About Me

Name: OnceAlwaysaMarine
Email: sanctuary1choir@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

THE PORNOGRAPHY CONUNDRUM

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Thursday, November 13, 2008 5:07:44 AM
 
The several and various definitions of what pornography is continue to confuse the issue.  Just as we are at a loss to find any one definition of the word that most can agree to, I am equally unsure of what, if anything is to be done about it from a legal standpoint.  The debate on this subject leads, inevitably, to the old conundrum: Can we ever be successful at legislating morality, and if so; should we?
 
I agree that "liberty-limiting principles" should be applied in certain circumstances, especially where children and other innocents could suffer the harmful effects, psychologically or otherwise, by exposure to material intended for mature adults.  Therefore, I can identify with John Stuart Mill's argument in his treatise: "On Liberty," in which he asserts: "...there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest, comprehending all that portion of a person's life and conduct which affects only himself, or if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation...This then is the appropriate region of human liberty."
 
I believe that the rights of individuals in a free society trump the legal or moral authority of the society to exercise control over such liberty and freedom of expression, as long as such expression doesn't impinge upon the rights of others.  What two or more adults, having reached the age of consent, choose to do to the mutual enjoyment of their own individual tastes, is nobody else's business.  Mill breaks down the concept of individual liberty as being valid, when based on three criteria:
 
"This then, is the appropriate region of human liberty.  It comprises first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects; practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological...Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character, of doing as we like, subject to the consequences as may follow; without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.  Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived.
 
No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified."
 
When it comes to sexually explicit material, there is, it seems to me, little that society can, or ought to do to control the freedom of those who participate in either the manufacture or dissemination of it.  We can hope, at best, to remain vigilant in protecting our society's children from being coerced or forced into participation.  We must respect, as well, those whose sensitivities may be adversely affected by another's careless use or public display of it.
 
However, in today's society the task of protecting unwilling witnesses from exposure to pornographic material is becoming almost as impossible as it has been to define the term: pornography.  If one were inclined to use the first definition of pornography that asserts that pornography is "sexually explicit material that has as its primary purpose the stimulation of sexual excitement or interest," one need only tune in to any one of the major "over-the-air" television stations on any given evening.  Even there, one will find oneself's senses assaulted with a wide variety of "situation-comedies" where the pervasive use of sexual immorality, homosexual innuendo, and sexually-suggestive conversation is presented as normal conduct. 
 
I am concerned that American, and other Western societies, once having expunged themselves of all identification with a traditional [read: Christianity-based] morality, will render the entire debate over, and what is or is not "pornography," politically incorrect; and thus, in effect, obsolete; as many of our other once-held values [love of God, respect for marriage, and love of country] have, in the minds of many citizens of this once proud and God-fearing nation, already come to be.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ARE WE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO CONTRIBUTE OUR "EXCESS" PROPERTY?

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:40:43 AM

Having read with much interest, Peter Singer's article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, I will concede that I agree with some of his basic assumptions.  However, I find myself in disagreement with others.  For instance, who can disagree with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad?  The next point he makes in his writing: "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it," is equally uncontroversial.  I agree, therefore, with Singer's fundamental premise.  What I do not agree with, however, is how he defines the extent to which we are morally obligated to contribute to these efforts at relief.
 
I do not support his premise that we are obligated by duty to sacrifice or donate that which we possess above which is necessary to our own survival.  I believe that more good is achieved, and more people are helped from charitable actions based upon appeals made to human compassion than will ever possibly come from any attempt at making an argument that one ought to give away [or have confiscated] his or her earnings out of a moral sense of duty [or as posited by our new vice-president elect Joe O'Biden] "patriotism."  In fact, I consider Singer's entire premise to be another argument for Socialism, except in this instance he would have it apply globally.
 
Professor Singer argues: "Because giving money is regarded as an act of charity, it is not thought that there is anything wrong with not giving.  The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned."  This, to me, depends upon the premise that in Mr. Singer's opinion, we are to assign ourselves as the judges of others.  I'm not sure it is my place to condemn anyone, however, I am of the opinion that there is a certain devolution of moral obligation in standing idly by and failing to contribute to ameliorating the obvious and tangible pressing needs of others.  I also agree that to refrain from doing so cannot be justified by shifting the focus from oneself onto how many others may or may not be sacrificing to a comparable degree.  However, I feel each man or woman must make their choice individually as to what percentage of wealth they can personally afford to contribute on the behalf of others.  To be sure, circumstances vary from individual to individual and from family to family so that one's contribution may not match another's. 
 
