I think the whole point is: If someone is a single homosexual and living a chaste life, there is no sin. If a single heterosexual is living a chase life, there is no sin. If a heterosexual engages in sexual conduct outside the state of marriage or homosexual (God did not bless homosexual marriages) therein lies the sin. The condition is not in question; it is the conduct of the individual. The homosexual community wants to change the dialogue by saying it is a human right. We are free to do whatever we want because we all have freewill. It doesn’t mean we have the right to harm ourselves or others both physically, emotionally or spiritually. We all have a moral compass, but years of denial and that immoral actions are okay is good, in the sight of God, is very dangerous to the wellbeing of the soul. We are fooling ourselves if we think that. Lastly, God did not die for all our sins (giving us some sort of cart blanch), the stain of concupiscence was removed by His death, but our sinful nature remains. If God died for all of our sins, what would be the object of leading a moral life? It is a matter of choice, being moral or being immoral.
What has happened in this country that presumed innocent until trial by jury? The rule of law is becoming totally ignored and everyone wants justice in the form of a lynch mod. Ignoring the rule of law has become a political tool used to enrage the public for support of his or her political ambitions. This policy of stirring up public sentiment, that is inciting riot, has now become the norm. The policies of this current White House is leading this nation into a dark place, a place that our forefathers saw as divisive, based on the errors of past European governments. If there is racial division in this country it is based on the contentious attitude of President Obama toward Congress. If Blacks continue to support him, solely on the fact that he is a person of ‘color,’ then we will see more riots like those that are taking place in Missouri. Law abiding people see his policies as promoting disunity and distrust. Pandering to the will of the lawless only further promotes this division.
On Thursday, the 21st of November 2013, the Senate of the United States abolished the power of the minority political power by abolishing the filibuster. The filibuster gives the minority political party an opportunity to block the passage of political nominees of the President of the United States. This rule has been part of our government for nearly 200 years; now it is dead because of the Democrats desire for political dominance.
On August 2, 1934, after the death of German President Paul von Hindenburg, the Nazis announced the following law, which was dated as of August 1, 1934:
"The Reich Government has enacted the following law which is hereby promulgated.
Section 1. The office of Reich President will be combined with that of Reich Chancellor. The existing authority of the Reich President will consequently be transferred to the Führer and Reich Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. He will select his deputy.
Section 2. This law is effective as of the time of the death of Reich President von Hindenburg."
The actions of the Democrats have in fact done the same to the Constitution of the United States by this new passage of Senate rules; they have given the President of the United States powers of the “Führer” by making President Obama a dictator.
This Senate judiciary procedure, by the Democrats, should make all Americans wakeup to the criminal actions of this administration.
Two Guns is an action packed thriller involving the mistrust of rival governmental bureaus staring Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington, both of who distrust each other and in the end realize that survival depend on mutual cooperation.
After watching this film I came to the conclusion that this plot is from real life; governmental agencies seeming fighting for the same goal, yet distrustful of each other’s motives. At times it was difficult to figure out who were the ‘good guys’ and their motives, let alone their loyalty to the United States, ending with the suspicion that it is all about greed.
The movie is a parody of the life and motives in Washington, D.C. and the consequences of strange bedfellows who enjoy some type of symbiotic relationship out of mutual need. At times we don’t know who the good guys are and we are swayed by the likeability of the actors, i.e. politicians who line there own pockets, picking ours while we willingly oblige them by looking the other way.
Homosexuals want equality and they see this equality personified by allowing them to be ‘married’ in the eyes of the law. For over five thousand years marriage has been viewed as the union between a man and a women. The very nature of the word marriage is partly derived from the Latin word matrimonium, which means, “mother.” Given the biological fact that same sex couples cannot procreate, the real meaning of the word has little relevance.
Although there are a few perverted examples of “marriage” in an unnatural sense, like Nero marring young boys and Caligula desire for his horse in ‘marriage’ these incidents do not give historical justification for the change in the meaning of the word marriage and its intended purpose.
From a biblical standpoint, Jesus Christ gave his blessing on the institution of marriage when he turned water into wine, thus beginning his mission. Many of the biblical texts use the term marriage in describing a holy union, or covenant, between a man and a woman.
To give a legal status to an institution that is basic to the very framework of society is detrimental to its very existence. What seems to be most at play here is the desire by same sex partners for the ‘blessings’ of society, so to speak, on their perverted lifestyle.
The movie Les Misérables is packing in theaters across the nation for its cinematic grandeur and stunning musical performances. It’s a story about the relentless pursuit of Jean Valjean by a hardhearted policeman called Javert. The policeman’s goal is pure dedication to the letter of the law and an abandonment of compassion or logic.
The backdrop of this movie is the Fourth French Revolution in which the working class held power in Paris for only two month in the spring of 1871. The movie glamorizes the fight of the French proletariat against a defeated French government of Napoleon III as a result of the Franco-Prussian War. In fact The Paris Commune, as the Fourth French Revolution is sometimes referred to as, was a Communist revolution caused by social discontent; people will only take so much from an oppressive or poorly run government.
The most notable song of Les Misérables is “Do You Hear the People Sing.” It begins, “Do you hear the people sing
Singing the song of angry men
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again…”
Our country has fought for freedom since its inception as it broke free from England and that love and drive for freedom has not waned since. The Obama administration’s measures to deprive us of our freedom of religion, speech and the right to defend ourselves has stirred the “song of angry men” and they sing out that they “will not be slaves again.”
