Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

The Democrats vs. Your Mom

April 14, 2012 by  

Obama’s mouthpiece takes aim at motherhood. Holder hears a who? It’s the REAL Buffett Rule. And: nice tie, Louis. All this — plus: an easy “A” at Harvard. Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE!  It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Democrats vs. Your Mom”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://none Claire

    My Mother raised my two sisters and myself, totally. We were very poor and could not hire “help.” The wealthy people had a cook, a maid, a gardener, and a nanny. This was and is the way it is. Besides, my Mother stayed at home, she never went anywhere. We never had a babysitter, but it is a different world now. This woman that made the comments no doubt had plenty of babysitters. Therefore, who does raise the kids?

    • Michael J.

      Claire,
      Be proud, you are who you are because of the way you were raised. The woman making these remarks was probably raised by babysitters. My parents, both gone now, were married only once and to each other. They raised four children complete with discipline and caring that I am very thankful for. Todays children are lost, exposed to culture shock, single parents, and are thrown into an education system focused on molding ideological twits instead of providing usable life skills. Through no fault of their own, children are becoming Columbine strain misfits

      • http://none Claire

        Michael J: I am proud–especially of my Mother. She worked so hard all her life.
        She certainly did the best she could with what she had. I have so many memories about her and how she taught us. She passed in 1991 and I still think of her every day and wish I could be more like her in many ways. Hopefully I am.

      • Tom W.

        Claire and Michael, you are both so right, we were raised in a totally different universe! Hard work was rewarded, the golden rule was enstilled in us from the time we were toddlers, we did things together as a family, sports figures and entertainers were people you would want your kids to aspire to, sure we had some problems and over the years those problems were brought out in the sunlight and dealt with! WE as a nation stjll are a work in progress.
        What I think is funny is now that O has attacked the Catholics, and now MOTHERS! My grandmother (God rest her soul!) could defeat O in the upcoming election and the GOP is getting ready to nominate a man who in my humble opinion, doesn’t have a snowballs chance of defeating Barack!!!
        Ben, YOU DA MAN!!! LOL! Keep up the GOOD work, my brother in arms!!!

      • Michael J.

        Tom W,
        A totally different universe, both then and now still. In my line of work, I am often in the homes of billionaires. Their children are strangers to them. While the nanny watches over the children, the father is off to the office and Mom is off to the tennis court or shopping. When the kids get older it’s off to college, never given the opportunity for quality time with family or even siblings. These are
        for the most part selfish people whose children never benefit from the

        building blocks that family provides.

      • Raised by my Mom, Not

        My guess is she was raised by wolves or rabid cayotes. Would only be in keeping with Omamaite tribe.

      • Raised by my Mom, Not Wolves

        Michael, you’re wrong – she was probably raised by either wolves or rabid bats certainly not human beings, you know like Nancy (Final Stages of Dementia, woof, Woof) Pelosi. That’s the birthing pattern of the Obamaite Muslim tribe. Hey, she’s every bit as noble as Bill Mar(ed). Liberals always operate on the high moral prlincipal that if you tell lies often enough to their socialist sheeple, it becomes the truth.

      • http://none Claire

        Michael J is not wrong.

      • JUKEBOX

        HILLARY rOSEN WAS PROBABLY RAISED BY THE “VILLAGE”.

      • EyesWideOPEN

        “thrown into an education system focused on molding ideological twits instead of providing usable life skills. Through no fault of their own, children are becoming Columbine strain misfits”… (Michael J)…

        Too True..!! When the emphasis strays from real education to focus on police action, metal detectors, atheism and parental blame, it’s function needs total revamping.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        R, R, & R!!!

      • Tom W.

        Pray tha Sirian made it through the storms OK everybody, I Haven’t seen a post by him this morning yet!

      • http://pweiters9.wordpress.com pweiters9

        4/16/12, Hello Mike, remember the days when dad went to work, mom managed the household & they owned a house, wanted for little, took vacations & may have owned 2 cars? Then came the NOW gang raising hell about being “equal.” Things were never the same ever since. What happened was sending more women out to work, earning more dollars to chase the same goods, resulted in the gradual decline in value so now you need the kids & cats & dogs all hustling a buck just to stay afloat.

    • http://naver samurai

      Sook Young and I have raised 4 children in which 3 are grown up and on their own. Believe me, it was work for the both of us. We both worked and would come home, take care of the kids, cook dinner, clean the house, do the laundry, wash the dishes, play games with the kids, check their homework, break up fights and arguements, etc. So if that crazy lib woman thinks it isn’t work, then it is probably because she has no kids or she pays someone to look after them when she is gone. I guess she doesn’t know how to be a mother. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      P.S. Ann Romney, keep doing things your way. You are an inspiration.

      • eddie47d

        You made a good point yourself but lost the message. Ms Rosen is fully aware of the struggles of a working woman and is on the side of those who have to balance work,home and family. I doubt if Mrs Romney takes care of her own home and doesn’t work. That makes her out of touch with the average American woman whether they work or stay at home. That is not disrespecting those who do stay at home but don’t have the money to hire nannies and other caretakers like she has done. So Ms Rosen is speaking about you and I also where both husband and wife had to work and still do everything else.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        Hey samurai and sook, that is the way it supposed to be done on a Christian home. When a man and woman join together in HOLY Matrimony, they become ONE flesh and share in ALL things as one!!! Good and bad, it’s not below a husband to do the laundry or make the bed, and it’s not above the wife to pick up a hammer or cut the grass. I like Claire owe a big debt of gratatude to my mom who raised me and my sister pretty much on her own. I understand that there were unreconcilable differences between my parents and hold no ill feeling towards my dad, he could’ve done a better job, but I forgave him. I pray my son will forgive me my shortcomings!!! But my mom brought us up the best she could and then some and I (Even though she used to raise hell with me NON-STOP!) like Claire miss her very much!!! A girl said to me one time, “I’ll bet she used to make you go cut your own switch!”, I said, “No, that was my grandmother, she used to beat my a$$ with a piece of my Hot Wheels track!!!” OWWW! THANK GOD, AND THANK YOU MAMA!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibI38b2G5U

        No, she didn’t Bob!

      • John Wilch (TSgt, USAF Ret.)

        Yip, you are a Number One on the subject Samurai. I too was raised by a caring Mother who had to work bust she did it while we were at school and when we got home she was there to meet us. Oh, there was times that we had to have a babysitter but that babysitter was either our Grandma Martin or one of our older Cousins.

        And when it came time for my Tsuma and I to have our own children we were there for them. I worked at night so that I was there for them in the mornings until the left for school and then she was there for them when they got home.

        MAY GOD WATCH OVER THE US OF A and MAY SHE REIGN FOREVER!

      • http://comcast the fisherman

        inspiration to who

      • http://PersonalLiberty Alondra

        Please everyone go to: http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

        You can see how successful Communistic DEMONcrats were in their agenda.

        Read attentively all goals. But here you have some of them:
        26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
        27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
        28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
        29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
        30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
        31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
        32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

        39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
        40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
        41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

        Only complete idiots cannot see what is going on.

        Also see this VIDEO. It’s about CHILDREN, CRIME and INJUSTICE:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DWnEqKlKko&feature=related
        And also some truth about ObamaCare:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=H1d6zlyQSPY&NR=1
        If in November we do not kick out the CHARLATAN and FRAUD and DEMONcraps out, so it will be DEATH SENTENCE for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

        WAKE UP AMERICA.

      • http://naver samurai

        Well “Fisherman” you sound like you have no idea about a woman staying at home being a good thing. If she does, when the kids come home from school they have someone that can nuture them, teach them, love them, etc., at home. Why would you want the kids to come home and basically be lacthkey kids? What Isaid about what Sook Young and I did on a daily basis, my mother did all those things and more. My parents divorced when I finished 2nd grade, so my mom had to pull double duty. She had to be the mother and the father. If a woman stays at home to raise kids, it is a lot of work. Just ask Sook Young, she’ll tell you it is. Thanks for the post Tom. Good one as always. Let’s keep up the good fight fellow patriots! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. Her is a source showing how the NOW don’t like stay at home women. Also watch the video that comes with it.

        http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark=finklestein/2012/04/12/now-prez-ann-romney-lacks-life-experience-and-immagination

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        eddie, how did I overlook your assenine post! Like Mz. Rosen represents the average middle class American mom!!! I see the class warfare crap has worked on the lemmings who post on this site! I thought I told you not to smoke any of that crap that Flushdouche is peddling!!!

      • http://naver samurai

        OK Ed, mind telling me how a lesbo sets the example for the average working mom? Since her adopting children would be un ethical and immoral, subjecting the child to an immoral lifestyle, she cannot represent anything dealing with motherhood. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Warrior

      Let’s see now.

      Control of car companies – check
      control of edumacation – check
      control of healthcare – check
      control of energy – check
      control of banks – check
      control of transportation -check
      control of the value of currency – check
      marginalizing of congress – check
      marginalizing of the supreme court – check
      marginalizing of the family – check
      promoting class divide -check

      all of this brought to you by non other than “progressives”.

      Isn’t “utopia” a wonderful place!

      • JUKEBOX

        You left out “Ditching the Constitution”.

      • John Wilch (TSgt, USAF Ret.)

        You also left out “Restricting who can work on the Family Farm.”

      • http://PersonalLiberty Alondra

        Warrior, Unfortunately it’s not UTOPIA anymore, but REALITY.

        “Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh (America) was an exceedingly great city (country) … And Jonah began … cry out and said, “Yet forty days (we have 6 month and 22 days), and Nineveh (America) shall be overthrown!” 5 So the people of Nineveh believed God … and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” (Jonah 5:1-10)

        “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD” (Psalm 33:12) Our LORD is CHRIST!!!

        I am inviting everyone who loves this country and everyone with the good conscience to “steadfastly pray” the next prayer every day: “When he is judged, let him be found guilty, and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office.” (Psalm 109:7, 8) Amen.

        GOD, please save America.
        I invite you to listen song Rachem, which means Mercy. It based on the Daniel Prayer (Daniel9:15-19). He prayed for Jerusalem, we must pray for America. I hope Almighty God, our Heavenly Father will hear us. The song is on Hebrew.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX99NZx9Mfs

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqHrKc0DEgw&feature=related

      • Marty S.

        You also left control of the news media. Check.

      • http://naver samurai

        Here is something from WND that is alarming about how Obama bin Laden is destroying the Constitution and our nation.

        http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/alarms-over-obama-coup-against-constitution-surging/

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        General Eisenhower warned us it is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead. He did this because he said in words to this effect: “Get it all on record now – get the films – get the witnesses – because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened!” Recently, the UK debated whether to remove the Holocaust from its school curriculum because it ‘offends’ the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

        Mah Shalomkah Alondra!!! Thanks so much for the BEAUTIFUL videos!

        In chapter 17 of the book of Luke, Jesus talking about when the signs of His coming start to appear, He warned to remember Lot’s wife! (Luke 17:32) What did she do? When told to flee the city of Sodom, they were given a certain warning by the angels. NOT TO LOOK BACK!!! (Gen. 19:17)
        Why are all these things happening?! The natural diasters, the political and social upheaval, amorality, wars and rumors of war, all revolving around the REBIRTH of the nation of Israel and the reclaiming of Jerusalem by the Jewish people. (Luke 21:24) They’re not happening because of anything that mankind has or hasn’t done, THEY’RE HAPPENING BECAUSE THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO!!! It’s all part of the BOOK, and the BOOK MUST BE FULFILLED!

        Is your lamp trimmed and BURNING?!! (Matt. 25:1-13) Because if you’re not LOOKING up (Luke 21:28), you SURELY to GOD must be BLIND!!! (II Cor. 4:3&4) Surely you don’t want to be TOLD to go hangout with the GOATS!!! (Matt. 25:31-46) Keep your eyes on the skies, JESUS IS COMING! He loves y’all and so do I!!!

      • nc

        Warrior, Utopia, the USA, number 1 nation in the world, is a wonderful place except when it was interrupted by adminstrations like Hoover, crooked Nixon and george “daddy’s boy” bush who wrecked the economy and left it to Democrats to correct.
        I have asked several times here for you “true conservatives” to name one “true consevative’ President and not one has been named, Even Reagan has been ‘disqualified’ as a true conservative becaue of his tax positions and creation of

        record national debt and support of the unions! Which raises the question of “if we emerged from World War II as the number one nation in the world and have remained there for almost 70 years WITHOUT a true conservative leader being responsible for it , why do we need one now????Progressives and moderates have gotten us this far why do we need conservtive leadership?? Is there something higher or better than number one?? What nation would that be?? You conservatives need to quit your complaining and “dance with who brung ya”

      • samurai

        SSDD, eh NC (No cajones)? Let’s not forget the lib track record shall we?

        FDR: Higher spending, higher taxes, icreaesed size of government, lengthened the Great Depression, and sought to get us into WWII before 1941.

        LBJ: Raided SS, increased size of government, war on poverty made poverty worse, raised taxes.

        Carter: Increased spending, increased size of government, increased taxes, long lines at the pump, double diget inflation, high unemployment, and his brother committing treason.

        Clinton: Increased spending, higher taxes, increased sized of government, attacked non-military targets to keep press out of his personal life, went into Bosnia, did not take out Osama (Though he had 3 chances to do so), let Americans be killed by terrorists without any responses, lessening of morals, saying adultery is OK, and being put back into his place by Mother Teresa. Let’s also not forget the lie about a surplus, global warming, and the economy being inflated by the housing bubble that burst.

        Sheesh! Looks like the libs have nothing to talk about as far as accomplishments. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • truesoy

          samurai;
          What are you talking about?
          It seems you are perennially misinformed on just about every subject, and that is your business. Ok, to each its own, I say. But what concerns me is that you could be basing your political decisions (at the voting booth, in particular) based on that faulty information of which it seems you’ve got plenty of. I’m honestly concerned.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • samurai

        Wrong answer Truesoy! What I posted was some facts about certain lib presidents in response to the nonsense that NC posted. If you can’t understand that, then you are lost. Also, I notice you like coming after Jay, I, and other patriots. Could it be that you can’t handle the truth and you try to discredit us with lib spin, lies, rhetoric, and innuendo? Sorry son, but if you can’t handle what we tell you here, you won’t like the truth being told to you in the Bible and by God and Jesus. Your kind are a disgrace to this country and the other one you were born in. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • truesoy

          samurai;
          I have nothing against patriots, and I admire them for I’m one, I believe. However, to be a patriot you have to know why, and be it for the right reasons, and I think that in this you are a little confused.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • Hey You

        These above comments evidently have degenerated into a partisan argument. May I suggest that everyone is correct?; all government figureheads are subjective (which equates to evil). We, collectively, have had the misfortune of being ruled by mostly sociopaths. That shouldn’t come as a surprise as powerful offices attract that 4% of the population who has near zero consciences.

        Let’s forget the partisan bickering by realizing that the system by which so called “leaders” emerge is a system that promotes those who bribe to voting public. It almost always happens on the way to decline and fall. It’s like on a map with a “you are here” point. Well, we sure are “here” and it’s a slippery slope.

        • truesoy

          Just one question:
          Where were these ‘conservatives’ when President Ronald Reagan bailed out Chrysler to the tune of billions of dollars?
          Oh, wait, I remember. They all were cheering!!!
          …but if President Obama does it, he must be communist, right?

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

          • Joan

            Truesoy, the difference between Reagan bailing out Chrysler is that the government didn’t take over ownership of Chrysler as the Obama did GM. Big difference, yes??

      • http://naver samurai

        Well said Joan. You have to excuse Truesoy for his spinning and outright lack of intelligence on the subjects at hand. You call yourself a patriot Truesoy? If you are a patriot, then I’m the Pope. You say I don’t know why I’m a patriot? Whet kind of less intelligent question is that? I’ve served this country for 20 years, voted in every election since 1984, and continue to spread the truth of our founding, teach the truth to students, and strive to have our government go by our Christian founding and the Constitution. You are what Jesus warned us about when he said “…send you out as lambs among wolves…” and “..they are wolves in sheep’s clothing…” If you are a patriot, then why do you never get our history right, use lib lies, rhetoric, and innuendo, are an atheist, and have no real idea about how this country? Sound like you are in dire need of a cranial rectumotomy. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. You need love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.

        • truesoy

          There you go again, proving once more your lack of knowledge about the foundation of our nation.
          I know, or at least I’d like to believe that you mean well, but I do also understand that good intentions are not enough, nor the sole answer, for you also have to have the facts that are necessary to make intelligent decisions, and you are lacking in that department, thus causing more harm by your ‘well intended’ actions.
          Please, put all that ‘hoopla’ aside and look at the facts.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

          • Joan

            Truesoy – When and in what state were you born? Just curious.

      • http://naver samurai

        Sheesh Truesoy (?), here we go again. Making yourself look foolish in front of everyone here. But I shall not go down that road, protect my reputation, and not take chances of being banned. So this coming from a person that does not post facts or cite sources? Ha, ha, ha, ha! I laught at your over inflated ego, less intelligent mind, and immature mentality. I continue to wipe the floor with you, but maybe this will help you to understand what people think about you and your ilk.

        “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn;t so.”

        Ronald Reagan

        I’m sure an atheist and scientist can understand the meaning of this quote. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.

    • Joan

      Hillary Rosen and her partner adopted twin girls. She and her partner split but who has the children? If she does, then who is raising them while she publicly berates stay at home moms. I wouldn’t want her doing P-R for me if I owned a company. She was hired by BP after the oil spill and look what happened to them. She’s a walking disaster.

      • http://PersonalLiberty Alondra

        Rosen served as interim director for the LGBT organization Human Rights Campaign in 2004. As any homosexual she is not only sexually pervert but mentally as well. She does not have her own biological children. The adaption of children by homosexual couple MUST be prohibited.

      • http://naver samurai

        Well said Joan and Alondra. Here is something I found about the libs definition of equality of men and women that fits into their beliefs.

        “In order to build a great socialist society, it is of the utmost importance to arouse the broad masses of women to join in productive activity. Men and women must receive equal pay for equal work in production. Genuine equality between the sexes can only be realized in the process of the socialist transformation of society as a whole.”

        Mao Tse Dong 1935

        I guess this would mean everyone getting paid equally low wages and relying on the government for their daily bread. I guess that Obama bin Laden believes that in a socialist state everyone would be equal? He would be right about that, as their would be no such thing as a stay at home mom, for all women would be forced to work and have their children placed into socialist indoctrination camps (Daycare centers) sponsored by the socialist state. Obama bin Laden, Rosen the queer, and others are in dire need of having to make that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Joan

          As I said in a previous comment – Obama and his minions (and Soros) are doing everything in their power to turn Americans against one another. This is all part of the Marxist agenda. There are much more serious problems for us to be worried and arguing about. Every day Obama signs another Executive Order and takes another part of our freedom away. We should be revolting against him and his Marxist cabinet instead of one another. I served my country in the USAF many years ago and I’ll be danged if I’m going to sit back and watch my country be flushed down the proverbial toilet. This is OUR country and we should be fighting back – those of us who have not been brainwashed, are brain dead or just plain blind and stupid.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        Please tell me that she’s a lezbo Joan!!! Forgive me Jesus!

        • Joan

          Yes she is, Tom.

      • Tom W.

        Excellent point Alondra!!! And here’s your reason why, this angers me so bad that I have to stop for prayer!

        http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/10/lesbian-couple-gives-son-hormone-therapysays-he-is-transgender-child/

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        I’m with you Tom. I checked out the site. Al i can say; sick sick people!!!

    • Marilyn

      Well Claire – since mz. rozen is in a two-woman relationship, her kids have 2 inter-changeable mothers.

      • vieteravet

        Yeah, they’re both ‘mothers’ alright!

      • http://naver samurai

        Since both of these women are queers, they can never be mothers or good mothers. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://none Claire

        Marilyn: Different strokes for different folks. I do not approve of homosexuality, but as in many issues, it seems it is the children that suffer because of so-called “responsible” adults. Children and animals are at the mercy of adults. In fact, the entire world is at the mercy of adult human beings. It is a shame that there are so many adults that do not conduct themselves with decency and honesty. A person has one life to live, it is their choice to conduct their lives however they want. I am not perfect by any means, and I am not being pious, I am merely stating what I believe.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.
    • Michael

      Ms. Romney could not carry my Mother’s bra — my Mom and Dad worked together and balanced a carreer and raise six kids, once we all were in school. Of course, we were raised to help out and took turns doing daily chores — like peeling the potatoes for dinner upon arriving home from school — and we had better not have to be told or we would not have anything to eat for dinner. Our siblings WOULD NOT be happy if we were late or forgot — no potatoes for dinner???

  • Bob Fritz

    Back when it was possible for a man to earn enough to sustain his family, while his wife had the more important job of taking care of the children and teaching them; morality,honesty, respect for elders, the basic tools to get along with others, etc. Someone came up with the great idea that women are wasting their lives and need to go out into the world and earn money, and this money would make life soo much better for the family. In a few short years, the price of goods and services adjusted upward, and now if the mother did not go out to work, in most cases the family could not make ends meet. This lie of extra money, was the beginning of the downfall of the American family.
    The love of money IS the root of all evil!

    • http://none Claire

      Bob Fritz–I am inclined to agree.

