Archive for February, 2009
Bridget Rants: Why Would I Want Obama’s Bad Policies to Succeed???
You know I’m getting a little sick of hearing people say, “Well, no matter what your political party, it’s a good thing that Obama was elected,” or “It says a lot about our country that we elected a black president,” or “Boy, even though I didn’t vote for him, I hope he succeeds.” Well guess what, THAT IS RIDICULOUS!!
Apparently, this really WAS about race for a lot of people, and it’s not the people you think. It wasn’t about race for conservatives, it was about race for liberals and those who want to be politically correct and make themselves look good for electing a black man.
First of all, don’t we want the best person for the job NO MATTER what color he is?
Second, why would I want him to succeed if his policies are bad for America, bad for Christians, and against what the Bible teaches? That’s just stupid!
And why would I celebrate JUST because he’s black, especially if I honestly think his policies are wrong?
What is wrong with people? They like the idea of CHANGE just for the sake of change, not because it’s a good change. Frankly, I’m getting tired of people, especially Christians, who overlook the harm Obama can do JUST because he’s black.
- Hey Christians who voted for Obama, how does it make you feel that more babies will be aborted because of Obama and we will be helping to fund it around the world?
- How will it make you feel that he wants to defeat all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage
- How does it make you feel that he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton-the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut;
- How does it make you feel that your parental rights may be completely taken away by the gov’t if Obama helps ratify the treaty before the UN? This means if they don’t like how you are parenting your children they can step in and stop it – from church attendance to what school they attend to how you discipline them.
- How does it make you feel that Christian institutions will be discriminated against even more, or that religious groups may not be able to use public school facilities anymore due to a provision in the stimulus bill?
- How does it make you feel that you probably made it easier for pastors to be tried for hate speech if they preach against homosexuality?
- How will you feel when your pastor has to marry gays or be in violation of the law?
- How will it make you feel when your church has to hire gays or be in violation of the law?
- How does it make you feel that Obama wants to increase gay adoptions?
- How does it make you feel that we are headed straight towards socialism which is in direct contradiction to the Bible?
How will you feel after all of that? Will you be glad you voted for him or rooted for his success ? Will you be proud that you voted for a ‘change’?
- What about the fact that he put a person in charge of the treasury who didn’t pay his taxes?? Is that the change you wanted?
- What about the fact that he also appointed several others who had ethical’ problems?
- What about the fact that he went to a church for 20 years that was led by a racist, divisive pastor?
- What about the fact that he has been associated with some very shady people – Rezko, Bill Ayers, anti-semites? Do you just overlook that because he’s black?
- What about the fact that he spoke out against lobbyists yet he has appointed so many of them to top spots?
What is it about this man that has you so enraptured and so blind to his faults? You certainly weren’t blind to Bush’s faults, even if they were minor ones. Every thing Bush said or did was ridiculed, mocked,and overblown. Yet you calmly overlook major problems with Obama.
I just don’t get it.
I hope the ‘good feeling’ it gave you was worth it.
I hope the pats on the back you got from your liberal friends was worth it.
I hope the feeling of superiority it gives you was worth it.
I hope the ‘feeling of unity with the other side’ was worth it.
But for me, if it means sacrificing America, giving up freedom, going against Christian principals, and helping evil win, it is DEFINITELY NOT WORTH IT!!!
All you Obama worshippers and misguided Christians who got all warm and fuzzy by voting for him need to GET A GRIP!
I’m sick of all this garbage!! And I’m sick of the fact that nobody wants to say anything about if for fear of being politically incorrect or being called a racist. Hey, I don’t agree with the guy’s policies and I couldn’t care less what color he is, so don’t talk to me about race unless it’s an issue for you!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 10 so far )
Congratulations America, you’ve been HAD!!!! This journalist has it exactly right. How did we get to a place where so many people just blindly followed and elected a man who is not qualified for the job and who can actually cause some serious harm to this country?? I guess because it made them feel so good. I hope the way it made them FEEL is worth sacrificing their own country! Idgets!!
America — What Have You Done?
Saturday, 7th February 2009
President Obama has had, by general consent, a torrid First Fortnight. To put it another way, it has taken precisely two weeks for the illusion that brought him to power to be exposed for the nonsense that it so obviously was. The transformational candidate who was going to sweep away pork-barrel politics, lobbyists and corruption has been up to his neck in sleaze, as eviscerated here by Charles Krauthammer. Despite the fact that he came to power promising to ‘ban all earmarks’, his ‘stimulus’ bill represents billions of dollars of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections — which have nothing to do with kick-starting the economy and everything to do with favouring pet Democrat causes.
He has been appointing one tax dodger, lobbyist and wheeler-dealer after another. After appointing one official,Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who had unaccountably forgotten to pay his taxes, he then watched his designated Health Secretary Tom Daschle fall on his sword because he too had taken a tax holiday. Daschle was furthermore a prominent actor in the world of lobbying and influence-peddling. Leon Panetta, Obama’s nominee for Director of the CIA has also, according to the Wall Street Journal, consulted for prominent companies and sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. The Weekly Standard reports that Secretary of Labour nominee Hilda Solis was not only involved with a private organization lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she helped sponsor, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.