We did not trade one oppressive government only to be enslaved by another. 2013 will be a year of trial and triumph when the people take their fight to the courts and public opinion against the tyranny of unjust laws and draconian government mandates; “there is a life about to start, when tomorrow comes.”
The acceptance of Sharia Law by the liberal is a contradiction to their very movement. This is the mystery of understanding the mind of the “liberal woman” who say that they want to control their own bodies, yet through their support of the liberal agenda, give up control of their very being. Birth control was not really a true concern of women in the fight for equality in the early days of the suffragist movement, as the present liberal politician would like women to believe. Susan BrownelL Anthony, 1820–1906, American reformer and leader of the woman-suffrage movement, knew that birth control was an advantage for men because it subjected women to be used for sexual gratification and freed men from the obligation of responsibility of taking care of offspring. She fought the idea that women were the “property” of men in her day, and if she were alive today, she would say that Sharia Law is no different from the attempt by 19th century men in her time to control women.
A Typical Liberal Attack
The following is a response to a teacher who questioned my qualifications in questioning her authority and her own qualifications in the educational system in Wisconsin. She holds a Masters Degree, yet her rant included a spelling and sentence error. If you’re going to make the point of being a quality educator, I would suggest proofing your work.
I find it interesting that when someone challenges the liberal agenda it gets personal and it becomes a pissing contest who is smarter. Yes, I am a collage graduate, but I do not have a masters. I do know how to spell education versus your creative version “eduction.” Also, an interrogative sentence is followed by a question mark.
Now that we have that out of way, I will answer your question about my qualifications.
First of all, besides my college education, I am the father of six children. If anyone thinks that I do not know anything about children and their education, they have another guess coming. Believe me that I have seen and lived all of the problems children face from kindergarten to college years.
I also had the opportunity to work in a school system that paid, with federal funds, marginalized students to go to school. Yes, they were paid to learn so teachers could have a job and the students could have some money. What the students did with their time and to the teachers were troubling and a complete waste of tax payer money; the students considered it a joke. It was a symbiotic relationship, the teachers and students feeding off the government.
In West Side Story a misguided youth tries to justify his misbehavior, “Gee, Officer Krupke, we’re very upset, we never had the love that ev’ry child oughta get. We ain’t no delinquents, we’re misunderstood. Deep down inside us there is good”
This whole attitude of misguided delinquents and the need to understand them, rather than the felons conform to the social norms of society, is the whole foundation of our current education system. Another name for this is relativism. The public educational system has lost its way and liberals have stolen the map to reason.
I always believe in the old adage, “It is a poor worker who blames his tools.” Budget cuts really do not have a bearing on the quality of the educator, because parochial schools excel in quality of education in comparison to public schools with less money everyday.
If there was ever the “perfect storm” in national politics, this election will be that tempest. It will be more than just the fight between conservatism and liberalism; it will be the battle between freedom and slavery by government. It will be a clash of ideologies that will have a profound impact on our American society, greater than the American Civil War and more lasting because the outcome will basically amend the Constitution of the United States.
The recent selection of Representative Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential running mate with Mitt Romney is in stark contrast to Vice-president Joe Biden. The Biden half of the Democratic ticket represents a worn out cliché in American politics; the back slapping, demigod politician who tries to win support for an issue based on political muscle developed in the back rooms of union meeting houses. Born politically into the liberal atmosphere of the seventies he somehow managed to survive the instability of politics in spite of his marginal academic abilities.
Paul Ryan is the antithesis of Biden; he is smart, articulate and disciplined. Both profess being Roman Catholic, yet the Catholicism of Biden is more the buffet catholic than Ryan’s orthodoxy. While Biden seems to fly by the seat of his pants, Paul Ryan has a plan; a well thought out plan that is willing to take on the issue of deficits and make decisions based on reality.
The selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate has been critized by some in the news media, saying that he does not have a broad base constituency. That assumption is very wrong because his strong Catholic beliefs will certainly attract both the large block of conservative Catholics, i.e. real Catholics, and Christian Evangelicals, who see Obama’s attack on the freedom of religion as a real threat.
Realizing the fact that freedom of religion, one of our most important freedoms, is at stake in this election, the selection of the vice-president may be the most central issue in this campaign. When it comes to religion, people will die for their beliefs, and that issue alone should not be underestimated.
Chick-fil-A’s president, Dan Cathy, created a lot of controversy for simply saying that, “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”
That remark provoked a firestorm of reactions on both sides of the issue. Former Governor Mike Huckabee supported Cathy’s remark and encouraged people to support the restaurant chain and patronize Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August 1. He said, “The goal is simple: Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand …”
While Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel said that he would deny a building permit to operate its business in the City of Chicago. Following the example of Rahm, liberal politicians in Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco said that they would follow suit.
If there is any question about freedom of religion in this country, this should confirm the fact that freedom is in jeopardy, and freedom of speech is also at risk. Since when do a person’s thoughts, religious views and business arrangements, based on a moral conviction, condemn them? What is to become of our most basic freedoms, that of freedom of religion and speech?
Just because some people see the lifestyle of homosexuals as immoral and deviant behavior, should not censure them into silence. When we have to fear speaking our minds because one-group thinks they have the right to control speech, we are left with a dictatorship of thought.