    • paradigmshift

      Watch “Aaron Russo Rockefeller” on you tube. Rockefeller told Aaron Russo about the (elite created) womens lib movement. To get the other half of the US population (at home moms) to pay taxes, and to indoctrinate their children at an earlier age.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        It was the Rockefeller Foundation itself that put out a campaign telling American women back in the early 1900′s that they were no longer happy being the glue that has held civilization together since the beginning of time paradigmshift! Just like Bob said, telling them that they were not living fulfilling lives being a homemaker and raising the family! One of my dad’s favorite sayings was that the two worst inventions that man’s ever come up with were the telephone and the TV, the TV tells women how bad they got it, and the telephone let’s ‘em share! I don’t know if he ever got to see a woman wearing a Bluetooth before he passed, but I can hear him now, “Finally got their wish come true, a telephone attatched to their head!!!” LOL! My Old Man!!! I miss him also, he was my Bud! But back to the Rockefeller Foundation, their sole intent was to bust up the American family unit, and as you can see, their sinister plan seems to be workin’ quite nicely!!! They’ve convinced women that they don’t want children till well past their NATURAL child bearing years, there’s no tellin’ what kinda side affects women are going to suffer years down the road from the contraceptives and other drugs and vaccinations they’re recieving these days! If it affects their ability to have children, then it affects us all as the human race!!! Well girls, so… How do ya like the RAT RACE?!!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4awZoGIefcE

    • http://naver samurai

      Well said Bob. Though I am prepared for some lib to make a dumb comment to answer my post. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Joan

      I was a Depression-era baby. Times were really tough. I recall my dad working 2 jobs to pay the bills including medical bills. My mom stayed home and was a great cook, housekeeper and budget manager. People saved money to own needed material things. When WWII started and so many men went to war the women had to take over their jobs and jobs in the war plants. After the war alot of women stayed in the workforce. From then on more and more women joined the workforce. Then it became a thing to not save up to buy a car, furniture, house, etc. Today everyone seems to want everything brand new, whether they need it or not, which means both have to work to keep up with the Joneses. My husband was a cop and we had 4 children in the 60s. I was a stay at home mom, not because we had alot of money (we didn’t) but because I was brought up to believe that your children come first. Raising a family and taking care of the home is a 24 hour job and it’s not easy. My youngest was 12 years old when I took a part-time job. I arranged it that I would not leave in the morning until they left for school and I would be home when school let out. I admire any other woman who stays home to raise her children. There is nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with women who want to work outside the home – as long as they and the politicians don’t look upon stay at home moms as pariahs.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        There is no more noble calling or important job in the world Joan! In my humble opinion of course.

  • FreedomFighter

    Loved the vid, the egg on E. Holders face when a white guy voted for him —– Priceless

    A point made, and made well.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

  • Sirian

    There once was a woman named Hilary
    A woman of stout frame and shilling ability
    A fountain of blabber – full of maddening clamor
    Yet carries the bells of a shockingly prized heifer.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

      There once was a fag from Ragoon
      Who took a lesbian up to his room
      And all that night, they had a terrible fight
      Over who would do what, and to whom!

      Sirian, R U OK MAN?!!

  • Noodles

    My mother stayed home and raised me and 4 other siblings. My Mother and Father agreed to sacrifice saying it was far more important for my Mother to be at home with us. We did without a lot of material things. We had a great amount of tender love and care and we did not miss a thing. God bless my wonderful parents. Ms. Rosen is a disgrace to all women and does not speak with any knowledge or sincerity. She should be ashamed, especially after making such a fool of herself by making that air-headed statement.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

      No Noodles, SHE SHOULD BE FIRED! A lesbian woman wants to knock a stay at home mom, who, as if it was any of her (expletive deleted) business in the first place, had the luxury of having a husband who was weathy enough that she didn’t even have to think about work outside of the home, what a blessing!!! It sounds to me as if Mz. Rosen is a little jealous!

      Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)
      “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

      Thats exactly what’s wrong with these kids today, no parental oversight! Someone needs to be home when the kids get out of school, and I’m sorry ladies, but y’all have been hoodwinked! Women have always since the beginning of time took care of the home. Now I’ll admit that y’all have never gotten your just rewards for the MOST IMPORTANT job in the world, but is the rat race that fulfilling?! Being a homemaker is a FULL TIME job, and the pay sucks, It’s only worth it if it’s done outta LOVE!

  • Myra Zuckerman

    President Obama said the woman’s comments were wrong and many Democrats called in to protest the comment. Many women on both sides know that to be a Mom is to work.

    Nevertheless when Mrs Romney had breast cancer she had the best care possible and doesn’t know what it is to be in a position when you are denied coverage or told you have a pre-existing condition and can’t get coverage.

    • eddie47d

      Many great comments today and all women (and men too) should be respected whether they work or stay home and take care of the kids. Bringing up kids is an awesome responsibility and blessing along with a few disappointments. Ms Rosen was making a point that Mrs Romney is out of tune with the average American woman and is very correct in her statement. Those with wealth only get a glimpse of those below them and have no clue of their struggles. When they do out comes the checkbook for one day a year to help someone and then back to their normal routine. Mr Romney gives wealth a bad name so can any of you say that Mrs Romney doesn’t fall far from the apple tree? Working moms still have to cook,change diapers,do the laundry,prepare for work,and so forth. It will be interesting to see if Mrs Romney ever had the working women’s hectic schedule or was it the luxuary of primping on most days.We know that most on this site cook ,garden and can their food at least that is what you say. You think Mrs Romney can relate to that?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        eddie says: Ms Rosen was making a point that Mrs Romney is out of tune with the average American woman and is very correct in her statement. Those with wealth only get a glimpse of those below them and have no clue of their struggles. When they do out comes the checkbook for one day a year to help someone and then back to their normal routine. Mr Romney gives wealth a bad name so can any of you say that Mrs Romney doesn’t fall far from the apple tree? Working moms still have to cook,change diapers,do the laundry,prepare for work,and so forth. It will be interesting to see if Mrs Romney ever had the working women’s hectic schedule or was it the luxuary of primping on most days.

        Hmm, i wonder if the first lady, Michelle Obama, would agree with you eddie, and may in fact, take objection to your statement. It will be interesting to see if Mrs. Obama ever had the working women’s hectic schedule or was it the luxury of primping on most days.

        Most unfortunate, and for obvious reasons, that Ms. Rosen failed to point out that Mrs Obama is out of tune with the average American woman. That those with wealth only get a glimpse of those below them and have no clue of their struggles. When they do, out comes the checkbook for one day a year to help someone and then back to their normal routine. President Obama gives wealth a bad name so can any of you say that Mrs Obama doesn’t fall far from the apple tree?

        Working moms still have to cook,change diapers,do the laundry,prepare for work,and so forth. It will be interesting to see if Mrs Obama ever had the working women’s hectic schedule, or was it the luxuary of primping on most days.

        So you see eddie, it works both ways. Capish?

      • Hey You

        It sounded more like a put-down that a try at pointing out the Ann is out of touch with the American women (whoever they are). May suggest that Rosen is much more out of touch?

    • LESNC

      Maybe it was because

      they planned ahead and did not wait until they were ill to apply for insurance. Could you apply for automobile insurance after you had an accident and expect them to pay.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        Could you stand there and watch somebody die if you had the ability to save them?!!

    • http://naver samurai

      That’s why you plan ahead for such things. BTW, what does insurance have to do with the topic? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        Because Ann’s surviving breast cancer got brought in the rabbit chase samurai. A feat in itself!!!

      • http://naver samurai

        Ah yes! Leave it to the libs to make something negative out of surviving breast cancer. What will these lib, gay loving, baby killing, marxists do next? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Meteorlady

      I got very sick when I was a child and spent two weeks in the hospital. My dad worked three jobs, one full time and two part time, to pay for the hospital and doctor bills. He never once thought it was someone elses responsibility to pay for what we owed for services rendered.

      Because of that responsibility, I learned early to be prepared. I always had insurance and kept it current. I plan ahead and have a fund to cover out of pocket expenses. Sure I would have liked to have a new BMW or a bigger house, but hey…. I’m responsible and put away money for bad times or emergencies.

      As for pre-existing – I’m familiar with a lot of people that CHOOSE not to pay for health insurance and then got sick. They now clamor for insurance and can’t get it. Why? They thought it was more fun to take vacations, buy cars, TVs and other status symbols and not they pay. During the health care debates I looked up the percentage – 52% of those that didn’t have insurance could afford it but refused to get it. The rest were either illegals or they were people that qualified for Medicaid.

      For the poor there is Medicaid so I don’t get the point…..

      • http://none Claire

        Meteorlady–Good points. We as taxpayers pick up the tab for the people that do not have health insurance. Like you said, a lot of people fritter away their money and are not prepared. However, the people that DO have health insurance are paying for the ones that don’t. Hence, the premiums keep raising every year. My husband’s supplement had increased every year since 2006. Same with mine.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        I remember as a child, when we got sick, we went to the doctor and dad paid the bill outta pocket and I’ll bet that acouple of ya have heard from your grandparents how the doctors used to make house calls and accept a chicken as payment. Boy those days are long gone now! Medical expences have become so artificially inflated that in order to pay for an accident or illness you must have insurance or face the threat of losing everything you own. And insurance companys don’t make fortunes insuring sick people, so the only ones who get it are the chosen and, or well to do. This isn’t health care, it’s extortion and social genicide!!! And what do ya see? All of ‘em, doctors, insurance execs, lawyers, all drivin’ Jags and Benzs, and smokin’ big fat Cuban cigars, and pointin’ the blame at each other!!! Laughin’all the way to the bank while poor people suffer!

    • http://aol bob robbins

      What is ur dumb point???????????????????????????????

      • http://aol bob robbins

        My response was for Myra, not u.

    • Karolyn

      I agree. Everybody is attacking Obama for something he had nothing to do with. And, yes, I’m sure Mrs. Romney had plenty of help raising her kids. Her life cannot be compared to the average woman’s life.

      • Opal the Gem

        “Care to cite some links to back up your assertions about” Mrs Romney’s help.

      • http://none Claire

        Karolyn–to add fuel to the fire–seniors better make damn sure they have a supplement, or plenty of money stashed away. I have already posted that Bob’s dialysis costs for the month of January was well over $54,000.00. I have the summary from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. If he had lived, it would have been over $658,000.00 for one year.

      • JUKEBOX

        Neither can His Imperial Kenyan Majesty and Michelle!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        Being a little judgemental aren’t we Karlolyn?!! A little partisan! Would you’ve made a snide little remark like that about Michelle?!! Oh, sure you would of.

      • daniel

        Karolyn get off the kool-aid. You apparently know absolutely nothing about Mormonism and the family. Furthermore yes it was Obama that had a thing to do with the attack on Mitt’s wife. If you were to check his campaign last you would find a pattern of his minions doing the low road attacks so that he could portray himself as above the fray. I would suggest you quit grasping at straws trying to defend what cannot be defended and Obama too.

      • Karolyn

        Tom – I’m just on-subject here. It would seem pretty obvious to me that rich people have help with their kids, while middle class woman have to do it all. Nothing more, nothing less. Michelle Obama has her mother to help with the kids. Of course, there are more people to help them with everything, and I’m sure the Romneys have that as well.

      • Karolyn

        daniel – Are you trying to tell me rich Mormons don’t have servants? Yes, I’m sure Marie Osmond did it all herself. Not!

        • john combs

          Obama and his crowd have everything to do with those comments. Mrs.Romney did not start this crap. She got drug into this minding her own buisness. It sure is easy for lots of folks to hate on somebody and not have any idea who they really are or what they have been through in their lifetime. Rich or poor we all have the same maker.

          • Joan

            I’m with you, John. What does it matter if you’re a rich stay at home mom; a rich working mom; a middle class or poor stay at home or working mom? In the end we all answer to the same Master.

      • http://naver samurai

        I agree with Opal on this one. Care to cite some sources on this one Karolyn? Sook Young and I aren’t rich, but we do everything ourselves. No help. We even did it ourselves when I was only bringing home an E4′s paycheck in the army and Sook Young was staying home. Just because she is rich, how do you know she didn’t just stay home with the kids? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        Yeah middle class women have to do it all because they’ve done run their husbands off with all of their excessive whining and nagging about not having all the things that they see on TV! Did you happen to see the size of last month’s Vogue magazine?! The thing looked like a phone book!!! You don’t suppose that it’s true what Tom T. Hall said in his country classic, “Old Dogs and Children and Watermelon Wine” about women do ya Karlolyn? That
        y’all only think about yourselves when menfolk ain’t around?!! Yes i’m sure that grandma Robinson helps Michelle get the girls all packed up for whatever luxurious vacation destination they’re planning on jetting off to in Air Force One at for the next couple of months. I wonder if Michelle allows her to go?!

        Just in case ya never heard it Karlolyn, enjoy!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.
      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Nothing like a little class envy I’d say.

      • 4LoveOfCountry

        @Karolyn: Where do you get the idea that Ann Romney had “help” raising her boys or that she is anything other than “average”? Elitists tend to be liberals, after all.

    • vieteravet

      My insurance didn’t drop me after esophogeal cancer (No way can I spell that). My wife has lupus. and she still has insurance.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        May God reach down and touch ya both with his miraculous healing touch vietervet!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

      So are you jealous Myra?!!

  • Karin Zoanelli

    I respect women who are gainfully employed AND take care of her children and her household, in her spare time. who is really raising her kids, though?
    My husband worked split shift, had I worked we would have never seen each other, except on Sundays. I stayed home, and raised my own and a few others. they knew morals, they understood giving up something to make life better, and they respected the choice we made. we still managed a college education for them. no freebees for us.
    to denigrade a woman because she stays home with her children and is not “gainfully employed” shows a paucity of understanding one has to shake ones head over.
    a woman who works pays another woman to raise her children, another woman to clean her house, do the shopping and cook. THAT’s how much a stay-at-home Mom is worth.
    no wonder schools take over so much of what Mothers with a capital “M” used to do.
    I set an example for our children – and they all followed my footsteps.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

      It’s like Charlie Daniels said in his song “Long Haired Country Boy” Karin, “A poor girl wants to marry and a rich girl wants to flirt. A rich man goes to college and a poor man goes to work.”

  • B. Holmes

    A half-breed, educated with affirmative action, mother like the one Mrs. Rosen describes, Socialist mentors, has no business being president of the bowling club. He has no sense of any culture, not even Kenyan. His talent? Reading a teleprompter, nothing more. He couldn’t even write the messages for the teleprompter.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

      He can HOOP!!!

      • Hey You

        That’s not what is needed in the Oval Office.

  • cawmun cents

    Democrats vs. My Mom?

    Better duck and run for cover jackasses…….haw!
    My mammy dosent appreciate Democrats like she used to.

    Samson killed a thousand men with the jawbone of a donkey…..hate to think what mammy could do with a biscuit tin and a rolling pin….lol!

    -CC.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

      Me either cc! LOL!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

      LOL!!! I hear ya cc!

  • john combs

    God bless the family and the woman who has their priorities straight. That is scary to the Dems to have folks that don’t need them or buy in to their perverted views of women, family and true freedom. The real war on women is the Feminism movement.

    • eddie47d

      Ms Rosen directed her comment at the very wealthy Mrs Romney. Not necessarily anyone else. How many very wealthy people do you know who give a darn about other Americans and have walked in their shoes? I would say it’s those super rich who don’t have their priorities straight in what is happening in this country. Their frivolous greed and financial schemes destroyed our economy while they made money off of our losses. Considering that Mr Romney has supported both sides of every issue to garner votes I doubt if he represents very many Americans and is the one with the “perverted” view of hard working folks. He is the politicians politician and is also very slick and cunning.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        “Ms Rosen directed her comment at the very wealthy Mrs Romney.”

        Showing respect for Ms Rosen? Sounds more like class envy to me. It is!

      • samurai

        Ah yes! The whine that libs always say when someone has it better than they do. Class envy and warfare. Classic liberal strategy to keep people divided. BTW, would you like some cheese to go alone with that whine Ed? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        You shouldn’t lump all the rich together as you did in your diatribe, eddie. There are many rich/sucessfull people who have great compassion and understanding for the less-fortunate, but not for the lazy, and the slothful. As the good book says; “if a man shall not work, he should not receive welfare”; i’m paraphrasing of course.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        Excellent paraphraise Jay! Would someone please get eddie and the rest of these whining a$$ libs a pacifier or something PLEASE!!! WAAAAHHH!

      • 4LoveOfCountry

        @eddie47d: Enough of the class warfare already. Hill’s snide remarks were directed at all stay-at-home moms; she is a feminazi just lilke the other Hill.

    • Karolyn

      So you’re against women working and making the same amount as men?

      • American Momma

        I think he is saying that he is against the uber-Feminists who constantly attack and berate the women who choose to sacrifice and stay at home to raise their own children.Once upon a time I was one of them. College-educated and all. Then I had my own children. Thank God I woke up to reality. Now I raise not only my own kids, but most of their friends also. They practically live at our house bc their parents are never home. I promise you that when the parents aren’t home the children WILL look to someone else–hopefully someone you can trust to protect them and parent them as you would. We have to sacrifice a lot of things that other people think are “necessary” these days, but I wouldn’t change it for the world.
        It irks me that these hard-core Feminists attack women like me with such gusto. They don’t even know me-my background, my beliefs, my education–yet they label me as “non-working” and “ignorant.” Where is the “tolerance” in that? I would argue that a lot of the things that they spew out towards stay-at-home moms could justifiably be considered hate speech.But we are not protected from them. How are they fighting for “equal rights” for women when they slam any woman who chooses to live her life in a way that is different from theirs?Isn’t the right to choose what to do with your own life a core part of their mantra?They are the ultimate hypocrites, and it is my very strong impression that they have done far more to harm women than they ever have to help them. Look at the horrible ways that women are publicly exploited these days, and how our young girls are openly bombarded with twisted messages about their bodies and their self worth as human beings.NEVER would have been acceptable before. They hate the distinction of being a woman so much that they have set out to destroy women. Newsflash to them–you were born without a penis, live with it. You are angry that you were born a woman, and you despise men because you cannot be a man. It is nothing but hate and bitterness, pure and simple. I pity them, to be honest. It must be miserable to hate yourself and everyone around you just because you want to be something different from what you are. Like the kid who whines because someone else has something that he thinks is better than what he has.Very sad, indeed.

      • Sirian

        LAY IT ON American Mom, OUTSTANDING!!! The one on the receiving end has yet to toss up a counter, wonder why?. . . ;)

      • JUKEBOX

        Apparently Obama ia against it, because of the wage disparity in the White House.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        YOU GO American Momma!!! God BLESS you and yours!

      • louie1

        You’ll say anything to create an argument, won’t you? Most people who have witnessed Mom’s working 2 and 3 jobs to support a family feel that only one would have been necessary if the woman’s wages were equal to the man’s if she was doing the same work. That’s the world I lived in so I know. You, on the other hand, just love to stir the pot and create dissension. Twit.

      • Karolyn

        Aamerican Momma – We’ve come a long way, baby. So-called feminists may have had that attitude toward stay-at-home moms a while back, but that is no longer the case. It seems to me that it’s more that stay-at-home moms have the attitude and are uber-defensive.

      • vieteravet

        Liberal trolls hit the ground running, okay maybe just mouthing off!

      • American Momma

        Oh, sweet Karolyn. If that is the case, then why are we having this discussion at all -or did you not read the story and listen to dear Hilary’s idiotic words before jumping in to comment? There are a very large number of Feminists who feel the same way that she does. It is ludicrous to attempt to deny it because they prove that it is true every time they open their hate-spewing mouths. BTW- I am not being “defensive,” I am simply stating the facts as they are. I do not feel it necessary to defend being a real woman from those who wish to be men. I myself am very proud to be a woman, and I find feminist “women” laughable. In a very sad way. They tend to be extremely self-destructive people because they cannot “find” their “true” selves. Such repressive denial only exaccerbates their mental anguish–leading to the high-risk lifestyles that they tend to indulge in as they attempt to ease their “pain”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        You go American Momma!!! God bless you and yours Darlin’! Karlolyn I’ve been bitin’ my lip tryin’ to be nice to you, but you need to ditch that robe, curlers, and fuzzy slippers and get a life!!!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Karolyn says: So you’re against women working and making the same amount as men?

        No karolyn, we’re against femenazis who constantly redicule women who choose to stay home and raise their children. Unlike the liberal feminists, who have no regard for their children, and behave much like crocodiles.

      • samurai

        Well said Jay. I guess that Karolyn hasn’t heard a saying about patriot women.

        “One person with a belief is equal to a force of ninety nine who have only interests.”

        John Stuart Mill 1806-1873

        The patriotic women are the 1 with a belief and the 99 are the feminazi lib women. Care to try to prove me wrong Karolyn? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        It’s only natural for Karolyn, a feminist herself, to take a comment like this out of context.

    • American Momma

      Ooops! That may have just blown the theory that all of us stay-at-home moms are uneducated doormats. Sorry to burst your bubble, “baby.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/Hepper27 Robert Davis

    If Romneys kids had a stay at home mother. Why is it they still haven’t learned hoe to speak english?

    • john combs

      just like you can’t spell or type

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        Get him john!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=745534442 Irina Krasnyuk

    Moma say- Tornado
    We say- 5 star access.
    Oh say- Primary ballot three times a piece.

    Moma say- Water front.
    We say- Smart taxes
    Oh say- Solo needed

    Moma say- It’s time
    We say- Crystal bus
    Oh say- Never screwed a day.

  • Robert Handy

    This has been a concerted “war against hetersexual

    marriage”and Male/Female relations” since the 1960′s. It has been “exacerbated” by the election of the “Marxist Homosexual” Presidentcy, Of Barrack Hussein Obama! His own Marriage, is a “front” for “Propaganda” purposes. It has been “well researched”and “documented” that, children reared in single-parent environments (female-only) dislpay an “inordinant amount” of Anti-Social,and Behavior.Boy’s and Girl’s,who do not form a “Strong Bond” with a Father,suffer from a list of “dyfunctional” Pathological Personality-disorder’s, such as, low-self-esteem, homosexuality promiscuous-behavior, lack of Values,(Criminal Behavior) Anger-issues, ETC… It is “mind boggeling” how “anyone” could hate “normal” Women” who exibit the the “GOD GIVEN, traits of normal “female sexuality,” maternal-instinct, gentleness, grace,and compassion,These are the things that,”make men love women.”!!!

    • Karolyn

      Care to cite some links to back up your assertions about kids raised in single-parent households. I know a few single mothers; and their kids came out exceptionally well-balanced and are good people.

      • daniel

        Karolyn we are great actors and actresses that is why you only are allowed to see what you described. I am one of those statistics guilty of more than one of the results of single parenthood. Please for Pete’s sake notice that I said guilty. Before these problems can be overcome you must become responsible for your actions. I know liberals don’t like that “R” word but sorry there it is.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.
      • Tom W.

        Karlolyn, did you read the story I posted in response to Alondra earlier?! Has anyone ever noticed that most gay men were raised in a single parent home by a domineering mother figure who ran their husband off with their self-centered ambitions and desires, and then passed their hatred for the opposite sex off onto their child because they felt abandoned?!!

        Keep Sirian in our prayers everybody! Has anyone heard from him since the storms ravished Oklahoma yesterday?!!

      • truesoy

        Case in point, President Obama, raise by a single mon; and he turned out alright.
        Karolyn, you are right on this one.
        However to what democratic strategist Rosen was referring to was that Mrs. Romney never had to deal in the job market because her wealth allowed her to stay at home, alrhough, I will like toknow abouyt her ‘nanny’ if there was one.
        Another point of interest here is that while republicans are making ‘hay’ out this one, they forget, maybe selectively, that just a few months ago Mitt Romney was saying that he’ll reform welfare for single mothers so they’ll have to go out to work ‘to bring dignity into their lives’. How about that!. Was Mitt Romney implying there is ‘no dignity’ in staying at home mom?, and where is Mrs. Romney in all this, now?
        But best of all, where is/was Bob Livingston then?. He is quiet, very quiet, of course.

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • samurai

        Wrong answer Truesoy. He meant to get them working so they can support their families and not stay on welfare. Why should we let single parent households stay on welfare and not work? Why should we let single mothers stay on welfare, milking the system, maybe having more kids, putting them on welfare, as we all know that welfare breeds more welfare? Obama bin Laden turned out OK? What is that weed you have been smoking? His mother was a socialist/communist, so her ways were taught to Obama bin Laden. Also, the muslim ways were taught to him from his step father in Indonesia. He’s about as mixed up as Farakkhan in the head. BTW, since he isn’t a natural born citizen, he is in the White House illegally. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Karolyn

        Tom – that’s bullcrap. None of the gay men I have ever known were raised in single parent homes (And in my 65 yearws I have known quite a few). One of my best friends, a gay Christian conservative, was raised in a family of 5 boys and one girl with two active parents. Neither have any of the gay women. To justify your statement, you need to cite a source other than “Ever notice…”

      • http://naver samurai

        That’s a lie Karolyn. You can’t be a gay Christian. You can’t call yourself a Christian and live in rebellion to the Bible. Being gay is a sin in the eyes of God and is punishable by hellfire and brimstone. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Karolyn

        Well, samurai, he seems to be a lot more Christian than you. He doesn’t personally attack people and is one of the most honest, sincere, kindest men I’ve ever met. Even when we have had “discussions” on our opposing political views, he maintains civility and above all is a true friend.

      • http://naver samurai

        Its not the way he is acting Karolyn. If he acts, as you say he does, that’s fine. No problem. But the Bible says that it is wrong and a perversion from the natural ways that God has set up. How about if a girl is a Christian, but sleeps around with men, is she Christian? No. How about the person that goes to church, but gets drunk the night before? Is he acting or living like a Christian? No. So its the person’s lifestyle that is keeping him from entering heaven. Do you understand what I’m saying now Karolyn? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        truesoy, you’re a f#@kin’ idiot! If a single woman is going to have babies, then she needs to go to work and support them! How’s the old saying go? If your gonna play, you gotta pay! WE shouldn’t have to support her children, if she can’t afford them, then there’s many straight couples out there who can’t have children of their own, who would give that baby a FINE home! You’re an absolute moron!!!

      • http://naver samurai

        Well said Tom W. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      What you say is correct, Robert. However, there are the exceptions; rare as they may be.

  • jopa

    The above article claims the woman that made the comment about Ann Romney is Obamas mouthpiece.Hardly, in fact she is a Democrat however she is just a lobbyist for the recording industry.After I watched a story about Mormons on the Nat. Geo. channel I realized all Mormon women are expected to be stay at home Moms and are mainly for breeding, housework and taking care of the children.The father or head of household is the Prophet that you speak to when you want to speak to god in that he is somewhat of a god in their religion.It may not have been her idea not to join the 9 to 5 workforce, but if she did she should not expect equal pay as promoted by her husband Mitt and the Guv. of Wisconsin,Walker.President Obama did denounce her statement but if you took the time to hear the rest of what she said it wasn’t as bad as everyone is making it out to be.Mostly politics again.

    • Meteorlady

      I have lived and worked among Mormans for years. They work hard, support each other when they need to, and there are a lot of Morman women that work outside the home. Besides, what has a religion to do with anything?

    • dfinch

      What you’re talking about pertains to all religions in 1830. Research another religion and you’ll find this to be true. Our best friends are mormon and we’re methodist. There’s very little difference between us.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        I didn’t know the Methodists teach that if you follow their teachings and doctrines, you’ll become a god when you leave this world dfinch!

        Quote: The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.” (LDS President Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.14, p.305-6, LDS Collectors Library ’97 CD-ROM)

        Quote: “Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the Sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligences that dwell in eternity. We are now in the school, and must practice upon what we receive.” (LDS President Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, p.245, LDS Collectors Library ’97 CD-ROM)

        I have heard that Methodists are also an offshoot of the Freemasons!!!

    • JUKEBOX

      Jopa, have you heard how many times she has visited the WH and the Oval Office? She is a shill for Obama, and he threw her under the bus, just like he has done to many others.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        And probadly under the desk in the Oval Office too! Why should Slick Willie have all the fun?!!

  • Pat

    Well, what did you expect from the “not so sharp” regime!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    The congeries of ideological positions known as “political correctness” has long posed a threat to Western civilization. As an ideology, it has played a central role in the war against the Western intellectual and political tradition. Incorporated into economics, its
    proponents have encouraged protests against capitalism and provided fuel to the pursuit of what they describe as “more equitable distributions” of wealth, based usually on some ideological formula. And as part of the vernacular of the last few decades, it has literally changed the lexicon in America and elsewhere.

    What are the origins of a force this great? And what kind of world will ours become if political correctness continues to permeate our culture unabated?

    These questions and many others are answered in Howard S. Schwartz’s Society Against Itself: Political Correctness and Organizational Self-Destruction.

    Using the denotative definition of words like “diversity,” the suppressed results of studies that question the benefits of political correctness, and the terminology of Oedipal and anti-Oedipal psychology, Schwartz, a professor of organizational behavior in the School of Business at Oakland University, explains the foundation of political correctness and warns readers of the great danger it poses.

    Regarding the foundations, Schwartz credits the university for the creation and maintenance of political correctness as we know it today, yet he also sees it firmly nurtured and rooted in large businesses and corporations. And both of these assertions are valid within his argument, for his overarching position is that “political correctness is an organizational process.”

    He explains this “process” through an argument that posits political correctness as a struggle between maternal and paternal aspects of our society and culture, and particularly our organizations.

    For example, using the traditional Western psychology of the sex roles as a springboard, Schwartz shows how authority, objectivity, and truth demands are tied to the father—the paternal—while forgiveness, subjectivity and plurality are tied to the mother—the maternal. In this framework, we comprehend a literal hatred of the father, which in politically correct language has been termed “‘the white male power structure’ or ‘Patriarchal hegemony.’” We see the father—the authority in our lives—as evil for making demands on us and for standing between us and the perceived kindness, i.e., indulgence, of the mother. (Schwartz makes it clear that “individual mothers and fathers can and do differ greatly in how they represent these two distinct domains.”)

    But in the traditional Western framework used by Schwartz, the father—and by extension, all demands against our self-created autonomy—are repressive in our eyes.

    Our repulsion at the father—at authority, objectivity, and truth demands—is so great that we see these as representing “a devaluation and contempt for those who are not heterosexual white males.” Thus we equate the father’s constancy and refusal to change as “sexism, racism, and homophobia.”

    This framing is crucial to understanding the various wars against everything from the capitalistic American economy to the traditional family. In the name of “love” and equality protestors march on Wall Street and in the same vein, same-sex couples seek to obtain the same type of marriage as heterosexual couples. What the reader sees through Schwartz’s book is that these skirmishes, though seemingly different in their aims, are actually part of the same overarching conflict. For in their simplest form, they represent the war against authority, objectivity, and truth demands.

    Perhaps these things come through most clearly when Schwartz describes the impact they have on the church, and how they’ve really left us with two different conceptions of the church. One, grounded in objectivity, strives “to fulfill the demands that God has made” and to become like him. The other, having cut itself free of such moorings, “abolishes the requirement of becoming like [God]” and literally “calls for reorienting our lives to be against” authority, objectivity, and truth demands.

    In the church grounded on objectivity, we find meaning outside of ourselves. In the church which has abandoned objectivity, meaning is to be found within ourselves, and the rituals and liturgies of the church are reconceived simply as modes of self-expression. Even these summaries of Schwartz’s points go a long way in explaining why the church seems so anemic in the twenty-first century. We have too often traded the truth for a lie under the assumption that the lie was just another kind of truth.

    Early in Society Against Itself, Schwartz demonstrates the fallacy of “another kind of truth” by showing how the words we use to make political correctness palatable don’t actually communicate what their users claim. Moreover, they often stand for practices that are proven failures, but which we refuse to let go because we are caught in the current that flows from the Oedipal to the anti-Oedipal (and our rebellion against authority, objectivity, and truth claims is far more important to us than precision along the way).

    Schwartz uses as an example the word “diversity,” which he shows is not commonly used to denote real “diversity” but as a means of warring against the natural order of society (and therefore, against the strong traits of a society aligned along the lines of authority, objectivity, and truth claims). He also demonstrates that the pursuit of such “diversity” has been an utter failure: costing billions of dollars in diversity initiative implementation, yet producing only inefficiency, lowered standards of achievement, and the slow death of organizational distinctiveness.

    Yet we continue pursuing diversity, churches that reflect the times, and a societal framework in which the old and gray is traded for the new and shiny. While we may not realize it at the moment, and may not admit it, through this process we hand over the reigns of our lives to what Schwartz describes as the “emotional power” of political correctness.

    Not only are we none the better for having done so, we are actually worse. For we, like the society in which we live, have taken a course that sets us against ourselves.

    A. W. R. Hawkins

    • Meteorlady

      I was born on a reservation in North Dakota. I am Sioux. The most insulting and disgusting thing you can do to me is classify me as a “minority”. I am a citizen of this country and deserve to be treated as a first class citizen by my government. The very term “minority” supposes that we are already failures because of past mistreatment by “white” people. This is not something that a “white” person today has done, it’s based on past mistakes by people in power.

      Minority gives entire ethnic groups an excuse for failure, for being poor, or for being lazy. Believe me I see it often when returning home. It gives them special treatment in our school systems and throughout their lives, but it has not made their lives any better. Most don’t make it very far because they “believe” that they are failures. To accept that people are somehow different because of a skin color or ethnic orgins is just a racist and selfish act by liberasl in order to maintain control of these groups and garner votes.

      • Julie Baigent

        Very well said. Each individual should be judged by their character, morals and ethics, and not favored for belonging to a minority class as defined by the libs. This is the meaning of equality. Equal opportunity to learn, work hard, fail and succeed. Not to shame a group based on their color to give away what they achieved through education, hard work, failure and success, or even luck.

      • Opal the Gem

        Meteorlady…I think you are being overly sensative. What you need to do is look at the word “minority” in the context in which it was used. If the comparison is in population numbers the use is non-threatening however if it is used in the context of the miriad of programs that supposedly “help” the minority group but in fact only serve to say “you cannot suceed without ‘our’ help” then you are indeed correct in your feelings.

      • Tom W.

        Very well said yourself Julie! Equal rights are not favored rights!!! A level playing field is just that, LEVEL! As a 53 yr.old caucasion male, I’ve suffered from reverse descrimination and nepitism all my life! People should be treated as equals no matter what race, creed, or gender to which they belong! You shouldn’t be shown favortism simply because you belong to a minority!!!

    • samurai

      “No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Much to be regretted would it be were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly.”

      George Washington 1788

      This could be just another neglecting that the libs and feminazis are doing to get us to depart more than we already have. This could also be a step in the socialization of America by Obama bin Laden and the lib wackos. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        I believe that America is the great Christian experiment samurai! There are many paralels between the Israelites entering the promised land and the American experience. The Israelites were given God’s laws to attract other peoples to themselves, which they would’ve been naturally inclined to do when they saw how the Israelites prospered. What happened? The self-rightous Pharasees and the Saducees took the law and became stingy with it’s promises not only to the gentiles, but to their OWN people as well!!! We too were a people who set out to establsih a land based on the principle that ALL men are CREATED EQUAL, endowed by their CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS!!! We too were to use these God given rights to attract other nations to ourselves so that ALL men would long for FREEDOM! What did we do? The same thing as the Pharasees and Saducees!!!

        JESUS IS COMIN’ EVERYBODY! YOU’D BETTER GET READY!!! Speaking of which, it’s time to get ready for church! Have a BLESSED day everyone! Sirian, I pray that you and yours made it through the storms OK Buddy!!!

      • samurai

        Well said Tom W. I hope you had a good service today. We sure did. Our pastor was talking about our God given rights written in the 1st Amendment. Many of us, to count myself, agreed with what he was preaching. It is amazing how much of our founding you can find in the Bible. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        We had an AWESOME service samurai!!! I LOVE church, tell that to some of the people that I knew before I knew God! They wouldn’t believe you, they’d say that DRUNKEN WOMANIZIN’ POTHEAD?!! JESUS SAVES!!! I’m livin’ proof! Our pastor took the day off from preachin’, he was there and all most in tears, he and his family just recently had a plumbing emergency that caused $15K in water damage that the insurance company wouldn’t cover! Between the congregation and the Baptist Association, ALL the repairs were made and our pastor and family never had to spend one night in a hotel! NOBODY in the area I live in does more for the homeless and the destitude than our pastor, TRULY a man of GOD!!!

        I sure pray that our buddy Sirian is OK!!!

  • NONCOMMIT

    WHY ON EARTH DOES THE REPUBLICANS AND THE NEWS MEDIA FALL FOR THIS KRAP, OBAMA HAS ONE OF HIS STUDGES START A FLUKY DISCUSSION OF SOME THING TO GET EVERYBODY EXCITED AND THEY ALL FALL FOR IT TO KEEP YOUR MINDS OFF WHAT HE’S PULLING IN THE BASEMENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. LAST ONE WAS THE SEX LIFE OF FLUKE IN COLLEGE.
    RIGHT NOW HE’S WORKING ON NOT LETTING ARIZONA NOT HAVE WATER, WHAT’S NEXT AND WE’RE ALL SETTING HERE WORRYING ABOUT MOM’S WORKING, WAKE UP PEOPLE WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO THINK ABOUT THEN THESE STUPID FAKE SUBJECTS. YOU BETTER KNOW WHAT YOUR VOTING FOR IN NOVEMBER, HE SAID HE’S NOT DONE YET AND IF HE GETS IN THERE AGAIN WE’LL FIND OUT IN A HURRY IF HE DOESN’T HAVE HALF OF IT DONE BEFORE HE GETS KNOCKED OUT OF THERE. i CAN NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE GOOD PEOPLE WE HAD IN AMERICA THAT HAD GOOD SENSE.

    • chuckb

      you are exactly right, all these things in the news including this trayvon martin thing is nothing but a diversionary tactic by this crooked white house.to divert peoples mind from the moves barry is making to get his agenda thru.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003309707389 Tom W.

        chuckb, you’re saying that the fatal shooting of a FL teenager is just a diversionary tactic?!! I can agree with the other crap, but that’s STUPID!!! As far as we’ve come in race relations, in some ways I feel that it’s worse today than ever!

    • louie1

      You have described Obama’s ‘diversionary’ tactics to a tee. You have described Obama’s ‘diversionary’ tactics to a tee.

    • samurai

      Well said. I couldn’t have said it any better. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • truesoy

        Do you all smoke crack from the same pipe?, just wondering, you know?

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • samurai

        Ah yes! The personal attack. Classic liberal strategy. Been looking in the mirror again, eh Truesoy? Notice how you libs always attack the samurai. Must be because I’m telling the truth. We all know that you libs can’t handle the truth, so you attack the source or messenger of the truth. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Karolyn

        Why don’t YOU look in a mirror, samurai. Who called who a moron? (among other things.) Classic conservative personal attack.

      • http://naver samurai

        Show me in the post he answered where I made a personal attack. If agreeing with someone is a personal attack, so be it. I call them as I see them Karolyn. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        What in the HELL does truesoy suppose to mean, trueidiot would more suit ya a$$hole!!! Karlolyn, you’re pitiful! samurai, your vision is 20/20 Bro!!!

      • Karolyn

        Tom – YOUR vision is totally nonexistent! Why do you feel the need to be so offensive?
        samurai – You DID call truesoy a moron, did you not? And don’t you get tired of that “popping sound” comment? It really is getting old. Can’t think of anything different to say?

      • samurai

        I call them like I see them Karolyn, but I could always think of other things to say. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Meteorlady

    I’m so sick of this. I wish they would outlaw campaigning until 6 months before the actual election.

    So I just heard the most disheartening news yet. Obama signed an Executive Order to classify zones where free speech and demonstration will not be allowed. It’s all up to the Secret Service where these “zones” will be.

    Is anyone out there going to write their congressional leaders about this infringement on the 1st Amendment? I’m scared for this country for the first time in my adult life.

    • Warrior

      Well, when you have “communists” running the country, what would one expect? “Communists” only know how to “RULE” one way.

      • truesoy

        Warrior, and to think people like you are allowed to vote, scary, really scary!!!
        Boy, are we ever screwed.
        God saves us all!!!!!

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • http://naver samurai

        Still looking in the mirror Truesoy? Its a shame to know that there are morons like you that are allowed to vote. You and your ilk are disgraces to this country. Also, you should be careful invoking the name of God. Remember the 3rd Commandment, hmmm? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        trueboy, and to think that they even allow morons (And this includes you also Karlolyn!) like yourself to live!!! I’m 100% pro-life but it’s a shame that your moms didn’t have the right to choose! By the way Karlolyn, how many of your sons turned out gay?!

  • Crystal

    Something else was brought to mind regarding Hillary Rosen. Liberal women like her don’t just downgrade and denigrate moms, they do it to any woman who doesn’t/or isn’t interested in going for the career they feel you should have. In Chicago I worked as a legal secretary and didn’t have any problems from male attorneys, but the female attorneys were monsters. They treated the legal secretaries like garbage beneath them. Needless to say, female attorneys have a hard time keeping legal secretaries. I’ve heard this same complaint from other women in support working positions. It’s usually the female boss that makes everyone’s life miserable.

    So while Rosen only went so far with her dirty comment and miserable tweets, she and women like her (and there are many), only communicate with other women of the same mind-set. Everyone else runs from them like the plague.

  • denny

    this should tell the moms who to vote out of our white house

    • Deerinwater

      and how did you surmise that denny?

      “Obama’s mouthpiece takes aim at motherhood. ”

      It’s more like returning fire when fired upon I would think.

      Seems rather clear, the GOP has a preoccupation with a woman uterus and reproduction by planing to enact laws to regulate medical care that focus on women’s health issues.

      This desire to self 20th century science in favor of abiding to a 7000 year old text. A time when they elected to stoned a woman for the slightest transgressions seems rather caveman to me.

      I want what women want for themselves, I suggest that you put a sock in it and listen to them.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        deer says: Seems rather clear, the GOP has a preoccupation with a woman uterus and reproduction by planing to enact laws to regulate medical care that focus on women’s health issues.

        As usual, deer, you have that backwards. The preoccupation is not with the women’s uterus, or reproduction, or denying medical care, for that matter; rather, averting murder.

        deer says: This desire to self 20th century science in favor of abiding to a 7000 year old text. A time when they elected to stoned a woman for the slightest transgressions seems rather caveman to me.

        But the pressure exerted on a woman to sacrifice her un-born child for the whimsiest of selfish reasons is not? Seems the cavemen and cavewomen are alive and well today, and are referred to as, progressive/liberal/democrats.

        deer says:I want what women want for themselves, I suggest that you put a sock in it and listen to them.

        You should really follow your own advice, deer. But then again, your kind can only give advice, not big on following the advice offered.

      • eddie47d

        Stoning women was a Conservative value and at that time wasn’t discouraged by the synagogue. Nice attempt at twisting it around Jay.

      • vieteravet

        Hey. dear in the headlights, if a women has a medical problem and truly needs birth control, she can get it. Why should catholic (I’m not catholic) colleges pay for some 30 year old’s slutting around. I like the aspin between the knees comment. Conservatives don’t give a damn about this twit’s utterus; it’s a first amendment thing ya know – Freedom of religion!

      • http://naver samurai

        I see deer eating yellow snow is against traditions, wars against the unborn, and is now sounding like Robert Smith ny going against God and the Bible. Neeeeed to be making the popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        There is nothing BIGGER than a Texas twit!!!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        eddie says: Stoning women was a Conservative value and at that time wasn’t discouraged by the synagogue. Nice attempt at twisting it around Jay.

        Stoning was a form of capital punishment, among others; crucifiction, be-headings, pummeling, ect.., and not just for for adultery or fornication, but for all sorts of crimes, in particular, treason; and was administered to both, men and women. You will note, that in our present day, we still administer capital punishment, for a score of henious crimes, however, have restricted it to only lethal injection. I’m not sure what your point is, eddie, but if your point is that administring justice is strictly a Conservative value, i would point out, that not all who identify themselves a liberals, would agree with you! Cheers…

      • eddie47d

        It’s the Conservatives who Always encourage and endorse draconian punishments within the court system. Isolation (solitary confinement),longer sentencing,death penalty,not authorizing DNA testing and so forth.

      • http://naver samurai

        Just ignore Ed Jay. He’s drunk on kool aid. BTW, I see Ed has forgotten that the muslims still practice stoning today and they are not conservative, but radical. Nice try Ed, but your turds just don’t float here. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        eddie says: It’s the Conservatives who Always encourage and endorse draconian punishments within the court system. Isolation (solitary confinement),longer sentencing,death penalty,not authorizing DNA testing and so forth.

        Soft-on-crime liberals are wringing their hands over the number of Americans in jail. But rather than urge “alternatives to incarceration” or the wholesale opening of jail and prison cells, one answer might be to do something about the LIBERAL media and entertainment industries glorifying violence and the “thug life.”

        According to the Justice Department, as reported by AP, seven million American adults are right now in prison, on probation, or on parole. That means one in every 32 Americans is currently being prosecuted or recently released for committing crimes. Of the seven million, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, 4.1 million were on probation, and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005.

        But here’s the nub: the report also shows, according to AP, that “in the 25-29 age group, 8.1 percent of black men, about one in 13, are incarcerated, compared with 2.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.1 percent of white men.”

        Is this because of racism? There’s no evidence of that. Rather, it’s because too many young blacks resort to a life of crime. And one factor behind that, the evidence clearly shows, is the LIBERAL media.

        The LIBERAL media as a whole presents few positive images for young black males to aspire to, while offering a whole slew of negative images to emulate. The multi-platinum rapper Snoop Dogg regularly gets press coverage for brushes with the law. He was recently “arrested for investigation of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, possessing cocaine, transporting marijuana and having a false compartment in his vehicle,” AP reported.

        In the same article, the AP reports that Snoop Dogg will be arraigned in early December “following his Sept. 27 arrest for investigation of carrying a deadly weapon at John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana–The rapper was convicted in 1990 of cocaine possession and was charged with gun possession after a 1993 traffic stop–(and) He was acquitted of murder in 1996 following the death of an alleged street gang member killed by gunfire from the vehicle in which he was traveling.”

        This is one rapper with a significant rap sheet. Yet, this is the role model that young black males are given to emulate.

        Even the few positive black male characters on television have criminal connections. On the Fox television show “House,” the black character played by Omar Epps, Dr. Eric Foreman, has a criminal record and is often asked to break into the homes of patients to do medical background checks.

        Even those men who could be role models for young black males are often ridiculed and had their very identities as black men questioned. Terms like Uncle Tom and Token have been used to describe and denigrate men who could be their role models.

        So where are the leaders of the black community who are speaking out? Jesse Jackson has been busy calling for a boycott on sales of the Seinfeld seventh-season DVD, because of remarks made by one of the cast members at a comedy club in Los Angeles. The campaign has backfired. According to the Washington Post, sales “have shot up 75 percent over Seasons 5 and 6,” which were released the same time last year. But it served Jackson’s purpose-he got a lot of face time on TV.

        In his latest cause, Rev. Al Sharpton has been meeting with the New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly about the shooting death of an unarmed black man by undercover police officers. According to the Washington Post, Sharpton sees this recent shooting “as part of a pattern of overzealous city cops gunning down unarmed black men.” The facts are not yet in but Sharpton has already drawn his conclusions and already has the police convicted of a crime. Of course, this is the same Al Sharpton who sided with Tawana Brawley when she falsely accused a group of white men of raping her.

        Young black males need positive role models, and for someone to speak out on the incarceration of a generation of young black males, but to put the blame where it belongs-on those who choose a life of crime, and those in the LIBERAL media who glorify it.

        With one in every 13 black men between the ages of 25 and 29 in prison, it is time for the LIBERAL media to stop giving black males only negative role models to emulate.

        We will also be waiting for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to take on the gangster rappers.

        http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/selepak011607a.htm

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    Deconstructing the Family

    The family is one of the most basic and universal of human institutions. And from a biblical point of view, it is one of the most crucial. Indeed, it is the first and most important institution created by God. It precedes the state and all other divinely ordained institutions. But it is not just religion that praises marriage and family.

    The Spanish philosopher George Santayana once remarked that the family is “one of nature’s masterpieces”. Indeed, it has been enjoyed by millions of people around the world for many centuries.

    The family unit is a major force of social cohesion and stability, the ideal means to raise and nurture children, and the best means of dispensing social services, such as education, health and welfare. No social invention comes close to comparing with the institution of the family, and its close companion, the institution of marriage.

    Because of its central importance in the divine scheme, and to much of “bourgeoisie” history, it is perhaps to be expected that it should be subject to continued attack. Indeed, the family today is undergoing a radical assault from a number of quarters. This battering that is almost unprecedented in recent history. It seems that the institutions of marriage and family have come under exceptionally heavy fire, with hostile salvos coming from all sides.

    Many social commentators have noted this all-out attack on the family. Consider the many books which have appeared lately – from secular and religious publishing houses alike – with titles such as, The War Against the Family, The Family Under Siege, In Defense of the Family, The Assault on Parenthood, The Marriage Problem, Utopia against the Family, Haven in a Heartless World: The Family Besieged, The Family on Trial, The Broken Hearth, The War Against Parents, and The War Over the Family.

    A few representative quotes can help to set the stage. The battle over the family can especially be found in the intellectual and political arenas. As Philip Abbott has put it,

    “The attack on the family in modern political thought has been sweeping and unremitting. Although the critiques vary in their intensity, dissatisfaction with the family is nearly universal in modern political thought”.

    James Q. Wilson echoes these thoughts: “Since the Enlightenment, the dominant tendency in legal and philosophical thought has been to emancipate the individual from all forms of tutelage – the state, revealed religion, ancient custom – including the tutelage of kin. This emancipation has proceeded episodically and unevenly, but relentlessly. Liberal political theory has celebrated the individual and constrained the state, but it has been silent about the family.”

    Yet as sociologist Robert Nisbet has remarked: “It should be obvious that family, not the individual, is the real molecule of society, the key link in the social chain of being. It is inconceivable to me that either intellectual growth or social order or the roots of liberty can possibly be maintained among a people unless the kinship tie is strong and has both functional significance and symbolic authority. On no single institution has the modern political state rested with more destructive weight than on the family. From Plato’s obliteration of the family in his Republic, through Hobbes, Rousseau, Bentham, and Marx, hostility to family has been an abiding element in the West’s political clerisy.”[

    And as Nisbet remarks elsewhere, governments are often the source of greatest danger to the family: “From Burke on it has been a conservative precept and a sociological principle since Auguste Comte that the surest way of weakening the family, or any other vital group, is for the government to assume, and then monopolize, the family’s historic functions.”

    The fact that the family is under attack seems pretty clear. The reasons why this is the case are less certain and more complex however. There are many variables in the equation. One can argue that the secularization process in the Western world is a leading factor. Changing economic conditions, resulting in the mass employment of women in the workforce is another factor. Changing social and cultural values also have their role to play. The counter culture of the 60s and 70s is a case in point, with the rise of feminism, gay liberation, the sexual revolution, and other radical social upheavals. Changes in the legal world, especially with introduction of no-fault divorce, have also contributed. The rise in mother-headed households, and the disappearance of fatherhood could also be explored. And the general devaluation of marriage is also an important consideration.

    While other factors could be mentioned, and each could merit its own discussion, I want to focus on just one part of the equation. This has to do with the tendency amongst many of our intelligentsia (educators, social commentators, media personalities, politicians and the like) to try to attack the family from a social/historical angle. That is, by seeking to alter the facts of history, they hope to convince many that the family is simply an historical aberration.

    They want to us believe not only that the natural family is a recent invention, but that very few people in fact live in setting of the natural family. Thus there is a concerted effort to undermine the family both in terms of its historicity and its universality.

    The full article:
    http://www.marriage.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&Itemid=3

    • Deerinwater

      No one is attempting to deny you a dysfunctional family Jay.

      Who stands in your way?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Feigning inferior intellectual accumen in light of indisputable evidence, is, it seems, always your preferred weapon of choice. But that is just who you are, deer.

      • samurai

        I was expecting something more intelligent than this personal attack deer eating yellow snow. But alas! A leopard can never change its spots. Classic liberal strategy. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        If you believe the Bible Deerheadupyoass, the earth’s first family was dysfunctional, therefore every family since has suffered from one form of dysfuction or another! I’ll bet your sister used to beat the sh!t out of you chump!!!

    • truesoy

      Jay;
      Many people in academia, church, etc., tries to spin the reasons for the changing ‘structure’ of family, but the real reason lies with the people themselves.
      People’s values and priorities change and so does the ‘traditiona’ family value.
      It is what society wants and what it does, regardless of what you, or I, or anyone else might think or want. And it doesn’t have anything to do with country or/and God. It is a natural result from the evolution of life’s changing events.
      Accept it, and move on.

      Sincerely,
      Truesoy

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        That is your, opinion, truesoy; and you are most certainly entitled to it. Cheers…

      • Karolyn

        The only thing constant is change.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        There’s no such thing as change, Karolyn; unless by change you mean; erosion and deterioration of moral values. If so, then yes, the only thing constant; is erosion and deterioration!

      • http://naver samurai

        Everything deals with God and country or haven’t you been paying attention? The breakdown of the traditional family by the libs, secularists, humanists, progressives, queers, atheists, etc., are one of the main reasons for the lessening of morals and ethics in this great country of ours. You say accept it and move on? Such a less intelligent response. Common practice for a lib. Why don’t you go back to church and really study the Bible and restudy our Constitution, founding fathers, and our Christian founding. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        “Well the trouble with our liberal friends is not they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

        Ronald Reagan

      • Tom W.

        Yeah trueboy, we’re about to evolve ourselves right into extinction! Hey Karlolyn, do I HAVE to tell you what to do with the change?!! I didn’t think so, just checkin’! You mean like saggy tits Jay?!!

  • Brian

    The true colors are showing again with this administration along with that of the left…

  • jersey jim

    War on Women backfired against the diarrhea tongue liberals with this one! However, they are still succeeding in diverting their blockhead communist policies away from blame-mode obama’s destructive track-record!!!

    • Deerinwater

      Not doubt, that made sense at some point to you.

      Expand more on this “backfire” thingy. oh! and the diarrhea as well.

      • samurai

        Diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        Diarrhea is that crap that issues from your lips Deerluv2godownonit!!!

  • Chisna

    WOW Ben….. !!!

    So a working mother, or Obama mouthpiece ( as you choose to call her ), who has children points out that a stay at home Mom that has never had to work at a job and raise kids would have a real hard time relating to what a working Mom has to deal with makes you upset ?

    But a mouthpiece that call’s your sister a slut and a prostitute for talking in front of members of congress and telling the truth about womens health and contraception is ok with you ?

    Yes, Mr. Crystal…. You did defend Rush Limbaughs blatant verbal attack on Sandra Fluke. But you attack Hiliary Rosen for this ? Do you realize what a hypocrite that makes you Mr. Crystal ? Or are you just trying to be funny again. Which by the way….. You aren’t……You are however quite pathetic…

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      Chisna says: So a working mother, or Obama mouthpiece ( as you choose to call her ), who has children points out that a stay at home Mom that has never had to work at a job and raise kids would have a real hard time relating to what a working Mom has to deal with makes you upset?

      I don’t think that that is what Hillary Rosen was attempting to point out, Chisna. Rather, what mrs. Rosen was actually saying, is what feminists/liberals have been saying for decades, and showed her contempt for stay at homes moms. They have never been about women’s rights. They are all about women who believe as they do. Everyone else is stupid and worthless. Her attempts to cya is pitiful. Oh, and how can they rail on Ann for staying home to raise her family and at the same time say Sarah is a horrible mother for NOT staying home with her children?

      Chisna says: But a mouthpiece that call’s your sister a slut and a prostitute for talking in front of members of congress and telling the truth about womens health and contraception is ok with you?

      Chisna, where was your moral outrage when Sarah Palin, and Michelle Backmann were verbally abused by the liberal media? The truth of the matter is that the Democrats and liberal media do not give a rat’s rear end about any of the voting blocs they claim to champion; blacks, women and etc. To the left, people are just media props to be used to increase their power and further their socialistic agenda. Democrats and media campaigning for Limbaugh to be forced off the radio have completely ignored, and in many cases joined in, the high tech lynching of black conservatives and the verbal raping of the dignity of conservative women. As far as the left is concerned, no attack is too much or comment too viscous/disrespectful when the subject is a conservative black or woman. Your glaring hypocrisy is outrageous.

      • truesoy

        So, by your own admission, would you then say that Mitt Romney insulted/offended stay at home mothers when a few months ago he said that:. ‘he’ll forced stay at home mothers t receiving social service assistance to go out to work, even if they have a 2 year old child, to bring ‘dignity’ to their lives.
        How about that, was Mitt implying that stay at home moms have no dignity?
        Jay, I don’t hear you sound-off; but of course neither I heard Bob Livingston, not Mrs. Romney, and specially Mrs. Romney.

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Yours is a good example, truesoy, of how liberals think women are stupid. Liberals don’t think women know there is a difference between living off the government to stay home and making an agreement with one’s spouse about staying home and raising the kids. The first case strips the adult of the dignity and responsibility that come with adulthood and having a family.

        For liberals who don’t understand bigger concepts, I’ll put it in small words: you must support your children. If there are multiple breadwinners in a household, you should arrange for a parent to be home with the children, if possible. If it is not financially possible to do so, then you must go to work.

        This is the basic premise of the Hilary Rosen/Ann Romney fight that liberals don’t want to understand. They think that staying home with the kids is a luxury that only multimillionaires can afford. But millions of families arrange their work to allow children to be raised by their parents. If you are a single parent, your choices are more limited: you must support your children. Even a liberal should be able to understand that.

      • http://naver samurai

        He wants them to work for their check and live off of welfare, so what is so hard for you to understand Truesoy? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        I am in NO way a Romney fan for reasons everyone who posts here know quite well, but what a birth control idea! Make these single moms who go lookin’ for love in all the wrong places go to work to support all the illegitimate babies they’re havin’!!! I’ve got to give him TWO thumbs up for that one!!!

      • truesoy

        Jay;
        At no time it is implied in my comment that ‘liberal think’ women are, stupit nor inferior. On the other hand, conservatives throughout history had made a point to suppress women. It was not that long ago, by history’s standard, that women were not allowed to vote, and it was the ‘liberals’ that fought for those rights while conservatives opposed it.
        Therefore, a questions that begs to be asked, is:, where would conservative women be today without their ‘right’ to vote?.
        They have a liberal to thank for that.

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • samurai

        Care to cite a source showing it was only the libs that granted women the right to vote? I’m sure there were also GOP and conservatives on the bandwagon also Truesoy. Just like it was the libs and dems that did not want to abollish slavery. Need to get your facts straight before you post. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        truesoy says: Therefore, a questions that begs to be asked, is:, where would conservative women be today without their ‘right’ to vote?.
        They have a liberal to thank for that.

        Just like we hear that the Democrat Party has been the champion of Civil Rights and have been the stalwart advocates for the rights of minorities, we have to go back in time once again and see a different picture. It was not until 1920 that women finally won the vote throughout the nation.

        Sure, some of the battles for women’s suffrage was overcome by that time in various parts of the nation, but it was in 1920 with the election of Republican Warren G. Harding over Democrat James M Cox that the women’s vote in this nation really had an impact upon our nation. The Nineteenth Amendment that gave full voting rights to women across the nation did not go into effect until August 26, 1920, just in time for the fall elections.

        Prior to this it was a long road for women in this nation to be recognized as equal citizens with the same privileges as men and even former slaves. In 1913, a march of eight thousand participants on President Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration day protested the fact that women were not allowed the right to vote in the election. Of the roughly half a million spectators that watched, around two hundred were injured in the violence that broke out. During Wilson’s second inauguration in 1917 another march took place. They were opposed by a well-organized and well-funded anti-suffrage movement which argued that most women really didn’t want the vote, and they were probably not qualified to exercise it anyway. It was not until women entered into the workforce taking up jobs in factories to support the war, as well as taking more active roles in the war than in previous wars that they could no longer be ignored as they were previously.
        Alice Paul who went on a hunger strike on October 30th to be only a few days later force fed while behind bars

        It was not until after the war that Wilson could no longer ignore that women’s war work should be rewarded with recognition of their political equality. He was a late advocate for the women’s vote and this hurt the party come the election of 1920 when the women across the nation came out in force to vote the Democrat party out of office.

    • JUKEBOX

      Chisna, how do you defend a slimeball like Ed Schultz, who called a “REAL” working mother like Laura Ingraham a Slut?

    • vieteravet

      NO! A working HOMO, who was inseminated or adolpted! My youngest was adolpted but my wife and I were married over ten years before the adopltion.

    • samurai

      Way too much kool aid on a daily basis. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Tom W.

      Chisna, your last name isn’t Clinton is it?!!

  • Chisna

    Want something that you actually should be mad about ?
    Be mad that the vast majority of republicans in congress
    voted against equal pay for equal work for women…..

    Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

    House Vote – Democrats Yeas – 247 Nays – 5
    Republicans Yeas – 3 Nays – 172

    Senate Vote Democrats Yeas – 55 Nays – 0
    Republicans Yeas – 5 Nays – 36
    Independent Yea – 1

    • JUKEBOX

      If the Union at Goodyear had done their job properly, Lily Ledbetter would not have been discriminated against. BTW, she had her own son prosecuted for identity theft in Calhoun County, AL.

    • daniel

      Chisna, if you read the law you would know why the vote was that way. That is okay though as democratic talking points are few and relevant. I am still trying to figure out why Nancy Pelosi would want exemptions from Obamacare for her district. I mean it is full of wonderful stuff that nobody should be discriminated against getting whether they be man or women. You see I bet I could show enough examples of liberal bigotry so as to make the Old South look good in that respect.

    • vieteravet

      That kind of crap should not be legislated. I believe in equal pay ( I have 3 grown daughters). If the jobs are exactly equal, yeah same pay. That’s how the military works and my teaching profession the same.

    • Tom W.

      Part of the stratigy for bustin’ up the traditional family is to allow low income women make more money than your ordinary workin’ stiff, that way ya denigrate the men, turning them into drunken basket cases who throw their hands up and cry uncle. Why should the girl in the office answering telephones make more than the men out in the field doin’ the work?!!
      Women get a unfair advantage getting jobs that were in the past a man’s work (Electricians, carpenters, plumbers, etc.), they recieve equal pay even though they can’t physically do equal work!!! But because of equal opportunity laws are given preference to men vying for the same job. This is REVERSE DESCRIMINATION, and is every bit as wrong as descrimination period! How does the old cliche’ about two wrongs go?!! Whomever is the most qualified should get the job despite their race, creed , or gender! That’s TRUE equal opportunity!!!
      If y’all still have a problem recieveing equal pay, it’s in the HIGH income jobs, and let’s face it girls, it’s a mans world!!! Just why is it that women can’t land these lucretive jobs? I would think that if women proved themselves capable of these power positions, they would have them! Better work on your golf game ladies!!!

  • chuckb

    chisna, those i see working for this administration don’t qualify for equal pay, i’m sure they are drawing mental disability pay.

  • Palin16

    Oh those poor underpaid female White House staffers. Just a few of Michelle’s 22 personal assistants:
    Susan Sher…..Chief of Staff……$172,000 a year
    Joceyln Frey….Director of projects, etc…..$140,000.
    Desiree Rogers…White House Social Secretary….$113,000
    Camille Johnston….Director of Communications for Michelle…..$102,000
    Melissa Winter…..Deputy Chief of Staff, etc…………$102,000

    • samurai

      OMG! You mean this is what these people get paid for kissing Michelle bin Laden’s large arse? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Palin16

        Yes and all of them a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. That’s big government for ya. The American people gain nothing from any of them. All of these positions should be eliminated.

      • Tom W.

        You’d have to have awfully big lips, huh samurai?!

    • truesoy

      …and do you think Mrs. Obama is the first to have assistants? Mrs. Bush had them, too. And if you care to check the total number of white House assistants during the Bush administration, they were among the largests ever, revolving around 700.
      Shocking, isn’t it?

      • http://naver samurai

        Care to cite a source about this or are we to take your word for it? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • truesoy

        SAMURAY, here is your reply:
        Look it up. It is public records.
        Simple, aint it?

        Sincerely
        Truesoy

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        truesoy, although not obligatory, it is considered common courtesy to post sources with your comments.

        • Joan

          Heck, I’ll answer that. Michelle has 24 assistants at an annual cost of $1.5 million. Laura Bush had 18 and Hillary Clinton 19. Mamie Eisenhower had 1 assistant whose salary she paid out of her husband’s salary. My how times have changed.

      • http://naver samurai

        Sorry son, but you said these are facts. Ergo, it is your responsibility to post sources and not have us look them up. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Palin16

        Yes and the Hildebeast had only 3 assistants. Time to cut the wasteful lard!

  • Power To The People

    We all need to work for the GSA!!

    • Tom W.

      I rd that PTTP!!!

  • Power To The People

    Where is Flashy? He never heard one Obummer socialist/communist topic he would not drool over!!

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      Flashy doesn’t work weekends. However, Karolyn and deer are here, picking up the slack!

      • samurai

        I’m waiting for Rob “Wrote that check yet” Smith and Smilee to pop up on the site. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Tom W.

      obably trolling in some gay bar somewhere!

  • twinkie1cat

    Ok, she screwed up. But she does not work for Obama. She is not a “mouthpiece”. Most women nowadays have to juggle a career and caring for kids. Ms. Romney married a rich guy who made it where she did not have to have two jobs—raising kids plus a profession. And she would have had to have the kids since Mormons don’t believe in birth control. She is blessed, not a saint. Women do what they have to do to support their families. My mother was a housewife until my youngest brother was in his teens and my father lost his business. Then mama practiced her typing and shorthand and got a job and then a better job with the Veterans Administration and had a nice career from which she retired. She supported her family when it was necessary. And she is a diehard Limbaugh licking Republican.

    What she said is so not as bad as Rick Santorum standing against birth control, and some turd of a Republican governor, repealing the equal pay law in one of the northern states because he doesn’t think women need as much money as men because men have families to support. (Where does he think he is, the 1950s?) Are we going back to Want Ads that say Men, Women, Colored Men, Colored Women?

    As for your blogger, its a shame he is messing up such a beautiful city as Savannah Georgia by living there while conservative. Rush Limbaugh II as he probably wishes to be known needs to go to a nasty place where the main industry is a prison, not tourism. He probably also attacks gay people and Savannah has a lot of them.

    • vieteravet

      Sounds like a butt hurt libtard! Pay for your own freaking BC; I’ll pay for my own viagra. Okay wench are you happy now?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Twinkie sounds like a typical lib, envious of succesfull people.

      • Tom W.

        He’s full of a lot more than cream filling, huh guys?!!

    • samurai

      Is this problem of yours mental or menstrual? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        Probably both samurai!

    • Tom W.

      Thanks twinkie! At least I know where not to vacation!

  • http://sheenajetstar.wordpress.com sheena111

    Raising 1 boy is a full time job, raising 5 with or without a husband would be insanity!
    Hillary Rosen seems to have disdain for married woman. My big question is,
    “Why don’t these so-called feminists such as NOW ever stand up for women who aren’t gay, secular progressives or abortion touting libs!
    They are such hypocrites!!!!

    We need more Ann Romneys in our society.

    • Joan

      Amen to that, Sheena!

      • Tom W.

        Ditto!!!

  • Dawn

    Did you hear the public information verified from tax records that the Romney’s had 5 housekeepers during the time their dhildren were being raised? And Ann Romney chose to not work outside the home. Yes. The ill informed always miss the point. The point is, Ann Romney doesn’t know the struggles of the average stay at home in poverty mom.

    • Joan

      Dawn, a stay at home mom doesn’t necessarily have to be poor nor rich. Many women stay at home to raise their children because they believe in doing so. Even those in middle to lower middle income households. These are the women who are not frivolous with money, who do not believe in throwing good money away on a new wardrobe 2-3 times a year or material things just because her neighbor has them. Mitt and Ann Romney lived in a 4 room basement apartment when they started their family. She has battled breast cancer and MS. I am neither rich nor poor but I’ll tell you – I admire her for how she nurtured her children and was always there for them. So their finances improved greatly over the years. So what? Mitt did it on his own without the help of his father. I think the green-eyed monster causes alot of strife in this world. I also believe that this thing against working moms was a set-up to get people’s minds off the evil, devious things this administration is doing to this country on a daily basis. They very easily foment racial tension and now it’s single moms vs working moms. Before siding against stay at home moms take a good look at where this country is heading and how your liberty is being eroded. I’m 74 years old and probably have a wealth more experience in life than you do.

    • samurai

      Care to cite a source or t another unfounded assumption by the left? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • http://none Claire

      A lot of the wealthy people have employees that work for them around the home, including taking care of the kids. Am I envious? No. In fact, a big NO. I was married to the same man for 52 years. I have 2 wonderfuI adult kids. I also have 8 dogs, and some great friends. I would never trade my life for the lifestyle of the rich and famous. Having all the money in the world does not ensure happiness nor does it always guarantee a good productive life. Having wealth is not necessaily an indicator that the person achieved it honestly. But, one thing for sure, they never have to worry about paying their bills and when they will get their next meal.
      I see that Romney has requested an extension on his tax return. I also see that the Obamas did not earn what I thought they would earn. In fact, they look poor in comparison to the other politicians.

      • http://none Claire

        Incidentally–I stayed at home until my kids started kindergarten, then I went to work. I also sent them to Lutheran schools, even though as a taxpayer I paid towards public schools.

    • Tom W.

      your full of s#!t Dawn! It was an attack on the traditional role of women, PLAIN and SIMPLE!!! What business is it of yours how many house keepers that Ann has had?! It sounds more like jealousy to me than anything coming from ALL you lib girls and that includes you eddie, Deernoodledick, and trueboy!

  • jopa

    I still remember the first time I met Mitt.I was driving along 11 mile road in the Detroit area back in the sixties when a big long stretch limo pulled up alongside and the guy with the rolled down window was asking me if I had any Grey Poupon.Sure enough it was Mitt Romney.I didn’t even know what the stuff was at the time.

    • Joan

      You’re full of it, Jopa. Romney was born in 1947, married Ann in 1989 and didn’t start earning his fortune until the early 80s.

      • chuckb

        full of what? grey poupon?

      • jopa

        He may have been riding in his daddies limo at the time.Actually I got the Grey Poupon story from an old commercial that you are probably too young to remember.Also back in the late sixties Mitt was dodging the draft as a conscientious objector and moved to France,living in a palace and was there to recruit for the Mormon Church.There is no way he was in Detroit on less he was home on vacation.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        jopa says: Also back in the late sixties Mitt was dodging the draft as a conscientious objector and moved to France.

        You might want to add a few more to the list who provided zero military service, jopa.

        Barack Obama
        Bill Clinton
        Franklin D. Roosevelt
        Herbert Hoover
        Calvin Coolidge
        Warren G. Harding
        Woodrow Wilson
        William Howard Taft
        Grover Cleveland
        Calvin Coolidge
        Warren G. Harding
        Woodrow Wilson
        William Howard Taft
        Grover Cleveland
        Martin Van Buren

        Notice anything peculiar about the above list, jopa?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Here’s a couple more for the list, jopa.

        John Quincy Adams
        John Adams

        There, now you have a complete list for future refference. You’re welcome!

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Jay, jopa proves time and time again what a liar and slanderer he/she is.

        Before joining college, Romney had received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon ‘minister of religion’ for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years. At the time, there was an agreement of sorts between the church and the Selective Service allowing exemptions from the draft for missionaries. Before and after his missionary deferment, Romney also received nearly three years of deferments for his academic studies.

        In April 1965, Romney registered with the Selective Service but was not considered readily available for military service until December 1970. When he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual draft lottery and at that time no one drawing higher than 195 was drafted.

        On June 16, 1968, Romney was driving fellow missionaries on dangerous roads in southern France. As they drove through the village of Bernos-Beaulac, a Mercedes that was passing a truck missed a curve and suddenly swerved into the opposite lane and hit the Citroën DS Romney was driving in a head-on collision. Trapped between the steering wheel and door, the unconscious and seriously injured Romney had to be pried from the car; a French police officer mistakenly wrote Il est mort in his passport. The wife of the mission president was killed and
        other passengers were seriously injured as well. George Romney
        relied on his friend Sargent Shriver, the U.S. Ambassador to France, to go to the local hospital and discover that his son
        had survived. Romney, who was not at fault in the accident, had suffered broken ribs, a fractured arm, a concussion, and facial injuries, but recovered quickly without needing surgery.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney#Business_career

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        TY for the source you provided Jeff; as you ALWAYS do! Obviously Mitt was not a draft dodger, as our dear, demented jopa would have us believe. However, the same cannot be said of Clinton, who lied and deceived his way out of the draft. Check out the posts below, regarding Clinton and the draft.

      • http://naver samurai

        Obama bin Laden couldn’t have dodged the draft or served because he was a citizen of Indonesia. I know what the common denominator is dealing with your list Jay, they all have a “D” after their name. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Tom W.

        Yeah, I’ve heard those roads around the French Riviera are pretty tretorous!

    • samurai

      That’s OK Jopa. We know there are many things you don’t know about now. Like facts and sources. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • jopa

        Jay has Obama on the list for draft dodging what a fool.I think Obama was about 8 years old during Nam.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Actually, he was 3 years of age, jopa. But the list i provided, was a list showing all past presidents who provided zero military service.

        Speaking of draft dodgers, i’m not surprised that you did not pick Clinton from the list.

        August 19, 1964 – Clinton registers for the draft
        –[Washington Post Sep 13 92]

        September 1964 – Clinton, age 18, enters Georgetown University
        –[The Comeback Kid, CF Allen and J Portis, p. 20]

        November 17, 1964- Clinton is classified 2-S (student deferment). This will shield him from the draft throughout his undergraduate years.
        —[Wash Post Sep 13 92]

        February 16, 1968 – “The Johnson administration unexpectedly abolished graduate deferments.”
        –[Wash Post Sep 13 92]

        March 20, 1968 – Clinton, age 21, is classified 1-A, eligible for induction, as he nears graduation from Georgetown.
        –[Wash Post Sep 13 92]

        Comment: Bill Clinton was the only man of his prime draft age classified1-A by that draft board in 1968 whose pre-induction physical examination was put off for 10.5 months. This delay was more than twice as long as anyone else and more than five times longer than most area men of comparable eligibility.
        –[Los Angeles Times Sep 02 92]

        Summer 1968 – Political and family influence keeps Clinton out of the draft. Robert Corrado — the only surviving Hot Springs draft board member from that period — concluded that Clinton’s draft statement (the long delays) was the result of “some form of preferential treatment.” According to the Times, “Corrado recalled that the chairman of the three-man draft panel … once held back Clinton’s file with the explanation that ‘we’ve got to give him time to go to Oxford,’ where the semester began in the fall of 1968.

        Corrado also complained that he was called by an aide to then Senator J. William Fulbright urging him and his fellow board members to ‘give every consideration’ to
        keep Clinton out of the draft so he could attend Oxford.

        Throughout the remainder of 1968, Corrado said, Clinton’s draft file was routinely held back from consideration by the full board. Consequently, although he was classified 1-A on March 20, 1968, he was not called for his physical exam until Feb 3, 1969, while he was at Oxford.

        Clinton’s Uncle Raymond Clinton personally lobbied Senator Fulbright, William S. Armstrong, the chairman of the three-man Hot Springs draft board, and Lt. Comdr. Trice Ellis, Jr., commanding officer of the local Navy reserve unit, to obtain a slot for Clinton in the Naval Reserve.

        Clinton secured a “standard enlisted man’s billet, not an officer’s slot which would have required Clinton to serve two years on active duty beginning within 12 months of his acceptance.” This Navy Reserve assignment was “created especially for the Bill Clinton at a time in 1968 when no existing reserve slots were open in his hometown unit.”

        According to the LA Times, “after about two weeks waiting for Bill Clinton to arrive for his preliminary interview and physical exam, Ellis said he called (Clinton’s uncle) Raymond to inquire – ‘What happened to that boy?’ According to Ellis, Clinton’s uncle replied – ‘Don’t worry about it. He won’t be coming down. “It’s all been taken care of.’ ”
        –[LA Times Sep 02 92]

        Fall 1968 – Because of the local draft board’s continuing postponement of his pre-induction physical, Clinton is able to enroll at Oxford Univ.
        –[Wash Post Sep 13 92]

        February 2, 1969 – While at Oxford, Clinton finally takes and passes a military physical examination.
        –[Washington Times Sep 18 92]

        April 1969 – Clinton receives induction notice from the Hot Springs AR draft board. Clinton however claims that the draft board told him to ignore the notice because it arrived after the deadline for induction.
        –[Wash Post Sep 13 92]

        June-July 1969 – Clinton receives a second induction notice with a July 28 induction date and returns home.
        –[Wash Times Sep 18 92]
        J
        uly 11, 1969 – Clinton’s friend at Oxford, Cliff Jackson, writes, “Clinton is feverishly trying to find a way to avoid entering the Army as a drafted private. I have had several of my friends in influential positions trying to pull strings on Bill’s behalf.”
        – [LA Times Sep 26 92]

        Clinton benefited from yet another lobbying campaign in order to evade this induction notice. “Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, who has said he did not pull strings to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, was able to get his Army induction notice canceled in the summer of 1969 after a lobbying effort directed at the Republican head of the state draft agency.” Arrangements were made for Clinton to meet with Col. Williard A. Hawkins who “was the only person in Arkansas with authority to rescind a draft notice. … The apparently successful appeal to Hawkins was planned while Clinton was finishing his first year as a Rhodes scholar in England. Clinton’s former friend and Oxford classmate, Cliff Jackson — now an avowed political critic of the candidate — said it was pursued immediately upon Clinton’s return to AR in early July 1969 to beat a July 28 deadline for induction.”
        – [LA Times Sep 26 92]

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Clinton’s ROTC Letter As Entered in Congressional Record (Page: H5550) 7/30/93

        Dear Col. Holmes,
        I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing,about what I want to and ought to say.

        First, I want to thank you, not only for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing that made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC.

        Let me try to explain. As you know, I worked in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did.

        I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans here for demonstrations October 15 and November 16.

        Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to “participation in war in any form.”

        From my work, I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war, which in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation. The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake.

        Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their country and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.

        Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country (i.e. the particular policy of a particular government) right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.

        The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason only, to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years. (The society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway.)

        When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and the resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School because there is nothing else I can do. I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to begin putting what I have learned to use.

        But the particulars of my personal life are not near as important to me as the principles involved. After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program itself and all I seem to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I had begun to think that I had deceived you, not by lies–there were none–but by failing to tell you all of the things I’m telling you now. I doubt I had the mental coherence to articulate them then.

        At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of my self regard and self confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally, on September 12 I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help in a case where he really couldn’t, and stating that I couldn’t do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.

        I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it with me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn’t mail the letter because I didn’t see, in the end, how my going in the army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of the second year of my Rhodes scholarship.

        And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes and the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is dis-service, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.

        Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Colonel Jones for me.

        Merry Christmas.

        Sincerely,

        Bill Clinton

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Col. Homes Notarized Statement As Entered in Congressional Record (Page: H5551) 7/30/93 September 7, 1992. Memorandum for Record:

        Subject: Bill Clinton and the University of Arkansas ROTC Program:

        There have been many unanswered questions as to the circumstances surrounding Bill Clinton’s involvement with the ROTC department at the University of Arkansas.

        Prior to this time I have not felt the necessity for discussing the details. The reason I have not done so before is that my poor physical health (a consequence of participation in the Bataan Death March and the subsequent three and a half years interment in Japanese POW camps) has precluded me from getting into what I felt was unnecessary involvement.

        However, present polls show that there is the imminent danger to our country of a draft dodger becoming Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

        While it is true, as Mr. Clinton has stated, that there were many others who avoided serving their country in the Vietnam war, they are not aspiring to be the President of the United States.

        The tremendous implications of the possibility of his becoming Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces compels me now to comment on the facts concerning Mr. Clinton’s evasion of the draft. This account would not have been imperative had Bill Clinton been completely honest with the American public concerning this matter.

        But as Mr. Clinton replied on a news conference this evening (September 5, 1992) after being asked another particular about his dodging the draft, “Almost everyone concerned with these incidents are dead. I have no more comments to make”.

        Since I may be the only person living who can give a first hand account of what actually transpired, I am obligated by my love for my country and my sense of duty to divulge what actually happened and make it a matter of record.

        Bill Clinton came to see me at my home in 1969 to discuss his desire to enroll in the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. We engaged in an extensive, approximately two (2) hour interview. At no time during this long conversation about his desire to join the program did he inform me of his involvement, participation and actually organizing protests against the United States involvement in South East Asia.

        He was shrewd enough to realize that had I been aware of his activities, he would not
        have been accepted into the ROTC program as a potential officer in the United States Army.

        The next day I began to receive phone calls regarding Bill Clinton’s draft status. I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fullbright’s office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC program. I received several such calls.

        The general message conveyed by the draft board to me was that Senator Fullbright’s office was putting pressure on them and that they needed my help. I then made the necessary arrangements to enroll Mr. Clinton into the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas.

        I was not “saving” him from serving his country, as he erroneously thanked me for in his letter from England (dated December 3,1969). I was making it possible for a Rhodes Scholar to serve in the military as an officer.

        In retrospect I see that Mr. Clinton had no intention of following through with his agreement to join the Army ROTC program at the University of Arkansas or to attend the University of Arkansas Law School. I had explained to him the necessity of enrolling at the University of Arkansas as a student in order to be eligible to take the ROTC program at the University.

        He never enrolled at the University of Arkansas, but instead enrolled at Yale after attending Oxford. I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of joining the ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft classification.

        The December 3rd letter written to me by Mr. Clinton, and subsequently taken from the files by Lt. Col. Clint Jones, my executive officer, was placed into the ROTC files so that a record would be available in case the applicant should again petition to enter the ROTC program.

        The information in that letter alone would have restricted Bill Clinton from ever qualifying to be an officer in the United States Military. Even more significant was his lack of veracity in purposefully defrauding the military by deceiving me, both in concealing his anti-military activities overseas and his counterfeit intentions for later military service. These actions cause me to question both his patriotism and his integrity.

        When I consider the caliber, the bravery, and the patriotism of the fine young soldiers whose deaths I have witnessed, and others whose funerals I have attended…. When I reflect on not only the willingness but eagerness that so many of them displayed in their earnest desire to defend and serve their country, it is untenable and incomprehensible to me that a man who was not merely unwilling to serve his country, but actually protested against its military, should ever be in the position of Commander-in-Chief of our armed Forces.

        I write this declaration not only for the living and future generations, but for those who fought and died for our country. If space and time permitted I would include the names of the ones I knew and fought with, and along with them I would mention my brother Bob, who was killed during World War II and is buried in Cambridge, England (at the age of 23, about the age Bill Clinton was when he was over in England protesting the war).

        I have agonized over whether or not to submit this statement to the American people. But, I realize that even though I served my country by being in the military for over 32 years, and having gone through the ordeal of months of combat under the worst of conditions followed by years of imprisonment by the Japanese,it is not enough. I’m writing these comments to let everyone know that I love my country more than I do my own personal security and well-being.

        I will go to my grave loving these United States of America and the liberty for which so many men have fought and died. Because of my poor physical condition this will be my final statement. I will make no further comments to any of the media regarding this issue.

        Eugene Holmes

        Colonel, U.S.A., Ret.

        September 1992

      • Tom W.

        Kick ‘em in the a$$ Jay! SALUTE!!!

      • truesoy

        Samurai;
        It is true that Mitt ran to France, although it helps to know that many affluent and/or college kids avoided the draft as well. Some people like Dick Cheney took deferments, except that Dick took five, the last one when his wife was pregnant with his daughter Liz (in those days expectant fathers were excluded, unlike during the Bush administration).
        And one more thing, what’s this deal with your “GOD AND COUNTRY”, please, leave God out of your twisted version of country, and or God.

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • http://naver samurai

        It is also true that Clinton ran off to England and protested the war from there. Not a good example of an American or patriot. You talk about leaving God out? Can’t do that there son. If God wants to be out of our country, that’s His choice and not mine. Be careful as your ignorance of the Almighty and your atheism is showing Truesoy. Remember you need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Hmm, no more rebuttal from jopa.

  • http://------------------------------------ Uncle Wolf

    As a “stay-at-home” dad, I resent the implication that some disinterested stranger, read that as some “aperetcheck”, government lacky intent on indoctrination is better than I am at raising my child. I am very proud that I have a mouthy, obstreperous, opinionated,very much her own woman, daughter. We do NOT always agree! She is all I could hope for. We didn’t have tons of money, so what. She had me and my wife.We made do with what we had. She was NEVER second to the latest gadget. Wife and I didn’t take vacation till after kid was out of house into her own house [her choice, her mortgage].

    • Tom W.

      I hear ya UW! I have one of those daughters also, she gets the blame for my gray hairs!!! She’s got a lot more of my mom in her than her mom would care to admit! HEADSTRONG!!! But what cha gonna do?! PRAY!!!

  • http://------------------------------------ Uncle Wolf

    BTW. I just had some cancer surgery. With his highness’s care [obamacare], I would have been given pain pills and told to die soon, as the pills cost money.

    • Tom W.

      They’d have just euthanized you UW!!!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    Hilary Rosen is a perfect example of the complete false religion that feminism is. It contradicts itself right and left, because the point is not to be beneficial to women, but to have complete hostility against men, and especially those men whose wives stay at home, and those that don’t bow down obediently to the hard left liberal political message. In fact, I would say that feminism hates women who dare decide to be stay at home moms.

    The goals have changed. Feminism says that they are all about equal pay for equal work, which is a load of bull crap. They sure aren’t complaining about how women make 18% less than men in the Obama White House. That’s because equal pay for equal work was just a mask. The real goals have been hidden, and are now beginning to fully expose themselves.

    The goal of feminism is one and the same with the goals of liberalism, which is to destroy individualism through the destruction of the family unit. That is what the collectivist goals of the democrats requires for them to move on to their next statist goals that Obama even now is trying to put into place. Therefore, they have a genuine hate for women who do not work. They hate women who only stay home and raise their families. They hate women who make that choice.

    Remember, liberalism needs division and crisis to move forward, so they can’t just be satisfied with a divide between men and women. They have to go deeper and create hostilities between working mothers and stay at home moms. They want you to think it is virtuous to be a working mother, and that it is anti-woman to be a stay at home mom.

    Hilary Rosen revealed all of this in her words about the Romneys. She allowed us to see her hostility against women who stay at home. She’s angry because there are people that look up to Ann Romney, and that crazy ol’ republican woman has not been down for the feminist struggle because she has never worked.

    The comment by Hilary Rosen was on CNN’s Anderson Cooper program. As a guest, Rosen was challenging Coopers assertion that Romney appeals to women despite the War on Women the republicans seem to be waging. Of course the democrats are trying to convince everyone that the term “War on Women” originated in the GOP, even though the leftists coined it.

    Hilary Rosen, upset about the fact that Romney indicated he listens to his wife because she listens to women on economic problems faced by women, went into a tizzy, and said some things that truly boggles the mind.

    Hilary Rosen said, “What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why we worry about their future. There’s something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney. He just seems so old-fashioned when it comes to women. And I think that comes across. And I think that that’s going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn’t really see us as equal.”

    It is as if she is calling Ann Romney a lazy so-and-so, and Romney is being compared to the cliche of men that feminists created so long ago. Never mind the fact that Ann Romney had breast cancer, has multiple sclerosis, and still found a way with those challenges to raise five children while undergoing treatment for those two conditions. But, you see, Hilary Rosen could care less about the facts. She’s angry because first of all Ann Romney is not a feminist, liberal, or anything else that Rosen approves of. She’s also angry because Ann Romney doesn’t work, which means she isn’t like the rest of the feminists, which must mean she is too ignorant to understand the economic problems women face. She’s never worked a day in her life, so Rosen thinks Ann is essentially a worthless member of society and should just keep her mouth shut. . . and Mitt has no business asking Ann her opinion.

    This almost sounds like it is the opposite of what these people should be thinking, doesn’t it?

    What is even crazier is if you remember, these same liberals and feminists came down on Sarah Palin because she dared to go to work rather than be home with her Down Syndrome child. They hammered Palin for going to work when she had those children to raise, but are now hammering Ann Romney for not going to work and instead staying home to raise all those children.

    Talk about a contradiction

    • Palin16

      When Frank Murkowski became Governor of Alaska, it was his duty to appoint a Senator. He interviewed Sarah for the position, but then turned her down because she had 2 children at the time. Instead, he chose his daughter, Lisa…who had 3 children at the time. Sarah went on to oust Frankie Boy during the next GOP Primary for Governor.

      • Tom W.

        YOU GO GIRL!!!

    • Tom W.

      Ann has become the left’s latest female punching bag, she should be proud, she’s in fine company along with Sarah, Michelle, E.D., Kristi, etc.!!!

  • Working woman’s advocate

    To all you Republican asswipes, Romney’s wife is no working woman. She’s a rich snobby lady raising five namby-pamby sons with money and trust funds. All mothers everywhere should be ashamed o call Roney’s wife a working woman. Let’s send her and her sons to fight W’s wars.

    • samurai

      “Almighty God, who has given us this good land for our heritage; we humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.”

      Thomas Jefferson

      You sure don’t sound like anything but the opposite of what Jefferson was saying. Also, the personal attack and class warfare. Classic liberal strategies. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      Wwa says: All mothers everywhere should be ashamed o call Roney’s wife a working woman. Let’s send her and her sons to fight W’s wars.

      Personally, i think that we should consider Mrs. Romney as the shiny example by which all women/mothers should model themselves after. Indeed, her children should consider themselves most fortunate to have a mother of such exemplary character!

    • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

      Do I detect a little class envy from Wwa?

      • Joan

        Jeff, it’s that far left wing Liberal bad mouthing again with a liberal sprinkling of jealousy. WWA is one of those left wingnuts who believes what the Marxists are constantly spewing – and that would be that she has the right to have at least one-half of Ann and Mitt’s money as well as everyone else’s. Why is it stay at home moms don’t go around bashing moms who choose or have to work? Have to say that we have alot more class than the Liberal women and more brains.

      • JeffH

        Joan, :)

      • http://none Claire

        JeffH–I heard from Sue that lives in Florida. She took my Tanner’s son to the Perry, Georgia German Shorthair Specialty show today. He took Best of Winners for a major. He is almost a Champion. He also took Best Puppy in the Sweepstakes today. He has taken his wins so far from GSP Specialties! Awesome! I am so proud. I am doing the Happy Dance this afternoon. And I know Bob is smiling!
        Three weeks ago she took him to Tennessee–he took Best of Breed, beating the Number One Shorthair in the country. I wanted to share this with you–

      • eddie47d

        Romney’s sons are eligible for service and he supports war with Iran so will it be put up or shut up time for them on the front lines? Gotta love all these Libertarian supporters of Romney who allow their cherished principles to crumble.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Claire, I can feel the pride. Sounds like Perry is on a roll.
        Maybe a Grand Champion in the wind and a Westminister Best of Show someday? Congrats! :) :) :)

      • http://folkartist.wordpress.com Libertytrain

        Claire – all that is wonderful —- enjoy the happy dance —

      • Tom W.

        Claire, congratulations!!! Like LT said, ENJOY! – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeGqp4E8azY

    • http://none Claire

      Working Woman’s advocate: Your comments are making you appear foolish. You are only succeeding in making the Democratic party look like uneducated idiots. Remember, sometimes a person gets more with honey than they do vinegar, or should I say acid?

      • Tom W.

        OMG Claire!!! You mean to tell me they’re not?!!

      • http://none Claire

        Tom W– Not all Democrats are bad people, same with the Republicans. My Mother was a Democrat her entire life. . And God help the person that tries to badmouth my Mother.

  • Working woman’s advocate

    Yes Ben Crystal, you have your nose so far up the GOP’s butt cheeks, how can you breathe?

    • samurai

      Put down the 40 ounce of kool aid and stop looking in the mirror. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

      Wwa demonstrates he/she has a potty mouth!

    • Joan

      WWA, you’re a typical left wingnut Liberal and true to form you can’t stand to have anyone disagree with you. One day you may not have the right to say what you please because your beloved Obamessiah will have completely taken away our freedom of speech. Then you’ll be charged with his version of hate speech.

    • eddie47d

      “Liberals can’t stand anyone who disagrees with them” That is so laughable Joan when every comment directed against a Liberal on this site is a negative disagreement.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Its a viscious circle eddie, i quite agree. But the struggle between the two will never end; as one believes the other to be a dangerous predator, and the other is convinced they have the right to be, the predator. So you see, we will always be at odds with you and your kind. Call it preservation, if you will.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        It should have been; Call it self-preservation, if you will.

    • truesoy

      …oh, they are very well trained at breathing there.

      • http://naver samurai

        Still looking in the mirror and hurling personal attacks. Classic liberal strategy. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Tom W.

      Now you got me wonderin’ JeffH, so to which of the GLBT community do you belong Wwa?!! I should’ve known, ALL of the above!!! LOL!

      • Tom W.

        JeffH, have you seen this;
        Guess Who’s Buying Gun Companies? This has been checked out and it’s true. Marlin Firearms is already closing it’s doors! Even if you do not own a gun you still need to know this. This information needs to be known by all Americans whether they are gun owners and sportsman or not. The biased media is NOT informing us of these activities. Who is buying all these gun manufacturing companies?!! For the last several years a company called The Freedom Group has been buying up gun and ammunition manufacturers. Some of the companies are Bushmaster, Marlin, Remington, DPMS, Dakota Arms and H&R. Some people worry that this Freedom Group is going to control most of the firearms companies in the United States. If you control the manufacturers you can decide to stop selling to civilians. What a perfect way to control guns. However, if you do some digging you will see that The Freedom Group is owned by a company called Cerberus Capital Management. And guess who controls Cerberus?!… GEORGE SOROS !!!One of the most evil men on this planet who wants to restrict or ban all civilian guns. This needs to published and broadcast in the media groups. Why have we not heard about this in the “mainstream” media?
        If you don’t know who George Soros is, you need to do some research. He backed Obama with millions of dollars and Obama is his puppet on a string. Soros is an avowed communist/Marxist and single handedly destroyed the financial systems of several European countries. He has promised to do the same to United States.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Tom W? What the heck are you talking about?

        As for the Soros group buying gun companies email…it’s a farce, untrue and Marlin is not closeing their doors.
        __________________________________________________
        Here are the facts: George Soros Doesn’t Own The Freedom Group

        - Freedom Group owns a large number of firearm and ammo manufacturers. This is TRUE.
        - Freedom Group is owned by Cerberus. This is also TRUE.
        Soros owns Cerberus. FALSE or at least highly improbable and unable to be confirmed.
        - This ‘warning’ started as e-mail forwards in late 2009/early 2010 when Freedom Group attempted to go public with stock and they bought up Barnes Bullets.

        Cerberus was started and is owned by Stephen Feinberg. No reputable sources we have found (ie Wall Street Journal, Businessweek, etc. ) list Soros in any way connected to Cerberus. Most locations for this are online message boards or blogs that copy/paste the same or similar ‘warnings’ like the one above.
        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/robert-farago/george-soros-doesnt-own-the-freedom-group/

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Tom W, forget the “what the heck”? I now understand your question after reading it twice.

  • http://none Claire

    It is the game they play–the Democrats attack the Republicans and vice versa. Neither party walks on water. It is the neverending ritual of politics. They campaign by trashing their opponent and this is all we are hearing now. I prefer to hear that they would “stick to their guns” (no pun intended) and what they honestly would DO and TRY to achieve if elected. The flip-flpping is absurd. Be a man and stand up for what you believe in, I don’t want to hear the mealy-mouthed diatribe. To me, the garbage they are spewing is a complete turn-off.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    Individualism is dangerous to authoritarian ideologies like American Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and the list goes on. In order to be able to properly control the populace the people must be broken down into a homogeneous mass where individual thought, actions, and relationships are eliminated. The emphasis is placed on community over the individual.

    The individual is taught that without government he or she is incapable of making reasonable decisions, or even take care of themselves (remember the “it takes a village to raise a child” comment by Hillary Clinton?).

    Those who have succeeded through individual decisions are then marked as the enemy, and the people are convinced that those rich individuals must be punished, and their wealth must be redistributed back to the “less fortunate” people for fairness.

    Ultimately, the perfect society according to these people, are where the ruling elite controls the economic means of production in the society, and the net beneficiaries of government outnumber and dominate those that remain as the individual producers of the society, making the populace largely dependent upon the government – until of course utopia is reached and the people live in communes and shed the shackles of money and government.

    The destruction of any institution that encourages individuality, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and allegiance to anything else other than the nationalistic government ruled over by a ruling elite is paramount, for these statists.

    Marriage, family, and defined individual roles in those family units, have come under attack as a result.

    Homosexuals, who ridiculed marriage just a few decades ago are demanding marriage now, not for the purpose of equality, but to destroy marriage, or at least to destroy the connection that union has with religion, and the traditional definition of a family unit.

    Feminism, too, has made it a goal to destroy the family unit, and to even destroy human nature, or at least how it has been defined by traditional standards.

    Acting in line with Marxist principles, the liberal left has been obediently waging war on the family unit, which in turn is a war on individuality.

    The propaganda has gotten to the point that if a man is accused by a woman of inappropriate behavior, we automatically assume the man’s behavior was out of line.

    There is no consideration that the woman might be lying, or that what she considers inappropriate was an innocent encounter where the man never had an ill thought in his head. Isn’t that what happened with Herman Cain? He was accused by four women, with no evidence, and stories that did not stand up to scrutiny. But did anyone notice that once he bowed out of the presidential race nothing became of the accusations? A large segment of the population just assumed that Cain, because he was a man, was guilty. No one considered the possibility that the accusations were trumped up for the purpose of political destruction.

    This is what feminism has been forcing through our culture for nearly a century. Their tactics are deceptive, and deliberate. The tactics have become more pronounced in recent years, however. Now, they have no fear.

    The tactics are more forward, because the public has been conditioned to believe anything the feminists scream out. They use political correctness as a tool for censorship of the opposition.

    Political correctness has become just as much about our behavior as it has about what you are allowed to say. As we saw in the case of Herman Cain, the feminists have positioned society to the point that now they can use sexual harassment, and their interpretation of “sexism,” as a political tool.

    What is even worse is that it can be anything they want it to be, even if it contradicts them in another arena. No evidence is needed, no specific allegation is needed, all the liberals need is the appearance of impropriety by men.

    Mitt Romney, according to Hilary Rosen, has stepped over the line. He dared to say that when it comes to economic issues he consults his wife. The problem is, according to the feminists, Ann Romney has never been down for the struggle, she has not been a career woman juggling a million things as the poor dears are forced to do because, as they see it, men are scum.

    How can Hilary Rosen make such a silly accusation? The answer is clear. Rosen can spew such nonsense and for the most part get away with it because of the roar of feminism throughout our culture. Even the most innocent of things can be a guilty action, if the feminists deem it so. I am surprised the liberals haven’t accused the Romney of being sexist by “not letting his wife work.”

    You watch. That’s next.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45981

  • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

    Hillary Rosen & SKDKNICKERBOCKER CONNECTIONS TO OBAMA/DNC.

    Hilary Rosen Visited The Obama White House At Least 35 Times.
    - White House Website, http://www.whitehouse.gov, Accessed 4/11/12)

    Gen. David Petraeus, head of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current CIA director, nine times.

    Energy Secretary Stephen/Steve Chu visited 16 times

    Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki has visited 19 times.

    Former CIA director and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, 12 times.

    Perhaps most surprisingly, the name “Joseph R. Biden” appears . . . 6 times.

    Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner managed to get into the White House more frequently than Rosen, but not by much. He has visited 40 times.

    Hilary Rosen Is A Frequent Visitor To The Obama White House And Advised The White House On Messaging During The Obamacare Debates.

    The Obama Campaign Enlisted Hilary Rosen As An Advisor To DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. – The Wall Street Journal, 2/16/12

    Rosen Advised The Obama White House On Messaging During The Obamacare Debates – The Associated Press, 11/25/09

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    Liberals, exemplified by the current Obama regime and its supporters, understand what other tyrannical regimes have understood and have attempted to implement with varying degreees of nightmarish success throughout human history, which is that, when all other external economic factors become uncontrollable in producing a prosperous society for human persons, the last option, however immoral or unthinkable, remains viable: control the very number of human persons who might seek the nations allegedly finite resources and human services.

    More than liberalism, I believe that what we are witnessing is the coming of age of a school of thought that should concern people in a broader way, than mere concerns about politics and elections.

    We are in fact, witnessing the unraveling of human society before our eyes. Human society is seemingly in a race to de-humanize the human person into some distorted and unfamiliar form.

    It’s ironic and more than disturbing that the left in this nation seeks to encourage the greatest amount of sexuality and sexualization among the young, and yet, provide the greatest access to birth control, abortion and sterilization services for them, marketing it to them even.

    Women, and consequently men equally, have become mere pawns in commercial economic endeavors that seek to profit from the sexual nature of the human body, while at the same time selling an invented morality to them that says that human reproduction is an unnatural side effect of human sexuality.

    Modern American culture and large parts of the American economy have become little more than human traffickers dealing in the sexualization of persons and inversely fertility services. I’m not sure there is a precedent for this kind of legal exploitation of a population by culture guided by the hand of a political party, and its media surrogates.

    Their plan: to separate God and man, that man might be the only player upon the stage of human history. Removed from God as His creation, no longer in His image and likeness, man is now free to re-create himself in his own image and likness. No longer male and female as God created them, man is whatever gender or sexuality he chooses. More than a new person, man becomes a new species, free to lie with whatever he chooses. No longer does a man leave his parents to become one body and one flesh with his wife.

    The family, now obsolete, being defined however one chooses to suit individuality, is anything in which a child is formed in. Human reproduction becomes a choice, rather than the desing of divine intent. Thus marriage is destroyed. Promiscuity, serial monogamy, co-habitation, birth control, abortion and sterilization become the norm. God, faith, abstinence, marriage, and family become the stigmatized.

    As man is dehumanized, he is more materialized. We are now more defined by what we have, how we appear, then who we are and what we are. We are more concerned with characteristics than with character.

    We are less persons now than we are bodies as though we are mere random spirits living in nature’s machines, than persons of both a soul and a body.

    The naturally private body is now more visibly seen, exposed, decorated, defiled with images and hardware, idealized in form, fraudulently commercialized, as a material and a commodity to be bought, sold and traded.

    We are more concerned with the health of our organs than with the health of our souls and the health of ourselves as authentic persons. Modesty is scorned, mocked, and laughed at.

    Inversely, the more the body becomes a public exhibition, the more socially acceptable the creator of the exhibition, the person, becomes. Shame is the only thing that we need be ashamed of.

    Technology has now made all these things all the more possible. The cell phone which boasts of making people more connected than ever, has made people more inaccessible than ever as they walk about texting between every seemingly ordinary human activity, while missing life around them.

    Combine this with social networking, and human separation, even momentary, now seems forgeign to many as they move about their lives, the stars of their own TV reality shows.

    This all seems foreign indeed to many of us, but how do we rationalize this to current and forthcoming generations that have never known the world and their reality to be otherwise, who believe that these things are not mere technologies, but are in fact, more like birthrights?

    This should all seem comical to older generations, bud truly sad, when we consider the comparitive provincial innocense of our not so distant childhoods. New technology has brought some blessings, but indeed, much strangeness.

    The left’s answer to these questions and to make the world a better place is to make a world with fewer people in it.

    They are in fact willing to close hundreds of Christian and Catholic health care providers, or fine them into financial ruin, in their committment to a world with fewer people in it. A nation’s children are its future and greatest treasure, and the left would seem to think that with all the world’s problems, the answer is to prevent children from being born with sexual education, birth control, abortion and sterilizations.

    It’s a social eugenics however, aimed at people who they deem are the wrong kind of people to be having children; the poor, the working, the religious, those without proper education; undesirables.

    Life however is a right by virtue of its inherent uniqueness, by virtue of its very being. Man does not choose what rights are, they are given by the divine God who IS God. Life, death, and our being, are of His choosing, not ours.

    Our answer: Christ and truth. The same now open strategies that would seem to be bent on our destruction, and the same strategies than have failed in history countless times. But a people of faith must be more valient in the truth, more preemptive in our zeal, lest these efforts of the enemy lead us to conflicts as destructive as we have seen in history, not to distant from our own generation.

    Most of us have grandfathers who walked through the failed European destruction that represented man’s latest attempt to redefine himself as his own god, and grandmothers who waited at home, holding the family and nation together that would welcome them back.

    Yet so easily we have forgotten this history and should we not remember it, we shall be doomed to repeat it.

    Christ shall not fail. Truth shall not fail. But what will be the price for our remembering?
    How do we reclaim the simplicity and innocense of a quickly fading past?

    http://rightsoftheunborn.blogspot.ca/2012/03/liberal-war-against-god-and-family.html

    The greatest thing that we must fight for in the world to preserve our society, our culture, our history, is the family. The family, is a mother, a father and their children. The family is conceived in love and its children are conceived in love as well. It is the family that forms persons, persons of conscience and decency, modesty and dedication to principles of goodness and rightness. The family is not some quaint notion, now antiquated by modern innovations of thought and flexible morality. The family is the concrete reality by which a society lives and without which a society dies. The left in this nation, in their thinking are antithetical to everything the family is. In fact, the left wants to be your family, every person’s family, through the dictates of the state. The family can only be in persons, in love and truth with God as its origin and witness of authenticity. Without Christ, truth, and the family, we are a society doomed for extinction.

    • Karolyn

      Just plain hogwash! The family will never become extinct, and we can have truth without Christianity! Too much “My way or no way.”

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Karolyn says: The family will never become extinct.

        There is much compelling evidence that the “traditional family” is all but extinct, and has been replaced by a mutated, and distorted form of “family unit”.

        Statistics from both government and private sources clearly demonstrate the bad news: the percentage of kids who live with both biological parents, who remain married, has dropped precipitously from 73% in 1972 to 51.7% in 1998. The view from another perspective is equally disheartening. Twenty-eight years ago 45% of households consisted of married couples with children. In 1998, that percentage had fallen to 26%.

        The report said “families are smaller and less stable, marriage is less central and cohabitation more common, the value of children and values for children have altered, and within marriages gender roles have become less traditional and more egalitarian.”

        GSS Director Tom Smith said, “We had the old system [of marriage and family] in place for hundreds of years. We have made the transition to the new system in 30 years.”

        University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite said statistics on unmarried mothers also indicate that the family is going through a dramatic upheaval. In 1970, she said, only 11% of all births were to unmarried mothers. By 1996, however, that percentage had jumped to 32%.

        “If you add to that women who are divorced or cohabiting with children, marriage is seen today as much less important. And that is probably to the bad,” she said.

        Not exactly the description of the traditional family, is it, Karolyn. The traditional family, btw, that was insrumental in making once, our nation, great. But no longer. As the traditional family began to erode, so began the erosion of our great nation.

        Karolyn says: and we can have truth without Christianity!

        The article stated “Christ and Truth”, not, religion.

        Karolyn says:Too much “My way or no way.”

        Not my way, Karolyn; rather, Gods way.

      • Karolyn

        Jay – That’s YOUR concept of God via the Christian translation of the Bible and its infalibility. That BELIEF is not held by everyone and cannot be proven, just like my BELIEFS cannot be proven.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        I was under the impression that we were discussing the traditional family, and how, due to its erosion, and soon to be extinction, we are witnessing the systematic erosion, and soon to be, if we don’t reverse the trends, the extinction of our Republic. How do you always manage to bring religion into the equation? Do you suffer from; Theophobia?

      • http://naver samurai

        Prove we can have truth without the Bible, God, Jesus, and Christianity. Without God and Jesus ther is no truth. What Jay posted is true, but you attack it because you can’t handle the truth. Good post Jay. Let’s keep up the good fight, fellow patriots! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Karolyn

        Jay – When you bring in God, you bring in religion.
        samurai – Why do you keep making ridiculous posts about “proving” beliefs? As I said previously, you can no more prove your beliefs than I can prove mine. If you only knew…… At least I have lived with your belief system and found it wanting, now to find my truth.

      • samurai

        Only because your are a feminazi, never been married, and have no kids Karolyn. The last two God says every woman must do when they are young. Look up Titus 2:10-11. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Karolyn

        samurai – Not that’s it’s any of your business, but who said I was never married? And I am not a “feminazi.” You are so totally off the wall, it’s laughable! :-) But, of course, you KNOW ALL. The great SAMURAI!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Karolyn says: Jay – When you bring in God, you bring in religion.

        God has nothing to do with religion, and religion has nothing to do with God. Religion is an invention of man, whereby, man insulates and hides from God. God(Yahwey), considers our religion, to be detestable, and an abomination! Do not confuse man-made-religion, with God’s laws, they are not, one and same.

        Contrary to your statement;”When you bring in God, you bring in religion”, When you bring in God, you bring in His Law, which is in essence; the Gospel!

      • http://naver samurai

        Well said Jay. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • truesoy

      Jay,
      Liberalism is at the heart of freedom
      Look around you. It was liberal thinking that produced our Constitution. Oh yes, although it might not seem like that nowadays, but back in the days it was a very bold, and liberal concept that was opposed tooth and nails by the conservatives of the era.
      Emancipation, too, was a product of liberal thinking, even though it might not seem like it today, but, back in the days it was a very bold and liberal idea, and again these ideas were opposed by the conservatives.
      Women suffrage. this is another product of liberal thinking. The women’s right to vote was greatly opposed by ‘conservatives’, yet it is now embraced and defended by even conservative women themselves. Oh boy, the irony, conservative women; and where would they be today without the liberals?
      Even the libertarian view, it has its roots in liberalism from where it developed, although modern libertarian thinking has morphed in many ways into a different animal.
      Therefore, Jay, I say to you, continue to enjoy the fruits of liberalism, even while you fight for conservative ideas.

      Sincerely,
      Truesoy

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        truesoy, thank you for your kind sentiments. However, when speaking of liberalism, we need to be aware, and make the distinction between; Classical Liberalism, and modernday Liberalism.

        Classical liberalism:

        Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of
        religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

        Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke, Claude Frédéric Bastiat, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism, and progress.

        There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

        Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism “neo-classical liberalism,” which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.

        The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase “neo-classical liberalism”, leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States, where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.

        Modern liberalism:

        Modern liberalism does not support the individualism of classical liberals. Instead appeals are often made to the common good (or “public good”, or “public welfare”) as opposed to the good of the individual. The common good is seen as a higher claim that overrides the individual’s claim to his life, liberty, or estate. This language too, of “public good,” is borrowed from the classical liberals but with a different meaning. The classical liberals indeed held that all the acts of government are “to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people” (Locke), but “public good” was meant as opposed to the government acting in the government’s good, and not as opposed to the individual. On the contrary, “public good” referred to the individual, “the good of every particular member of that society” in his natural rights, and thus “the sword is not given the magistrate for his own good alone.” The point was that the government may only protect the natural rights of the individual—to protect his life, liberty, and estate. To act on behalf of some collective good as a higher claim than that of the individual’s is to act contrary to the “public good” of the classical liberals—contrary to natural law, because it violates the principle of equality before the law.

        And so we find that although modern liberalism/liberals use much of the same language as classical liberalism/liberals when referring to fundamental principles, very different meanings are employed. We also find that if modern liberals affirm that their meanings are in addition to (or augmentation of) the classical meanings, they are mistaken. The modern and classical concepts are incompatible, and one cannot logically affirm both. This was recognized by the classical liberal Federic Bastiat when he wrote in 1850,

        “These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free” (The Law).

      • http://naver samurai

        You have also forgotten about how God, Bible references, and our Christian founding has created and shaped this country, not liberalism Truesoy. Still haven’t studied our history I see. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • truesoy

          samurai;
          Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence is there the word ‘Bible’, nor the word God in the Constitution.
          Please, keep in the church what is from the church and out of government, lest you forget the evils of theocracies.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

          • Joan

            Truesoy, obviously you’ve never read the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. The word “Creator” is referred to in many places in both. Or perhaps you do not know who the Creator is??

      • http://naver samurai

        Truesoy, you are such an idiot. Even my history students can tell you that what you said is a bald faced lie. In the Declaration of Independence it makes references to God 4 times:

        Natur and Nature’s God
        Endowed by their Creator
        Supreme Judge of the Worlf
        Divine Providence

        In the Constitution it says in the Preamble:

        “…secure the blessings of libertty…”

        If liberty is a blessing, there must be a blesser. This is a reference back to the Declaration of Independence where it says that our rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are “endowed by their Creator”, which is another word for God. It also says right above where George Washington signed:

        “On the 17th day of the 9th month in the year of our Lord 1787…”

        The part “the year of our Lord” is a reference to Jesus. As this means the 17th day 9th month 1787th year after the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Though the word Bible may not be mentioned, but you don’t have to have the Bible menmtioned or a Bible verse in our documents for us to be founded a Christian nation. This means that we were founded on Christian principles and not the lies that are flowing from your mouth, child of satan. Need to get your facts straight before you post. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. Nice try Kang, but you have failed miserably. Must I continue to mop the floor with you?

        • truesoy

          So you are a teacher, but you teach your students wrong.
          The declaration of Independence does not use/mention the word God 4 times, however I can tell you like to read in between the lines ‘intended’ meanings to certain word, like ‘creator’. Well if that is how you want to spin it, then fine.
          And the word God or anything approaching such a word is not even remotely mentioned in te Constitution.
          If you are a teacher, it must be in a religious institution where facts are less important than fiction. And that is not the best, nor the right way to educate our children (I’m assuming your students are children).
          Remember the earth is not flat anymore, nor is at the center of the Universe, as much as religion for centuries tried to keep it that way.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • http://naver samurai

        Time for you to put up or shut up Truesoy. I have a copy of the documents in question and you do not. Ergo, you cannot prove what I said to be wrong. I invite you and your little lib mind to post some facts and sources proving me wrong.

        “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

        George Washington

        “America’s deep roots are in the Bible of the Christian faith. From our first civil compacts and the New England Primer textbook, to the declaration of every state constitution and the declaration of the Supreme Court’s Trinity decision of 1892, America cries out that its traditions have resulted from an abiding faith in the God of the Holy Bible.”

        Dr. Jerry Newcombe

        Neeeeed to get your facts straight before you post and make that popping noise with a quickness. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • http://www.thoughts.com/obamanator/ Obamanator

    Hillary Rosen, AKA “Hildabeast 2″, is a true credit to her (indeterminate) species. I speculate most likely the reptilian family.

  • C. McDonnell

    No one said being a mother wasn’t work. The reference is to the fact that Mrs Romney didn’t have to get a job outside her home to totally support those 5 kids like so many of us have had to do.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      Its become disturbingly apparent, that liberal-feminists cannot make up their minds with regards to Conservative women. On the one hand, they excoriate Sarah Palin for persuing a carrer in politcs and for not staying at home to raise her children, and on the other hand, they demonize and redicule Mrs. Romney for choosing the opposite. Perhaps, the person who coin-phrased, “Liberalism is a deasese”, may not be that a-far-off. Wouldn’t you agree?

      • truesoy

        Yes, Jay,
        Just think where ‘conservative’ women would be today if not for those ‘liberal demands’ for their right to vote.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Probably the same place they have always been; at home raising their children.

      • truesoy

        Jay;
        On liberalism, and the roots ofmodern ‘libertarian-ism’, and all the political philosophers you mentioned, I’ll just briefly discuss one: John Locke.
        One thing you have to understand is that he wrote on the reality of his ‘life and times’, yet he was very explicit in mentioning the ‘common good’, and therefore just based on common sense, and with the understanding of an evolving society from a mostly rural, and somewhat feudal ,too, to the present, then, the rational and/or the concept about what constituted ‘limited’ government then, to what it is now are not the same.
        Take the concept of public education as an example. The ‘libertarian’ take on this, as embodied by Ron Paul, is that the government should not be responsible for our children education. Ironically, this was in ‘vogue’ during the early years in the southern states, where wealthy people received their education from a private institution, and or private tutors; but if too poor, then, from a religious institution; unlike in the northern states where public education was a given.
        As you could see the libertarian way has morphe into a regressive mode, contrary to the idea of liberalism. Even John Adams was a major proponent for public education, for the ‘public good’. And you know why? because what is in the public’s good, it is also good for the individual. Of course, if we only need a labor intensive society of potato growers and cotton pickers, then educating he populace is a futile and useless effort, thereby we’ll then be replicating the society of John Locke’s life and times.
        I could go into a deeper, and for sure longer discussion on these isues, but I believe this little bit will give you and idea.
        Ps.- Although it was nice. You forced back a few years, to my political science classes.

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • Mamamia

        demonize and ridicule?????? Because someone said she hasn’t had to earn a paycheck through being employed. Take it just a little bit out of context won’t you Jay! Ha.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Yes, mamamia; demonize and ridicule!!!!!!!!!

      • http://naver samurai

        Yes Mamamia, they ridicule anything they deem not their view of women or what a woman is to do or live. The classic feminazi. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. Speaking of which, where is duhnisso?

    • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

      The comment by Rosen was just plain dumb. She was just playing by Obama’s rules.

      Why is it that some people that are connected in some way with this community organizer of a POTUS have a tendancy to say some of the stupidest things? Some Republicans can say some really
      dumb stuff sometimes but it seems the Democrats and their
      minions take the cake for idiotic, vial, disrespectful and
      immoral comments…barr none!

      • Mamamia

        It was not a necessarily dumb comment. However, only the dumb didn’t understand what she was saying. We all knew what she meant: that Ann Romney has never gotten up and gone to a job, punched a timeclock, and received a paycheck.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Mamamia, it was just another politiclly motivated Democratic & intentional gaff…it was dumb. Hoof & mouth disease.

      • http://naver samurai

        True that! True that! Keep up the good fight fellow patriots! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    “Welfare”… Theft of a Nation

    This is not a story about the abuses of Aid to Dependent Children, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, unemployment compensation; federally subsidized housing or any of the other federal “Welfare” projects.

    This is a story about a most diabolical yet ingenious plan. It is about a conspiracy to steal an entire form of republican government based on liberty and individual responsibility and changes it into a socialistic oligarchy.

    It is about the theft of Christian duty through love and charity by a Satanic plan of forced redistribution of wealth. It is a story about “Verbicide” and the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.

    This is also a story about the violation of the real “wall of separation between church and state.” It is socialism and hereditary bondage clothed in the guise of charity. It is a filthy satanic counterfeit of Christian duty. It is government-enforced slavery and theft sold to Americans at a time of government created desperation and depression that changed sovereign Citizens into federal beneficiaries and therefore slaves.

    We will herein discuss the history of how liberty was sacrificed on the Satanic alter of false security. How the word “welfare” gave foundation to a bloodless coup and this metamorphosis that has turned our God given Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper. This was done by simple verbicide and intentional usurpation of limited authority.

    Verbicide is a relatively new English word. It means the murder of a word or its intentional misuse.

    It was first coined by the famous English author and Oxford professor C. S. Lewis, but its dangers have been recognized for millennia. Confucius circa 500 B. C. is reported to have said: When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.

    The foundation of this conspiracy is based on the verbicide of the phrase “general welfare” that the authors of the anti-federalist papers warned us about and that Plubius, (James Madison, Federalist Papers) said could not be misinterpreted.

    Madison said the anti-federalist arguments could “have no other effect than to confound and mislead” and that their warnings were an “absurdity.”

    The United States Supreme Court in 1937 in HELVERING v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 embraced this “absurdity” by completely rejecting Madison’s (the father of the Constitution) argument and turned a Constitution clearly establishing a limited Federal government into an oligarchial tyranny limited only by congressional interpretation of what was “necessary and proper” for the establishment of the “general welfare” and congressional rejection of the “ancient phraseology” replacing them with “modern” definitions.

    Senator Sam Ervin, of Watergate hearing fame, understood this verbicide and its possible effects on law and the Constitution. He said: [J]udicial verbicide is calculated to convert the Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper and to replace our government of laws with a judicial oligarchy.

    The presidential, congressional and judicial verbicide was so complete that not even the anti-federalists could have predicted the specific bastardization of the term. We believe that the changes were so subtle, so invidious, and spread out over such a long period of time that its only author could have been none other than Satan himself.

    Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. understood the dangers of verbicide. He said: Life and language are alike sacred. Homicide and verbicide-that is, violent treatment of a word with fatal results to its legitimate meaning, which is its life-are alike forbidden.

    How can the simple misuse of a word honestly be compared to homicide, a mortal sin?

    And what does this have to do with welfare and liberty? Men of legal understanding have long understood that the meaning of words in the law must be interpreted, as the authors of the law understood the words.

    In a letter to Henry Lee, James Madison wrote: I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution… What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in the modern sense.

    In a letter to William Johnson, Thomas Jefferson echoed Madison’s sentiments: On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

    The Founding Fathers understood the importance of language. Single words, their placement within the Constitution and even punctuation were debated. They also understood that the meanings of words could change or be maliciously and intentionally misinterpreted.

    When modern Americans hear the word “welfare” most think of, “relating to, or concerned with welfare and esp. with improvement of the welfare of disadvantaged social groups” and “receiving public welfare benefits.” (Merriam-Webster’s 10th Collegiate Dictionary)

    That definition of “welfare” would have been unknown in 1776. Welfare was, in truth, the exact opposite of poor relief. If you have “welfare” today you would be on the government dole.

    If you had “welfare” in 1787 you had health, wealth and happiness. Such a system of government aid would only have been known as “poor relief” and a law requiring a tax to support “poor relief” would have been called a “poor law.”

    “Poor laws” were first enacted in England following the Reformation, and because of the loss of church property the government established the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601.

    The Speenhamland System of 1785, continued on with the poor laws. It was a system of out-door relief contrived by the Berkshire Justices of the Peace meeting at Speenhamland.

    The Elizabethan Poor Laws provided the pattern for the poor laws in the American Colonies, and the original thirteen states.

    There were other “poor laws” and poor reliefs of the time. None were ever called “welfare.” Two of them were known as “The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834,” and the “Formation of Dungarvan Poor Law Union – In 1838”

    Now let’s take a look at the meaning of “welfare” and “general welfare” as the Founding Fathers understood them and their metamorphosis and verbicide.

    “Welfare” is defined in Noah Webster’s original 1828 Dictionary as: WEL’FARE, noun [well and fare, a good going; German wohlfahrt; Dutch welvaart; Swedish valfart; Danish velfoerd.]

    1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

    Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary comprised of the 1864, 1879 and 1884 issues updated and revised and published in 1904 and the Revised 1913 edition defines “welfare” with no obvious substantial change in its meaning except that the distinction between “applied to persons” and “applied to states” has been removed.

    This is an important distinction as both of the Constitution’s “general Welfare” clauses are only “applied to states” and not to “persons.” The definitions of welfare is as follows:

    Full article here: http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/13.1/

  • beth

    So much ado about a made-up crisis, one that doesn’t really exist, except in your minds.

  • http://n/a American Patriot

    Mr Crystal, I doubt the libs know what the two out faced fingers mean, so let’s help them out, it means your sucking on the hind tit of a communist cow named obamas-vile, with a little kiss my @arss to boot from the leader of obamas-ville.
    I hope that was clean enough, i’m not into the fowl language of the ever so loud street punk, thug, one pants leg up shows jail honey boy, piece of crap.

    Tea Party Patriot
    Vote 2012

  • Palin16

    Hillary Rosen needs to get a real job.

    • Joan

      She can’t get a job, Palin16. No one in their right mind would hire her.

      • truesoy

        Joan; I assume you are ‘female’; then why all this ‘conservative’ ferver?
        Don’t you know that without ‘liberals’ there wouldn’t be conservative women? as a matter of fact you’ll still be fighting for your right to vote.
        So I say, go ahead Joan, and “gratefully” bite the hand that fed you, and still does.

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • samurai

        You still haven’t posted a source to back up what you have stated. Why is that? Is it because your posts are just mere beliefs and not facts? Get with the program Truesoy. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • truesoy

          samurai
          ;
          I was referring to all white house detail personnel.
          On the “first Lady’ staff your numbers are made up cheap propaganda. You can get the real numbers from public records, or you can go to snopes.com and debunk your figures. Either wa you are proven wrong.
          Glad to help you/enlighten you.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • samurai

        I see that Truesoy is losing both his eyesight and his ability to comprehend what is being read. I never posted any numbers, so you just are spinning your wheels to no avail. Second, why would you cite snopes? Only dopes believe in snopes. Third, you gave stats as proof to back up what you’ve posted, ergo it is up to you to post the sources you got the info from. I don’t have to do your homework for you. I hope you thank me for awakening your little lib mind. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Patriot18

    Would like to bring up something that he said that people generally aren’t talking about. Warren Buffet is dodging his taxes? This has no basis in reality. Warren buffet pays 17.4% income tax. This is very low because the Capital gains tax rate is 15%. However, it isn’t low compared to Mitt Romney’s 13.9% tax rate. Also, Warren Buffet is blaming other people because other people (Romney for one) voted to have the Capital gains rate set at 15%.

    • Joan

      If Buffett is telling the truth then why did he sue the IRS last November? Now the IRS is countersuing him for $360,000,000 in unpaid taxes and interest. Also, anyone can tell the IRS they want to pay more if they so choose. Even conglomorates can request it. Doesn’t take an act of Congress to increase taxes so why doesn’t Buffett ask to have more taxes taken out of his profits? Such a screwed up world.

