About Me

Name: Adam Cassandra
Location: College Park, MD
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Why I Don't Support Miss California

JUST KIDDING!!!  How could I not support this woman?  She's intelligent, courageous, inspirational, and let's face it, stunning.  It was refreshing to see someone keeping to their beliefs and faith, instead of compromising them for short term gain. 

What I hope really comes out of this whole situation is that America sees what the gay agenda is really all about.  The goal is not a land of tolerance where people can agree to disagree and get on with their lives, but domination of the majority by a violent minority.  Across America, including in California, the majority of people do not agree with gay marriage.  When they disagree, they are attacked.  In every case, except recently in Vermont, gay marriage has been imposed on people by the judiciary despite the people voting to uphold traditional marriage.  Vermont is a dangerous state that should be voted out of the Union anyway.  The place is a haven for child molesters, with judges who refuse to fully prosecute them and protect children.

Gay activist label anyone who disagrees with them a hateful bigot, worthy of chastisement and punishment.  The result?  So called "hate crimes" legislation.

A vote is looming tomorrow on HR 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2009.  The aim of this bill is to "protect" homosexuals and people with gender identity issues.  The "protection" is from opposing view points.

Even though the 14th Amendment already provides for equal protection for all citizens, this special legislation is required for some reason.

All this bill will do is open the door to trample our constitutional rights to free speech and free religion.  If you quote that the Bible is against homosexuality--lawsuit.  If you quote that the Qur'an is against homosexuality--lawsuit.  If you protest against a gay pride parade--lawsuit.  If you are an "ex-gay," and say that homosexuality is a choice that can be overcome--lawsuit.  The government will tell you what beliefs, opinions, and thoughts will be acceptable in America.

If this bill gets passed, you can basically kiss the Constitution goodbye.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

U.S. Boycotting U.N. Racism Conference

When I first heard that the Obama administration would not attend the UN's racism summit, I was kind of surprised.  Could Obama actually be standing up for American principles of free speech? 

Reportedly the two main reasons that the US will not attend are an intended criticism of Israel in the conference declarations, and a move by Muslim countries to silence all criticism of Islam, Sharia law, the prophet Muhammad and other tenets of their faith.

The White House said it could not support a singling out of Israel, one of America's close allies, or a limitation on speech, because as State Department spokesman Robert Wood pointed out, such limitations, "run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech."

After thinking about Obama's decision, I'm pretty sure it has to do more with the criticism of Israel being a problem, than limiting speech.  Jewish groups have aggressively lobbied the US and other countries to not attend the conference after a previous UN draft statement likened Zionism to racism.  The Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Canada, Israel and Italy will also not be in attendance.

I think the fight over Israel had more to do with Obama's decision because he has already expressed here in America that he does not support free speech.  Obama and his administration aggressively attacked Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen, after Rush criticized Obama's policies.  Obama and other top Democrats have also openly stated that they support restricting the free opinions expressed on all conservative talk radio programs.

After people realized that the "Fairness Doctrine" was anything but fair, Democrats dropped the name, but began planning to implement its regulations in other pieces of legislation.  One of the provisions amounts to affirmative action where station owners will be forced to hire minorities and people of diverse view points to put on air or face having their operating licenses revoked.

And we shouldn't forget about how Obama hired a team of lawyers during the campaign to go after any citizen who criticized him, his past, his nepharious relationships, or his policies.   

I hope the political pundits are not fooled by this move.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Scarborough Attacks Own Network For TEA Party Coverage

On Thursday, Joe Scarborough reacted to the vile coverage of the TEA Party protests seen on his own MSNBC network, and on CNN.  I'm somebody at this network has some sense.

"You look at these huge rallies, and I'm not going to mention names of people on networks that made sexual jokes, childish sexual jokes, about tens of thousands of Americans who went out and wanted to get involved in their government."  The names Joe didn't mention would be ones like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and David Shuster.

