger in the country focusing on her, digging into every nook and cranny of her past, even braking into her e-mail account, it is surprising that it took this long for them to show up.
And here is the video.
Of course, these pics are not nearly as spectacular as the bikini photo, but then, that one was made to order. As I said, the left was looking for these images from day one when she was named as McCain's VP. They were so afraid that Sarah Palin would usurp many women voters, especially disgruntled Hillary supporters, and it was hoped that images of her in a swimsuit at a beauty contest could be used to show that she was no friend of the women's movement. Feminists view beauty contests as sexist and demeaning to women. Now that these photos have surfaced, they have barely made a ripple in the political waters. Since they were so late in coming, the left has focused on Sarah Palin's views on the abortion issue instead. The latest attack came from actress Ashley Judd who characterized abortion a an issue of "women's privacy." See video below.
It shocked me to hear the issue of abortion referred to as an issue of women's privacy. The question of whether abortion on demand should be legal is a question of right and wrong, of moral or immoral, privacy has nothing what-so-ever to do with it. There is a law which requires psychologists to report patients who exhibit tendencies toward pedophilia. Can you imagine the outrage if someone were to refer to it as an issue of a pedophiles privacy.
That's funny because it always seems it's the conservatives who are trying to implement a state religion which everyone one else has to adhere to, always trying to stifle free speech or even in McCain and Palin's case, freedom of the press. The Right are the ones who want to attack the constitution with a new marriage amendment, it's the Right who is always trying to take away our civil liberties for "our safety", its the right who is always trying to get music, lyrics, videos, tv, movies, radio, art, etc. censored. It's conservatives who fought against ideas such as the 15th amendment.And by activist judges would you be referring to ones who sneak in to the court house grounds in the middle of the night to install a big statue of the 10 commandments? That's what I call an activist judge. Just because some judges are non partisan and smart and can actually acknowledge the intentions of the founding fathers doesn't make them activists just because you, uneducated in the law, disagree.
Toad makes several charges in his comments that are so outlandish that I have to wonder how he could have established their credibility in his own mind. 1). That conservatives want to stifle freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and censor the media.
Since Ronald Reagan abolished the 'fairness doctrine' we finally have a situation in this country in which freedom of speech is flourishing. I realize that the Left is unhappy with this situation and many want it reinstated. This charge may seem a little like the 'pot calling the kettle black', but in the mind of the Leftist the fact that there are so many voices now actively opposing their views it must be an effort to silence them. The Left does it's fair share of criticism of the Right as well. But the right to criticize the speech of another falls under the category of free speech. What the Left calls an effort to stifle free speech is really nothing more that healthy political debate. Conservatives have as much right to be engaged in the political debate as does the Left. However, if the Left finds that they no longer have the stomach for it, we would be agreeable to accepting the Left's capitulation.
2). That Conservatives fought hard against ideas like the 15th Amendment.
This charge betrays a great deal of ignorance. On Feb. 26 1869, the 15th Amendment passed the Senate with not a single Republican voting against it, and not a single Democrat voting in favor of it. The next day the House vote was 144 to 44 in favor of passage. All 144 in favor were Republicans and all 44 against it were Democrats. It was the Democrats who opposed the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, as well as much of the civil rights legislation which was passed during the civil rights movement of the 1960. For Toad's edification, may I recommend Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. It is an excellent book on the history of the civil war and offers a perspective thereof which is not often heard.
3). That Conservatives are trying to establish a 'state religion' and that an activist judge is one which violates the religion clause of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment clearly states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No Conservative has proposed such a law, nor has any Conservative stated that he would be in favor of such a law. However, Conservatives do insist that efforts to respect the first portion of the religion clause not lead to gross violations of the second. There in lies the problem. The Left has interpreted the first portion of the religion clause in such a way that in naturally leads to violations of the second.
This 'uneducated' blogger has read no less than two books on the subject of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, as well as the essays of the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The original intent of religion clause of the First Amendment was to prevent the federal government from interfering with state laws regarding religion and their establishments. The concern of the framers was not that the states would use public authority and money to favor one religion over another, many did exactly that and it was an acceptable practice. The worry of the framers who insisted upon this provision was that the federal government would establish a national church interfering with churches favored in the various states.
The concept of a constitutional 'separation of church and state', established solely by activist judges, has done much to greatly curtail religious freedom in America. Communities are being restricted from using their local tax dollars to erect any type of religious monument or even a Nativity display at Christmas time. Teachers and students alike are forbidden from expressing their faith on public school property. Families or church groups visiting public monuments at our Nation's Capital are fined for engaging in prayer. Just this week, in my own state of Virgina, five state troopers have resigned following a directive that banned them from using the words Jesus or Christ in public prayers. In recent years there have even been those (mostly on the Left) who argue that the religion clause of the First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for members of a religious institution to engage in political activism.
