Did you read the news today, oh boy? “The nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin, and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.”[1] That’s right. The same country where a founding member, John Hancock, once called an entire state (Massachusetts) to pray “that universal happiness may be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory,”[2] actually has within its borders a faction that wants to outlaw the National Day of Prayer because it creates a "hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders." (Deeeto!) Apparently, when people gather to pray for our country’s peace, finances, God’s blessings, etc., it creates a hostile environment.
The complaints put forward by this liberal group bring to mind “The Fairness Doctrine.” This dated measure was introduced in1949 and required broadcasters to present controversial issues in balanced, equal time. The FCC eventually ruled that "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] suggested that the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.” In all practicality, it was censorship, as government could have certain controls as to what could be “said” on the radio regarding certain political issues. Whether or not it was needed back in that day of anti-communist sentiment and hysteria (and when talk radio outlets were rarer) is not my concern for this conversation. The significance today is that many on the left (Democrats, Liberals) are anxious to reinstate it because talk radio today is filled with remarkably popular conservative programs, including some Christian programming, that challenge their ideas. Democrats and Liberals (usually one in the same) want to silence these voices because they are critical of their policies; So much for free speech. Millions of Americans freely (same root word of FREEdom in case you missed that tiny detail) tune into these programs every day. These alternative news sources and electronic town hall venues offer listeners a mutual platform and access to information that they scarcely get from the popular news media which is usually slanted way left. Conversely, Liberal (or Progressive, as they like to be called) radio programs are regularly abject failures. This, because Liberals really have little of genuine interest to share other than hate rants at Conservatives, and lies upon more lies. Not all people are as stupid as they think. They are weary of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson presenting the truth—or at least alternate viewpoints from the mainstream liberal media. Similarly, the devil always attempts to shut down pathways to truth. He does this because he knows that if people hear the truth, it has the power to set them free.
Democrats have been trying to bring the Fairness Doctrine back since it was removed in 1987. “The Left has never gotten over the fact that it once had a media monopoly. It hates the New Media, particularly talk radio, and can't understand why so many people tune in. As Hillary Clinton once opined, ‘it must be due to some vast right-wing conspiracy.’”[3] Now, think about this: Our radio and television airwaves are available to anyone with the resources to obtain them. Any Liberal with a lot of money—and there are many of them—could simply buy a radio station or produce or sponsor radio shows that spew out anything they wish. In fact, I just found out that the DISH network is opening up, an all Obama Channel. It's called "Barack Obama's Plan for America," and is Dish channel 73. See? There are plenty of channels to go around. So instead of trying to shut up Rush and Sean, why not just produce your own anti-conservative shows? Why not open a hundred of them? Oh yeah, I forgot; because they are pathetically boring and people are not interested in them. Thus, the next best thing to do is take away the rights of those who criticize and challenge them.
In the Communist Manifesto (1848) Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote: “Communists openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” Marx also wrote, “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.” It is obvious from that quote, that a free exchange of ideas or criticism of Government is impossible in a Communist society, whether it be from the press or the pulpit. This is why Communist societies like China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba, are marked by totalitarianism. They cannot flourish having preachers criticizing and undermining their directives, or who have a “we must obey God rather than men,” attitude (Acts 4:19, 5:29). God will rule, or human government will. Neither could Communists allow a free press to challenge what they are trying to accomplish. Communism removes freedoms, it has to, and people want to be free. Don’t you? Our own Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Ironically and erroneously, Liberals love to make reference to the First Amendment when attempting to thwart Christian influence in our society, however, evidently, the free speech and free press part is not applicable if it challenges them.
So, come, let us reason together. What element of our government wants to silence the voice of those who are criticizing them? THIS IS VERY SERIOUS and it should make no difference what Party you support or the political positions you adhere to (unless of course you are a Communist). We are talking about our freedoms—yours and mine. How dare the government mandate what we are allowed to hear or speak about on free radio? Amazingly, publicly exhibiting works depicting Jesus as a naked woman, or of a dung-decorated, porn–embellished painting of the Virgin Mary are protected by Liberals as free-speech, even if subsidized by our PUBLIC tax dollars.