Scarborough continued, "I mean, it was really middle school jokes being made. I didn't hear those jokes being made when people on the left protested over the past eight years."

"But, if a media outlet wants to expose its bias, they can mock tea parties, if they like."

Scarborough asserted that he would expect such juvenile actions from liberal bloggers, however, "I would expect more...from news outlets. And it happened on several networks yesterday."


Media Research Center President Brent Bozell also chastised the liberal press for their coverage. 

"Now the news isn't just biased, it's R-rated," said Bozell. "MSNBC and CNN both allow this vulgar attack-journalism to go out on their airwaves without blinking an eye and without any sign of guilt. It appears neither woeful bias nor lowly crassness on their airwaves bothers them a bit."

"MSNBC and CNN owe these decent Americans an apology for the slimy, smarmy attacks they perpetrated in 'covering' the TEA Parties. Ordinary citizens exercising their First Amendment rights in over 750 cities and towns deserve the media's coverage, not their sleaze-riddled condemnation."

Eric Odom, administrator of TaxDayTeaParty.com, told WorldNetDaily, "It couldn't become more apparent that CNN is taking their content off left-wing blogs and pushing it out through what they consider ethical and coherent journalism.  And I think it further proves the downfall of the mainstream media."

"What's been happening in the last few days has been an example of the [media's] clear and present and complete disconnect with American society.  I don't even know if CNN knows they're doing this. I think they believe what they're saying is sincerely accurate," Odom said, adding, "I don't know that we'd like to see an apology more than we'd like to see some sort of grasp of reality because this is a completely unrealistic realm that they're thriving in, and it's hard to believe they're considered mainstream journalism."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Disrespecting Catholics (and Jesus) Yet Again

Barack Obama has already spit in the face of Catholics with his radical anti-life policies.  His scheduled appearance to speak at the University of Notre Dame's commencement ceremony (where he will also be honored despite the U.S. Council of Bishops forbidding such a thing) has caused an uproar in the Catholic community with thousands of the faithful, including clergy and Bishops, in protest.  But Obama couldn't stop there.

Prior to speaking at Georgetown University's Gaston Hall this week (a Catholic and Jesuit institution), the White House reportedly asked the university to cover up the IHS monogram that would be seen behind Obama while he spoke.  IHS is an abbreviation for the name of Jesus Christ (read a brief history here). The university did oblige, although we are still waiting to hear a good reason why other than that Obama asked them to.

Many prominent officials have given speeches at Gaston Hall where the monogram was uncovered. Among those is First Lady Laura Bush.

Georgetown University professor James Schall asked some important questions about this issue in his article on The Catholic Thing:

If this president speaks at a Jewish Synagogue, or a Baptist church, or the Crystal Cathedral, or the Muslim Mosque on Massachusetts Avenue, the Ravens Stadium, the George Washington University, the headquarters of Planned Parenthood, or the hall of the local Atheist Society, will the same policy be followed? Will all signs of what the place actually is and stands for be covered over? If so, it represents equitable treatment, but is it wise? Is the president never to appear in any venue with obvious particular commitments, and why choose religious and not secular signs? Should, say, a university seal be exempted, but a crucifix not?

Will presidents be able to appear anywhere outside government buildings if the rules are really equally applied to both religious and secular? And this raises a real question: Is it American?

Many of these are questions the Obama administration will have to answer themselves. But Schall’s last question, “Is it American?” is an easy one. Resoundingly the answer is NO! 

Since our inception as a country American presidents and politicians have actively promoted religion among the people. Government officials have also gone so far as to promote unity among the citizens of different faiths by highlighting their common beliefs. And shockingly enough, presidents have even proclaimed national days of prayer.

In his first years as president, George Washington wrote letters to Presbyterians, Quakers, Hebrew Congregations, and Roman Catholics expressing his support for them as people of faith in America.

To the Catholics in 1790 Washington wrote, “And may the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”

He wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, 1790, “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Of course today’s society has been radicalized to think that the government having anything to do with religion is unconstitutional, despite the numerous historical documents proving otherwise. 