If Professor Singer's treatise serves as a provocation to those of us in society who have in our own affluence, become either too complacent, blind to the needs of those less fortunate, or worse still, greedy and uncaring, then I think there may be some resultant willingness to help on the part of those who are capable of being moved into a sense of duty.  After all, poverty, starvation, and famine still exist in our world today, some thirty-six years after this critique was written and the appeal made.
 
I suppose the traditional distinction between duty and charity should be set aside when dealing with the monumental scale of human suffering we are witnessing in underdeveloped nations around the world even now in the 21st century.  Contributions to charity are a noble and necessary help to those in need but does not, at least in our cultural understanding of the word, imply the moral imperative towards participation that duty does.  Further, an argument can be made that if the world's societies would have begun to address the issues of famine, affluence and morality all those years ago, using the template set forth by Professor Singer, such large-scale human suffering might not be existent today.
 
Personally, I believe I can agree with the substance of Professor Singer's point of view. "Given the present conditions in many parts of the world, it does follow from my argument that we ought, morally, be working full time to relieve great suffering of the sort that occurs as a result of famine or other disasters.  Of course, mitigating circumstances can be adduced--for instance, that if we wear ourselves out through overwork, we shall be less effective than we would otherwise have been.  Nevertheless, when all considerations of this sort have been taken into account, the conclusion remains: we ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance."
 
Singer's is an argument against us continuing according to the status quo.  In this I find no argument with him.  If  we are to succeed in stemming the tide of human misery in the world's populations we may have to reassess whether this can be achieved through "generosity" on our parts or a deeper commitment to fulfilling the duty we have to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
 
 What man can place himself in the position of judging the charitable acts of another as not being morally adequate?  Charity, as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary is: 1. Christian love (a): the virtue or act of loving God with a love that transcends that for creatures and of loving others for the sake of God 2. (a): the kindly and sympathetic disposition to aid the needy and suffering: liberality to the poor, to benevolent institutions, or to worthy causes."  As immoral as it may seem that not everyone lives by these principles, I would argue that it would be less of a moral or ethical approach to the problem; the attempting, through appealing to a sense of duty to correct the situation and solve the problem of starvation, lack, and suffering without first attempting to appeal to people's charitable instincts; thus, making a case for the exercising of brotherly love as an impetus for providing aid to those, for whatever reasons, find themselves in less fortunate circumstances.  I think attempting to coerce individuals into the belief that it is their moral [or patriotic] obligation to assimilate into some form of global communism is a non-starter in the United States of America, as it should be for all those who value and cherish their own liberty.
 
Singer writes: "It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm,  To do so is not charitable, or generous.  Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers and theologians have called "supererogatory"--an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do.  On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so."
 
Again, I disagree.  Supererogation according again to Webster's Third New International Dictionary is: "the act or process or an instance of performing more than is required by duty or obligation specifically: the performance beyond what is considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be necessary for salvation of good deeds of the kind believed to have been done by the saints or to be capable of being done by men."
 
I remain convince [in spite of the impending wave of Socialist philosophical thought now being ushered in with the new Obamanation in Washington D. C.] that the American people will act in charitable and supererogatory ways when called upon to do so.  Indeed, I might argue that it is our moral and patriotic duty to do so.  I, too, agree with Singer's conclusion that: "we ought to prevent as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance."
 
I will defend nevetheless, the right, however, of each American man or woman to be his or her own judge in deciding what is the ethical, moral, or patriotic way to do so.
 
  Reference

Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 pp. 229-243 [revised edition]. Retrieved November 13, 2008 f rom the Internet http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

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

McCAIN GETS BOUNCE, OBAMA BOUNCED

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Monday, October 20, 2008 8:19:01 PM
 

http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnTRE4910H5.html

From Reuters, Sun 19 Oct2008 GMT:

Democrat Barack Obama's lead over Republican John McCain in the presidential race has dropped to 3 points, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Sunday.Obama leads McCain 48 to 45 percent among likely U.S. voters, down 1 percentage point from Saturday. The 4 day tracking poll's margin of error is= 2.9%

Pollster John Zogby said the numbers were good news for McCain, and probably reflected a bump following his appearance in the third and final presidential debate on Wednesday.

"For the first time in the polling McCain is up above 45 percent. There is no question something has happened," Zogby said.

"If that trend continues, it is something that has got to raise red flags for Obama," Zogby said. "It suggests to me that his outward look of confidence may be as much strategy as it is real."

QUESTION: How did McCain get a bump from the final debate? Didn't all the TV talking heads on the network shows explain to us voters that what we saw on Wednesday was yet another overwhelming display of Obama's superiority over McCain? I thought the candidate that WON the debates got the bounce?

THEORY: I have a theory as to why Barack Obama's poll numbers are sliding in the polls, and why the American people will not elect this ignoramus to the presidency of this great nation.

The Democrat Party is a party of elitists, bashing and thumbing their noses at you and me. First, Sarah Palin. A decent and fine example of a woman, wife, and mother; who exhibits the attributes Americans most admire in their families and neighbors. She is the girl next door. A soccer mom, which the liberals think is undignified. My wife is a soccer mom.

Then, the other shoe dropped. Joe, an everyday hardworking parent. An "average Joe" who dreams the AMERICAN dream. A dream unique to America; one that our enemies and detractors envy because America is the only country in the world where dreams of owning one's own business and having a chance to reach for the stars AND GET THERE! Obama and his Marxist "spread the wealth around"/"Goddamn America" cadre of liberal homo/abortionists and Chicago/Washington D.C. elitist sycophants see Joe's dream as a "fantasy" and mock and laugh at him for having the "AUDACITY OF HOPE." Audacity to hope to ever achieve his goal meets with their derision and laughter for all the world to see.

And we here at Townhall are in the midst of witnessing a torrent of the same hysterical and derisive idiocy being posted by an onslaught of his drooling maniacal ghouls, the likes of which we have never before experienced, like something from an episode of "The Twilight Zone." Mindless and vitriolic comments and ranting from idiots who survived the abortionist's knife only to allow the souls and "dreams" to be sucked out of their jaundiced brains by the scalpel of a "black nationalist Socialist's forked-tongue.

What they fail to realize is that there is no mandate for their Socialist dreams nor for their reprobate weenie of a candidate.

They can roll out the MSM talking leg-tinglers, and Colin Powell or whomever they want.

And on November 5, they can "air up their tires, get a tune-up" and roll on down the road. Nobama. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA HAS HIS GRUBBY LITTLE PAWS ALL OVER FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 1:06:49 AM
 

Barack Obama is on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is doing network interviews, and the talking heads are on the network news shows, all trying to lay blame for the collapse of Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac at the feet of Wall Street, the Bush Administration, John McCain, and any other Republicans they can.

With the usual help from the MSM, you'd think they would be successful with once again pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public.

Not so.

"The Bush administration [Sept.11,2003] recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crises 10 yrs. previously."

http:query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt

"Among the groups denouncing the proposal...were the National Assoc. of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."

"These two entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--are not facing any kind of financial crises," said Representative Barney Frank of Mass., the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the more the pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Rep. Frank added.

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said.

Investor Business Daily in their Editorial page, Monday, September 15, 2008, stated the following:

"Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the 'trickle-down' economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

"But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped to create the market for high-risk, subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

"The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and the Democrats now decry as not only greedy but 'predatory.'"

You can read this entire editorial at:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

Under the president's [Bush, 2003] proposal a new agency would have been created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The new agency would have had the authority, which, at the time rested with the Democrat-controlled Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would have exercised authority over any new lines of business. And it would have been able to determine whether the two were adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The Bush administration's proposal was endorsed in large part by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and would not have repealed the significant govt. subsidies granted to the two companies.

(this is additional information taken from the NY Times article written by Stephen Labaton)

No wonder there is nobody in the Democrat-controlled Congress calling for an investigation of the screwed up regulation and oversight of these companies...THEY [DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMEN] ARE THE CULPRITS!!

They were lining their pockets with campaign contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae!!

Christopher Dodd DemocRAT Senator from Connecticut was the number 1 recipient of Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac campaign contributions.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (having only been in the Senate now for 3 years) is a CLOSE 2nd!!

John "Genghis Khan" Kerry rounds out the top 3 recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largess!

Barack Hussein "...my Muslim faith" Obama is now on the campaign trail railing about the "greed of Wall Street" and blaming the collapse on "the failed policies" of President Bush's administration; implying that with John McCain, the American people can expect more of the same.

The Mainstream media and the talking heads, including PBS News Hour regular and supposed conservative pundit and Republican mouthpiece David Brooks, do nothing to call this moronic liar on his hypocrisy!! Nothing new there, in fact, if anything, they continue to cover his butt by spreading the populist (socialist) propaganda that Wall Street is to blame.

("White folks greed runs a world in need" I suppose.) Except the "greedy white folks are Congressional Democrats and the Obamazebra.)

What would be laughable if it wasn't so infuriating is that Obama is getting away with blaming Bush and McCain while he is personally benefitting from the financial catastrophe he helped create and which is now being dumped on you and me!

Further, on May 25, 2006, Senator John McCain stood on the Senate floor and pleaded with the Senate to pass a new law which he and 3 other Republican Senators co-sponsored titled, THE FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005--(an excerpt of his comments):

"The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines (now by the way, one of Barack Obama's economic advisors), Fannie Mae's former executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr.Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement of Freddie Mac.

"I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE (Government-sponsored entities) reform legislation."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

Status: Dead

Congressional Democrats, Barack Hussein Obama included are the real culprits in this meltdown.

But the uninformed masses of Obamamaniacs and dimwits who make up the DemocRAT Party will eat the $h!t coming out of the mouth of the Socialist mouthpiece candidate for president, as always putting style above substance....

....as they continue to be carried away on waves of lofty rhetoric...chills running up their legs...while marching straight to hell under the spell of their Marxist pied-piper.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MSM HELPING BARACK HUSSEIN PLAY SHELL GAME WITH FANNIE MAE

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Monday, September 15, 2008 11:48:08 PM


Tomorrow morning when you watch the ABC, CBS, and NBC news playing the clip of Obama trying to put the Wall Street and mortgage banker collapses on the backs of Republicans and the Bush administration, think about what you are about to read, while you look at and listen to this fraud...(also, be alert to the way the media plays ONLY what Obama has to say...)

FANNIE MAE...FREDDIE MAC

TOP 3 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTEES:

1. Christopher Dodd D. CT.  $165,400
2. Barack Obama     D. IL.  $123,349
3. John Kerry       D. MA.  $111,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Barack Hussein Obama took donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (its No. 2 political beneficiary) and today he has the audacity to try to make it a campaign issue in his favor!  Audacity?  He's got plenty of that!

In a 19 year period of campaign contributions, and out of 354 lawmakers from 1989-2008, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ROSE TO THE NUMBER 2 RECIPIENT in 3 YEARS!!

Hearing any alarm bells yet?

Yet Obama is on the campaign trail today blaming these policies on the Republicans, pretending he is for the Middle Class?

Contempt for the truth...and contempt for the voting public, and the stupid idiot Democrat sycophants want to put this lying fraud in the White House.

In 2004, when Republicans fought hard to regulate these two, Barack Obama and the Democrats pushed hard to prevent it.

John McCain came in at No.63 @ $21,750.

Why do you think the Democrat-led Congress is not calling for any investigations?

Because they are corrupt as you-know-what...

...or if you're an Obama supporter, you don't know jack smitt..

We need a Special Prosecutor or, at least a Grand Jury investigation into the mismanagement of these funds.

Maybe Chuckie Gibson, et al., will do an investigation of this...or 60 Minutes...or Dateline...or CNN...or...

Fug get about it...

The dopey liberals are so blinded by this Marxists rhetoric...they wouldn't believe he did anything wrong if he slapped them upside the head...

...in fact, they'd probably blame George Bush...

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MSM SUPPORTS OBAMA AS A SCRIPTURE QUOTING HYPOCRITE

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Saturday, September 06, 2008 7:08:07 PM
Barack Obama is a Scripture quoting hypocrite allowed a pass on his hypocrisy. 

Religious affiliation is a matter of personal choice.  The fact remains, however, that the personal choices of a person running for the Presidency will, and should be examined by voters.  John McCain, Sarah Palin, Republicans and evangelical Christians are being raked over the coals; being painted by Obama supporters, liberal Democrats, and the Mainstream Media as being fanatical and hypocritical on morality issues.

The liberals are positing that Barack Hussein Obama be held to a different standard.

The Obama media is instrumental in seeking the systematic undoing of the McCain-Palin campaign; while only engaging in questioning the religious of John McCain and Sarah Palin, while taking on faith that Barack Obama's "supposed Christianity" is already proven and confirmed.

Mr. Obama is the only candidate in the race who has openly incorporated direct references to the Holy Bible scripture in his speeches and campaign appearances, including Matthew 25, and making references to the teachings of Jesus Christ on being one's "brother's keeper" and "as ye have done unto the least of these," even though both of these scriptures expose the height of his own hypocrisy as he is neither his brother's keeper [his brother being ignored by him as he lives in Kenya on $1 per month], nor is he concerned about "the least of these" [innocent live-born babies whose mothers want to screw but don't want to be "punished" with the consequences of their screwing].

Any question about Barack Hussein Obama's beliefs; the Dems and their Press agents [MSM] all cry LIE LIE LIE RACISM RACISM RACISM HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITES!

I'll bet you 10 to 1 that NOT ONE of the nutty liberal Obama defenders posting here today has read 1 page of Dr. Jerome Corsi's book,  The Obama Nation or any other that does not advance his populist propaganda campaign.  But here they undoubtably are, out in force to defend the Lone Stranger, using ad hominen attacks against anyone who seeks answers about who Barack Hussein Obama really is, and what it is he actually believes will be accomplished for the good of American society by his becoming President.

Indonesian Muslim schools or Trinity United Church of Hatred, what's the difference?

What about "Black Liberation Theology?"

Still, we, the American people are left to wonder:

Don't we, in order to become informed voters, deserving to have asked of Mr. Obama:

a) What exactly was it about Jeremiah Wright, specifically, that drew you, Barack Hussein Obama, to an acceptance of "Christ" that until being exposed to Wright, whose theology teaches that "Jesus was a black man" and "If God is not black, He needs to be killed" that separated Jeremiah Wright from other Christian ministers in a city as large as Chicago that is FULL of dynamic black community oriented churches?  Why did you choose one that teaches "Black Liberation Theology?"

b) Mr. Obama, how will your identification with this "theology" affect your ability to equally represent non-black citizens of the United States?  And why should the American people believe you will not be biased towards the interest of the black community at the expense of white taxpayers?

c) Mr. Obama, how will your "committment to the 'black community'" affect your committment to other non-black communities and how will it affect your performance in the White House?

d) What are white, and for that matter, black citizens to make of this racially polarizing "Black Liberation Theology" philosophy?  Can you explain to the American people what it means in a religious context?

The Mainstream Media is doing a GRAVE disservice to Americans, refusing to even ATTEMPT to have these questions asked, let alone answered by Barack Obama or to vet this candidate, ignoring or shrugging off his choice to join and stay active in a "church" where he took a:

"PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE to all Black leaders who ESPOUSE and EMBRACE the Black Value System."

Liberal knuckleheads claim that Republicans and conservatives are moral hypocrites, pushing their religious beliefs onto them.

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

Liberals wear blinders.

Facts don't matter to the defenders of Obama.

They think with their emotions; not their brains.

Serious-minded American voters who want to be informed voters will read Obama Nation and continue to press for answers about Barack Hussein Obama.

We will not rest until this danger to America is exposed and suffers an ABORTION of its own in the evil womb of its Marxist conception.

....we'll THEN be the judges of Mainstream Media credibility; in ummasking their coverage concerning his hypocrisy and blasphemy; in their collusion and attempted coronation of the Lone Stranger of the 2008 Presidential election.

....the ONLY Scripture quoting hypocritical candidate in this race; and the only one who invokes the very Scriptures that condemn him and put a lie to his honesty, judgement, and integrity.


No talk of faith by conservatives or Republicans will go unexamined, unpunished, or unmocked in the Mainstream Media. They will dig up any and every facet of a Republican candidates' failure to live a spotless life and provide a moral example that even God himself would be in awe of. And any thing that falls short of perfection itself will be talked about for days by the "talking heads" on every network and in every newspaper.

But Barack Hussein Obama, the supporter of Infanticide, member of a racist theology, and student of godless Marxism, is ALONE given a pass to quote Scripture and cite the teachings of Christ with impunity and liberal approval.

Those who have no respect for either the authority of the Holy Bible, or the great preachers that preach it, have no problem with its messages being bastardized and usurped by one who is intent on distorting its message to fit their reprobate culture of death and homosexuality.

...and their Mainstream Media leg-tingling Fifth Column is all-too-eager to promote this blasphemy; turning a blind eye and a gleeful accomodation to the destruction of all things we as Christians hold sacred.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

INDECISIVE OBAMA UNIQUELY UNQUALIFIED TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Saturday, September 06, 2008 1:25:06 PM

From the NY Times, Dec. 20,2007--

"In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Ill. legislature-to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from [sic] African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough on crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted "present," effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the "present" votes were in line with instructions from Democrat leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few of these cases, the issue was politically sensitive."

Mr. Obama's record in the Ill. Senate, or lack of one in the U.S. Senate, are strong indicators that the candidate who, in running for Commander-in-Chief of our country, in a time where strong leadership on important and controversial, politically sensitive issues demand clear and decisive leadership, points to not only his lack of experience and judgement, but more strikingly to his lack of the guts to take a leadership role on any issue.

Even now, he is constantly side-stepping and flip-flopping on every major issue he is confronted with in his presidential election bid. For months he has been trying to deny the success of the Surge; giving credit to anyone and anything that smacks of U.S. success in that region of the world; whether in Iraqi battlefield conditions or political reconciliation which is evidenced by the Democrat MSMs non-reporting on Iraq. (when it comes to MSM reports on our successes in Iraq, NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS, as bad news is all they feel obliged to report).
 
Throughout his adult life, inside and outside of politics, he has always and all situations, beeen NOTHING MORE than a follower:

He followed Frank Marshall Davis-a long time anti-America Communist Party member.

He followed William Ayres-a long-time anti-American terrorist & co-founder of the '60s & '70s Weatherman Underground terrorist bombing group.

He followed Rev. Jeremiah Wright-the "Black Liberation Theology anti-America racist pastor of Trinity United Church of Racial Hatred in Chicago.
 
He followed Minister Louis Farakhan in 1995 to his Million Man March in Washington D.C.- where in an interview with a reporter afterwards, Obama angrily stated that " [blacks] would "turn inward  and towards Black Nationalism...." and "white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing in this country."

He followed Antonin "Tony" Rezko- Chicago political-fixer, slumlord, and racketeer.

He followed Rashid Khalidi- PLO operative and funneler of money to radical Islamist in the Middle East & Gaza, and vocal opponent of Israel's existence now a "respected" Prof. at Columbia University. [responsible for inviting Ahmadamnjihad to speak at the university on his U.N. visit).

He followed Dick "Pol Pot" Durbin- the Ill. U.S. Senator who compared the actions of the U.S. military in Iraq to the death squads of the Pol Pot regime in '70s Cambodia.

Now he expects the American people to believe that he can LEAD us?
 
Who will Barack choose to follow next?
 
President Ahmadamnjihad of Iran?

If this puppet of Democrat machine politics, whose thin resume' only supports the notion of his complete lack of independent thinking or decision-making in every position he has held, cannot now even answer the simple question of when, in his opinion, life begins....saying the answer to THAT question is above his pay-grade?

Why should anyone but the ultra-radical and left-wing controllers of Democrat anti-family, pro-abortion, homosexual rights, and anti-U.S. military strength, such as Nancy "My job is to save the planet" Pelosi, Harry "The War is lost" Reid, Jack "The Treasonous Traitor" Murtha, and Dick "Pol Pot" Durbin, believe that we can expect him to fulfill his promises now that he will be the agent of CHANGE and HOPE he is now loudly proclaiming he is uniquely qualified to be?

For a President and Commander-in-Chief, it will not suffice for him to merely vote "present" in the War Rooms and secret briefing rooms of the Pentagon, NSA, and White House.

His record of his failure to take a firm stand on ANY issue upon which the leader of our nation will be singularly positioned to have to do, makes being the President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America way beyond Barack Hussein Obama's pay-grade.

 

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

I'M CONVINCED...THIS IS "THE TWILIGHT ZONE"

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:52:04 AM
First, the Mainstream Media attempts to paint Governor Sarah Palin as being "inexperienced" despite the fact that she was serving in elected office 5 years before Barack Obama was ever even heard of.

Now, the Mainstream Media has as their lead story today the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant, in an attempt to paint her as having a dysfunctional family, despite the fact that they remain mute on the fact that Barack Obama was born out-of-wedlock to a "beatnik" mother who dragged him all over the world while chasing after one foreign lover, after another. 
 
I'm now convinced...
 
...I'm living in The "Twilight Zone."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ONLY OBAMA GETS A PASS ON VETTING

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Tuesday, September 02, 2008 2:42:25 AM

Not suprisingly, given their record so far, the Mainstream Media has absolutely no interest in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge dealings of Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama and his close friend and colleague William Ayres (the man who literally tramples the flag and who openly declares war on the United States of America).  Why should we think they will be interested in this latest disclosure of information pointing to an even closer relationship between Obama and Ayres than what he previously led us to believe was the case ?  With the revelation that Republican vice-presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter being pregnant, they have bigger fish to fry than to investigate Obama's ties to an unrepentant, seditious friend and colleague.  A pregnant teenage girl is a shock to their conservative sensibilities...(that, coupled with a mother running for office who doesn't know that a woman's place is in the home, is scandalous!!).  Indeed. It's the top story on every Mainstream Media network!!

But as the 2008 Presidential election campaign is heading into the stretch, one can't help but be aware that the Democrat Presidential nominee has never been and never will be fully vetted.  Oh no.  That would not serve to anyone's advantage.  Would it? 

All the other candidates, and would-be contenders for the Presidency of the United States of America, which is without question, the most powerful and important executive position in the entire world, are being fully vetted, but the MSM shows absolutely no interest in what information might be contained in the U of I documents, or in any other scandal associated with Barack Hussein Obama.  His being the Democrat candidate alone should be sufficient to convince one and all of his anointing as a saint before the eyes of God and of man.

Now, it's Gov. Sarah Palin & her family's turn to be sacrificed by the left-loving MSM on the altar of Obamanation.  Pregnant teenage daughter...Oh my!! 

We will remain left to wonder exactly what horse the Lone Stranger has rode into town on.

No MSM attempts have ever been (or ever will be) made in finding out the extent to which this man of mystery and anger, shares the views of his close friend and U.S. Capitol building bomber, William Ayres, who he worked with on more than one foundation over a period of 10 or 15 yrs., or Antonin "Tony" Rezko, or Rashid Khaladi, the (former?) PLO operative. We are left to the construction of our own idea of who this man is by gleaning some insight, via youtube.com or other blogspots, of his cadre of mentors, advisors, and other radical-leftist/Marxist associations; then, only because of their precelebratory orgiastic verbal eruptions drawing attention to their very vitriolic hatred for all things American and which are not included in the "black liberation theology" worldview.

No. Liberals & the MSM are only concerned that a 17 year old daughter would take a pregnancy to full-term.

It would have been much more palatable to them had she undergone an abortion (or two).

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

GOD-DENYING, MOCKING LIBERALS NOW PRAY FOR GOD'S DESTRUCTION

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Monday, September 01, 2008 3:02:41 AM

It's ironic that the God-denying, God-mocking "progressives" making up the Democrat Party, rather than calling on Al Gore and the man-made climate changing gurus they subscribe the control of Creation, global warming, and, yes, tornados, floods, and hurricanes to, are now looking to the God of the heavens to provide a bounce for their loser ticket of Obama/Biden.

It speaks volumes to extent of their heightening sense of desperation over their chosen god, Barack Hussein Obama's ongoing slide in the polls.

Their GOLDEN CALF has received absolutely NO BOUNCE in the polls, and is in fact TRAILING the McCain/Palin ticket 47% to the Obama/Biden ticket's 45% according to the latest Zogby poll.

Despite ALL the collusion of the Mainstream Media (and their talking heads, with their refusal to countenance coverage or vetting of Barack Hussein Obama and any potentially damaging information about his criminal and radical associations...he has received NO BOUNCE.
 
Despite his half-hearted resignation from his 20+ year love affair with his mentor and erstwhile "uncle" Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Satan...NO BOUNCE.

Despite his  Mainstream Media Fan Club-supported Worldwide "Rock Star" Victory Tour...he has received NO BOUNCE.

Despite his mysterious unlimited supply of hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions...he has received NO BOUNCE.

Despite his adamant support of the sacrificing of the lives of innocent American babies on the altar of Abortion rights being applauded by the left...he has received NO BOUNCE.

Despite his OBAMACROPOLIS, Stevie Wonder rock concert Mile High Stadium Mainstream Media spectacle Democrat Convention acceptance performance (with a set designed by the same people who design the sets for Britney Spears)...he has received NO BOUNCE.

Despite his mockery of "bitter Americans clinging to their guns and religion..." he has received NO BOUNCE.

Now, ironically, the God-hating and God-denying liberal "progressives" that make up the party of no God & Barack Hussein "The Messiah" Obama, despairing of their continued TRAILING of McCain in the polls by a margin of 47% to 45%, (and with the wildly popular addition of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as Senator McCain's Vice Presidential nominee) are learning how to PRAY...PRAYING for the destruction of New Orleans, even better if with hundreds of black victims suffering and dying as a worthy SACRIFICE on the altar of OBAMANATION, to provide him a BOUNCE  in the polls; saving them from the ABORTION which is fast becoming the likelihood of his OWN seemingly pre-ordained and carefully orchestrated coronation and political ambition...

What GOD would GRANT the prayers of a baby killing Marxist and his reprobate, GOD-denying constituency?

...my guess is none...sorry, there will be NO BOUNCE coming for this ill-fated abomination of a candidacy.
 
"The LORD is far from the wicked but He hears the prayers of the righteous."--Proverbs 15:29 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ONLY IN AMERICA- Oh the beauty of it!

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Sunday, August 31, 2008 1:19:28 AM
There is so much beauty in the McCain campaign's choice of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as their choice for vice president. 

The initial appeal that Barack Obama had, in the eyes of the decent Americans in places like Iowa and Idaho, was representative of their disillusionment with career politicians and their seeming condescension towards middle Americans.

The Democrats, in an attempt to play on their sense of disenfranchisment, thought they could package Obama as a fresh face, uncorrupted by insider politics; a champion of the "little man."

But the exposure of his ties to the racist Trinity United Church of Satan & Jeremiah Wright, opened the floodgates, washing away the sugar-coating the MSM and Democrat party had immersed this Great Pretender in.

Now he (and his party) has been reduced to telling the American people, ala the Wizard of Oz, "don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain."

With McCain's selection of Governor Sarah Palin (and in the comparison), the Great Pretender will finally be exposed for the phony and false "hope" he really is.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Refreshingly Normal, SARAH PALIN

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Saturday, August 30, 2008 11:56:34 PM

It's ironic that the liberal "progressives" (read: heathens) that make up the Democrat party and the Obamanation they seek to make of our society, has caused them to be so far left that "normal" has become alien to them.

What is even more ironic is their failure to realize that most Americans, when faced with a clear choice, will be more inclined to satisfy their desires for "hope and change" in an appeal made to a celebration of traditional values, as represented by a return to "normalcy," and as represented by people like the refreshingly normal Governor Sarah Palin (and yes, Senator John McCain), than they will to the class, race & gender warfare being served up on the Democrat political platform.

Glorying in their confidence over what they thought would be a sure victory over those of us "clinging to their guns and religion," what the Democrats didn't count on, was that any choice for "change" would be offered outside of Obamanation.

"Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before the fall!"--Proverbs 16:8

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA'S CHOICE OF BIDEN: COLD-COMFORT FOR JEWS

Posted by OnceAlwaysaMarine on Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:36:41 PM
American Jewish observers are grasping at straws if they think Senator Joe Biden, as vice-president, will have the authority (or even the will) to be a foil against Barack Hussein Obama's radicalism, political ambition, and pro-Palestian bent.  
 
"Many American Jewish observers welcomed Barack Obama's selection of Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate.  As a member of the Senate since 1973, and the serving Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden is a seasoned political player and a foreign policy heavyweight.  His experience, it is argued, will make up for Obama's inexperience; his moderate liberal views will make up for Obama's radical liberal views."

What power do they think is vested in a vice-president to thwart the will of a president?

Since when do you elect a president on the basis that his vice-president will keep him in check?  What is Biden to be, the house detective?

Almost to a man (and woman), Barack Hussein Obama's colleagues, friends, mentors, and associates have a tender spot in their hearts (and a soft spot in their heads) for the cause of Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmadamnjihad of Iran, and other enemies of America.

Listen to the "sermons" of his spiritual mentor and erstwhile uncle, the-not-so Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Listen to the "sermons" of his closet supporter and fellow southside Chicago "community organizer" Minister Louis Farakhan.

Listen to the rantings of his Columbia University colleague and close pro-Palestinian friend Rashid Khalidi (the man responsible for the invitation to Ahmadamnjihad to speak during his U.N. visit).

An Obama presidency would be the stuff of a Tom Clancy novel.
 
In his book, "The Audacity of Hope" (named after a "sermon" from his racist-radical anti-American, pro-Palestinian 20 year pastor), Barack Hussein Obama wrote:
 
"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans...have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging," he laments.  "I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
 
This sentiment shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has done even a modicum of research into Barack Hussein Obama's worldview and political philosophy.  To appreciate the fact that his concern would lie with his perceived sense of injustice being directed towards muslims, one only need recall his being tutored on Western- Mid Eastern relations by such intellectual giants as Trinity United's Jeremiah Wright and Palestinian Liberation Army soldier turned Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi.

Bill Clinton was responsible for selling top-secret computer and missile technology to the Chinese...

Barack Obama, I'm afraid, would find a new set of contributors to finance his unbridled ambitions (as is already being evidenced by the nearly $30,000 his campaign has received from contributors with ties to Hamas in Gaza).

A man who would take $300,000 from a man like Antonin "Tony" Rezko (who was under federal investigation at the time), in order to finance his home, is