There are many successful liberals, so why do so many of them wish to subsidize failure for the poor instead of showing them how to succeed? Is it because they need the poor and downtrodden to remain that way so that they can get the victims to vote the way they want them to? Once the insidious specter of welfare is introduced, many people on the cusp of poverty are encouraged to stay there so they can keep on collecting the benefits that can amount to more than $80,000 in some cases. Not bad if you can get it.
Dr. Ben Carson is one example of someone who pulled himself out of poverty. Dr. Carson, the renowned neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md., is enjoying a surprising celebrity status unrelated to his profession for speaking his mind at a public forum. He simply said that individuals and the nation might succeed if more Americans were less dependent on government assistance. He made that statement at the nation’s recent Prayer Breakfast with President Obama sitting to his left. The president was not happy with his comments. But since Dr. Carson did not have a teleprompter or prepared script, he could not submit his talking points to Obama’s secretaries before the breakfast. He simply told them he would give a short speech and compose it as he spoke. And that is what he did.
Dr. Carson, who is African-American, has been denounced as insufficiently black because he won’t toe the liberal line when it comes to big government and the implication that the poor (and the African-American voting bloc who fall below the poverty line) cannot succeed without it. The fact that many have not succeeded with government (and in some cases, the government is actually responsible for their continuing poverty and misery) has apparently escaped the notice of his critics, many of whom appeared on the Nanny Press and Obama-supporting stations over the weekend. Chris Matthews went on such a tirade I thought he was going to have a stroke. Unfortunately, God did not think it was his time.
Speaking with Megyn Kelly on Fox News’ “America Live” last week, Dr. Carson addressed some of the slurs tossed at him, saying they are what you might expect to hear “on a third grade playground.” It is the type of rhetoric that bullies use to keep you quiet. Dr. Carson appealed to his detractors to “move beyond” such rhetoric and “have a real discussion about the real facts. If somebody disagrees, let’s talk about why they disagree, let’s talk about the pros and cons, let’s see if we can find some accommodation.” That is how this earnest and thoughtful man put it. Of course, the simple logic was lost on the narcissistic, left-leaning socialists.
That is precisely what the left does not want to do because to have such a discussion would expose liberalism’s failure to solve the problems of poverty and education — to cite just two examples — through government. The school …read more
Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail in 2005 protecting the identity of her Bush administration source, who was involved in the controversial disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity.
Her attorney during the legal battle was Floyd Abrams, known as one of the top First Amendment lawyers in the country.
Miller and Abrams both stopped by “American Live w/Megyn Kelly” on Friday to discuss the case of FoxNews.com reporter Jana Winter, who could go to jail for refusing to reveal her source for an exclusive story in the aftermath of the July 20, 2012, movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colo.
A Colorado judge is expected to decide Wednesday whether Winter will be called to testify.
Marriage has specific meanings pertaining to a man and woman joined for the purpose of, but not limited to, having children. The word “marriage” is specific to a union of a man and woman. Any union other than marriage, as described above, would be a “civil union”.
Kelly said pro-marriage equality forces had made very compelling arguments that opponents had been hard-pressed to tackle.”
The Bible: Marriage is a gift of God. When God brought to Adam the woman who was specially created for him, he cried out joyfully: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23). This joy over a real companion is the explicit will of God: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18). Marriage has been established by the Creator; it is therefore not a humanly devised institution. It existed from the beginning, as Jesus himself defined the origin and essence of marriage inMatthew 19:4-6: “Haven’t you read . . . that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” With the commandment “You shall not commit adultery,” God protects marriage and allows sexual intercourse only inside this close union (Eccles. 9:9). Sexual relations (becoming one flesh) before or outside marriage is branded as fornication and immorality.
Leviticus 18:22 22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 13. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
What can I say? Seems pretty clear to me. Some folks must have trouble reading or are really searching for a way to twist words to justify their actions, no matter what they are.
The origins of marriage source:theweekmagazine.com The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?
How old is the institution? The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
What was it about, then? Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.
When did religion become involved? As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.
Did this change the nature of marriage? Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.
When did love enter the picture? Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”
Did love change marriage? It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.
How did this tradition change? Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”
Men who married men Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”
The Roger Ailes sensibility has been front and center in American culture for about 15 years now, ever since Fox News caught up with and then shot past CNN to become the No. 1 24-hour news channel. But Ailes the man has been a somewhat more elusive figure, mostly yielding the spotlight to on-air talent like Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly. …read more Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
Although marijuana is often described as an overall harmless substance, Colorado lawmakers have shown some clouded judgment in the months since legalizing the drug statewide.
Andrew Napolitano, respected judge and fierce critic of liberal lunacy, recently appeared on a Fox News program and offered his expert opinion on one of the state’s more ridiculous proposals.
Along with several other outlandish gun control measures, one suggested law would allow victims to hold both gunmakers and retailers accountable in court for crimes committed with their product.
The left insists guns – and now those who manufacture and sell them – are responsible for crimes, which is like holding Ford liable for injuries to an individual who drove his Taurus off a bridge.
Both companies produce products which, if used correctly, offer a great service. We cannot set the dangerous precedent of targeting unrelated parties in a misguided rush to justice.
Echoing the concerns of state law enforcement officials, Napolitano called the proposed law “unenforceable.”
He and host Megyn Kelly discussed similarities to the vitriol with which legislators and litigators attacked tobacco manufacturers and a subsequent federal law prohibiting similar lawsuits against gunmakers.
Napolitano said the Colorado lawmakers behind the proposal are “either woefully ignorant of federal law or just making a political statement.”
While contending the proposal “will be stopped by a federal judge,” he said if it is somehow passed, “it will make the ownership of guns so expensive that ordinary people who want to protect themselves won’t be able to afford them and that very act will be unconstitutional.”
Leftists always want to punish the innocent periphery while ignoring – or supporting – the true causes of this nation’s moral and financial decline.
Colorado, it seems, is stepping up its game to take on states like California, Illinois, and Massachusetts for the dubious designation of most ridiculous representation.
This is just another reason I don’t plan to leave Texas any time soon. Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.
