Friday, September 28, 2012

Quick Takes: Outrageous Obama




In the spirit of the election season, and because the lapdog media does not critique a thing about the man (makes me craaaaaazy), I am picking just a few of the most outrageous things about Obama and his sycophantic loyal supporters.




1) One of the most outrageous things about Obama is his ability to look the camera (or the teleprompter) in the eye and tell us that he is a champion of religious liberty. Whether I'm watching his disingenuous videos or his awful UN speech, I don't know whether to spit out my drink, or laugh, or cry. Who is the man trying to convince? Because he's not fooling those who actually care about religious liberty. In fact, there has never been a president in memory who's been such an enemy of religious liberty. His attacks on conscience rights moved tens of thousands of concerned Americans in 150 cities to protest his nefarious HHS mandate, which threatens all Catholic institutions and Catholic-owned businesses.


Lila Rose speaking at the D.C. rally.

I attended the first Phoenix rally with my little ones and a thousand other friends. I can assure you, we are not like the professional protesters (such as Occupy Wall Street) who have tons of time on their hands. It takes an outrageous provocation to get us up and moving out the door with kids and snacks and strollers to navigate downtown and brave the heat. And Obama's HHS mandate, which 1) has the entire body of (generally passive) Catholic bishops speaking with one voice, and 2) motivated them to coordinate a Fortnight for Freedom to pray for religious liberty, and 3) has our Protestant brethren saying, "We are all Catholic now", is indeed outrageous provocation. 

Oh, wait. We can't forget the nearly 60 Catholic businesses, universities, charities and other entities that have taken the time and trouble to sue Obama in court for violation of religious liberty. They are not doing this for their health. Nobody does this on a whim.

Oh, gosh, and one more little thing: the Pope in Rome, our dear and thoughtful Benedict XVI, is so concerned about the loss of the religious freedom in America that he went out of his way to give a speech about it, emphasizing the "grave threat" to religious liberty that is facing believers in the good ole USA. 

So, um, Obama's claim to be a champion of religious liberty is a lie, a joke, a travesty and yes, an outrage.

Who can bear it?



2) Another outrageous thing about the Obama camp is the narcissism and arrogance of the whole sad act. 

Consider the tasteless Obama flag that was recently on sale in Obama's online shop:


It could have been yours for $35, but it was removed from the shop when folks began to notice a chilling resemblance to the bloodstained walls of our American consulate after the Benghazi "spontaneous attack" premeditated acts of terrorism on September 11 of this year.

May God rest the souls of the victims.
But although the tacky, megalomaniacal flag is now mercifully retired, the celebrity set who swoon over their man have introduced another outrageous affront to authentic patriotism: the "For All" Campaign. Millionaire Hollywood starlets ask us to pledge our votes to Obama by writing our "reasons for getting involved" on our hands (personally, I tell my kids not to write on themselves), then taking a picture with our hands over our hearts. Wow. Deep stuff. Here is an example of how to do it, from Jessica Alba:



But wait. Do you notice an irony? "Right to Choose" FOR ALL. Hmmm, well, except for the 3,500 human beings that are shredded in the womb every day in this nation -- none of whom got that right to "choose". Because they are dead. Well, that's embarrassing.

Anyway, maybe she and Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson and the others can Pledge their Allegiance to Obama and to abortion while saluting the special Obama flag, if they got one before it was removed from the Obama store.

Outrageous, yes. But none of it is surprising. It's human nature. The more secular one becomes, the more one bows to government as the highest authority. When the human heart that is made for God cannot or will not access Him, that void must be filled. In this case, we have Obama as Messiah, who seems to fit the bill nicely for so many.

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais


3) The next outrage is the lapdog media. Millions of us have known for years that real journalism is dead here in America, but I am struggling with how overt the bias has become. They don't even try to hide it anymore. They fawn and coddle and serve the Master. They exist to get him reelected, and to keep him as comfortable and happy as possible while doing it. It has been painful to watch, because it's ultimately a betrayal of the American people. We deserve a press that will hold any candidate's feet to the fire, and hold our leaders accountable, no matter what their political party or ideology. 

I feel sometimes like we have a state-run media. I hate that the upcoming debates are moderated by these people, because the deck is stacked. 