In foreign policy, Obama has started by trashing his own country through grossly misrepresenting its history and grovelling to America’s enemies such as Iran, which has flicked him aside with undiluted contempt. He has gratuitously upset America’s ally India by suggesting that America should muscle in and resolve the Kashmir question.
His right hand doesn’t seem to know what his left hand is doing. He reportedly asked retired Marine General Anthony Zinni to be US ambassador to Iraq, but then abruptly withdrew the appointment without explanation after it had been confirmed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And the precise role he is offering Dennis Ross – special envoy to Iran? Special adviser to Hillary? Special adviser to other special advisers? – remains mired in confusion.
I have argued before however that, given Obama’s radical roots in the neo-Marxist, nihilist politics of Saul Alinsky, it is the undermining of America’s fundamental values that is likely to be this President’s most strategically important goal. I have also suggested that, since this agenda is promoted through stealth politics which gull the credulous middle-classes while destroying the ground upon which they are standing, his second-tier appointments should be closely scrutinised.
And how did the 44th President react to the growing public dismay over the mess he was making? He threw his toys out of the pram — or perhaps that should read, he got into the pram. For he fled the scene of the disaster and sought the company of seven year-olds instead. As the Telegraph reported:
‘We were just tired of being in the White House,’ he told a group of excited seven-year-olds before discussing Batman and reading them a book.
Tired of being President – after two weeks!
Tax cheats, pork-barrel politics, ancillary child abuse, incompetence, chaos, treachery and infantilism. America – what have you done?!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Well, well, well…Thanks a lot you idiots in the Sac City Council. The voters have voted TWICE in favor of Prop 8 and then you have the audacity to ‘speak for’ Sacramento and support this Anti-Prop 8 Resolution???? The vote was NO. What part of that don’t you understand and why do you think you should overrule what the people want? It’s infuriating and Kevin Johnson will not get my vote next time. Thank you Robbie Waters for being the lone sane voice. We should contact these city council members (including the mayor) and let them know how we feel about this!!!
Sacramento joins other cities in fighting voter-approved Prop. 8, calling it unconstitutional
By Ryan Lillis
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 03, 2009
The Sacramento City Council voted Tuesday afternoon to join other California cities in supporting the position that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Prop. 8, passed by voters in November, amended the state constitution to declare that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.
Councilman Kevin McCarty requested last month that the council hear the issue of whether the city should join as “amicus curiae” – or friends of the court – in legal challenges against Prop. 8. The California Supreme Court said Tuesday it would begin hearing oral arguments on the challenge to Prop. 8 on March 5.
The council voted 8-1 to join the other cities as amicus curiae; Councilman Robbie Waters voted against the move, saying “the voters have voted on this matter twice.”
San Francisco, Berkeley, Cloverdale, Davis, Fairfax, Long Beach, Palm Springs and West Hollywood, as well as Santa Clara, Humboldt and Sonoma counties have already filed amicus curiae briefs supporting the position that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Well, Obama shows his true colors once again. Thanks to all the brainwashed nutjobs who voted for him (including the misguided Christians who did so), our religious liberties will continue to dwindle. A provision in the stimulus bill BANS money designated for school renovations from being spent on facilities that allow “religious worship.” So what will happen then?? Well, public schools will probably no longer permit religious groups to meet on campus and those who do will not get financial help.
Conservative Groups Declare Obama’s Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer
By Cristina Corbin
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Democrats in Congress have declared war on prayer, say conservative groups who object to a provision in the stimulus bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last week.
The provision bans money designated for school renovation from being spent on facilities that allow “religious worship.” It has ignited a fury among critics who say it violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to prevent religious practice in schools.
According to the bill, which the Democratic-controlled House passed despite unanimous Republican opposition, funds are prohibited from being used for the “modernization, renovation, or repair” of facilities that allow “sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity.”
Critics say that could include public schools that permit religious groups to meet on campus. The House provided $20 billion for the infrastructure improvements, of which $6 billion would go to higher education facilities where the limitations would be applied.
“What the government is doing is discriminating against religious viewpoints,” said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that works to advance religious freedom.
“President Obama’s version of faith-based initiatives is to remove the faith from initiative,” said Staver, who believes Obama has “a completely different view on faith” from what he said during his presidential campaign.
“He is not the infallible messiah that some thought he would be,” Staver said.
Civil liberty groups like the Americans United for Separation of Church and State vehemently defend the stimulus bill’s provision, arguing that it in no way violates the Constitution.
“This provision upholds constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court and in no way affects student groups that meet on public school campuses,” said the Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The American Civil Liberties Union also defends the constitutionality of the restriction, which they say has been the law since 1972.