What most people have yet to realize is that creating a system where the government is devoid of contact with the various faiths in our country in essence violates the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But the laws being enacted against religion are themselves creating a de facto state religion: a secular humanist one. 

Government officials, government sponsored schools, official proclamations, etc. should actively support the religious faithful in America. To do otherwise violates the true intent of the Constitution.

President Washington assured Jewish Americans that, “there shall be none to make him afraid,” but when people cannot even pray at a high school football game, we have become afraid.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thinking About The Constitution

The Boston Tea Party and the TEA Parties across the nation yesterday were both in opposition to a tyrannical government.  One of the things I talked about with a reporter on the scene yesterday was how our elected representatives have trampled all over the Constitution of the United States to expand their own power.  Now those on the Left will say that these politicians just interpret the document differently than I do, but if you actually review history and why certain wording was used in the Constitution, and what its authors actually said it was supposed to mean, much of the Left's argument is completely blown out of the water.

Here's something to think about:

The authors of the Constitution just finished a war to gain freedom from a tyrant.  The British did have established laws with understood meanings to govern British subjects.  King George went around those established laws (call it reinterpreting them) to impose his own will on the American Colonies.  So after fighting for independence, would it make sense that the Americans then set up a government under a document that could be interpreted at will by those in power? 

The Constitution was written with fixed meanings for a purpose: to limit the ability of a tyrant (or tyrants in the case of Congress) from imposing their own will on the people.  When we cease being a nation governed by the law, we become a nation governed by the whims of men (and women), which is where we are now.

Here's another thought:

A business owner opens up a shop.  He establishes the policies and procedures to operate the business in following a mission statement.  Time goes by, and the business is prosperous.  One day the owner hires a new manager who decides to start running things under his own policies and procedures with his own mission and goal for the business.  After being confronted by the owner, the new manager says, "Your procedures and mission is in the past.  They don't matter anymore.  This is a new age, and I run things around here."  The business owner then has to choose between conceding to the manager, or firing the bum.

We the People are the owners of America.  Our elected representatives are the managers that we have hired to run things.  We have the same decision to make: do we concede to their power and give up the ways that made us prosperous, or do we fire them and hire new management?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TEA Party Coverage By The Liberal MSM

I made a point to watch the liberal media's coverage of today's protest, and boy was I NOT surprised at what I saw.  First there was the flagrant, crude, and childish sexual innuendo provided by the high paid anchors of CNN and MSNBC.  Drench all of those completely inappropriate comments in an elitist smugness looking down on all those who participated, and throw in a bunch of complete lies and misrepresentations about the movement to produce a journalistic quality unsuitable for a high school newsletter.

Before watching all of this, I'll admit that I wasn't completely against these stations as news sources, but now I see that they have absolutely zero credibility as reliable and fair sources.  Now of course Fox News did report favorably on the commentary/opinion shows it airs (Glenn Beck and Hannity), and it's journalists just delivered the story.  Now there is a clip of some long haired guy on the Fox Business Network calling Republicans and Democrats fascists, which was his opinion, but then again, at least it was a balanced opinion. 

Of course Fox was labeled as one of the chief architects of the protests by the liberal MSM, but any intelligent person would know that planning for all of the protests began way before Fox said they were going to cover these events.  And they were started by regular people, not rich corporations or the Republican Party.

What I did notice in watching this dispicable display of so called journalism today was the complete loathing of "traditional values."  Statements were made in many instances to suggest that traditional values (you know the ones that perpetuated the actual existance of this country that we live in and made it the greatest and most prosperous country in the history of the world) were dead and over.  Of course if these values are gone, they have to be replaced right?  And that would mean they could only be replaced by ANTI-AMERICAN values since the traditional ones were those that essentially defined America.

But despite all their smugness, I think liberals are just scared that the spirit of America still lives, and is making a comeback.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »