![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
olde_fashionedI feel compelled, by recent replies to my other posts of a political nature, to warn anyone of Democratic, liberal, or otherwise left-leaning politics that I'm posting this because at the moment I feel like expressing myself on my own blog, (even though I'm sure some comments will make me regret it later), not to offend anyone intentionally but to voice my own feelings on a subject which is surely foremost in the majority of minds in this country, if not the world. So this is a warning that few populi will like what I'm about to say, so don't both clicking the cut line if you're not able to read opposing viewpoints and comment like a sensible adult. Everyone is welcome to comment, only refrain from giving me the broadside, please.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What does that even mean any more? It means "a woman's right to choose, tolerance of all things immoral, and the separation of church and state." Perhaps we should just strike out the "life" part and replace it with "choice," remove the "liberty," trade it for "tolerance," eliminate the "happiness," swapping it for "all about me" and have done with it.
What happened to a human being's "inalienable rights"? It seems they go out the window when that being becomes an unwanted burden, or a "threat" to a woman's life. We can have liberty, and freedom of speech, so long as we don't exercise that freedom proclaiming our beliefs if they happen to be in opposition to what is politically correct. We can't have any Christianity in our government, but the government wants to tell us what we can and can't preach in those religions. The likes of Rosie O'Donnell can talk about how horrible Christians are, and Evolutionists can curse those who believe in Creation, but heaven forbid a Christian should speak out against homosexuality or the idea that we evolved from apes.
What is wrong with this picture?
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Oh, how much can change in two hundred years. In 2009, the object of our government (and a saddeningly large portion of American citizens) seems to be to deny helpless human beings their right to life and happiness, by destroying them under the blessing of the very lawmakers that are supposed to protect them.
This is the same Thomas Jefferson, by the way, that ended his oft-quoted "separation of church and state" letter with, I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man." So very interesting, isn't it? That the man whose words have been used for decades as an excuse to rid this country of it's godly foundations was also a fervent Christian himself.
I often wonder, how different would our Founding Fathers have designed our Declaration of Independence, how differently would they have worded our Constitution, and how much would they lament the turn this country has taken, if they could see us now?
I am very glad, that they cannot see us now, for I think we would break their hearts.
I think it would break their hearts, as it breaks mine, that we are on the verge of electing the most liberal senator who has a record worse than the likes of Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy (!!) into the highest office in the land. That we might very well have a Muslim as our next president, who is not even man enough or faithful enough to admit that he was born and raised in that religion, who is ashamed of America, has promised to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act which will once again make partial-birth abortions legal, who wants to deny babies who have already been born basic human rights, and who wants to have tea parties with our international enemies who would probably take very great pleasure out of nuking us off the face of the planet.
I wish the liberals that had vowed to flee the country when Bush was elected had left, then perhaps we would not have to worry about the fate of our country.
I hope God saves this country from herself.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What does that even mean any more? It means "a woman's right to choose, tolerance of all things immoral, and the separation of church and state." Perhaps we should just strike out the "life" part and replace it with "choice," remove the "liberty," trade it for "tolerance," eliminate the "happiness," swapping it for "all about me" and have done with it.
What happened to a human being's "inalienable rights"? It seems they go out the window when that being becomes an unwanted burden, or a "threat" to a woman's life. We can have liberty, and freedom of speech, so long as we don't exercise that freedom proclaiming our beliefs if they happen to be in opposition to what is politically correct. We can't have any Christianity in our government, but the government wants to tell us what we can and can't preach in those religions. The likes of Rosie O'Donnell can talk about how horrible Christians are, and Evolutionists can curse those who believe in Creation, but heaven forbid a Christian should speak out against homosexuality or the idea that we evolved from apes.
What is wrong with this picture?
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Oh, how much can change in two hundred years. In 2009, the object of our government (and a saddeningly large portion of American citizens) seems to be to deny helpless human beings their right to life and happiness, by destroying them under the blessing of the very lawmakers that are supposed to protect them.
This is the same Thomas Jefferson, by the way, that ended his oft-quoted "separation of church and state" letter with, I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man." So very interesting, isn't it? That the man whose words have been used for decades as an excuse to rid this country of it's godly foundations was also a fervent Christian himself.
I often wonder, how different would our Founding Fathers have designed our Declaration of Independence, how differently would they have worded our Constitution, and how much would they lament the turn this country has taken, if they could see us now?
I am very glad, that they cannot see us now, for I think we would break their hearts.
I think it would break their hearts, as it breaks mine, that we are on the verge of electing the most liberal senator who has a record worse than the likes of Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy (!!) into the highest office in the land. That we might very well have a Muslim as our next president, who is not even man enough or faithful enough to admit that he was born and raised in that religion, who is ashamed of America, has promised to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act which will once again make partial-birth abortions legal, who wants to deny babies who have already been born basic human rights, and who wants to have tea parties with our international enemies who would probably take very great pleasure out of nuking us off the face of the planet.
I wish the liberals that had vowed to flee the country when Bush was elected had left, then perhaps we would not have to worry about the fate of our country.
I hope God saves this country from herself.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 09:54 pm (UTC)When people like President Bush claim that God is the reason they have been appointed president or that they rely on God to inform policy decisions, I become very concerned. And Sarah Palin...I just don't know who made that decision. I was really surprised when she was announced as the VP nominee, I was fully expecting them to go with Romney.
Essentially, yes. The fact that they are already established in the world which makes them more valuable than the unborn child in my opinion. As for Terri Schiavo...the difficulty with that is the fact that no one really knew what she wanted and in cases of PVS, I think everyone should be very clear on what it is they wish. For me, I would want my life terminated if my brain was damaged beyond recovery and my friends and family know this.
I'd like to see such a study as well, though I think it would be difficult to carry out since there's still such a stigma that I'll bet a lot of women wouldn't want to come forward or relive the experience. I think that adoption should always be the first choice, absolutely. There are so many people who would love to have a child, I wish that adoption was discussed more. We did in my high school since I went to Catholic school, but even then, our sex ed teachers did say that abortion was an option (albeit, not one condoned by the Church).
Only if we had definitive proof would I think that a pre-emptive strike could be justified and even then, I wouldn't be happy about it. And for me, the situation with Iraq is an example of being trigger-happy. The reasons given for attacking Iraq (WMDs, revenge for 9/11), were proved to be without basis and yet we did, under the guise of pre-emptive warfare. We know that many countries don't like us, but in the case of Iran, we have no proof that they are planning an attack and McCain has been mentioning the danger of Russia with more and more frequency lately...all this makes me very nervous.
Especially Russia since we know what happens when people attack Russia...::coughNapoleonandHitlercough:: ;-)
That may be, but I think it may become necessary under McCain. And I don't really think that Congress would pass a bill that would extend the draft to women, they're too traditional and women can't fight on the front lines, that's what they need right now.
Ha, I know, right? A distance of two centuries or so :-D And my prof's a specialist in medieval studies, so I don't necessarily blame her for thinking that all the trouble went down in 1789, she got a pass from me on that one ;-)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-05 03:20 am (UTC)Okay, I have two things to say about this. Firstly, how can one remain faithful to their religion by keeping it out of politics, if that religion has provisions on how to choose elected officials? Second, how much of a religion should a person keep out? The Bible teaches that it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, and murder. Wouldn't a person who was honest, truthful, and trustworthy make a good candidate?
When people like President Bush claim that God is the reason they have been appointed president or that they rely on God to inform policy decisions, I become very concerned.
So do I. However if God is in control of everything, (which I believe He is) then it could technically be argued that He at least allowed Bush to take office. I certainly don't think a person should begin to think that they are God's anointed one, though, that's for sure!!! That's a big red flag IMO, lol. ;-P
The fact that they are already established in the world which makes them more valuable than the unborn child in my opinion.
Okay, so what about a homeless man? What if he has no job, no money, no friends, no family, and makes no "contributions to society" whatsoever. Is he any less valuable than Bill Gates, or Hillary Clinton, or you, or me?
As for Terri Schiavo...the difficulty with that is the fact that no one really knew what she wanted and in cases of PVS, I think everyone should be very clear on what it is they wish. For me, I would want my life terminated if my brain was damaged beyond recovery and my friends and family know this.
Well I believe that God and God alone should decide who is fit to live and who has to die, excepting cases of killing the enemy in war and the death penalty. And many people have made miraculous recoveries from injuries that all the doctors have declared permanently disabling. Many people believed that Terri could have recovered, and she wouldn't have been the first "vegetable" to recover from her state.
Especially Russia since we know what happens when people attack Russia...::coughNapoleonandHitlercough:: ;-)
LOL!!! ;-P Okay, you've got a good point there, but honestly warfare has changed an enormous amount since Napoleon and even Hitler's time, where things would be dramatically different were we to indeed go to war with Russia. I think the question with them needs to be who else are they going to invade next? People looked the other way and hoped Hitler would be appeased with his "tiny countries" and conquests before WWII, too.
That may be, but I think it may become necessary under McCain.
Well unless you believe that McCain's attitude will be exactly like Bush's, I don't see why you would think that. And actually the draft hasn't been necessary, even under Bush, so either way it probably wouldn't become a reality under McCain. :-)
Ha, I know, right? A distance of two centuries or so :-D And my prof's a specialist in medieval studies, so I don't necessarily blame her for thinking that all the trouble went down in 1789, she got a pass from me on that one ;-)
LOL, well, I suppose when one has their nose buried in medieval manuscripts that we can forgive them for not being up on Robespierre & Co., but only so long as she can recite Beowulf from memory. ;-P