“It’s almost a restatement of what the Constitution requires so there’s nothing novel in what the House did in its restriction,” said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the ACLU. “For 37 years, the law of the land is that the government can’t pay for buildings that are used for religious purposes.”
Not so, says the Traditional Values Coalition, which issued a statement Wednesday charging that Obama is using his stimulus plan to restrict the exercise of religion in public facilities — a provision it says violates the right to free speech.
“The economic crisis is being used as a pretext to curb religious liberty at institutions of higher learning,” said Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.
“We are not asking that federal funding be used to construct a church, but if a campus ministry wants to hold a Bible study or Mass in the student activity building, we should be encouraging that — not punishing a college for permitting it,” she said.
According to some constitutional law experts, any complaint filed against the provision will gain little ground in court.
“Certainly the provision is treating the act of religious organizations differently from the activities of the school itself,” Harvard University constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet told FOXNews.com.
“It’s not frivolous to say there’s a constitutional problem with excluding religious facilities from these grants, but I think the way of the law is in the other direction,” he said.
Tushnet cited a 2004 Supreme Court case in which a Washington student lost a college scholarship awarded by the state after it was revealed that he planned to pursue a degree in pastoral ministries. Though the student argued that rescinding the money discriminated on the basis of religion, the court ruled in the state’s favor — declaring that the taxpayer-funded scholarship’s restriction is constitutional.
The White House said Wednesday that it plans to keep in place the basic structure of the faith-based initiative office established by former President George W. Bush.
Administration officials said the office is a substantial programming and policy arm of the federal government, which allows federal agencies to connect with local neighborhood and faith-based groups to deliver social services.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Unbelievable!!! The state is in financial crisis, we’re going to get IOU’s instead of our tax refunds, state workers are being forced to take furlough days, and yet they have the money to buy ads for gay adoptions????? You have got to be kidding me! California is one big joke!!Unfortunately it’s not a funny joke; it’s a pathetic joke!
Bankrupt California buys ads for ‘gay’ adoptions
Facing $42 billion deficit, state pushes homosexual guardianship
Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
SACRAMENTO – Facing a $42 billion deficit and a state debt that grows by $28,000 every minute, California has managed to find enough room in its budget to sponsor an elaborate statewide campaign to promote homosexual adoption.
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation has partnered with the California Department of Social Services and the Los Angeles County to promote a “Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Family” campaign that invites homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to adopt children.
According to a Campaign for Children and Families report, the state has sponsored two billboards promoting “gay” adoption in West Hollywood and Alameda County.
In April 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed John Wagner as director of the Department of Social Services. Wagner is openly “gay” and is an advisory member of the Human Rights Campaign.
Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a California pro-family organization, released a statement saying the state has no business sponsoring the campaign when it has decided to issue taxpayers IOUs in place of their annual returns.
“At a time when the state doesn’t have enough money to provide hard-working people with their tax refunds, it’s a shame that state and county funds are being wasted on this propaganda,” he said.
Proponents claim sexual orientation shouldn’t be an issue because thousands of kids need loving homes.
“They provide loving, stable and permanent homes for kids who need them,” Robyn Harrod, spokeswoman for Southern California Adoption Agency, told Los Angeles’ ABC 7 News. “And, it makes absolutely no difference whether they are gay, straight, single, married … They just need to love kids and want to provide a home for them.”
According to its website, the HRC “Family Project’s All Children – All Families” initiative works “to ensure that all qualified prospective parents who wish to open their homes and hearts to children and youth have the opportunity to do so, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
While the campaign claims to be acting in the interest of more than 100,000 U.S. children waiting to be adopted by loving families, none of its promotional images feature heterosexual parents. It lists adoption agencies in 15 states that are currently participating in the initiative and are “committed to implementing policies and practices that welcome, affirm and support LGBT foster and adoptive parents.”
Former Gov. Gray Davis quietly dropped a California policy opposing “gay” adoption in 1999. In 2001, the state Legislature passed AB 25, allowing a homosexual person to adopt a partner’s child using the stepparent adoption process. The California Supreme Court affirmed “second-parent adoptions” in 2003.
Approximately 65,000 adopted children are currently being raised by same-sex couples in the U.S., according to a March 2007 report by the Urban Institute and the Williams Institute at UCLA.
The Campaign for Children and Families cited a 2001 University of Southern California “study of studies” on raising children in same-sex families titled, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” The campaign includes the following discoveries by sociology professors Judith Stacey and Timothy Blibarz on its website:
A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.
Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit “an opposite pattern” and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.
Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to “sex-typed cultural norms.” And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.
Thomasson said children are more likely to experience healthy childhoods when they are raised by loving heterosexual parents.
“God created fathers and mothers so that children could have the best chance at life,” he said. “Studies show that children raised in homosexual and transsexual households are highly likely to experience sexual confusion and to act out homosexually, bisexually and transsexually when they otherwise would not.”
Thomasson continued, “When the facts confirm that children do best with a married father and mother, there is no reason other than selfishness for anyone to advocate placing vulnerable children into these sexually confused and sexually charged environments.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries