Free Speech...unless it upsets liberals

I heard an interesting item about an upcoming Superbowl ad that is already causing a controversy. That isn't unusual in itself, a lot of them are controversial. But this one is a little different from what we usually come to expect.

This ad, or commercial, is anti-abortion and features a popular college football player (Tim Tebow) thanking his mother for not aborting him, despite the advice of doctors to do so.

So who's offended? Why, the liberals of course!

Their reasoning (?) is that this type of message should not be played during the Superbowl because it divides Americans. According to them the Superbowl is a time when all Americans come together and airing this commercial causes us to divide.

Wait a minute...isn't the Superbowl itself a game between two teams? Is everyone pulling for the same team? Aren't we already divided when we sit down to watch the game? Maybe we need to narrow the season down to one team so we don't disagree on the outcome.

This has nothing to do with anything or anyone being divided. The pro-abortionists don't mind being divided.

What they mind is that this ad will have millions of viewers. Because of our right to free speech, those of us in favor of life will finally have some voice across not only this country, but abroad as well.

Isn't it amazing that the very one's who spout off whatever anti-life, anti-morality, and anti-God message they want, through the very media they're now trying to squelch, don't want free speech.

I'm sure they're still for free speech, as long as it's their speech that's being heard.

I wonder if they've ever asked all those murdered children what they think about it? I guess their free speech rights don't apply either.

When did we get this kind of power?

This statement is posted on the homepage for Hopenhagen.org regarding the upcoming conference in Copenhagen to discuss "climate change" (formerly referred to as "global warming").


"On December 7, leaders from 192 countries will gather at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to determine the fate of our planet."

This statement makes a couple of huge assumptions:

The first is that we (humans) are responsible for any change to the climate, or global warming if you're hung up on that. History, and science, has shown that the climate of Earth does change, without any influence from us, approximately every 500 years. Let's be honest, the technology that these folks are blaming the change on didn't even exist during the last cycle, yet change it did. And will continue to do so until this planet no longer exists; cooler, then warmer, every 500 years (or so).

The second assumption is the real doosie: that we have the power to determine the fate of our planet. First of all, we didn't create this planet; it was created for us. This planet will cease to exist exactly when The Creator decides it's time for it to end. Not before, and not after.

To assume that we can control the fate of something created by God, under the constant control of God, also assumes that we have the power of God.

That's an assumption I will never make, and anyone who does is treading very dangerous water.

Where is the liberal outrage?

Here is just one more example, a blatant one at that, of the hypocrisy of the liberals in this country, particularly those in “Hollywood”.

After being a fugitive from justice for more than 30 years for sodomizing and raping a 13 year old girl, movie director Roman Polanski was finally arrested in Switzerland. He was awaiting sentencing for the crime(s) he plead to when he fled the United States.

While some have termed the encounter between Polanski, then 44, and the victim consensual, keep in mind that she was 13 (unable to give consent by law), and had been given champagne and Quaaludes by Polanski. When he feared that she might become pregnant, he forced her to have anal sex.

The real “shocker” in all of this is the outcry from the Hollywood set, generally considered liberal and all about the rights of individuals, to set him free! They contend that this was a mistake, and that he’s served his time. They even use the fact that the victim, now in her 40’s, doesn’t want to go through any further testimony (which is true).

While listening to a call-in news show, the general consensus of the callers backed what the Hollywood crowd is calling for: it’s been 30 years, forget about it, he made a mistake.

Is this really the message we want to send out, not only to fellow Americans, but to the world, that if you can evade justice long enough, then no crime occurred? Why then don’t we apply that philosophy to everyone? After all, Osama Bin-Laden has evaded justice for 9 years now; let’s just let bygones be bygones.

Maybe this reasoning is why the liberals want us out of Iraq so badly. It’s been nearly a decade since the terrorists attacked New York and Washington D.C., isn’t it time to just let it go?

If that is the mentality of the majority of this country (which I hope to God that it isn’t), then we’re further down the road to destruction than I thought. What with the Government buying out banks and industry, trying to control healthcare, and now the justice system which this country’s laws are based on being worthless, we really don’t stand much of a chance.

May God have mercy on us.

Fact or Fiction?

So far there are as many myths, or at least semi-truths, about the president's Health Care Reform circulating as there are facts. You can go to numerous websites, listen to conservative (which I happen to be) commentaries, or even the news media and read or hear dozens of them:

Euthanasia committees, no option to keep your private health care plan, how it will be paid for, rationing of care, government access to private account records of those participating in the plan, and on and on.

What's really troubling about all the hype is that so far there hasn't been any single autoritative source to either quiet the rumors or confirm them, AND back it up with the actual reference in the bill. And to read the nearly 1,000 page document would require nothing less than a law degree to really understand the legalese in which it is written.

If the president is convinced that this health care reform is needed, then he should stand before this country and with the document in hand, prove or disprove each and every concern, citing the page and paragraph to back his claims, so that we may then read it and understand it for ourselves.

I'm not even sure he's read the bill he's trying so hard to push.

Until and unless that happens, there is NO WAY that anyone should support the reform.

Would you sign a contract that you didn't understand? If so, go ahead and support the bill. As for me, I kinda like knowing what I'm getting into.

Evil for evil?

Dr. George Tiller, a physician who performed legal abortions in Kansas, was shot and killed Sunday morning while attending church services. Presumably because of his controversial practice.

I make no secret that I am anti-abortion. I believe that those willingly involved in receiving or performing abortions are violating at least one of God's commandments.

But nowhere does God also command us to murder those who are involved in what He describes as murder. In fact, His word says the exact opposite.

Here are a few examples from the King James Version of the Bible:

(Rom 12:17) Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

(1Th 5:15) See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

(1Pe 3:9) Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

Even those who don't prescribe to God's laws would agree that even man's laws follow this same "philosophy".

The person responsible for this Doctor's death has shown himself to be no better, or different, than that to which he was so obviously opposed, the taking of the life of another.

Presidential Double-Talk

At a Town Hall meeting in New Mexico last week, President Obama made some “interesting” comments.

The first was that our current deficit spending is unsustainable. This was followed by a statement that we can’t continue to borrow from China.

I think that all of us can agree to one response to both of these statements: DUH!

Which of these statements didn’t apply 2 months ago when he was writing out checks to the tune of 1 trillion dollars? What made it sustainable then, but not now? And who did we borrow from for that stimulus spending, because we sure didn’t have it then either?

Double-talk doesn’t begin to describe what this is!

Is this allowed?!?

Senator Arlen Specter recently switched political parties, Republican to Democrat, mid-term.

Why is this practice even permitted?

Here’s a guy, nominated by his previous party, then elected by his constituents to represent them in the U.S. Senate. That nomination was based on a person who represented himself to stand for certain ideals, certain standards, to hold certain values, that then caused him to be placed in office, based on those things.

Then, in mid-stream, he changes political parties, trading in everything that caused him to be elected for something else entirely.

This is a slap in the face to both parties; to the Republicans who placed him in office, and to the Democrats who weren’t good enough for him when he ran.

To add insult to injury he’s now upset that the Democrats won’t grant him the seniority he thinks he’s entitled to.

The solution to this debacle is simple: given that he has misrepresented himself to the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as all voters in Pennsylvania, he should be disallowed to hold any office, and removed from the one he currently holds.