User Profile: TeresaJ


Member Since: June 27, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [17] July 29, 2015 at 1:23pm

    Seems to me the University of New Hampshire needs a healthy dose of American mothering.

  • [22] July 28, 2015 at 9:24am

    He’s saying this for one reason, and one reason only. To plant the seed of the idea of him having a third term, or at least being in office longer.

    There is nothing that arrogant liar would not try.

  • [5] July 27, 2015 at 8:13pm

    The unborn can’t pay the media, or Clinton. If there ever were a class of people who really couldn’t protect themselves, it’s the unborn.

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] July 26, 2015 at 6:52pm

    Governor Huckabee… one answer. “No.”

  • [4] July 22, 2015 at 7:08pm

    Harry, I think it is funny that you defend science while at the same time comparing race and homosexuality like it is the same thing. Science is the last thing leftist arguments have on their side.

    Nothing in the fluff the far left presents as an argument holds up. That’s why they must ignore the law and change the meanings of whole words to accomplish their goal.

    Except now half of America couldn’t care less what the corrupt officials say. Fewer and fewer people respect the authority you counted on to force people to accept you. Between the corrupt and lawless on one side, and the civil disobedience that will continue to gain momentum on the other (not simply on this issue, like the flag flying at half-staff by half the country days before Obama would issue the order for example), just what do you think has been accomplished?

    Have fun the next several months, or longer, in the country you helped bring down. If we aren’t in Civil War, I at least expect continued attacks on American soil, followed by war, probably world war, in which we are in no position as a nation to defend.

    Good day.

  • [16] July 22, 2015 at 11:56am

    When I was in school, I remember a story about a group of scholars in Roman times or so era who were arguing on how to tell the amount of teeth in a horse’s mouth. A colleague was thrown out for daring to suggest they could tell by actually counting them. At the time I wondered how any supposed group of learned men could be so stupid.

    Today, the question is how to tell if someone is a man or a woman. The answer seems to befuddle supposedly learned men of their field. Centuries later, there is nothing new under the sun (even that is a Biblical quote). Nothing new indeed.

  • [36] July 21, 2015 at 12:40pm

    Ms. Loesch, I appreciate that you are attempting to understand the other side of the story concerning the confederate flag, but I fail to understand why you would look for that explanation at a KKK rally.

    If you really want to know, go to a Heritage not Hate rally, or better yet, talk to the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy. Seems like that would make more sense.

    Responses (1) +
  • [32] July 20, 2015 at 12:35pm

    If “difficulty balancing a checkbook” is grounds for superseding 2nd amendment rights, start with welfare recipients. It stands to reason, however, that if someone is too “incompetent” to own a gun, they are also too “incompetent” to vote.

    Responses (2) +
  • [15] July 16, 2015 at 10:31pm

    The “tone” has nothing to do with it. You sell body parts from murdered babies. Not “tissue,” …hearts, livers, heads.

    I bet you would never “let it” be shut down. You’d lose your blood money. You “care” about the “poor women,” I care about the defenseless babies who can do nothing, NOTHING to protect themselves. Those women had a choice, BEFORE getting pregnant.

  • [19] July 16, 2015 at 9:35am

    “it’s time to stop pleading “how could you?” and start demanding “how dare you?”

    With all due respect, I feel this is the best part of this piece. I have been involved in Pro-life activities for many years, and rarely do I recall Margaret Sander even being mentioned. That is a point that has come up fairly recently in response to the accusation of conservatives being racist. Therefore, it has more to do with racial argument than it does abortion itself. On the contrary, posters of aborted babies, with said “sellable parts” clearly visible, have been common for a long time.

    I expect no apology from people without shame or conscience. I do expect, however, for this to drive home to the God-fearing American people that we will accept no more. No more listening, no more “accepting” because it’s “law.” 50 million children, brutally murdered. The blood is on my head, your head. All it has ever took for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Write your statesmen, your senators, and demand this horrible torture machine be stopped. Do something that really matters, and let the liberals keep attacking flags.

    In reply to the contribution Pro-Life Groups Deserve a Groveling Apology

    Responses (1) +
  • [40] July 15, 2015 at 2:45pm

    “It’s just a clump of cells!”

    I have honestly not heard or seen this argument in a couple of years. Instead, it has been “It’s a parasite!” As soon as I saw that argument, the only thing I could think was at least they had dropped the pretense.

    The entire far left cannot sit there and dictate to me what morality is. Everything that comes out of there is a bald-faced lie, regarding homosexuality, abortion, feminism, the sexual revolution, you name it. They are barbaric, and I refuse to be led around or represented by them. As for the abortionists, I have never felt this way about anyone, not even the with the situation for the Coptic Christians, but it’s good for them that God can have mercy on their souls, because as far as I’m concerned they can burn in hell.

    A fetus, offspring, is a human life. The two who create that life are responsible for its well being. You kill that life, you are guilty of murder. It is your responsibility to take care of yourself and any children you give life to, that distinct life scientifically proven to begin at conception.

    Government exists to regulate such simple civil law. The fact that half of America has it so backwards, are so blind to their civic duties, is why homosexual “marriage” was forced on the country, in complete idiocy and ignorance of the purpose of civil government.

    Responses (2) +
  • [19] July 8, 2015 at 10:32pm

    “Just because you’re Christian doesn’t mean you get to ignore the laws.”

    Right, you only have to be Democrat.

  • July 8, 2015 at 3:14pm

    Linking race and homosexuality has been debunked so many times, and yet it is still parroted. Even many homosexuals and pretty much the entire black community have tried to tell you. Have you not ever wondered why the homosexual lobby never sought to have homosexuals recognized as a federally protected class in its own right?

    The pure truth doesn’t matter to the homosexual lobbyists, and THAT, in a further nutshell, is why it is failed.

  • July 8, 2015 at 12:36pm

    Again, I really have to get to my chores, but I want to throw out there this. For every principal laid out in the Bible, if it is not followed, there is a tangible, natural consequence. People who follow the principles God laid out do not even have to know what those consequences are. They just do them. Simply, God knows what He is talking about. Mankind doesn’t.

    The left side of the spectrum has been changing America for decades. They hail their changes as “good” as America falls down around their ears. When we are the same as Greece, will they still sing that same song? Past history says they will. I hope it doesn’t take that kind of suffering. :(

    I’m not saying the right side is correct on each and every thing, but I can say that it also seems to be a natural law of the universe that it is easier to take something apart than to put it back together.


  • [1] July 8, 2015 at 12:09pm

    All in all, the Bill of rights is designed to protect one thing really, freedom from an intrusive government. It was never meant to be a moral guideline, so to compare it to the 10 Commandments directly is apples and oranges. The founders did, however, acknowledge over and over that freedom will not exist without boundaries, those boundaries being erected by the institutions of religion. That America would, in fact, fall apart without it. Thus, you see that reminder of Law on the steps of many courthouses.

    The Bill of Rights is without doubt subject to abuse. And thus John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    Good day to you.

  • [1] July 8, 2015 at 11:56am

    Think, I am short on time, I am sorry. I can only answer this right now: “The Bill of Rights is also derived from this premise.”But the Bill of Rights contains protections that contradict the Commandments.

    I nor the author said that the Bill of Rights was derived from the 10 Commandments. The author said basically that they were good then, and they are good now. There is no need, thousands of years later, to change what they say.

    I said the Bill of Rights is derived from Natural Law. In other words, there is still a man-madeness about them. Even so, they were derived by men far more studied in the Bible than you, or even I.

    The freedom of religion: laying aside that religion in the founders minds generally meant Christianity anyway, Natural Law ends in that all must serve the same God whether you like it or not. If He made all (a fact very much in the minds of the founders), you are subject to His judgment. It doesn’t matter if you are Hindu. This may include eternal judgment, but it also includes natural judgment/consequences (we all have the same chance of getting an STD if we sleep around).

    Mankind has different ways of expressing religion, and the FF respected that in our founding documents. It wasn’t the job of the FF to require people to serve God. That is not freedom. But they also knew if we didn’t, we would not have freedom. (To be continued)

  • [1] July 8, 2015 at 11:19am

    Some might argue that a gay union is a natural right too. It might be a natural right to have whomever you wish in your bedroom, but it is not a Natural Law. There is a slight difference. In any case, most of us in America think anyone has the natural right to name someone else as their power of attorney. To confuse this with marriage, however, is to break clearly from the basic premise of our laws.

    Thus, I have personally said that America died after the last two rulings of SCOTUS. No Law was used in their rulings. Like Justice Scalia put it, they had the logical deduction of a fortune cookie. It is not impossible to get her back, of course, but I think there are too few who understand or care to understand our system to fix it. We are dependent on a moral electorate to retain a free society.

    “Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.” – Fisher Ames (Framer of the First Amendment)

    Good day to you as well. :)

  • July 8, 2015 at 11:04am

    Think, while there are some nuances in the article I don’t fully line up with (which are irrelevant at the moment), the basic point behind the article is that God makes Law, and that His Law does not change. This is the foundational premise of the country known as the United States of America. A citizen who does not understand this, does not understand his country.

    “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” from the Declaration, is a reference to God Himself, and Laws that all in nature must follow, whether they like it or not. If someone believes in evolution, it is easily applicable, but all most follow these Laws.

    The Bill of Rights is also derived from this premise. That we are by Nature born equal, (a king’s blood bleeds the same red as a peasant), and have Rights that we also naturally possess. To be a Right, it should be something derived from natural Law that is unchanging. Not all Rights can be observed on a scientific study basis, but the founders determined certain ones to be critical, and they became the Bill of Rights. When the Supreme Court decides a case, they are supposed to be weighing against this premise. Being men, not God, it does not always make them right.

    To address the recent SCOTUS decision that likely prompted this article, marriage is a legal contract that regulates both a right and Natural Law, the natural joining of a man and woman. (to be continued)

  • [-1] July 8, 2015 at 10:31am

    Think, I used to think you had a thinking head on your shoulders, but I’ve come to realize you are no different than the rest of the far left. Most of them started out just like you.

    This author understands the thinking of the Founding Fathers far better than you allow yourself to acknowledge.

    Responses (11) +
  • [6] July 8, 2015 at 10:19am

    “If you would stop this garbage about the US being a Christian nation”

    First problem… it is you who deny the truth, not us. It doesn’t take much research to figure out America’s Christian roots. Ya’ll keep trying to rewrite history (and take away our religious rights in the process), and we won’t let you.

    ” trying to force us all to accept your religious beliefs”

    If you think that a ten commandments display is forcing religious beliefs, then it stands to reason that removing it is also a forcing of beliefs. The truth is, it is there as a reminder of Law. Again, I know this from just a small amount of research. Does the reminder of Law disturb you? Well then, it does its job.

    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love