I am not a huge fan of Sean Hannity (he has trashed the teachings of the Church too many times), but he got it right when he said this to "mainstream" journalists the other day:

I’m going to tell you something — all you liberals out there, all you people in the media. I’m telling you, Obama in private is just laughing his ass off at all of you because you are so dumb, so gullible, so easily manipulated. And all he has to do is tell you that there is a doughnut in the sky and you’ll report there’s a doughnut in the sky. And behind the scenes, he knows he is advancing his radical agenda and that you’re helping him do it. And he knows what fools you all are. And he knows that you have basically drunk the Kool-Aid and that you’re out there and you will say and do whatever he tells you to say and do.

If he blames an ATM machine kiosk, if he blames Bush, Fox News, conservative talk radio, the tea party, the Chamber of Commerce — you’re going to go out there and you’re going to regurgitate it just like good little journalists will. [I]f he tells you, ‘It’s the ATM machine that took all the jobs away,’ you’ll go out there and say, ‘You know, the president makes sense here.’ That’s a big problem for a country that wants to remain free, isn’t it?”
Yes, indeed, it's a huge problem for a country that wants to remain free. The whole travesty with the media today is outrageous.



4) Our economy is in the toilet, unemployment is still sky high (the numbers don't even include the Americans who have given up looking for work), gas prices have tripled in four years, our debt long ago passed the "scary" mark (the mind cannot fathom the number 16 trillion!) -- and yet I watched an Obama surrogate say on TV last night that he would give the president an "A" on handling the economy! He said it three times! That is freaking outrageous!! And the people eat it up! They will vote for Obama because he is "likable"! I would guess that half the voters base their votes on what they "feel", not on what they know.

If you asked the average American about specific issues and policies, and what Obama stands for, he or she could not tell you. Most of the American electorate is ignorant and apathetic. I've spoken with many of them, some of them at great length. And I've heard more than enough "man on the street" interviews over the past two election cycles, which make me quiver in my boots. The ignorance of even educated Americans is simply staggering, and though many cannot even articulate what the current candidates stand for, they truly believe there is no real difference between the two. This is truly frightening, and totally outrageous.


5) Sometimes a simple graphic can help with clarity. If these were competing job resumes for CEO of your company, whom would you hire? 


It's outrageous that Romney is not 20 points ahead. 


6) But let's get back to the greatest outrage. The man in office now is not morally fit to be the president of the free world. This is a man who voted four times against requiring standard medical care for actual human babies born alive (whoops!) after botched abortions. His votes would have allowed the abortionist -- i.e., the hit man paid to kill the child -- to decide whether or not a child born alive should receive medical care. That is outrageous!

People, this is infanticide. Yes, he is the most committed pro-abort we have ever had in the presidency (and he resides firmly in the pocket of Planned Parenthood and the entire abortion lobby), but even the radical NARAL gals did not oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act(s) that Obama voted against time and again. That is how extreme Obama's position on abortion/infanticide is, and for this reason alone, the man whose voice you hear in the audio below is not morally fit to hold the highest office in the land. 





7) From child victims in America to child victims overseas, let's talk about the orphans, as we always do in Take #7.

Sweet Giselle is fragile. I pray she makes it through the cold winter. She is suffering from severe malnutrition, and I have written an entire post about her, here. Please take the time to read it if you can.

Are you my mama? Click my photo for more details! 

Giselle is in a nation that has a (relatively!) cheap and quick adoption process. Imagine her with long hair, ribbons, color in her cheeks, and a big smile! She can get there. Please share.


Next, there is sweet Archie! This cutie pie "loves to cuddle and be cuddled" and is facing transfer very soon. :(


Click my photo for more info, and let's find me a family!


He is just a doll, and I wrote a post on him as well, here, where you will find the most charming videos, including this one:


Oh, please, let's find Giselle and Archie homes soon! Thank you for sharing their faces and stories with as many people as you can!


And for those of you who love to donate when there is a matching grant, to stretch every dollar, please check out Heidi's opportunity, which I wrote about, here!

Finally, pray for Meg and her husband, who at this very moment are winging their way to Eastern Europe to meet their new son. They and other adoptive families are the true heroes, sacrificing so much to give these precious children of God a chance in life and a home with love.


Thanks to Jen for hosting.




.

33 comments:

  1. You always have the most amazing Quick Takes, lol!

    ReplyDelete
  2. These are totally awesome.

    Pray that people open their eyes to see all of this truth. People scare me sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. If you told, say, a Christian in parts of the Middle East or Asia that you were being persecuted, they'd probably just roll their eyes. I think the HHS mandate is wrong, but I don't think it's appropriate to make such a broad statement about Obama. Religious freedom was never absolute (no right was), so you don't hate religious freedom just because you have different ideas about where it ends than your opponent does.

    2. It's just a shirt. The Obama halo picture made me smile, though. Sometimes I think that everyone wants a messiah, even if they're not religious at all.

    3. Funny thing, but from my side of the aisle the media looks quite negative towards the President.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/04/24/liberal-media-hasnt-given-obama-a-week-of-posit/186628

    I know you might not be inclined to trust Media Matters, but they're just repeating a Pew Research study here.

    4. Obama's created more jobs in four years than Bush did in eight. When Obama entered office, we were losing 500K jobs a month. We recently broke even on jobs (that is, got back to where we were when he was elected). Honestly, that's quite a feat, considering the mess we were in. Yes, it could be a lot better, but I don't see how Romney could improve on that by repeating everything Bush did. Also, the public sector has shrunk under Obama.

    http://www.govexec.com/management/2012/08/we-now-have-our-smallest-government-50-years/57221/

    If we'd just kept it the same size, our job situation might have come out a lot better.

    5. There's a ton of Romney failures and Obama successes, too. I'm certainly not going to discuss their achievements on that chart's terms.

    6. No objections here. I haven't a clue why anyone would think that was OK.

    7. Awwwwwwwwww

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1. Chris, absolutely wrong. Religious persecution begins small. It is incremental laws that shut religious folks out of public life, mandate by mandate. Read your history. And, the Constitution was set up to protect religion from government. The establishment clause facilitates the Free Exercise clause. The do not exist in tension, except in the modern secular mind. Please go back and search more on the HHS mandate on this blog.

    Again, it's not for you to say if my religious freedom is being abridged. Did you see the responses of religious people, and the bishops? It doesn't matter that you think all is well, because that's exactly the point. It's enough that the religious citizens see their rights of conscience and free exercise being eroded. You, or the gov't, or the secularists don't get to decide what my religion requires of me. Unless my religion is actively infringing on another person's right to live, or not to be maimed, you have no say. The Church has existed without paying others' birth control bill for many millennia, and for two centuries and more in this nation. We were minding our own business. This is raw federal aggression, unprovoked. Watch us as we refuse to comply with an evil law.

    Have you seen For Greater Glory, by the way? Good example of what can happen, on this continent, in this past century. And until the movie, no one even remembered what the Mexican gov't did, save a few (the media and schools whitewashed it).

    2) You are young. Maybe you don't understand what the flag is and has meant. This younger generation (no offense, not speaking of you personally!) is so self-centered and narcissistic that perhaps you are desensitized and don't see the outrage in placing oneself as the center of the flag in such an image. It really is outrageous, which is why they removed it when people caught on. It may very well be a generational thing, which is also a bit disconcerting.

    3) Media Matters? Oy, vey! Sigh. Okay, here's an exercise for you. Show me a clip, any clip, from the major media that has grilled Obama in any way recently, specifically on the economy and on the Middle East situation. Aside from Univision, the Spanish speaking station, no interview or question has been hard-hitting. I would love to see any example of where the left has held his fee to the fire. Please post the link. Thanks!

    4) Absolutely untrue. We have fewer jobs now than when he took office. A net loss. That is not success. Just because some jobs came back after more massive losses does not show an overall improvement, and besides, the numbers don't even count the many Americans who have given up looking for jobs at all.

    Here are the numbers for you to chew on, and watch the sleight of hand by the Obama folks:

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082312-623290-obama-created-half-as-many-jobs-as-reagan.htm

    You didn't address the ignorance of the electorate? Do you agree it's pretty bad?

    5) Aside from selling books about himself, everything Obama has not had any success making things work, or creating wealth. Nothing. Can you honestly not see the difference in experience and outcomes of the two? Then, I don't know what to say.

    6) The entire Obama media thinks it's okay. They have given him a total pass on the issue of his radical position on abortion and infanticide, as you know. Why do you think that is?

    7) I agree! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goodness gracious, please excuse the typos!! I am in a rush, trying to take my daughter out shopping for her birthday while she is home for the weekend.

      While I'm gone, here is one fun example of the media completely in the tank for Obama, to a degree that is so embarrassing it's hard to watch:

      http://redflagnews.com/msnbc-busted

      MSNBC is a trainwreck. I watch it a lot; it's like I can't look away.

      Delete
  5. A couple more things, Chris, and thanks for hanging in here with me, truly.

    1) What would you say are your major news sources, or sources of information?

    2) Did you know the extent of Obama's radical views on abortion/infanticide before reading this?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I almost never watch TV, so I can't provide any examples I've seen of either when the media was in the tank for Obama, or when it was against him. That's why I just referenced a study. I get most of my news online, usually via aggregators. I also read my local newspaper every morning, although it's really gone downhill lately. Too much "he said, she said" journalism all around, where everyone is given equal credibility no matter what the objective facts say.

    Yes, I had heard of Obama's past votes on abortion before. I'm honestly still working out my feelings on abortion in general. I used to be more pro-choice, but I think the pro-choice movement has left me behind. Now you get medical "ethicists" claiming we should be able to kill already-born babies, and we get Obama supporting partial-birth abortion, and so on. Where will it end? Some time ago, abortion was just legal in the first trimester. But whenever I suggest that we should have stopped there, somebody calls me "anti-choice." I don't know. The pro-choice movement dodges all the tough questions (like what the unborn child is, OBJECTIVELY). It starts to seem like feel-good bullcrap after a while; all the Dems' constant bleating of "choice" at the recent Abortion-Con 2012 really got on my nerves. They certainly weren't discussing the child itself. On the other hand, I honestly cannot see why zygotes are people, or why they matter as much as more-developed people with thoughts and feelings. Yet the pro-life movement often insists that they are completely the same.

    On religious freedom, I know that you don't support gay marriage. So then, doesn't it violate several (UCC, Episcopal) Christian denominations' religious freedom to ban gay marriage? Or is some religious freedom more important than other religious freedom? Or, is it possible that some things that affect religion are not primarily religious freedom issues (this is my opinion).

    As for the shirt, I wouldn't wear it. But Obama didn't make it himself and I've seen far worse uses of the flag. To me, it's a nonissue.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://0.tqn.com/d/history1800s/1/0/6/9/-/-/90018604.jpg

    What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chris, it's best to attribute your images so viewers can look at the context.

    Somehow I don't think the image was approved of by Lincoln, given that his name was misspelled on it.

    The "Obama flag," by contrast, was approved by Obama (or at least someone in the upper echelons of his campaign). It was sold in the official Obama campaign merchandise store, not by some whackjob on the Internet.

    Regardless, I think they're both inappropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "So then, doesn't it violate several (UCC, Episcopal) Christian denominations' religious freedom to ban gay marriage?"

    How so? Episcopalians et al are free to to marry whomever they like in their churches. They don't necessarily have the right to have those marriages recognized in a legal context by the civil government.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So they have a right to get married, but not for the marriage to count? Isn't it discrimination to make one denomination's marriage ceremony worth more than another's?

    I seriously doubt that Obama has ever seen that shirt. He's the President; I would hope that he doesn't spend all his time looking at his campaign's products. That use of the flag was quite common in the 1800s, although you're right that it was often unofficial. Either way, the man in question probably never saw it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To clarify, I'm saying that marriage is by nature a religious ceremony. The government should not concern itself with marriage, and has instead chosen to favor one religious view of marriage over the others. Thus, every religion not favored by the government is being hurt in violation of the First Amendment. I don't think religious freedom is the main issue in gay marriage, but it's one thing that is affected.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Chris, actually, Roe v. Wade made abortion legal up to nine months, with the caveat that states could decide to restrict it if they wished. That has been the law of the land since 1973.

    If marriage is a primarily religious ceremony, then why do all atheist regimes have marriage ceremonies? Practicing religion could get one arrested or even killed in those nations, but marriage is standard. And there is no gay "marriage" in those nations, by the way. How can you square that with your statement? (I have a blog post coming on that subject, but maybe not until after the election.)

