These are the 2016 Republican Presidential Considerations so far. Click on each one to learn more about them!
Sarah Palin Rick Perry Rand Paul Mike Huckabee
Marco Rubio Jeb Bush Donald Trump Chris Christie
Bobby Jindal Ben Carson Scott Walker Ted Cruz
CAST YOUR VOTE — On who you think should become the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomonee!
by FlimFlam —
Wonderful Daylight Saving Time
Ahhh, it’s here again, that wonderful time when we throw our body’s natural rythms out of kilter and risk a heart attack to build the bottom financial line for the charcoal manufacturers and golf course managers.
But wait, you say, there are valuable reasons why we should have DST. Here are a few.
FALSE – It was invented by Nazi Germany during World War II to save coal for military purposes. We aren’t at war with Germany and haven’t been since 1945.
FALSE – Farmers work from dawn till dark. They don’t care when that is on a clock,
FALSE – They liked being milked when their udders are full, whether it is daylight or not.
FALSE – They just have those accidents in the morning. And Texas has raised the speed limits because the new headlights are so much brighter and reduce accidents.
ALSO FALSE – Recent studies have shown that energy use increases 1% overall when people have dark mornings.
So, who really benefits from this artificial aberration known as Daylight Saving Time? The answer can be found in the sport of golf. One expert says it is “the most important reason we’re still doing and expanding the period of daylight saving time.”
“For people who don’t play golf, they should care a lot about the fact that daylight savings time creates additional opportunities for people to play golf,” says Steve Mona, CEO of the World Golf Foundation. “From an economic standpoint, golf on a national level creates almost $70 billion a year in economic impact. It employs almost 2 million Americans, it generates almost $4 billion in charitable giving, almost all of which goes to causes outside of golf. In addition to that, golf facilities are small businesses and they’re usually among the most stable employers and source of revenue for local suppliers than any other business.”
So did the sports lobby alone create the false myths about farmers and school kids to make sure daylight saving time stays a reality? According to Downing, the effort to roll the clocks ahead is also an initiative pushed by the business community.
“Since 1915, the principal supporter of daylight saving in the United States has been the Chamber of Commerce on behalf of small business and retailers,” says Downing. “The Chamber understood that if you give workers more sunlight at the end of the day they’ll stop and shop on their way home. It’s not just golf—the barbecue industry loves daylight savings, so do the home good stores because people tend to go out of their houses, see that their roofs need replacing and buy more shingles. It’s a really important part of niche marketing for the retail industry.”
Really?
Let’s write our Congressmen in Austin to join the Southwest push to end D S T!
So, what’s the big uproar over Hillary Clinton’s emails? I’ll let Fox News Judge Jeanine tell you — she explains it best! Watch!
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the US Congress in Washington DC on March 3, 2015 cautioning against Iran gaining nuclear weapons capabilities — FULL TRANSCRIPT:
Thank you…
(APPLAUSE)
… Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet.
(APPLAUSE)
I guess it’s true what they say — you can’t keep a good man down.
(LAUGHTER)
My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.
I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.
(APPLAUSE)
I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.
(APPLAUSE)
Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.
Now, some of that is widely known.
(APPLAUSE)
Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.
Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.
I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.
In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.
Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.
(APPLAUSE)
In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.
And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.
But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.
(APPLAUSE)
And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.
(APPLAUSE)
Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.
My friends, I’ve come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.
We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.
The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.
(APPLAUSE)
Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.
For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.
But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.
The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.
That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”
I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.
Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.
Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.
Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.
In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.
So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.
(APPLAUSE)
We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!
Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.
Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.
Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.
Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.
Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.
Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.
In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
(APPLAUSE)
The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.
(APPLAUSE)
But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.
Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.
The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.
According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.
Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.
And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.
True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.
Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.
Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.
Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.
Now, I know this is not going to come a shock — as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.
The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.
Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.” Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.
But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.
Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.
Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.
My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.
Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.
And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.
So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.
So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?
Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.
Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?
Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?
This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.
And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.
This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.
If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.
Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.
We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
(APPLAUSE)
Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…
(APPLAUSE)
Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.
(APPLAUSE)
And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.
(APPLAUSE)
If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.
(APPLAUSE)
If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.
(APPLAUSE)
My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?
Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.
