User Profile: TRUTHandFREEDOM


Member Since: September 01, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [9] August 27, 2014 at 6:15pm

    I don’t think this story is any of our bees wax.

  • [2] August 24, 2014 at 8:45am

    An example; When warned that British troops were minutes away from arriving at Jefferson’s home, he wisely left.
    Rollins called him a coward!
    Any founder would have seen the odds and left to serve liberty another day.

    Rollins would have run too, but he doesn’t serve liberty! He abuses it!

  • [3] August 24, 2014 at 8:39am

    What Henry Rollins needs to apologize for is the highly corrupted, highly revisionist, highly slick narrative demeaning the character of many of America’s founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, but demeaning the intentions of the founders overall and doing it intertwined with some actual facts on the History Channel’s 10 Things you didn’t know about …
    When I researched the show’s DVDs, I was happy to see a large percent of the reviews calling Rollins and the History Channel out on the revisionism.
    If you’re not aware of the guy, his most well known song is called …. Liar.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] August 20, 2014 at 7:38pm

    By the way, I have to agree.. George Washington was THE MAN!

  • [1] August 20, 2014 at 7:00pm

    Travis, That’s crazy! A SHORT list of brave colonists signed their names to the Declaration & risked their lives, their fortunes & their sacred honor. Think of the courage required! Ben Franklin said “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” THAT’s what the British troops had in mind at Monticello. For Jefferson to stay = suicide. To leave = tactically smart, not cowardly. Jefferson continued structuring government & representing the colonies. A coward would do none of those things.
    On slavery, Jefferson continuously spoke out through his life against the institution of slavery & for the rights of slaves. Financial, social & political factors kept him from freeing his slaves. In a letter to Edward Coles (Aug 25, 1814), he wrote, “The laws do not permit us to turn them loose” Not just freeing slaves, but abolition was his goal. Jefferson, in debt, followed & worked to change law such as this VA law ” It shall be lawful for any person, by his or her last will and testament, or by any other instrument in writing under his or her hand and seal . . . to emancipate and set free his or her slaves . . . Provided, also, that all slaves so emancipated, not being . . . of sound mind and body, or being above the age of forty-five years, or being males under the age of twenty one, or females under the age of eighteen years, shall respectively be supported and maintained by the person so liberating them, or by his or her estate.”

  • [2] August 20, 2014 at 5:19pm

    If you want to see some seriously twisted, seriously revisionist History that provides false facts, false intentions, false characterizations and flat out insults about America’s founders, watch the History Chanel show titled
    10 things you didn’t know about ….
    As usual for a liberal progressive production, they were particularly hard on Thomas Jefferson, who the host , Henry Rollins (Famous for his song LIAR) calls a COWARD for leaving is home when he was notified that British Troops were minutes away from arriving there.
    Rollins also excluded the LONG list of quotes and legislation put forth by Jefferson to end slavery. He did not mention that Jefferson listed the slaves on his property as “souls in my family” on the census. But Rollins did flat out call Jefferson a racist and made it clear that he did not like him.
    The reviews for the DVDs of the programs echo what I have said about it. This is propaganda nested in some correct and interesting facts. Overall? Anti American founders and principles.

    Although I like the History Channel shows Counting Cars, American Pickers and Pawn Stars, I am less inclined to watch ANY of the History Channel after this.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-4] August 13, 2014 at 8:02pm

    The only thought that I have on that is that the other info sources report on what Glenn said, sometimes correctly and sometimes not, so why should this one be any different?!

  • [6] August 13, 2014 at 7:55pm

    Actually, I heard about it from an email from the TEA Party News Network! Surprised? Me too!
    I then checked the Blaze and left the TV off because I know how they get.
    The next morning, Cable news was still at it. I had to watch local news to find out that apparently, when tragedy strikes the life of an entertainer, other thing are still happening in the world at the same time! I do understand the sorrow and pain of the family and the facts of the story. My prayers are with the family and my disappointment is with cable news. Every time they have a big story, it is the only thing that they talk about and speculate on for days so I avoid it completely.

  • [2] August 13, 2014 at 7:46pm

    Discovery. It’s a lie.
    I’d classify some of The History Channel’s History the same way.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] August 12, 2014 at 9:28pm

    This is alarming. It would be even more alarming in my neighborhood or at a TEA Party event where people address issues in a civil, adult, Christian like manner. I understand the reasoning for law enforcement to feel a need for this in Chicago, Detroit or Ferguson where life and property are apparently much less respected and I understand that as Benjamin Franklin said; “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” I absolutely do support additional measures to protect the life risking law enforcement officers in high risk situations, but I don’t support excessive force. I do support having excessive force at the ready and nearby just in case the situation arises where it’s not really that excessive!