    You said: On the other hand, I honestly cannot see why zygotes are people, or why they matter as much as more-developed people with thoughts and feelings. Yet the pro-life movement often insists that they are completely the same.

    Are toddlers "completely the same" as adults? I would say that they are not. But I would never say that they don't "matter as much as more developed people." You are right to sense a philosophical problem there.

    The only reason one human being would deny the "personhood" of another human being is to have permission to harm that second human being.

    I wrote about the "personhood" issue, and how it's simply a license to kill, here:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/06/sliding-scale-of-personhood-license-to.html

    JoAnna thanks for the context; you read my mind! I wanted to know where that came from. I don't like it now, and I don't like it then.

    Obama is very, very, very much aware that folks see him as messianic. He sort of built his whole campaign around that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I didn't know that about Roe v. Wade. Thanks for informing me.

    And yes, absolutely the only reason we debate personhood is to determine whether it's OK to kill.

    With marriage, perhaps I should have added "cultural" or something to "religious," although I'm pretty sure that its origins are religious. All I meant to say is that I think the government should stay out of marriage in general. I'd honestly rather discuss that one another day, because I've started like five conversations too many.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chris, if marriage is "cultural", then it's "cultural" to every single "culture" religious or no. Which makes it universal.

    So, you don't live by a principle which says, "It is wrong to kill innocent human beings"?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Of course it's wrong to kill innocent human beings! Did I say otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Clarify for me, Chris:

    As to the question of whether a new human being is begun at conception, science has answered yes, without ambiguity (check embryology texts). So I thought we were on the same page on that. Even the atheists here have agreed with that.

    The question then shifts to the metaphysical, non-scientific concept of "personhood", which is subjective and arbitrary.

    I thought you were talking about "personhood" being the criteria for whether or not we can kill a human being ("some human beings are persons, some are not, thus the human beings that are not persons may be killed").

    So, help me out. Is it wrong to kill innocent human beings, or is it only wrong to kill "persons"?

    And if "human being" and "person" are synonymous to you, then when do the things in the womb become human beings/persons? For Catholics, we take the scientific route: A new human being is begun at conception, and "human being" is synonymous with "person".

    Let me know if that is not clear and I will try again.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is wrong to kill human beings because all humans have the basic right to be alive. Like you said, a human is biologically a human from the very beginning. Honestly, I'm just being kind of dumb, because I understand that the only two real choices are "killing is always OK" and "killing is never OK," unless we want to make silly, abstract cutoff points at various points in a human's life, which is what I've been trying to do. Emotionally I want women to be able to have abortions in certain situations. And yet, I understand that a baby conceived in rape is not biologically different from a baby conceived otherwise. It's still a human, an innocent one. I understand that ending a life is ending a life, and that ending a life is wrong. I guess what I'm trying to say (badly) is that I have absolutely no logical reason to support abortion at all, because I regard all human beings to have inherent value. In certain circumstances I think of the mother more than the baby, because I don't want people to be forced to birth a rapist's child, and I don't want people to risk their life because of pregnancy. I, emotionally, don't want absolutist ideas to be true, yet in reality, they often are...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh, okay, I think I see what you are getting at.

    Here are a couple of things just to give you a bit of a new perspective on the two situations you mentioned:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rape-survivors-our-needs-are-not-met-because-people-assume-abortion-will-so

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/leading-medical-experts-say-direct-abortion-is-not-medically-necessary-to-s

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rape-survivors-our-needs-are-not-met-because-people-assume-abortion-will-so

    Leila
    The premise of this is so silly--what needs are not being met? They can have their rapist's baby if they want to. What else do they "need?" Do other impregnanted rape survivors have to be forced to give birth for the other survivors "needs" to be met? It makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Johanne, if you read the quote provided in the article, they don't take a position on abortion. Rather, they point out that making discussion of rape pregnancies center around abortion is just wrong. They point out that there's plenty else to discuss, and that abortion isn't just some magic "solution" to rape.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Chris, thank you. I agree with your answer to Johanne.

    Johanne, if you'd permit me to add: He or she is not just "their rapist's baby" but is the mother's child as well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "...our experiences are frequently used to promote abortion on demand."