It was just yesterday that Harry Reid had said that John McCain needed to support the economic bailout measure if it was to succeed. Today, the presidential nominee has said that he will suspend his campaign and go back to Washington to work on the bailout bill and invited Obama to do the same. Now Reid is saying that McCain's involvement is not needed and wouldn't be helpful.
I love it when Republicans force Democrats to talk out of both sides of their face.
Obama responded to McCain's suggestion by saying, “Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time." While this comment was intended to question McCain's ability to be president, but it also slammed Bill Clinton. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton complained more than once that he needed to "get back to work for the American people." The use of the words "get back to work" implies that the scandal was preventing him somehow from doing his job. Clearly, Bill Clinton was not able to deal with more than on thing at a time.
At least the crisis that John McCain is focusing on is a bit more important than a President's inability to keep his 'goods' securely tucked away in his trousers.
FOR THE NATION O eternal God, through whose mighty power ourfathers won their liberties of old; Grant, we beseech thee, that we and all the people of this land may have grace to maintain these liberties in righteousness and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
FOR ALL IN THE SERVICE OF OUR COUNTRY O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The runaway popularity of Sarah Palin, especially with women, is enough to throw the radical feminists into fits. In some cases, feminist may be mistaken as sufferers of Tourette syndrome. One blogger characterized her as pure evil. Then there is this rant at the Daily-kook.
In an Aug. 29th press release, NOW PAC chair, Kim Gandy, emphatically pontificated that Sarh Palin is no more a supporter of women's rights than John McCain, but admitted that "like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights." Which rights? Apparently, only the right of a woman to flippantly murder her unborn child.
Chicago Sun Times columnist, Mary Mitchell, echoed the same sentiments yesterday in a piece entitled Palin should be laughingstock to all feminists. Rather than comprehensively prove the 'laughingstock' premise of the title, Ms. Mitchell spends a good portion of the piece lamenting the much chagrined popularity of Sarah Palin. The following are a few examples of this:
"Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to steal Barack Obama's mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a skirt."
"I hate that she makes Joe Biden look like John McCain and John McCain look like the maverick he is not."
"I hate that Palin reminds me of Susan Sarandon's feisty character in "Thelma & Louise." I loved Sarandon in that movie, yet I couldn't stand Palin's feistiness at the Republican National Convention."
"Sarah Palin makes me sick -- not because she may speak in tongues -- but because she is a fast talker."
"It irks me that Palin is being painted as some kind of "New Age Feminist" by the so-called 'elite' media."
"She isn't."
"Palin is a fresh face on a weary campaign trail, and a jack-in-the-box in this election. But Palin isn't running against Barack Obama. McCain is, and the media seem to have forgotten that."
Having delt sufficiently with her 'cry baby' issues, Ms. Mitchell moved on to more substantive matters, like the claim that Palin is a reformer.
"But we know that the "reform-minded" is a bit of a stretch. Palin is under investigation for allegedly abusing her power by trying to have her ex-brother-in-law fired."
Ms. Mitchell fails to site any instances in which feminists have opposed the firing of a dangerous, child abusing, male, state trooper. Ms. Mitchell continued her piece by pointing out the ways in which Sarah Palin is a typical politician, but fails to recount the long list of atypical politicians that feminist typically have supported in the past.
From this point on in the article, Ms. Mitchell waxed hypocritical. She tried to cast doubt on whether Palin could be both a career woman and mother. How does doing that which feminists have always supported and encouraged women to do make her a 'laughingstock' to feminists. Even a former Leftist like myself cannot explain the logic.
Finally, at the end of the piece, she gets to the real heart of the matter.
"Palin's extreme views on abortion (she once said she would be against her daughter having an abortion even in the case of incest or rape) and her support of abstinence-only programs should make her a laughingstock to feminists."
Yes, it is true that a woman who chooses to give birth to a child because she believes that abortion is wrong, is a choice that feminists mock. It is true that the notion of preventing a pregnancy through the advocation of abstinence is repugnant to feminists. It is also true that feminists are the the advocates of women's rights save but one; the right of a woman to have an opinion which differs from the feminazi party line.
