Archive for the ‘Family’ category

Barack Obama— A Victory for All Americans? What?

July 29, 2007

Barack Obama— A Victory for All Americans? What?
Maybe the Senator meant to say, it was a victory for all illegal aliens. Unfortunately, those are the words of just another “Washington wanna-be”, a “WWB”, who is a hypocrite.

(Hypocrisy is the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion, being hypocritical is with a false appearance of what is good; a hypocrite is an actor or pretender of virtue and fairness.)

The WorldNetDaily.com reports that, “[T]he presidential hopeful praised the recent court decision overturning one city’s attempt to protect itself from hostile foreigners filling their streets with drugs, crime and gangs as “a victory for all Americans.”” www.worldnetdaily.com/news/

In his own divisive comment, Senator Obama suggests that this is a victory for all Americans! He wants to be the President of the United States, but does not allow local communities to act in their best interest and thus the best “interests of our national and economic security”.

Now, in his own divisive, exploitive and hypocritical quote from barackobama.com: “Barack Obama believes the immigration issue has been exploited by politicians to divide the nation rather than find real solutions. This divisiveness has allowed the illegal immigration problem to worsen, with borders that are less secure than ever and an economy that depends on millions of workers living in the shadows. Obama believes we must rise above divisive politics and act in the interests of our national and economic security. Obama has played a leading role in crafting comprehensive immigration reform and believes that our broken immigration system can only be fixed by putting politics aside and offering a solution that strengthens our security while reaffirming our heritage as a nation of immigrants.” www.barackobama.com/issues/

“Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status.” “Sanctuary laws are a testament to the political power of immigrant lobbies.” www.cis.org/articles/

That report was as of 2004, how much worst are things now? How many more lives have been lost because of politically correct self-serving politicians like Senator Obama (a so called Christian)?

What about this Senator Obama? “MS-13 is attempting to become a unified criminal enterprise operating under one leadership.” “The Washington Times has obtained a copy of the letter and an Army intelligence presentation on the growth of MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha.” http://washingtontimes.com/

Or, Senator Obama, what about this then? “Using the GAO report, Representative Steve King of Iowa points out that 25 Americans, on average, are killed by illegal aliens every day (about evenly split between motor vehicle accidents and outright murder).”
“Do the math: That works out to more than 9,000 deaths per year, or more than 36,000 deaths over the past four years. That’s more than ten times the number of Americans killed in Iraq over the past four years!” “Oddly, I’ve seen people in my hometown protesting against the war in Iraq, but I’ve never seen anyone protesting against the illegal alien invasion that is killing tens of thousands of Americans right here on our own soil.” www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/

Or, Senator Obama, you may need an education, so try this. “The Statue of Liberty is a monument dedicated to freedom and liberty. She never meant that foreigners have the right to violate America’s immigration laws.” “Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited house guest.” www.illegalaliens.us/

And Senator Obama wants to be the Chief Law enforcement executive for the United States of America? Sorry Senator Obama, other socialists Democrats, and weak compromising Republicans we already have a “chief non law enforcement executive” occupying the White House—we do not need another.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” (Matthew 23:27)

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton: Statement of Pure Evil—“A Woman’s Right to Choose…”

April 18, 2007

Hillary Clinton: Statement of Pure Evil—“A Woman’s Right to Choose…”

4/18/2007-Hillary Clinton: From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court’s Gonzales v. Carhart Decision; Washington, DC — “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.” http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1451

A Statement of Pure Evil—A Woman’s Right to Choose (to Kill their Baby)—addition added by this writer.

This is pure evil; how can a mother say that the rights and lives of women must be taken into account over the partial-birth abortion of a baby? What about the rights of fathers? Partial-birth abortion is one of the most evil and barbaric voluntary acts committed by humans.

[See excerpts quoted below from the Supreme Court Decision-and you be the judge]

Erosion of what constitutional rights?—you do not have a constitutional right to kill your baby? Maybe Hillary Clinton can show us where in the U.S Constitution it gives women the right to kill their baby.