    This sentence from the women on the committee is dead on. There are millions of Americans who vote "pro-choice" across the board simply because of the rape issue. "Well, if abortion is outlawed then rape victims will be forced to have their babies!" So people who otherwise abhor the idea of legal abortion feel that they can't "take that risk" of voting pro-life, and they become pro-"choice" voters and promoters.

    I can see why these women on the committed are horrified that their circumstances would be used in that way, to keep the killing of tens of millions of children going. So, not only does this position about the rape victim "needing" an abortion perpetuate unspeakable violence to these little ones (most of whom were not conceived in rape), but it does not speak to what rape victims really need.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey Chris, if you want a good overview as to why the state is involved in marriage (traditional) I urge you to look here:
    http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/11/whats-state-interest-in-promoting-gay.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. Love this post. The Obama worship is what is keeping me off Twitter until after the election. Or maybe until after the inauguration, depending on how the election goes...

    ReplyDelete
  25. The halo makes me throw up in my mouth!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I received this email from a reader named Ron:

    Thank you Leila, this article is very timely. My comments area little long, so I chose to respond via e-mail instead of posting on your blog.

    My niece came home this past week saying she would have to do a report on either Obama or Romney. The teacher was going to list the positions of candidate “A” and “B” of issues and the students (fourth graders) were to select who they would write the report on by deciding which candidate was in line with their (the student’s) position. Now there are sssoooo many things wrong with this already:

    *The source of the positions was
    Time for Kids http://www.timeforkids.com/
    *Public school teacher (I know, we are horrible guardians for sending are nieces and nephews to public school)
    *Fourth graders do not have a grasp on politics (and really, in my opinion should not)
    *Fill in the blank

    She told my wife and me that she hopes she picked Romney—she had not. The next day, the teacher identified who they picked and that they were now assigned to write reports on why they like the candidate they selected. My niece was very upset. She did not understand how she could have picked Obama. She was confused because of all we have taught her this past year living with us. So, I talked to her and got the detail of events from her perspective. After which, I sent an e-mail requesting a meeting with the teacher. My meeting is 6:50 Monday (the teacher informed me, “our days start early around here,” when I asked her to clarify on her e-mail, “a.m. or p.m.” I did not mention to her that I am usually about to participate in the Mass about that time and will forego receiving Jesus to meet with her at a time of her convenience).

    My plan was to discuss with the teacher why a kid who a) asked to and became Catholic this past Easter, b) participated in a DC March for Life, c) participated in a prayerful demonstration for support of traditional marriage and, d) exposed to the various Right to Life functions my wife and I participate in would be upset about her selection of Obama. Your blog from Friday, Outrageous Obama, would succinctly explained the reasons.

    My plans have changes slightly with events this past Friday. Our niece came home telling us that she had been switched to the “Romney side” of the room. I am still going in to chat with the teacher (who also sent a follow up e-mail telling me, “…do know we are not allowing them "out on the web" gathering the dirt on the two candidates and some of the less desirable information on platforms! We are only using Info from Time for Kids!”). That is so reassuring. I now will focus more on those, “less desirable information that makes it impossible. I am also going to stress how these are the issues that matter most to us. That even if Obama was to promise the world to us if we vote for him, the world is not what we are shooting for. Our goals are much higher.

    God Bless,
    R.F.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Good luck, Ryan! Your comments to the teacher may very well plant a seed in her heart. It will probably be the first time she'll hear a perspective like yours. I just said a little prayer for you. Fortunately there's no time in heaven, so even if you're in the Eastern time zone, it will still count as being on time!

    ReplyDelete
  28. As one who holds a degree in Journalism, I have to completely agree with you in regards to the state of our media today. It is very sad. I don't quite understand it, as when I was in college most of my professors were fierce advocates of objective, hard-nose reporting and in no way promoted the liberal agenda. I'm not sure if the fault lies in Journalism programs or if people are just so enraptured with Obama that their integrity as journalists has fallen by the wayside.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't think that the people of the United States will open their eyes. This nation has been blinded, just as the Sodomites were blinded by the Angels in Sodom. The majority of the cultural, economic and political establishment of this country is now apostate. The entertainment machine of movies, music, TV and all other mass media has been successful in brainwashing the public. I don't know if the Lord will come soon, but I know that this nation is under the judgment of God and soon will pay for its degenerate apostasy.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!