This is how one leftist blogger commemorated 9/11, publishing only the image shown at right with no commentary. This image is meant to convey the notion that as a result of 9/11 our Constitution has been under attack, primarily from the Patriot Act. The Left's concern for our Constitution is completely phony. The Left has relentlessly attacked the Constitution as antiquated, rigid, and regressive. The left has always wanted a complete rewrite of the Constitution, and if they can't get it done through the ratification of amendments (remember the ERA), they will do it through the judiciary.
To be blunt, as a former member of the American Left, I know that the Left has no love for the U.S. Constitution, or for that matter anything that patriotic Americans hold dear. They want to destroy this country as it is currently constituted. They wanted us to lose the cold war and they now would like us to lose the war on terror. Their opposition to the Patriot Act is purely because they know it has been instrumental in keeping America safe from terrorist attacks for the last seven years. Any pretense of concern for civil liberties in this regard is completely phony.
At the MTV Awards last night British comedian Russell Brand took advantage of the opportunity spew his political views on American politics, taking it upon himself to urge Americans "on behalf of the world" to vote for Barack Obama. The following are a few of his comments.
"Some people, I think they're called racists, say America is not ready for a black president. "But I know America to be a forward thinking country because otherwise why would you have let that retard and cowboy fella be president for eight years? "We were very impressed. We thought it was nice of you to let him have a go, because, in England, he wouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors."
I don't know who Mr. Brand thinks he is that he can come to the United States and make these kinds of insulting pontifications, but sitting here, clinging to my gun with one hand and my religion with the other, and considering his comments in the context of his physical appearance, I think that I am perfectly capable of figuring out who the retard is!
OK, so I am an older conservative who is not on top of everything that happens in the music industry. Let's face it, most of the music industry is liberal, so the fact that a conservative rock group has entered the genre is something that might escape my notice for awhile. So for those of you who may be father behind the times than I am, let me introduce you to a few of the music videos from The Right Brothers. Enjoy!
The List
Bush Was Right
I Want To Live (You might need some tissues for this one. I did.)
Since being named McCain's VP choice Sarah Palin has come under numerous attacks from the Left. The only one that has any possibility of resonating with the American people is the question of her experience. Here is a little video I found on Youtube that examines how well that argument will float.
The newest attacks on Sarah Palin have to do with statements made by her Pastors. Harper's has been pouring over the sermons made by David Pepper of the the Church on the Rock in Palin’s hometown of Wasilla, and Mike Rose of the Juneau Christian Center, who has been her pastor since she became governor in 2006. Here are some of the statements which the Libs are having some problems with.
From David Pepper, senior pastor at Church on the Rock:
From an November 25, 2007 sermon: “The purpose for the United States is… to glorify God. This nation is a Christian nation.”
From an October 28, 2007 sermon: “God will not be mocked. I don’t care what the ACLU says. God will not be mocked. I don’t care what atheists say. God will not be mocked. I don’t care what’s going on in the nation today with so much horrific rebellion and sin and things that take place. God will not be mocked. Judgment Day is coming. Where do you stand?”
From an October 28, 2007 sermon: “Just giving in a little bit is a disastrous thing…You can’t serve both man and God. It is one or the other.”
And from Mike Rose, senior pastor at Juneau Christian Center:
From an April 27, 2008 sermon: “If you really want to know where you came from and happen to believe the word of God that you are not a descendant of a chimpanzee, this is what the word of God says. I believe this version.”
From a July 8, 2007 sermon: “Those that die without Christ have a horrible, horrible surprise.”
From a July 28, 2007 sermon: “Do you believe we’re in the last days? After listening to Newt Gingrich and the prime minister of Israel and a number of others at our gathering, I became convinced, and I have been convinced for some time. We are living in the last days. These are incredible times to live in.”
Some of the left wing bloggers have jumped on the Harpers article and believe that Sarah Palin should have to denounce these statements of her Pastors just as Obama had to denounce the controversial statements of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. In the interest of fairness, let us re-examine the statements of Jeremiah Wright which I obtained from Fox News.
– September 2001: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”
– September 2001: “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.”
– September 2001: “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”
– April 2003: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God damn America … for killing innocent people. God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”
– December 2007: “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.”
– December 2007: “Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”
– Jan. 13, 2008: “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”
– “Fact number one: We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college. … Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.”
– “We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. … We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. … We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. … We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means.And … And … And! God! Has got! To be sick! Of this shit!”
The left cannot be serious! Do they really think that there is any kind of realistic comparison that can and should be made with respect to the content of the sermons of Palin's Pastors and those of Obama's? Liberals seem to have 'plug and play' brains. One of them makes an 'off the wall' suggestion and they all just fall in line and follow along. It's as if they have no will of their own. It kinda of reminds me of the following Bob Hope movie line.