Just because, in the past, there was an evil decision made by fallible Supreme Court Judges (mere men and women) does not mean that the U.S Constitution gives women the right to kill their baby.

Hillary Clinton, and any other human being, must have a “conscience seared with a hot iron” to really believe that killing a baby by choice is a constitutional right. This is merely “lies in hypocrisy” by a liberal politician seeking power.

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;” “Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;” (1Timothy 4:1-2)

Now, you be the judge!

The following statements are quotes from the Supreme Court Decision: Gonzales v. Carhart; No. 05-380 April 18, 2007

Decision Excerpts: Abortion Methods

“Abortion methods vary depending to some extent on the preferences of the physician and, of course, on the term of the pregnancy and the resulting stage of the unborn child’s development. Between 85 and 90 percent of the approximately 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States take place in the first three months of pregnancy, which is to say in the first trimester.”

“The most common first-trimester abortion method is vacuum aspiration (otherwise known as suction curettage) in which the physician vacuums out the embryonic tissue. Early in this trimester an alternative is to use medication, such as mifepristone (commonly known as RU-486), to terminate the pregnancy.”

“Of the remaining abortions that take place each year, most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E” is the usual abortion method in this trimester.”

“A doctor must first dilate the cervix at least to the extent needed to insert surgical instruments into the uterus and to maneuver them to evacuate the fetus.”

“The resulting amount of dilation is not uniform, and a doctor does not know in advance how an individual patient will respond. In general the longer dilators remain in the cervix, the more it will dilate. Yet the length of time doctors employ osmotic dilators varies. Some may keep dilators in the cervix for two days, while others use dilators for a day or less.”

“After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed.”

“Some doctors, especially later in the second trimester, may kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation. They inject digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus, the umbilical cord, or the amniotic fluid. Fetal demise may cause contractions and make greater dilation possible. Once dead, moreover, the fetus’ body will soften, and its removal will be easier. Other doctors refrain from injecting chemical agents, believing it adds risk with little or no medical benefit.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/

You be the judge!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More HYPOCRISY—Christian Censorship from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

March 11, 2007

More HYPOCRISY—
Christian Censorship from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

When will the True Church—the real [Christian] People of GOD stand fast together and hold to the traditions and world view points taught by the Word of GOD?

According to a March 8, 2007 article by WorldNetDaily.com; “A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that municipal employers have the right to censor the words “natural family,” “marriage” and “family values” because that is hate speech and could scare workers.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article

In 2005, a hypocrite* U.S. District Judge ruled that two Oakland, California hypocrites could legally stop Christians from promoting biblical family values in the workplace.

The article goes on to state that, “That decision was made even though homosexuals already had been using the city’s e-mail, bulletin board, and written communications systems for promoting their views. In fact, one city official even used the e-mail system to declare the Bible “needs updating,” but no actions were taken against those individuals.”

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:5

It appears that liberal judges, liberals in general and homosexual gays preach tolerance, except that they do not practice what they preach. It sounds like a case of “Christian-phobia”, deliberate harassment and discrimination based upon religion.

The First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America states that, “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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Conversely, this amendment dictates that judges unquestionably shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, since judges are not the Congress! That judicial power is one of neutrally deciding a legal matter by interpreting the law(s) and applying the facts of evidence to the applicable law(s) affecting the case.

The real implication of this particular matter is that the homosexual gay world view takes precedence over the Christian world view. The religious world views of liberals and homosexual gays are prejudicially and unconstitutionally placed above the Christian world view. Too many Judges, the U.S. Congress, State Legislators and local community (so called) leaders have increasingly forced onto the silent majority, a world view that will eventually destroy America.

America is focused on and concerned with terrorism (and we definitely should be), however, a principal concern also needs to be focused on the terrorism against the freedom of religion –the socialist/humanistic world view and agenda of the stealth marxists and extreme environmentalists in this nation.

Having said that, the real question is where is the True Church—the real [Christian] People of GOD, as a whole? Where are the “Mega Churches” and “Mega Preachers” in America when it comes time to stand together on the hypocrisy of today? Are they too, hypocrites?

“Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?” Luke12:56

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” Matthew 23:27

“Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.” Luke 6:42

Today, the real question is when will the True Church—the real [Christian] People of GOD—stand fast together to help those like the Pro-Family Law Center and Abiding Truth Ministries?

“Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” 2Thessalonians 2:14-15

When will the True Church—the real [Christian] People of GOD stand fast together and hold to the traditions and world view points taught by the Word of GOD.

“For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord.” 1Thessalonians:3:8

*Hypocrisy/Hypocrite; the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion, an actor or pretender of virtue and fairness.

Special Note:
For the record, this writer loves the gay individual as people and friends in this society, however, does not condone or agree with certain aspects of the lifestyle and certain behaviors associated with the lifestyle; but without hesitation respect their freedom to choose the lifestyle. Be it known that this writer, also, has certain areas of concern with Christians, non Christian, as well as other non-gay individuals, as alluded to in this article.

Copyright © 2007 WorldViewPoints

A Criminal for Spanking?—Assemblywoman Sally Lieber; It is still HYPOCRISY

February 23, 2007

A Criminal for Spanking?
—Assemblywoman Sally Lieber; It is still HYPOCRISY

Parents charged as criminal felons, if Sally Lieber has it her way. Aren’t there laws against child abuse already?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/

Maybe Lieber, a Democrat from Mountain View, California, should support stricter enforcement of current child abuse and strengthening child sexual abuse laws.

However, the long range solution to this current “California Spanking Issue” is for Mountain View area voters to send a message to Lieber at the next opportunity.

See also below: “The California No Spanking/Abortion Hypocrisy”
https://worldviewpoints.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/

A Special Biblical Note:
“The Bible gives the job of raising children to the parents, and most specifically, to the father. The father is responsible for properly raising his children, and for making sure they are disciplined – to make sure they honor him and their mother.

The Bible lays out the duties and responsibilities of the parents and the children, describing the honor that children should have for their parents (Ex 20:12; Deut 6:7; Eph 6:1; Col 3:20). The responsibilities of the parents to train up their children are clearly prescribed, including corporal punishment (Prov 22:6, 22:15; 23:13). Proverbs 29:15 says “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.” Furthermore, the failure of parental authority will be one of the characteristics of the end times (Mt 10:21; Mk 13:12; Rom 1:30).”
http://www.khouse.org/enews/2007-01-23/

The California No Spanking/Abortion Hypocrisy

January 22, 2007

The California No Spanking/Abortion Hypocrisy

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, recently announced that she is drafting a bill to outlaw the spanking of children up to 3 years old. Reportedly according to the Mercury News, “[f]or the record, she does not have children and says she was not slapped as a child.” Now if we applied the Senator Barbara Boxer’s “Rice Standard”, Assemblywoman Lieber is not qualified to draft a bill which deals with children.

But what is so outrageous, is that this is, at least, contradictory and at worst overt and blatant hypocrisy. According to the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California’s (PPAC’s) 2006 Legislative score card, Assemblywoman Sally Lieber is “100% pro-choice”*. The main emphasis of the advocates of Roe v. Wade is “pro-choice” or more accurately, pro-abortion, let’s be frank.

It is blatant hypocrisy, that the very same so-called “pro-choice” liberal mindset ignores the premeditated murdering of babies, but will dictate no choice to parents when it comes to spanking.

What about a woman’s right to choose? What about a parent’s right to choose? Women have the right to murder a baby, but no right to spank the same child they could have murdered in the womb; how absurd is this.

It is overt and blatant hypocrisy that the very same liberal mindset ignores their own logic, only to pursue their morally destructive policies, for “we the people”.

By the way, we are not talking about beating—no hypocritical clouding of the real issue.

And just for the record, in general, this writer is not advocating the spanking of children under three. The issue of spanking may be discussed in more detail at a later time.

*Reference: http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139441