    Responses (1) +
  • August 12, 2014 at 9:08pm

    Being in a position to Comment must be above his pay grade.

  • August 12, 2014 at 8:57pm

    Why don’t the use the shovel ready job money?
    They didn’t have the jobs, so they must have the money. Right?

  • [7] August 10, 2014 at 9:27pm

    I believe that he’s always looking for the most effective way to deliver truth to and bring more support for self governing virtue and for liberty from as many people as possible. I think that he’s making an effort to deliver this in a way that is more appealing to people who still don’t get it and who don’t like talk radio as they’ve come to know it. Those of us who’ve been aware of the issues and who’ve been generally aligned with most of his opinions aren’t the ones that he needs to reach. We already strive to better ourselves and country. It is the others who need to hear the message and in a way that they will find more to their liking.

  • [1] August 10, 2014 at 6:42am

    Well Grover, you do make some good debate points and the courts may indeed be of your opinion. In truth, these issues rarely make it to the supreme court. As I said in my first post, I would have made the sale and known that it is not a sin to make that sale. I will give you more opposite points to ponder though.
    SO far, I have heard of two restaurants that have a sign saying that they do not allow small or loud children. I think that the right to do that is there. This story is different because the store refused to service an event. The store in question here did not say that they chose not to serve these particular individuals, who are equal under the law. They said that they do not service these events.
    It is not discrimination against individuals, who could have walked in and bought gowns as individuals just like every other customer. It is about the event and that is where the store is making their stand. What are their rights there? What I am saying is that the debate needs to be had there.
    Your argument though is even being pushed on churches and religious charities in the Obama era. The LAW cannot constitutionally make a church perform a same sex marriage or hire against their faith. We have all seen the Constitution ignored, but the first amendment was written and is first for a reason.

  • [1] August 9, 2014 at 10:03pm

    James Madison on Property “This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.” In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. . . . In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. . . . In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. . . . Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

  • [1] August 9, 2014 at 10:01pm

    The plaque would claim the right protected by the 1st amendment, which I do not think is crap. It would shift the debate to religious rights and the 1st amendment instead of Progressive narratives.

  • [1] August 9, 2014 at 8:45pm

    I think that the easiest answer for any business faithfully intent to run on Christian Principles and Biblical law would be that they should identify themselves with a plaque on the door that states that they are a Christian Faith based business or a business that operates “adherent to Biblical and first amendment law”. To push the business on this issue after that is knowingly disrespecting of and showing provable intolerance towards their faith and their rights. This changes the debate narrative toward religious freedom and intolerance towards it. It also saves the sales person and shopper from a potentially embarrassing or uncomfortable encounter. Personally, as a Christian, I would have made the sale and donated the profits to a religious freedom organization or the church. Selling the dress is not enabling, endorsing or committing sin. The store has no control over the actions of these individuals, so if they sin in any way, it won’t have anything to do with what they are wearing at the time or who they bought it from. Accountability to God and fellow citizens belongs to each individual. What is not your sin is not your sin.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] June 28, 2014 at 5:49pm

    The reason that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did not bring an end to slavery is because it could not be done. The first priority was to secure the union. Southern States would not unite if it meant abolition.
    This was Lincoln’s first priority as well; to preserve THE UNITED STATES of America. The union.
    If you read Lincoln’s speeches prior to his presidency, you’ll see that he opposed slavery and obviously The Republican party was established by abolitionists, but Constitutionally, Lincoln KNEW that he could not END slavery, only limit and hold down expansion. The great uprising of the South was his historic opportunity and he used it. What Lincoln didn’t believe was that the freed slaves and those who enslaved them could live as equals in the same society. There was clearly GREAT animosity between them and the Democrats’ “White man’s union” and the Klan proved his beliefs to be correct. He probably expected that war to be 2 sided, as would I, but it was one sided Klan attacks on black citizens (Republicans) and Klan attacks on white black citizen supporters (Republicans). Since the Confederate States of America outlawed the release of any slaves by any Confederate state, their claim of “States Rights” rang hollow.

  • [2] June 27, 2014 at 6:42pm

    By the way … implies? The Church of England is an established religion. Not an implication. The established religion has Law against it. Where is the law against perceived implication?

  • [3] June 27, 2014 at 6:40pm

    “Court after court has ruled that’s not allowed.” I know!!
    Show me THE LAW – THE LEGISLATION that says that it is not allowed. Government employees have no law that says they cannot exercise their religion.

123 To page: Go