(APPLAUSE)
Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.
(APPLAUSE)
And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.
My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.
(APPLAUSE)
Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true.
The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.
(APPLAUSE)
A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends.
(APPLAUSE)
A better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country…
(APPLAUSE)
… no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.
Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.
The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.
You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.
(APPLAUSE)
My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.
(APPLAUSE)
Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”
(APPLAUSE)
And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
(APPLAUSE)
Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.
But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.
(APPLAUSE)
We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.
(APPLAUSE)
This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.
(APPLAUSE)
But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
I know that you stand with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.
(APPLAUSE)
Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.
And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”
My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.
May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.
You’re wonderful.
Thank you, America. Thank you.
Thank you.
These ministers are ultra inspiring, and America MUST listen to them! Take the time and LISTEN!
Preface:
(Allow me to reiterate, if you haven’t read my blogs before, that I love the human race. I love people and individuals. I love learning about people’s life experiences, and while I do not agree with everything everyone chooses to do, I do believe the greatest gift God gave us is our freedom of will.
That being said, I do NOT tolerate bullies in any form, and will stand up for anyone who is peaceably living their life WITHOUT infringing on the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of others.)
I’ve noticed throughout the years that ever since things started to become “politically correct” that the wolf of hate has more and more frequently donned the proverbial sheep of love’s clothing.
Lets look at a very obvious example. The Westboro “Baptist Church.” I think we can all agree that a group who pickets funerals of fallen soldiers with signs that say “Thank God For Dead Soldiers” along side other signs that say “God Hates F*gs” is more than a little misguided and is spewing hate. The really sad part about this organization is that they have convinced themselves that they do this out of love. They believe so vehemently that God is dooming this nation because of the acceptance of homosexuality. Check it out for yourself here.
Do I agree with “gay marriage?” No. But that’s a different post altogether.
On the flip side we have the Chik-fil-A protesters. Remember this guy? His name is Adam Smith and he was the CFO of Vante. After making a fool of himself by way of video-selfie and harassing a young woman who was just doing her job, he takes his frustrations about the whole corporation out on her. Then he has the brilliant idea to post it online. Guess what? He got fired. Vante stated,
“Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A … Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.”
“We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith’s actions against Vante and its employees.”
If you didn’t watch his video that I hyper-linked, let me set the stage and give you some of his gems.
He’s mad because the CEO of Chick-fil-A for publicly stating he was in support of traditional marriage and had given money to organizations that support traditional marriage. During the filming of this video, Chick-fil-A was under a lot of backlash, and other individual supporters of traditional marriage showed up in droves around the country in support of the CEO’s statement and beliefs. Chick-fil-A’s all over the country were running out of food because they had no idea of the support that would come in.
But there was another group of people as well. A smaller group of people that were trying to counteract the income of all the support Chick-fil-A was receiving by ordering a free water.
REALLY?!?
Are there really so many people arrogant enough to think that a handful of people ordering nothing but water would counteract the sales of millions of people waiting in lines miles long to purchase any product they could just to show their support?
Some of Adam Smith’s quotes, while he’s waiting to order and in the process of getting his free water.
“People have to have their Chick-fil-A, anti-gay breakfast sandwich. Mmm! Always tastes better when it’s full of hate! Mmm! Yeah. Love it!”
“Here I go!” said with an enthusiasm of someone about to go on a roller coaster.
“Is this my free water? You know why I’m getting my free water, right? Because Chick-fil-A is a hateful organization.”
“The corporation gives money to hate groups.”
Groups he was referring to? Winshape, a Christian organization that supports traditional marriage. The Marriage and Family Foundation, that supports traditional marriage. The Family Research Council, another organization that supports traditional marriage. Other information on it here.
So once again, before you go saying that “traditional marriage is against gay rights,” you didn’t read my other blog on gay marriage. Please, read it here.
Believe it or not, I actually do have love for all people. “Marriage” is what defines the religious union between a man and a woman, bound by God. Trying to “redefine marriage” to me makes about as much sense as trying to “redefine gravity.”
So on to my main point. I saw this on Facebook, and I could not ignore it. Please take the time to read and watch this whole video so we’re on the same page.
And in case you don’t here are some quotes from it.
“Jihad is means, and not a goal in and of itself. It is a means to establish monotheism on the land.” “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify…”
“The life and property of a Mushrik (someone who worships another than allah) holds no value in the state of jihad.”
“The life and property of a Mushrik becomes ‘halal’ (officially allowed by sharia) while in a state a jihad.”
Here’s the most disturbing part,
“I have been commanded to fight the people until they say (declaration of islamic faith) and when they say (declaration of islamic faith) … their life and property become protected from me. Which means if they don’t say ( declaration of islamic faith) their life and property are halal (free for the taking, legally) for the Muslims.”
“So the Christians do commit shirk, they are kufar (unbelievers) they are mushrakoon (polytheists.) The mushrakoon are filthy. They are … filthy. A spiritual filthiness which can only be purified by the purity of monotheism. Allah calls the mushrakoon ‘nudges,’ which is a very evil thing when Allah himself calls the mushrakoon ‘nudges’ himself! They are najasa (feces, urine, filthy or contaminated) a filthy impure dirty substance. “
So in essence they believe that anyone who does not believe what they do, is filth that they must fight them until they testify the same thing that they believe, and until they do, their life and property are legally free for the taking.
All in the name of Allah.
This, from the “religion of peace.”
Then you have the favorite liberal argument, “Oh well you’re just racist.”
Really?
How do you know what’s in my thoughts and what resides in my heart? How am I a racist for simply expressing my beliefs? How I am a racist because I address unconstitutional policies that were put into place by usurping the Constitution?
All these things have led me to the conclusion that everybody that is spewing how “hateful” and “racist” that everyone else is, are in fact the hateful people themselves, and are projecting their emotions onto others.
I recently saw another story on Facebook that caught my eye as well. His story is very unusual, but it is coming from the mouth of a former Muslim, who converted to Christianity. Take it for what you will. But I highly recommend you watch it here.
He saw that every Christian he encountered wanted to help him. Out of love and compassion. That is what Christ taught. Love and compassion and giving. Not killing. Not hate.
I don’t understand why so many Americans have become intolerant of Christians, when Christians (true Christians anyway) are taught to be like Christ. In love, forgiveness, and compassion.
If we all had a little more love for one another, and followed the first two commandments, I think this world would be a much better place.
Mark 12:30 teaches us
“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.”
And 31 says,
“And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”
If we all acted like we love God and acted like we loved our neighbors, what a difference we could all make in this world. Actions would become habits, and habits would become part of our nature.
Again, I believe the greatest gift God gave us is our freedom of will. Our will to act how we want, and what we do with that will, is what we will stand in judgement for in the judgement seat.
-Joseph Forefathers
I am a fan of the arts. I believe that we can really learn much about humanity by studying Arts and Humanities. Theatre and especially musical theatre really speak to me because it is a fun way to get different perspectives on the human condition. Sometimes when I see a play or musical, some line or concept will strike me as important and will resonate with me for a while.
This is the case with a beloved (as well as award winning) production titled, “Into the Woods.” The entire production is chock full of lessons worth learning. It is interesting because the show itself is an amalgamation of many classic fairy tales. Many people don’t realize that before Disney came along and gave everything a “happily ever after…” many of these stories didn’t go as well for each protagonist as one might hope. The purpose behind these ‘not so happy’ endings was to teach a lesson. I have appreciated that, and tried to learn as much as I can about classic fairy tales as a result.
One of the songs from “Into the Woods” is titled “I know things now” and is performed by Little Red Riding Hood, after her rescue from the wolf. She proceeds to summarize her bad experience and explain how she learned many things the hard way and especially that, “Nice is different from Good.”
That particular line has resonated with me in the years since I first heard it. The terms “Nice” and “Good” could easily be written off as synonymous. The wolf was ‘Nice’ to Red as she skipped through the forest to Granny’s and suggested that she stop to pick flowers to bring to Granny rather than continue straight on her path as her mother had instructed. The seemingly ‘Nice’ action was ultimately not ‘Good’ in that it resulted in Red straying from her path and giving away information that put herself and Granny in terrible danger.
This has stuck with me and comes to mind as I contemplate the point behind this post (Sorry it took so long, sometimes you need a good setup before getting to the meat of an article!)
Much the same as “Nice” can be different from “Good”; “Equal” can be very different from “Same”.
What do I mean by that? Well just take a look at society! We are bombarded by cries for ‘Equality’ at every turn.
“Give us equal rights!” they cry! And why shouldn’t they? As human beings we tend to crave “Fairness”. We want to walk alongside our fellow human beings, not beneath them! We can, and we SHOULD push for equality, however…. ‘Equal’, is different from ‘Same’.
What do I mean by this?
Lets take the feminist movement to begin with. For centuries women were seen as “lesser” than men. The ‘weaker’ sex and therefore given less credibility and privilege. Women were seen as little more than property, a step or two above cattle. I could write multiple posts on the evolution of women’s rights and how far we have come. From Women’s suffrage, to equal pay for equal work, to the number of women receiving higher education, we have made GREAT advances! I’d even go so far as saying that in many instances we have achieved a level of Equality!
However,
We STILL cannot say that Men and Women are the SAME. We aren’t, it simply isn’t true. We are fundamentally, physically, emotionally different, and as such, there are things that we are simply incapable of being equal on, and thats OKAY!
Another issue is that of racial equality. I will be the first to stand up in defense of someone who is being belittled, degraded, put down, or bullied in any way shape or form, because they have a different color skin, speak a different language or come from a different country. That sort of behavior is unacceptable.
However,
To say that we are the ‘same’ is also untrue. Differences in culture can be very distinct. Even if the groups are in the same country/state/city/or even town. The black community is one that is very tight knit. Hispanics tend to behave like a big family, and That. Is. GREAT! I think its wonderful that the different cultural groups have such strong identities, however that doesn’t allow for certain types of ‘equality’.
When a group can regularly address each other using a term that is generally considered derogatory, and when I could potentially get into severe, even legal trouble, for using the exact same term, simply because I do not belong to that group….That goes beyond “not the same” that is unequal.
And finally, I have to go ahead and address the elephant in the room when it comes to the big “equality” debate these days.
The LGBT community cries for “equality”. Now, I will state the same as I did for other ethnic groups; “I will be the first to stand up in defense of someone who is being belittled, degraded, put down, or bullied in any way shape or form, because they have a different (sexual orientation) That sort of behavior is unacceptable.”
However,
Here is where we MUST recognize how we CANNOT be the ‘Same’! How we must recognize that “equality” does not mean “special privileges for those who want them”.
Let’s look at the ‘transgenders and bathrooms’ issue. I will have to put my foot down on this one. The concept of ‘Gender identity’ is another long debate/discussion, but at its core, it’s asking us to give special privileges to people who want to be something that they are very simply, NOT. I’m sorry, but thats where I stand on that issue. Once again, I refuse to treat them in a negative fashion, but if someone who is biologically male, and dresses, behaves and tells people that ‘he’ is a ‘she’ wants to use the bathroom designated for females, I’m sorry, but that is a special privilege, they are seeking, not ‘equality’.
‘Marriage’ is a religious term that does not need a redefinition. Does this mean that I don’t think a gay/lesbian couple should be together if they want to be? What I ‘think’ is neither here nor there. If they want to be together, that is their choice, not mine. When my religious freedoms are being threatened with legislation, then it becomes my business. I do believe there is a solution possible, if we take the word “marriage” out of the equation. My good friend Joseph Forefathers recently discussed this. I am in favor of his solution.
I think our society has spent too much time defining and redefining ‘equality’. We have forgotten that it is OKAY to be different! Real inequality, especially in a political sense, would be not allowing someone to vote/own property/secure a job/get an education because of their gender/skin color/ethnicity/sexual orientation; that is unfair. That is unequal.
Differences make our world more interesting, and we CAN be equal without being the same!
As stated in previous posts, I am a Christian, and a conservative, but before you just click on to the next page, hear me out, because I may not come across as offensive as the title may suggest.
For us Christians marriage was designed by God Himself when He created Adam and Eve. He created Eve as “an help meet” for Adam as a companion and spouse. So because marriage is as old as the human race itself, it is by and far a religious institution and according to the first amendment of the Constitution
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” therefore Congress has no right or say on what “marriage” is defined as. Because, for us Christians, marriage was created by God, and trying to change the definition of marriage is as ridiculous to us as trying to change the definition of the law of gravity.
What I’ve observed over the years is that those that believe otherwise, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, is that they believe that marriage is a government institution and therefore needs to be governed by the laws of man. And surely this must be so if marriage is recognized by state laws, and we have tax breaks for married couples, surely marriage is a government institution, right?
Well considering the fact that the Constitution was written specifically to protect religious freedoms, ie, that you may practice how you want, or are free to not practice any religion at all, and the Constitution specifically does state, in the 10th Amendment,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
we can infer that marriage is not governed by the Constitution, and is left up to the states.
But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Lets examine the Bible for marriage references.
Ok, I could keep listing numerous scripture references, but I think you get the point…marriage is in the Bible, and if we read Genesis 4:1 it clearly states that Adam and Eve were married.
If the Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve were married, and Adam and Eve were created by God, and the Bible is religious text, then it can hardly be argued that marriage is NOT religious. And if marriage IS religious, then the 1st Amendment applies and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
So say us Christians.
On the flip side, I hear the argument all the time, “Marriage is between two people that LOVE each other.” And “equal rights for gays and lesbians!”
But from a Christian viewpoint, if God created Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve were married, then it stands to reason that only a man and a woman are even ABLE to get married. So like the gravity analogy, for us Christians, it’s like saying you want gravity to only apply in certain situations. It’s like saying, “Well, just because the majority of right handed people are affected by gravity doesn’t mean we should all be affected by it, so gravity shouldn’t apply to anyone who is left handed. LEFTIES of the world unite!”
So it’s not about us not loving you; we DO LOVE YOU! It’s not about discrimination, it not about hate, or bullying. But what you’re asking simply does not make any sense!
…to us.
And on that note, let it be known, that I do have many gay and lesbian friends, and no, not just “facebook friends.” These are people from my childhood. From college. From life. And I would personally take a bullet for any of them because I love them!
I DO NOT CONDONE BULLYING, AND ABHOR IT IN ANY FORM!!!
So back to trying to explain the flip side, I can empathize and attempt to understand why “it’s not fair” that just because laws are written a specific way, that it prevents you from “marrying” the one you love.
So, here’s my solution.
Government no longer recognizes marriage.
Yup, I said it. Take marriage out of the equation.
From now on, government can only recognize and authorize what I’m going to call “legal unions.” And ANY TWO consenting adults (younger with parental consent) can get a “legal union.” You can only get ONE legal union at a time. You can sever it at any time through the courts, and get another legal union to somebody else, but only one current union at a time. Go ahead and transfer all current marriages into unions and throw away the “legal marriage certificates.” Put any name you want on it, bond, partnership, couple-hood, anything, except marriage. A government “legal union” will give you all the same rights, tax breaks, etc. as a marriage, but it is NOT a marriage.
Because marriage is a religious institution, marriages will still be performed, but only by authorized members of the clergy from religious organizations. If you want a “marriage” it can ONLY be done in a church, but a marriage gives you only the recognition of the church that performed the marriage, NO LEGAL RIGHTS.
Which brings me to another topic that I have to address, but won’t go into too much detail. The Oregon couple who were forced to pay $150,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for choosing not to bake them a wedding cake. This is where things cross the line. The Oregon couple had served and sold their bakery goods to this lesbian couple before, but because of their Christian beliefs, felt it was a violation of their conscience to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. (What happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?”) This baker couple’s 1st Amendment rights were violated when they were forced to pay anything for a reason like this. This is a very slippery slope, because how long before the government starts forcing churches to perform weddings that aren’t in alignment with their beliefs?
So because all this is very unlikely to ever happen, this is why the “gay marriage” debate will never end, and probably never be resolved.
Obviously any two people who are in love can’t deny their feelings. Conversely, people who are bound at a fundamental level in their faith, can’t deny their feelings either.
My attempt at a resolution by introducing the “legal union” is an attempt to agree to disagree on a legal level, and to keep the peace, and try to make everyone happy.
Your thoughts?
-Joseph Forefathers
You only have to take a quick inventory of who Obama likes and respects, and who he dislikes and disrespects to get a clear picture of where he stands. He loves and funds the Muslim Brotherhood (terrorists). There are many MB members are on his staff. In fact, the Egyptian State paper has published that Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, for what that is worth.