  • Mamamia

    Wow… all this (expletive deleted) over one comment that people have really taken out of context. “Democrats vs. your mom” is halarious. If you hadn’t of freaked out about what Hillary Rosen said you might have agreed with her. I know I do. I believe that Ann Romney hasn’t had to get out of bed, fight traffic and go punch a clock. I believe that Ann Romney hasn’t ever held a job and received a paycheck. It’s really a no brainer. What would make us believe otherwise? She is a pampered women with the fortunate life to be able to stay home with her children. Which is admired by many women. My mother stayed home and raised 5 children too. So what! Women do it everyday. What is so controversial about this particular comment I will never understand. We all know what she meant by “hasn’t worked a day in her life”. What America interprets as “work” is employment and being part of the work force and you all know it! Republicans think they have capitalized on something they can call “war on women” to justify all of the house bills passed in the last two years by the tea party that are against women. One comment will never justify the damage of the right. Just stop with the nonsense.

    • samurai

      I see we are drunk on kool aid. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    DEMOCRATIC SELF-DESTRUCTION

    Democracy is the consequence of a society that does not yet know we could have a common direction. Democracy is created by two or many more groups, but ultimately by individuals, wanting to go in our own opposing directions, each believing our direction is
    right. The chief function of democratic elections is to illuminate the resultant self-destructive divisions within humanity. Democracy pulls us apart; and because of it we can not pull together. Democracy may be the least destructive way of organizing ourselves but the resulting conflict confirms it is only a matter of time before “government of the people, by the people, for the (self-interest) of the people (will) perish from the earth”1 with the people unless we vote for change.

    If it is not already too late to change we can if we want to, save ourselves from democratic self-destruction by ‘voting’ to replace our sense of “rights” to fill the void in our own way, that gave birth to democracy, with the “ideal” part of the law controlling our human nature. It dictates that “we reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God.” These individual dictatorships compel us to go in the same direction on parallel paths so there could be no conflict for “…there would be no sides”. The ultimate consequence of our “ideal” dictatorships would be an undivided humanity pulling us all together toward individual and collective self-realization. -Abraham Lincoln

    • truesoy

      Jay;
      “the ultimate consequence of our ‘ideal’ dictatorship would be an undivided humanity pulling us all together toward individual and collective self-realization.

      Abraham Lincoln never said those words.
      Please, do some more reading on Lincoln before you attribute anything else to him.

      Sincerely,
      Truesoy

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        My comment directly below was for you, truesoy.

      • samurai

        I don’t know about that one, but I do know he said these:

        “I am busily engaged in study of the Bible”

        “This nation under God” (From the Gettysberg Address)

        “In regards to this great book (Bible), I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.”

        There are many more that can prove you don’t know who he was and what he stood for Truesoy. BTW, here is the site I used for this info:

        http://www.americasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/a-christian-nation

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • truesoy

          samurai;
          Again, your knowledge of history leaves a lot to be desired.
          Lincoln never said that, either.
          What concerns me is that you, and others like you, wish and strive for a United States based on ‘made up’ assumptions, in other words someone, somewhere have drawn you a picture of our country that never was, and you liked it because they also sold you a ‘bill of goods’, so you think.
          Nontheless, I’ll tell you about the ‘in God we trust” phrase. It was coined after the civil war by people that believe that after sucha horrendous experience it was needed as a way to heal the nation’s wounds, etc, and it then first stamped on our coins; and thereafter in the 1950′s, after much pressure from christian groups, it was printed on our ‘paper money’.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        truesoy says: What concerns me is that you, and others like you, wish and strive for a United States based on ‘made up’ assumptions, in other words someone, somewhere have drawn you a picture of our country that never was, and you liked it because they also sold you a ‘bill of goods’, so you think.

        And what concerns me, truesoy, is that you, and others like you, wish and strive to re-write history, and would like to sell us “A false, bill of goods”. Another words, someone, somewhere, is feverishly re-drawing a picture of our country that never was.

        truesoy says: Nontheless, I’ll tell you about the ‘in God we trust” phrase. It was coined after the civil war by people that believe that after sucha horrendous experience it was needed as a way to heal the nation’s wounds, etc, and it then first stamped on our coins; and thereafter in the 1950′s, after much pressure from christian groups, it was printed on our ‘paper money’.

        “In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States in the 1950s, and it started to appear on our paper currency in 1957 (although it had appeared on our metal coinage since the 1860s). While it may have been the case as late as the early 1960s, American culture hasn’t trusted in God for some time, and “we the people” need to return to our spiritual roots as soon as possible, and with vigor.
        We need to re-examine and re-embrace Christianity

        Because America was founded on Judeo/Christian principles, that is where we should look—in particular, we need to re-examine and re-embrace Christianity.

        Why have we drifted so far from our spiritual heritage? Once you’ve taken a look at the centuries of unremitting atheistic left-wing attacks on Christianity—both from within and without—the answer is obvious.

        The ploys that the atheists (in particular Far Left atheists, and most obsessively, Far Left homosexual atheists) have used to undermine, ridicule, and diminish the influence of Christianity are manifold, clever, and ruthless—they run the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous.

        A favorite gambit of theirs is to ridicule, misinterpret, and downplay the Holy Bible—including writing their own versions of it. For example, the following “scripture” is from a recent bible whose writers endorse “peace, justice, dignity, and rights for all” (social justice)—and of course, sustainable development.

        “Meanwhile Rocky was still sitting in the courtyard. A woman came up to him and said: ‘Haven’t I seen you with Jesus, the hero from Galilee?’ Rocky shook his head and said: ‘I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!’” Matthew 26:69-70 Rocky? Jesus wept.

        Moving on. Another favorite ploy is to spread myths and lies about Christianity—the number of myths/lies is so vast that it would take a sizable book just to enumerate them, let alone dispel them. For starters, I might mention that Galileo (1564-1642) was not persecuted by stupid Christian “flat-earthers,” because he was so logical and scientific.

        The book that got Galileo Galilei into trouble was his “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems”—a book that championed the heliocentric (i.e. sun-centered) theories of Nicolaus Copernicus, (who had been urged to publish his theories by Catholic Bishop Guise and Cardinal Schonberg). The prevailing scientific model of the day held that the earth was the center of the universe, not the sun. This was not because of some Christian anthropocentric prejudice, but because of the almost universally accepted (in Europe) theories of Ptolemy (circa 90-168 AD).

        The whole Galileo hoopla was in essence an academic disagreement dressed in the ecclesiastical clothes of the intelligentsia of the day. In truth, although many Christians held to the commonly accepted views of Ptolemy, many others backed the heliocentric theories of Copernicus. The charged atmosphere surrounding heliocentrism at the time, was caused by rancorous academic debate, not unscientific superstition. In fact, Christianity is largely responsible—a good case can be made that it is exclusively responsible—for the fact that science exists at all.

        As Richard Stark notes, “Not only were science and religion compatible, they were inseparable—the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious Christian scholars.”

        Christianity is always emitting various questing, growing, hopeful seeds of promise. As Thomas Cahill observes, the Christian view of the world “as a healing mystery, fraught with divine messages—could never have risen out of Greco-Roman civilization, threaded with the profound pessimism of the ancients and their Platonic suspicion of the body as unholy and the world devoid of meaning.”

        As opposed to the contractive, bleak, self-centered inanity of atheism, Christianity offers a life-affirming, expansive, God-centered world-view.

        One example of the contractive influence of atheism—one could say a stellar example—can be found in America’s space program, or lack thereof. NASA under Progressive control has gone from a “To boldly go where no one has gone before” attitude, to their new motto of “There’s No Place Like Home.” Go get ‘em “Dorothy.”

        Unlike atheists, who are limited (contracted) to a mere scientific viewpoint, Christians have the elevated vantage point of a more inclusive world-view—one that is not nearly so provincial and limited as the material reductionist one. The Christian view allows for, indeed encourages, an expansive, pro-active outlook.

        As Dinesh D’Souza puts it, “Christians believe that reality is much bigger, and that there are ways of apprehending reality that go beyond rational syllogisms and scientific experiments. What looks like anti-intellectualism on the part of Christians is actually a protest against reductive materialism’s truncated view of reality.”

        • truesoy

          Jay;
          I don’t mean to undo, nor corrupt your beliefs, but I still have to set straight for the record.
          The United States, wasn’t found on ‘judeo-christian’ principals, that is a fallacy that has been perpetuated by the christian movement.
          The architects of the American Revolution were Masons. It was the Masonic Lodge at the center of the formation of the revolutionary army, and through them and in conjunction with the french masonic lodges made it possible to get France involve in support of the American revolution.
          Ironically it was during the first part of the 1800′s, when christianity was gaining undue influence, and started the persecution of Freemasons, because of their supposed secret society and evil ways. Good going christians, you managed to drive underground the people that gave us the United States and the Constitution,
          No, Jay, our country was not found in Judeo-Christian’ principals.
          However, to clear any doubts you might harbor I will refer you to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, article 12, and there, as ratified by the 5th Congress of the United States, it explicitly states that we were not found as a christian nation.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • http://naver samurai

        Wrong Truesoy! The motto :In God We Trust!” started being added to coins during the civil war. It was in full swing on certain coins by 1864. Ergo, you have been proven wrong again. This is based on this site:

        http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=5799

        Neeeeed to be making that popping sound and stop trying to rewrite our history. You are a disgrace to this country and the one you came from. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • truesoy

          Wrong. It was after the civil war.

        • truesoy

          …and something else, samurai. Wallbuilder is a right wing publication found by David Barton.
          Wallbuilder has a political agenda with no interest in the facts. All it is is a ‘revisionist’ of history/

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Those who would disparage our Founding Fathers and the foundations of our nation are quick to point out that “not all the Founding Fathers were Christians.” They point this up as though it makes the case that our nation was not founded on Christianity.

        And it is true that not all our Founding Fathers were Christians. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, for example, are generally considered to be deists, “a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs … a belief especially influential in the 17th and 18th centuries.” (Encarta Dictionary, North America).

        But in reading the writings of our Founding Fathers, one thing becomes crystal clear, that the flow of power should be from “The Creator” to “the people” to “the government”. Our Founding Fathers knew that the only way that man could truly be free was to establish a limited form of government that allowed man the greatest latitude to govern self.

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” — Declaration of Independence; In Congress; July 4, 1776

        Thus the quote attributed to James Madison,

        “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

        This quote from John Adams makes things even clearer,

        “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other.”

        In other words, in order for America to be free, and Americans to enjoy freedom under a limited form of government, they must choose to govern themselves, control themselves, sustain themselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.

        Edmund Burke made the reasoning of the Founding Fathers abundantly clear when he wrote (sic),

        “Freedom without virtue is not freedom but license to pursue whatever passions prevail in the intemperate mind; man’s right to freedom being in exact proportion to his willingness to put chains upon his own appetites; the less restraint from within, the more must be imposed from without.”

        In other words, if man does not govern himself according to the Ten Commandments of God, because of man’s sin nature, what he imposes upon society will require laws to be written. (Note: used in this context, “man” refers not to gender but to humanoids in general.)

        But, you say, this creates a situation, as in England, where the religion of the people is imposed by the state.

        No, not so. Our Founding Fathers knew that the only way this nation could remain a limited form of government is if the people, themselves, choose to live by the Ten Commandments of God. Thus the very first amendment to the United States Constitution:

        “Freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

        Those who would disparage Christianity claim that Christianity has no place in the halls of government.

        This is also not true. The Founding Fathers were very aware of the oppression imposed by the Church of England. They understood that to be free, people must choose, of their own free will, to live their lives according to the Ten Commandments of God, whether in their private lives or while serving the people in the halls of government. The government was established to be non-religious; not the people serving in the government.

        Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a government of politicians; they envisioned a government of statesman, principled men who came together to administer a limited form of government, allowing the people the greatest amount of freedom to pursue their lives according to the Ten Commandments of God.

        A government of the people, by the people, for the people. The only one like it in the world, often called the greatest experiment in the world. The reason so many have left their countries of birth to seek opportunity in America.

        Why is America where it is today?

        First of all, how many children in the public schools are taught the reality of the founding of our nation? I can answer that with one word: none. And that situation has been so for more than 50 years.

        If a nation knows not from whence it came; it will not know to where it is going and Americans today, by and large, have no clue the founding principles of this nation.

        What we are fighting today is truly a spiritual battle. John Adams’ prophetic words, that our constitution was wholly inadequate for an unprincipled and immoral people, is upon us. The signs are everywhere …
        Politicians instead of statesman;

        Government leaders who worship at the altar of Satan as active members of the Bohemian Grove club, Skull and Bones, and countless others;

        The use of the public treasury to buy votes (earmarks);

        The people have become ‘stakeholders’ to be pandered to at election time and ignored the rest of the time;

        Moral acts are the subject of derision, while immoral acts are celebrated under the mantra of equal rights;

        Rampant crime including child sex slavery;
        Rampant corruption in government;
        Imperial expansionism;
        Rabid environmentalism including the global warming hoax;
        The sustainable global environment based on humanism/New Age;
        Government schools (aka, “public” schools) to teach that which serves the interests of invasive and oppressive government;
        The federal reserve bank;
        Social security, Medicare and Medicaid;
        The federal income tax;
        Endless ‘police actions’ in foreign lands;
        Rampant sexual promiscuity;
        Rampant sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDs;
        Abortion;
        Churches that speak apostasy from the altar in an attempt to please the flock instead of pleasing God (social gospel);
        Moral depravation;… just to name a few.

        Some will say “the outlawing of prayer in public schools.” That, however, is the result of unconstitutional government schools. Why are government schools unconstitutional? Because education, in every instance, is based on a world view, a philosophy, a religion. As such, each government school, to meet the requirement of the First Amendment, must offer courses based on every religion. As they do not, they are unconstitutional. The religion under-girding government education, at this time, is humanism/New Age. While humanism admits to no Higher Authority (no Creator); New Age believes Higher Authority comes from within (self-divination).

        Can we get back to our Founding principles? Never say never.

        How do we do that?

        Until the people of this nation fall on their knees, ask forgiveness of God, repent and go forth and do better, God will continue to turn his back on this nation and it will continue its slide into oppression.

        Our constitution was truly made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other.

        If the American people want to live as free people, there is only one way that can happen.

        Our Founding Fathers knew that; they weren’t so dumb after all!

        • truesoy

          Jay; your rant against everything that makes sense and is logical to a reasonable person and of average intelligence says very little in your favor.
          So now Social Security and Medicare are, according to you, an undesireable appendix of an evil society/government?, and all because somehow public education is also evil in that it fails to teach about religion?
          Well, maybe schools should teach about religion, but only from its histoical perspective as it has developed in different geographical societies, and the purposes it has served.
          Understanding religion is knowing that it is man made. Religion is an attempt by man to define God and His purpose; yet, no one knows anymore than the next person, therefore religion is make believe. Ps.- notice I’mnot disputing the existance of a God, I’m just simply disputing the veracity and/or integrity of religion dogma.
          I suggest that when thinking about religion to bring logic and common sense.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • http://naver samurai

        Good post Jay, fellow patriot. You have to excuse Truesoy as he is seeking to have people believe revisionist history and not our true history. Truesoy says that Lincoln did not say the quotes I’ve posted, but does not post any facts or sources to back up what he says is true. No facts or sources are classic liberal strategies. This remindes me of a few quotes from our history that would prove you wrong.

        “They who are decrying the Christian religion are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”

        Charles Carroll of Carrollton

        On your unfounded belief of separation of church and state, to which there is no such thing mentioned in any of our founding documents:

        “…it is a misleading metaphor and it should be abandoned, as it is not Constitutional Law…”

        Chief Justice William Rehnquist

        “In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior.”

        John Quincy Adams 1837

        Been proven wrong again. Must I keep mopping the floor with you? You’re kind are getting much more easier to defeat these days. Must that extra studying and pray to the Almighty. No secular state here. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://naver samurai

        Wrong again Truesoy. If you would ever bother to look things up, you would see that it has been found on coins as early as 1864, during the Civil War. Wrong again as always. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

      The above article has been modified to make the point that a word equivalent to “good checks and balances” is “restrictions”. The changes are indicated by bracketed words. Ideally, there is only one human right. If we have to have more than one right we’ve got it wrong. Cheers…

      • truesoy

        Jay;
        Words have meanings, and anytime they are modified, so does the meaning.

      • samurai

        You mean like the spin you constantly put on things every time you post Truesoy? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • truesoy

          samurai;
          Why you always end your post, for God and Country?
          It is not God’s fault for the thing you believe in.
          I think you’ve been watching too many old flicks, really!.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        truesoy says:Words have meanings, and anytime they are modified, so does the meaning.

        Perhaps i should have used the word paraphrased.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        truesoy says: Why you always end your post, for God and Country?
        It is not God’s fault for the thing you believe in.
        I think you’ve been watching too many old flicks, really!.

        Why is that an issue? I’ve grown fond of Samurai’s sign off. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • truesoy

          …because it sounds sooooo corny, and totally meaningless.

      • http://naver samurai

        It is meaningless to you because you are not a patriot. If you think that God and country are meaningless, then you need to leave this country and go back to the one you came from. You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot. Your ignorance of our founding, God, and your atheism is showing. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. If there was no God, we would have no country.

        • truesoy

          samurai;
          Your interprtation of country I undertand because it would be based on what you perceived, wrong and/or right. However, your interpretation of God is only based on assumptions, either because that is what others tell you based on their own assumptions, or they are self-developed; yet, it doesn’t change the facts they are assumptions by a creative mind.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Well said Samurai! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • Palin16

        truesoy,
        if you don’t like Samurai’s patriotism, feel free to avail yourself of huffington post.

      • http://naver samurai

        So what I have mentioned about being a patriot is wrong? And this coming from an atheist that had no nads to serve? An atheist says my perceptions of God is wrong? Care to cite a source to show where I’m wrong? You said before that you were a patriot, but we know you for what you truly are. You are nothing more than a member of the 5th column here in this country. You know, ones that seek to destroy this country from the inside-out. Like I said, you need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot. Thanks for the posts Jay and Palin 16. It’s alway good to stand next you on this battlefield for the righting of this great country. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • truesoy

          You know, I also know of another society across the ocean,, on the other side of the globe that feels the same way you do, they fear God and they think they are patriots. But we all know they are crazy.
          samurai, you too need therapy.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • http://naver samurai

        What country is that Truesoy? Your home country of North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc? You are no patriot nor are you a good American. Just stay overseas as we don’t need any more 5th columners here to try to destroy this country or try to warp our history. Why don’t you losers ever give up? My arms, hands, and back are tired from mopping the floor with you. BTW, since you didn’t have that nads to serve, you have no idea what it is like over in the Middle East. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • http://naver samurai

    What? No more responses from Truesoy the liar? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • truesoy

      samurai, please get real, for it is people like you that refuse to accept the truth, even when faced with the facts, that contribute to the demise of nations. This has been the norm from the beginning.
      Your reality, if left unchallenge, will give us the christian version of Afghanistan.
      I’ll put it another way: If you show me the most religious country I will then show you the most screwed up country.

      Sincerely,
      Truesoy

      • http://naver sook young

        I have spoken and answered your lib spin postings with facts and sources. Actually, you show me the most liberal and atheistic country and that would be the most messed up country. Just can’t take the fact that we were founded a Christian nation, can you? This doesn’t mean that everyone is a Christian or that 100% fo the people goes to church, but it does mean that we were founded on Christian principles, laws based on the 10 Commandments, the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus. Why do you atheist idiots always wish to argue with the truth? Just because your kind (Kang) has never done anything but destroy countries from the inside. Rome, Russia, Germany, China, Vietnam, European Colonial Empires, Mongol Empire, etc., were torn apart fron the inside by idiots like you. You and your ilk will not succeed one of satan. Just think, you probably went to church when you were younger, but you became stupid and fell away in college. I seem to remember reading:

        “Woe unto those that have believed and have tasted the rewards of God, but have fallen away. Yes I say woe unto them. For greater is their damnation.”

        I guess you must really be feeling some heat. If not, you will in the afterlife. Neeeeed to get your facts straight before you post and also make that popping sound. You say that I’m wrong in what I’ve posted, then cite some sources to prove it. I dare you to try. You just keep being used to mop the floor with, tisk, tisk, tisk, tisk, tisk, tisk. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot. I guess that leaves you out of the picture.

        • truesoy

          sook young / samurai;

          Again, please, get this straight, The United States was not found as a christian nation, nor on the bible. I f anything you should know is that the founding of our nation was influence by the historicl knowledge of greek and roman civilization, and also the french philosopher Voltaire.
          Furthermore you should figure this out, and you don’t have to an Eistein to do so, that if the founding fathers would have found it as a ‘christian nation’, they would have said so?., but they didn’t they didn’t even mention God in the Constitution. Furthermore, if you read article 12 in the Treaty of Tripoli, it explicitly states that ,The United States’ was not found as a christian nation; this treaty was ratified by the 5th Congres of The United States in 1797. There is the proof you ask for.
          And to answer your question, yes it is true I went to church when I was younger, but that all statrted to change as I develope critical thinking, and an expanded knowledge of the church.
          You to will benefit from critical thinking, if only you would develop some.

      • swampfox

        wow,to much obamaid really does rot the ol brain…

  • Marilyn

    Alondra: Thanks for giving the web address of “The Communist Takeover of America -
    45 Declared Goals.” I have been looking for that everywhere.

  • http://www.facebook.com/coreyandshiva Corey Mondello

    FACTS FOR FOOLS:

    “We the People” = Democratic Socialism !!!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.