User Profile: TRUTHandFREEDOM

TRUTHandFREEDOM

Member Since: September 01, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • 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.

  • [1] June 27, 2014 at 6:27pm

    Was a religions “ESTABLISHED” by Congress? NO. Where is the legislation that prohibits the free exercise of religion …. the one that supposedly says that separation of church and state means no religion on public land. THIS is why Democrats worry so much about “Precedent” in case law when selecting Supreme court justices. Previous judges ruled on non existing law that there can be no religion in schools or government property and Democrats don’t want a REAL judge to take that garbage to the curb. We are continually forced to uphold a law that does not exist. Decades of Sunday Services in the US Capitol building and article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance make that case. The first Congress opened session, went to Washington’s inauguration, went to church and then went back and closed the session of Congress. No Religion was established. There are so many ways to prove the Progressive redefinition and fictional separation legislation wrong, but TRUTH isn’t winning? WHY?

    Responses (5) +
  • June 26, 2014 at 5:50am

    Personally, I think that the lawsuit is a spotlight on Obama’s endless over reaching and a spotlight is needed because he is most likely going to go for some extensive over reaching in the last years of his final term. It’s up to the Republicans to make this an American issue and not a political action. The founders put each branch of government in a box that is meant to be guarded by the other branches and the people. They separated powers to keep the people free and to give the people time to make adjustments to the government. The lawsuit is separation of powers at work. There are few options in limiting the actions and power reaches of a man who disregards American legislation and the Constitution, but Michele Bachmann is definitely correct in calling for Congress to use the power of the purse to stall attempts by the executive branch to over reach.

  • [30] June 25, 2014 at 5:30am

    There is MUCH more that Stewart could point out, mock, ridicule and hammer, but he seemed to address this softly and only because it is too big not to, while still declaring Obama innocent, which is highly questionable considering the even more questionable disappearance of evidence that allows us to determine that either way.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] June 23, 2014 at 10:03pm

    Not sure I’d watch a movie with Ashley Judd in it. I can’t believe that she’d even play a woman who keeps her clothes on, but still, she’s like negative marketing in my book.

  • [2] June 23, 2014 at 9:56pm

    He’s always been one of my favorite actors too. Highly talented and able to become very different characters with great conviction and believability. Not given much recognition compared to lesser talented outspoken libs, but his performances always speak highly for themselves.

123 To page: Go