He loves and funds Hamas (terrorists). During the last skirmish between Israel and Hamas, Obama was clearly and vigorously siding with Hamas against Israel. Obama is sending them hundreds of millions of American dollars which they use to buy weapons and missiles to attack Israel. He loves Iran and obviously supports their goal to achieve nuclear weapons. He refuses to support any sanctions against the mullah. He has returned 10s of billions of frozen funds to the murderous mullahs there which they will certainly use to fund their nuclear ambitions.
He seems to love Al Queda, or at least elements of Al Queda. In an unimaginable turn of alliances, U.S. military forces fought side by side with veteran Al Queda forces in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi. Libya is now a land in complete chaos, and is more or less controlled by elements of Al Queda. Furthermore, he refuses to attack Al Queda in Syria, and only tepidly and reluctantly attacks ISIS, which is a declared ally of Al Queda. And, he returned 5 of their top generals to them during an active time of conflict, while gaining in return a mentally disturbed private who defected to the enemy side.
So, Who does he not like?
He obviously “Hates”, with a deep and seething hate, the State of Israel. He has restricted Israeli visas to America, while actively promoting and shipping into America — people from every other country in the world. He attempted to choke off military arms sales to Israel in support of Hamas. He funds the PLO and Hamas with millions of dollars every year. I personally believe that if there was any State in the M.E. that Obama would delight in attacking, it would be Israel over any Muslim country or group. In his mind, Israel are the terrorists, and Hamas are the victims.
He does not like Egypt, now, since they ousted the Obama government he forced on them which was the Muslim Brotherhood. While the MB controlled Egypt, (even as the MB was calling Israel, I don’t know, monkeys and pigs or whatever) even as the MB was openly declaring their goal to attack and exterminate Israel, at the same time Obama was sending the MB tanks, fighter jets, and other weapons, along with millions and millions of dollars, all of which was halted as soon as the Egyptian people overthrew the MB and took their own government back. They rejected the Obama ‘vision’ of what their country should be.
He does not like Jordan because they are a relatively moderate and modern/Western version of Islam. Just as the Black culture in America uses the pejorative, “they ain’t Black enough’, in Obama’s world, Jordan ‘ain’t Muslim enough’ for him.
He does not like and refuses to support the Kurds, who are currently engaged with ISIS. Again, the Kurds are a more moderate and Western version of Islam, and Obama rejects this. It is curious how many air drops of weapons and supplies meant for the Kurds, have ‘accidentally’ been dropped over ISIS positions.
He obviously either does not like or is apathetic to the Yazidis and Christians in general. His anti-Christian sentiments as expressed in America are famous, and while promoting Islam all over America, Obama is simultaneously curtailing and clamping down on Christian freedom of religious expression. While story after story of the brutality, rape, slavery, torture, and murder of the Yazidis, not only does Obama do nothing about it as in supporting them, he does not even acknowledge that it is happening at all. He does not seem to think it is something worth addressing or even recognizing.
However, he was ready to destroy Israel for the crime of defending themselves against people who were actively bombing them. So, the rule seems to be, Muslims killing Jews and Christians is no big deal. Jew and Christians killing Muslims will not be tolerated.
It is time to call out the bombers. Obama’s fidelity to Islam could not be more clear. It is actually silly to deny it anymore. The closer he gets to his end of term, the more brazen his support for all things Islamic, and worse, the more brazen his antipathy for all things not Islamic becomes.
Based on the facts of Obama’s behavior, actions, words, and emotions, he is clearly a Muslim, which would be fine with everyone, I think. However, my fear is that not only is Obama a Muslim, or an Islamophile, as some people call him, but more than that he is a radical Muslim. Or at least he seems to support the groups, causes, and goals of radical Islam which is why he will not say “radical Islam”. In his mind there is no such thing as ‘terrorists’ or ‘radical Islam’. It is all simply just Islam. That is what Islam is, in his mind.
The “real” terrorists are, according to him, the Tea Party, the Israelis, White Americans, White colonialists all over the world, and the moderate apostate Muslims countries who support them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.