In all fairness (no pun intended), Mr. Obama has stated—at least through his spokespeople—that he would not support the Fairness Doctrine. At the same time, I am not sure I’ve ever heard a presidential candidate or his staff complain about the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush, and James Dobson, as much as Obama and his campaign has. This man does NOT like Rush and Sean and he doesn’t hide this fact. “Fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely Obama voters believe the government should make all radio and TV stations offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal commentary.”[4] Obama-ites certainly support the measure, Democratic leaders support it overwhelmingly, including speaker of the House Pelosi, and an Obama presidency will likely give us a Liberal Supreme Court. So where would the checks and balances come from? Obama votes with his Party 97% of the time and is considered the most Liberal in the Senate. President Bush has forcefully affirmed he would veto any bill that brings back the [UN]fairness Doctrine. Do you honestly think that if a Democratic sponsored bill comes across President Obama’s desk he would actually veto it?
The Serpent, AKA the Devil, did not approach Eve and say, “Hey, if you eat from this fruit, all of humanity is going to be screwed up.” Saddam Hussein did not initially tell his countrymen that he was going to torture and murder hundreds of thousands of them, he promised prosperity. Fidel Castro promised he would replace Batista’s dictatorship (who was indeed oppressive) with free elections. He also promised to end government corruption. Wrong on both counts. Currently, Barack Hussein Obama is preaching change. The Serpent brought calamitous cosmic change. Saddam (the other Hussein) also brought dreadful, vile change.
Mr. Obama, change is exactly what I’m afraid of.
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432661,00.html
[2] A Proclamation For a Day of Public Thanksgiving, 1791
[3] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21300
[4]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/47_favor_government_mandated_political_balance_on_radio_tv
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
R E A S O N A N D W O R S H I P . . . L E T U S
Think Links
About Me
- Joel
- Queens
- "I am not insane...What I am saying is true and reasonable."
6 comments:
Joel - I wasn't going to participate in your blog because quite frankly - it's just too one sided for me. I would like to have a debate - but not along the lines with which you seem to direct your blog. Since I do have a choice, I will pass. but I did want to respectfully comment on a few things.
You said: "So instead of trying to shut up Rush and Sean, why not just produce your own anti-conservative shows?"
Not all of us "liberals" are interested in listening to someone complain about the other guy all day. That's not really helpful. I think what some of us would like to see is not having an "anti-" anything radio show. Now it is a free country and people have the right to say what they feel. OK - that's fine. But just understand there are plenty of anti-conservative shows and I personally do not listen to them because I can see it is counter productive. We can complain about each other from now until Jesus comes, but we all still have to live here so what good is that going to do? No one wants to be insulted - everyone is trying to ensure they are being respected. You should know this first hand.
You also said: “Fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely Obama voters believe the government should make all radio and TV stations offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal commentary.”[4] Obama-ites certainly support the measure, Democratic leaders support it overwhelmingly, including speaker of the House Pelosi, and an Obama presidency will likely give us a Liberal Supreme Court. So where would the checks and balances come from? "
1 - I must be in the other 42%, 2 - The emotion you expressed in this comment is exactly how some of us have felt over the last 8 years. It's how democrats feel about tax policy, how those in the pro-choice movement feel about the pro-life movement, how gays feel about the whole gay marriage debate, I could go on forever. This shows me that you can relate to the feeling of your views not being represented by our government. This shows me that you understand deeply how you do not want what you perceive to be your right as an American citizen and a Christian to be lost by what you believe to be a system that is lost.
What I would like to impress upon you, again, is that you and I feel the exact same way - but our beliefs are on opposite sides. The way I see it Joel is - it is not me against you. I will even go so far as to say that I would hope you do not believe it is you against me simply because you are pro-life and I am pro-choice. I know you were referring to freedom of speech in your post - but it extends beyond that. It is bigger than that. No matter what happens in the next couple weeks, no matter who wins, either a democrat will win and we could have a democratic majority, or a republican will win and we could have a republican majority in the supreme court. But I am not, in any way, implying that if the conservatives win, that this country will be ruined. I believe that your goal to have a better America will sustain this country even though I may not agree with you on how we get there. It troubles me greatly not to have the same respect coming from posts such as this one. No - not all conservatives comment this way - I know this. yes, you have a right to say what you want. But understand that what you are putting into the universe is hurtful. If McCain had the same reaction from the public as Obama has, I ask would you be so turned off by it? Much of what I read on your blog truly saddens me, because it makes me feel that the beginning assumption is that there is something wrong with people like myself who do not believe as you do. I wish we could do better.
TheOne, good comments. Truly thoughtful.
You said: “Not all of us "liberals" are interested in listening to someone complain about the other guy all day. That's not really helpful.”
Me: My point simply is that people who for years have cried and screamed about censorship in music, movies, etc., are now the same ones who want to shut down talk radio. You, for example, don’t like it, so you don’t listen to it. Great. I don’t like Opus and Andy, so I don’t listen to them. This is all cool and protected under free speech. Only, please, do not (not you) attempt to take conservative pundits or Christian speakers off the radio because you disagree with them, or mainly, because they criticize you. You know what I mean? Should Obama become our President, and should God forbid the Fairness Doctrine gets placed on the table, I would expect to hear you actively voice your discontent. These guys do not “complain” all day long, by the way. James Dobson has offered crucial counseling for marriages and child rearing and grief counseling, etc.. This is not negative. Rush and company actually give information that we will never, ever get via the general liberal media. There is truth here. Everybody should wanna know the truth. But know this TheOne, the ultimate idea here is to eventually stop Christians from speaking out against homosexuality as described in the Bible. Trust me, this is where it is heading. Eventually, those who publically pronounce the homosexuality is a sin, according to Scripture, will be shut down, arrested, fined, etc..
You said: “The emotion you expressed in this comment is exactly how some of us have felt over the last 8 years. It's how democrats feel about tax policy, how those in the pro-choice movement feel about the pro-life movement, how gays feel about the whole gay marriage debate.”
Me: This is not the same thing, TheOne. My emotion is about all of us losing our freedom. Over the last 8 years? What have you lost? Does it count that we have not been “bombed” again? The economic mess is NOT because of Bush. Please do not insinuate that. That is just a Democrat talking point. Look, I really don’t want to get into paragraphs of that. If you want to say your life has sucked for 8 years because of Bush, fine. BUT, If you never comment on this blog again, I want you to answer this one question and this one question alone—and be straight. No spin. No blah blah blah. What happened to the CHOICE of the baby in the wound that is being killed? I get the “choice” thing. I get the women’s right to choose thing—not that you or I will ever have to consider an abortion. But what about the baby—who could pretty much be terminated at any time during a pregnancy—of whom we’ve all seen videos of them screaming as they get aborted? What about that innocent baby, TheOne? Who is going to protect that baby? Do I have to accept that it’s a mother’s choice to murder? Could I just choose to kill mentally challenged people who can’t defend themselves, if I want? Should Lincoln had let slave owners keep and kill their “property?” Just tell me for now, who will save the baby in the womb?
Joel - I think for the first time you and I are finally having a fair conversation. Thank you.
On your censorship argument. I completely agree with you. As much as I find many (though definitely not all) of the comments made to be offensive, I think they have a right to say it. Period. IF it were to ever happen that anyone Obama or McCain were to challenge this, I would be PISSED. But the difference is, I do not think that would ever happen. Now you and I can agree to disagree on that, but there really isn't any reason to believe that Obama would try to change America in that way. What is so different about him that would lead you to believe that what he says are his positions on this is a lie and that he secretly wants to change America. I don't understand where that is coming from and if the man says he is against it - then he is against it. I give him the same benefit of the doubt that I give McCain. If he is accused of something and he says publicly he is not - then fine. To me, that is a fair and reasonable approach to viewing the candidates.
Another example. Powell. Powell said why he is supporting Obama. Why is it because he is a black man, he must be supporting Obama because he is also a black man? Don't you think African Americans have the ability to make decisions based upon principle? I do. Additionally, his assessment of McCain and Obama are shared among MANY Obama supporters. These are the things we like about him. You have your reasons for liking McCain - but we aren't challenging you on them saying you must be voting for him because he is white. You made an intellectual decision and that is your choice. Does Powell, who was respected before, not deserve that same credit now since he has chosen Obama? Again with the 'there must be something fundamentally wrong with this person' approach. You are free to think and say what you want, but understand what it is. Sorry, but it is insulting. Similar to the way some on the left refer to "Christian bible thumping idiots and all this abortion and gay talk". That is not appropriate coming from my side of the fence either. These are important issue to you - even though we do not share them - you should still be respected for having spent time thinking and considering what is important to you. Not just following some religious link blindly like mindless sheep. You deserve better - but so do we.
The only thing I will say about your emotion over losing your freedom is that we all see these things as a loss of something we believe to be a right as citizens. It may take shape in different ways, but if we are to respect what is important to you we want the same respect.
Is the financial crisis all Bush's fault? No. No one said it was. But he certainly was the icing on the cake, he has run up our deficit, and he is responsible for this country. Let me ask you this. Obama is being criticized for things he hasn't even done (the above paragraph for example). If we were in the second term of a President Obama going through this mess, are you telling me you would be defending him saying it was not his fault? Trust me. if we do have a President Obama and he is not performing - he has got to go. Period. I am sick of the half-a$$ed government we have. They ALL need to do better. Which - BTW is why I am not a registered Democrat or Republican.
And finally to the most difficult question on your comment: Who is going to protect that baby? I can not answer that question. I think we both know there is no easy way to deal with a situation like this. People are going to be hurt. Women are going to make mistakes and they are going to have abortions - there will be a fetus what will not be carried to term. I understand the difficulty of this. But who is going to take care of these children? Do they have a right to live, absolutely. Does a woman have a right to decide if she wants to be a mother, absolutely. Should she have made that decision before she got pregnant, absolutely. In my mind, that is where all of our focus needs to be.
Do I agree with the concept of an abortion - no I do not. but I think that women should have the right to make that decision because that child is her responsibility, not mine not yours. It is her body, it is her life, that child is not born yet so it is still her choice. On this we will have to disagree. If we as a society decide to ban all murder, then yes - abortion should go as well. But if you support the death penalty, then you are still supporting "murder". If you support ANY war, you are still supporting "murder". Do you understand where I am going with this? They do not all have the same starting point, and they all are for different reasons, but one way or another, we as a society make the decision to take another person's life for reasons that make us feel better. "They are our enemy, they killed another person". These make us feel good so we say, that person we believe killed someone deserves to die - therefore his death is not really murder, it is punishment. Iraqi insurgents are terrorists, they should be killed. The innocent Iraqi citizens are "causalities of war". That is murder too. If we can justify these acts in the name of our government, then a woman has the right to decide if she will continue her pregnancy. Maybe that means the baby has no rights until it is born, that's the way it appears to me, if that is the case then just add that to the long list of tough decisions we make for our own self improvement.
I wish I could give you a better explanation - but for me - there is none. My grandmother, she's 88 now, has told me stories of her being married to her first husband, had 4 children already that she cared for mostly by herself, and found herself pregnant again. Her husband beat her, cheated on her, manipulated her, she eventually wanted out and here she was pregnant again. She had an abortion. At the time it was illegal. I will spare you the details of what she went through, but this was common practice. She knew women who died from these procedures. It is for their protection that the procedure should remain legal. Is it fair to the unborn child, probably not. But what about the mother? Women have to deal with things that men never even consider. Sometimes it is not all about 'doing the right thing', living a certain way, making the right choices all the time. Everyone makes mistakes, people end up in situations that they do not know how to get out of. if the child has the right to be born according to the law, then the child will also have the right to become property of the state and be fed, clothed sheltered and educated by the state. Is that what you want? Is it fair to be born into a life where you are not wanted and no one will take responsibility for you? Is it fair to be forced to continue a pregnancy even if your own life is in danger because of it? There are difficult questions on all sides of this argument my friend. There are no easy answers. But if I am forced to choose between the two, I say the life that already exists takes precedence over the life that has yet to be born. Sucks - but that is the way it is.
I certainly will say this about TheOne, he continues to be engaged in conversation even when he is frustrated. This is to be commended as some are actually afraid to even read my blog because they are literally afraid of being challenged. If they do, kinda on the "down low," they refuse to comment and be exposed. Peoples, we need to be challenged and purged and confronted and offended, etc, or we will never grow. We will never uncover truth.
TheOne, I am glad you agree on the censorship issue. I would imagine that most Americans do, the thing is, that the way it usually works in Governments throughout history, is that little by little they give away their freedoms without even realizing it, and before you know it, they are hooked. You can't imagine that Obama would do this, but we will likely have a Democratic Congress, and soon, possibly a Liberal Supreme Court. Democrats--including House Speaker Pelosi--want the Fairness Doctrine and they could have the Justices to make it happen. Obama would simply have to raise his hands and say, "Oops! Hey...it's out of my hands...there's nothing I could do."
I did not say that Powell is supporting Obama because he is black. I said, "Some feel it’s because Obama is black." I'm saying is that he gave dishonest reasons and nothing more than the status quo. If you read them carefully, you will have to admit it's the same old' politicking. It could simply be that he has “issues” with White House leadership. But let’s not kidd each other. There are a lot of people who are not voting for Obama simply because he is black, and there are many will vote for him only because he is black. You know what? Some people I know admit that. And you know what? If that's why you are voting for him -- I'm glad you're admitting it. I understand that it could be a big deal for people. While I disagree, I think it's legitimate. Only admit it. Don't give me the crap that Powell presented.
You Said, “Is the financial crisis all Bush's fault? No. No one said it was.” Actually, Obama said it was and so did Biden and so do many other Democrats and surrogates. That’s just wrong.
You said. “I am sick of the half-a$$ed government we have.” That’s the point. That’s why we need LESS government. And that’s why Obama is a poor choice. Because every experiment of Socialism has failed in history, and that is the direction Obama will lead us in. Once again, forget McCain, just do honest, open-minded research ,and I think you will reach this same conclusion. TheOne, you and I live in this same country, and your right: we probably want a lot of the same things, we just disagree on how we could get there. One thing I cannot make you do, is understand my Christian biblical beliefs, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them…” 2 Cor. 2:14 (no offense). Likewise, I cannot completely adhere to your worldview. I’ll tell you what though; me and other nutty Christians who read this blog are going to be praying for you. God loves you profoundly.
You said, “Who is going to protect that baby? I can not answer that question.” Thanks for your honesty.
Joel,
I guess you and I will never agree on much of these points. Actually I am OK with this, I only ask that we disagree respectfully. You won't catch me attempting to debunk McCain on my blog, but you will find me spreading information about Obama and his policies.
If you want to believe he is a Socialist. Ok. Have it your way - we all see our own truths. That is your truth and I have learned to accept it. If you could learn to accept in the same way that our opinions of McCain/Palin are not 'crap' then we are good to go - we will see who wins in a few days. Good luck to ya.
On the 'I may be voting for Obama because he is black' comment - why would I do that? What does having just a black man in the white house get me? Trust me... I am sure you are not a fan of Bill Maher - but I am not voting 'BBQ' ... I am voting policy. he just happens to be Black - which don't bother me either way.
Finally, thanks for your prayers. But I have been a Christian all my life. I am not a Christian who throws out scripture all day, I feel I am lead to live, help and vote for those who are in need. I think Obama would best serve that purpose. McCain will just leave too many people without support. I will let God take care of those who have had abortions and those who are homosexuals. I am not concerned with that - I am concerned with what I can positively affect today. Even if it is something as simple as pointing out that some of you need to calm down.
Anyway - good luck to you on election day. I will come back and congratulate you if McCain wins.
TheOne,
I do not believe that Obama is a pure socialist, but his policies are definitely socialistic. No modern day socialist, fascist, communist who wants to preside over the US would be stupid enough to admit that. However, analyzing his words, ideas, associations, policies, etc., it is clear that he is likely to go in that direction.
That is not "my" truth. Truth is truth. It is not objective.
No need to congratulate me if McCain wins. I am not an amazing McCain fan, as I have stated in the past. I am just very concerned about an Obama presidency. I believe he is sincere, and thinks America will be better off with his paradigm of government, which lends towards Marxism. That saddens me a great deal.
I did not mean YOU are black or voting for Obama because he is black. I meant the, "YOU" as a general example.
As far as you being a Christian, that is great. Now, I will say this with as much respect and humility as I could, but I do not understand how a Christian, which means they are Bible believers (that’s where the term and central figure derive from), could support a man who will support legislation to kill innocent lives. I just really don’t get it, TheOne. This is remarkably unbiblical…period. You may not “throw out scripture all day,” but you should really consider some real important ones. If you want to fulfill your life’s mission of helping those in need, you may want to help those who are being extinguished, cut up, sucked up, etc., in the womb. Sorry for this, but David said, “From my mother's womb you have been my God.” And he said, “you knit me together in my mother's womb.” He told Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” Jeremiah also spoke of men who “did not kill me in the womb.” GOD CONDEMNED A WHOLE NATION BECAUSE THEY “ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead.”
I prayed for you today and will continue to do so. I hope you pray for me too. May God give us all understanding. But don’t congratulate me if McCain wins. This whole thing is not about a competition or contest. May god continue to shed his grace on our great nation.
Post a Comment