Jon Voight: Let’s help bring an end to (the power of) this false prophet, Obama


At the NRSC-NRCC fund raiser last night, Jon Voight spoke truth in 10 minutes about Israel, Obama and his partners in crime tearing America down, the Left’s lies about Bush, and more.

Priceless to see one from Hollywood who understands Obama’s power grabs, his history, his associations and then have to the guts to speak truth to it.  Thanks for Jon Voight!

(H/T: Michelle Malkin; Video: Earth2Obama.org)

Advertisements

20 Responses

  1. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING UP FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

  2. Finally! A celebrity in Hollywood who knows the significance and importance of America’s relationship with Israel. The media, our liberal leaning institutions of higher education, and half the celebrities with a Cracker Jack diploma in foreign policy have crammed their “Israel is a bully to all the Arab nations” baloney down the American public’s throats so much that we as a nation actually believe it!

  3. Jon Voight have a nerve to put down President Obama! Where was Jon Voight’s voice of opinion when Daddy Bush and his loser son George messed up the entire country. President Obama inherited this mess from the GOP, and that’s why their greay loe’ party is pooped now!! And as for Jon Voight, he need to go and try to make amends with his daughter. As it is said “If you live in a glasshouse, don’t throw no stones” We all know the real reson why people like Jon Voight all of the sudden has a voice, It is what it is, so get use to it for the next 8 years and get over it. And after President Obama is finished his term. We’re going to put another one in there to take his place! Now, how do you like those watermelons??

  4. Stephanie,
    You need a good dose of reality. While neither Bush President was perfect and both had issues in their presidencies (as all Presidents do), your broad brush of both Presidents without any facts also takes nerve….or perhaps just blinded eyes to the facts.

    I think you need to understand the following— a few examples of where you are wrong:
    * the Democrats had control of Congress in 2007-2008 when the deficits roughly doubled from the number in 2006.
    * those same Democrats and Obama will quadruple (that is increased 4 times) the deficit this year….and that is before Obamacare Socialist Heathcare is put into motion
    * Under Bush 43, the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth. (all of this accomplished in spite of the 9-11 attack, 2 wars, Hurricane Katrina, stock market scandals and recession he inheritied from Bill Clinton)
    *When Obama took office, umemployment was at 7.6%. It is now 9.4% even after Obama and Democrats (no Republicans) passed and signed the almost $1 Trillion dollar stimulus that has created no jobs. Obama and Democratic Congress rushed the bill through saying it was needed to “stimulate” the economy and without it we would have 9% umemployment by June! Well, the bill was passed, economy not stimulated and umemployment is higher than what they said it would be WITHOUT the bill.
    *Republicans support our allies in the world and understand the threat from radical Islam. Obama is embarassing in his shunning of our allies, his stabbing Israel in the back, his bowing to the Saudi King, and his naive view that talking to those who want us dead will somehow make us safe.
    * While George Bush was wrong to sign the first bailout bill, Obama has perfected the art of bailouts on steroids while also firing the CEO of a private company, forcing the merger of Chrysler to Fiat against the will of Chrysler, handing over the lions share of ownership of Chrysler to his union cronies while reversing all precedent of bankruptcy law and not making the actual debtors 1st in line for funds.
    * Obama has appointed over 20 czars who are not elected nor put through the nomination process. It is unprecedented in our Presidential history to accumulate this kind of decision-making power without an election or nomination process.
    * Obama has stated that Iran has a right to be nuclear which greatly affects stability in the Middle East and threatens security around the world. Oh and he also will not allow the same nuclear power in his own country.
    I could go on and on….The Bushes don’t hold a candle to Obama’s distrastrous economics, foreign policy, accumulation of power, Chicago thug tactics, and his anti-Americanism.

  5. Hollywood has a long and colorful history of leveraging its position at the forefront of the media to spew whatever often-uninformed rhetoric, be it liberal, conservative, anarchist, or fascist. It’s often as

    That said, placing blame squarely on the heads of either the Jews or the Palestinians for the millennia of bloodshed is a dead giveaway that someone hasn’t been paying any attention to the actual middle eastern power struggle, but has instead been relying on their respective ideological party’s talking heads to fill in the details. The struggle is thousands of years old; neither side would shed a tear if the other vanished entirely. There have been enough atrocities committed on both sides for it to rival a world war in sheer casualties. Blaming one side exclusively is not only incomplete, it’s naive.

    And regarding his tirade of arrogance? Arrogance is believing it’s your way or the highway. Arrogance is labeling “good people” as those who mirror your own ideologies, and ostracizing everyone else for (God forbid, in America of all places!) different beliefs. Arrogance is adopting an attitude of national divine right as the “beacon of light in the darkness” and hence being inherently incapable of any wrongdoing (and thereby rendering apologies obsolete). Arrogance is espousing a Judeo-Christian foundation in one breath and telling the rest of the world to follow our infallible lead in the next.

    I certainly don’t regard Obama as a prophet of any sort, and I think those who do are whack. I simply refuse to be led, swayed, or otherwise influenced by those who would cast boulders from within glass houses (to borrow the well-placed idiom from Ms Miller above).

  6. It would seem the end of my first paragraph has vanished into the abyss; I meant to conclude it with: “It’s often as uninformed as it is unsubstantiated.”

  7. Oh and by the way, Stephanie,
    President Obama will leave for you and your children:
    * rationed healthcare
    * $1400 energy tax per year
    * double digit unemployment
    * likely double digit interest rates
    * a nuclear North Korea
    * a nuclear Iran
    * potentially a badly damaged Israel
    * a debt for each of your children or grandchildren somewhere in the $100,000-$200,000 range
    * a federal government with power never intended by our founders
    * the death of Capitalism and free markets.

    Now, how do you like those watermelons??

  8. magsol,
    you said:
    “Hollywood has a long and colorful history of leveraging its position at the forefront of the media to spew whatever often-uninformed rhetoric, be it liberal, conservative, anarchist, or fascist.”

    There is very little of the conservative viewpoint anywhere in Hollywood….which is why Jon Voight’s direct assessment of Obama is refreshing.
    About 99% of Hollywood rhetoric comes from liberals and socialists….and yes they are about 99.9% uninformed.

    you said: “The struggle is thousands of years old; neither side would shed a tear if the other vanished entirely. There have been enough atrocities committed on both sides for it to rival a world war in sheer casualties. Blaming one side exclusively is not only incomplete, it’s naive.”

    I don’t remember Israel declaring that the Palestinians/Arabs have no right to exist. Since the 40’s, the Palestinians have refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. I also don’t recall Israel taking the offensive on rocket attacks and suicide bombings.
    The Palestinians are guilty in refusing Israel’s right to exist, in launching unprovoked rocket attacks and carrying out suicide bombings in Israel.

    You also referenced arrogance. It is not arrogant to be proud of your country, acknowledge its great achievements and efforts, respect its culture, and understand its founding/history.
    It is a fact that America has been a force for good in this world for 200+ years….we aren’t perfect but we certainly aren’t on the level that Obama lowers us to when he uses equivalence between the evil of terrorism and our soldiers at Gitmo; when he claims women’s freedoms in the US are still under par, while coddling the very ideology that treats women as objects; when he calls Iraq a “war of choice” when Saddam Hussein didn’t heed over 40 resolutions AND multiple countries believed he was the same level of threat that we did….and on and on.

    The problem I have with Obama, many liberals, and some of your words is that everything is relative and can be made equivalent…but to do so you must ignore the lessons and facts of history, that there IS good and evil that exists in this world, that freedom doesn’t always mean equal outcomes, and that pride and loyalty in one’s country or self is not arrogance.

  9. Hey SharpRight, mind if I toss a little gasoline on the fire that you addressed with Stephanie?

    http://www.koaradio.com/pages/shows_gunny-archives.html?feed=119898&article=5091380

  10. Patrick,
    Great summary of the disaster that is the Obama administration!

    Stephanie needs to study it!

    Thanks.

  11. obama is a secret socialism, they have agenda to weaken america and destroy it from within. wake up gullible!!! AMERICAN

  12. secret socialist, obama is a sweet talking bugos president who want to destroy america from within

  13. The problem with being a republican is that it requires one to not have ability to work with reason or facts. Information must be doled out by hucksters working for big money to keep the sheep in line. Case in point: the great mind of Jon Voight. Was not one of his principal ways of making income participating in a vile and violent re-creation of a man being sodomized and tortured by a good ole Georgia-boy republican. C’mon on boy, squeal like a PIG, squeeeeel boy, weeeee, weeee. It is one of the most horrific scenes ever put in a movie. Complain about all the filth produced by the so called Liberal elite of Hollywood, but Jon Voight was quite a willing participant. He also made his name in Midnight Cowboy another sick and deprived movie where he did anything sadistic with women and men alike. Some may forget the rape of this country by Bush and company as Voight forgot his watching Ned Beatty being raped, but I don’t. It is time to be a real Americans and patriots and stand up for what is right and treat your fellow Americans WITH THE DIGNITY THEY DESERVE AND NOT LIKE SELFISH TRAITORS!

  14. antirepublicansheep,

    You obviously didn’t read the FACTS I presented to commenter Stephanie above.
    I don’t know any hucksters and I don’t have big money….I searched and found and read and produced that information on my own. You might try it sometime.

    Conversely, you make absurd statements that Bush “raped” the country while presenting not one fact to back it up.

    While I certainly don’t particularly care for the the scenes in Deliverance and I haven’t seen Midnight Cowboy–two movies made decades ago– I will give Jon Voight a plus for going against the liberal grain of Hollywood and calling a spade a spade.

    If we go by your standards, though, just about every person in Hollywood should keep their mouths shut….Many of those liberals in Hollywood have produced vile and violent “entertainment”. They also actually live vile and disgusting lives in many cases. Most gave their money and support to Obama and liberals….do you feel the same about their principals? Or since they support the Obama and the Left, we should just overlook their “sins” and only pick on the ones who now espouse a conservative viewpoint?

    REAL Americans and patriots are standing up right now…..they are Republicans and Democrats alike standing up to a government that doesn’t understand the limits of its power. Many are standing up against a President and Congress that are performing a slow “rape” (your word) of our Constitution, Capitalism, and American ideals by:
    – taking over banks and car companies,
    – hiring over 35 “czars” with no accountability to Congress”,
    – bowing to a Saudi King,
    – telling falsehoods to pass a government takeover of healthcare,
    – signing a $1 Trillion dollar Stimulus bill that has not stimulated anything except mostly the pockets of those who got him elected,
    – QUADRUPLING the deficit in one year (that is a quadruple of the one George Bush left!)
    – investing taxpayer money in Brazilian oil where George Soros has large holdings while prohibiting drilling in our vast reserves at home….
    – and on and on.

    Obama’s approval is currently hovering around 45-50% depending on the poll and the day. He was elected at 52%….obviously, many who voted for Obama now disapprove of his performance.

  15. It’s very hard to explain things to conservatives because by definition they like to conserve the status quo, especially the status quo that goes with their cultural-political fantasies.

    All through history, progress has come from liberals. For instance (and if you’re a conservative, you’ll never believe it), the Founding Fathers were the liberals of their day. It’s true. Not just liberals, but radicals, given the context of their times. The conservatives of the day were the Loyalists.

    Similarly, President Lincoln (though a Republican) was a liberal for his day, as were the abolitionists. The Confederacy and the pro-slavery movement were the conservatives. Them’s just the facts, Jacks.

    But conservatism has traditionally had a positive, constructive side, embodied by presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower. But, since Nixon, it’s been on a relentless downhill slide, baby. Culminating now in the cheap lowness of Bush-Cheney, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. The real conservatives are probably cringing and ashamed, but unfortunately they’re too few in number.

    Actually, the problem is not even liberals and conservatives. Not really. Look at the neo-cons: they have combined the worst traits of liberals and conservatives into one nasty package. No, the real problem is assholes, which can belong to any political, racial, religious, economic, and ethnic group.

  16. Alex.
    First you really haven’t addressed the content of this post, but I will comment nonetheless.

    You said: “It’s very hard to explain things to conservatives because by definition they like to conserve the status quo, especially the status quo that goes with their cultural-political fantasies.”

    Well, I think you’ve may have been listening to one too many of our present day liberals and their go-to strawman arguments: that conservatives of today want the “status quo”; Republicans are the party of “no”; they hate poor people and blacks, etc..

    About the fantasies…Preserving the “status quo” of the ideas of our founders and our Constitution is not a fantasy but is crucial to the future of our Republic.

    Perhaps with a little introspection and listening on your part, you might find that most present day conservatives are very willing to discuss issues and present facts. Not just write the “liberals” among us off as “hard to talk to” because of their unreal “fantasies”.

    About your views of liberalism and conservatism– You seem to have pulled some paragraphs out of some history book and tried to slap the labels (not the beliefs nor the context) of the times onto present day “conservatives” and “liberals”.

    The founders were for freedom which, in that day, would have made them classic “liberals”. The “conservatives” or Loyalists of that day wished to “conserve” the power of rulers and their religion.

    I think you would have a hard time saying with a straight face that today’s liberals believe in the morals and individual freedom ideas that the founders did. Conversely, you would have a hard time finding a conservative today that believes in the authoritarian control of Kings.

    There are many facts and ideas today that would clearly put the conservatives in the same camp as the founding fathers…all about freedom! While many liberals of today hold beliefs that would be the antithesis of our founding fathers…for enslaving the citizens of this country under an intrusive and freedom-removing government.

    Conservatives today do wish for the status quo and that is to maintain the Constitution and founding ideas that our founders put in place for us. The founders used the Bible, morality, and virtue many times in speeches and thought in creating our country. They were correct to do so. Their ideas have guided this country for over 200 years.

    And if you took the meaning and values espoused within the speeches, beliefs, and interactions of the founding fathers and put them into a speech on TV today, it would most likely be a conservative doing the talking.

    The paradox is that conservatives of today are actually trying to “conserve” the ideas that sprung from the “classic liberalism” that was evident in our founding fathers and the formation of this country.

    The classic “liberalism” has been transformed and bastardized in our country into something the founding fathers would likely spit on. Today’s liberals generally don’t believe in a universal moral order (like the one the founders did and our country did until the late twentieth century) nor individual responsibility and its repercussions. The Founding Fathers did.
    Examples you say? The “liberation” movement of the 1960’s was a movement by many of today’s liberals that said morality is your own…virtue is your own. There is no moral order in the world. What you do is solely your business and no one may judge it.
    This is evident in the reactions of today’s liberals to Bill Clinton’s clearly immoral behavior while in office. Many liberals wrote it off as “a private issue”.
    In addition, most liberals claim it is the government’s job to promote “fairness” and “equitable outcomes” and many liberal policies promote the notion of dependence instead of individual responsiblity.
    The founders did not believe this way. The founders believed in equal opportunity which is a conservative plank these days.

    Of course, conservatives, as the founders did, believe in a moral order and realize that ALL people fall short of it. However, the big difference is that conservatives don’t throw away those beliefs when they fall short. Liberals generally do.

    Your attacks on Bush and others are backed up with no facts, but clearly includes the liberal view of the day—Bush is bad—- it is not really worth addressing your last two paragraphs.

  17. Actually, liberals are very moral; just as moral as conservatives, if not more so. It’s simply that their morals are different. In fact, in many respects, each side’s morals (and values) find expression in the precisely opposite pole from the other.

    Which is why it’s so challenging for each side to find the other sane or well-meaning. And yet morality is based purely on subjective judgments and not objective facts!

    I believe that, in the Middle Ages, the two highest ethical principles that Man could aspire to were held to be Mercy and Justice. I’d say that liberals correspond to the former, and conservatives to the latter. Many things do; for example, right-brain activity with Mercy, and left-brain activity with Justice. The study of these principles derived from the Classical world and also from the Orient — via the Middle East (Jewish scholars).

    With regard to Bush, the facts are a matter of public record and are more than well known. I think any old-fashioned conservative would be offended at his foreign interventionism, excessive and wasteful spending, inflating of executive power, justification of torture, mangling of the English language, and poor conservationist record. I know new-fangled liberals are!

  18. Alex,
    You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth now. Is that the morality of liberals?

    Your first post wanted to point out (falsely) that liberals have been the greatest force for good starting with the founders and that a liberal then is a liberal now.

    Now that we both know that the men of our early founders were more like the conservatives of today, you want to try and say that liberals of today are more moral than conservatives…just different morals.
    Well, yesterday, you believed that liberals (Now or then) have had the morals of the founders and were superior.

    Further, your comments that the morals are different plays exactly to my point that liberals believe everything is relative. Morals are absolutes and there are certain morals/values that stand the test of time.
    Relativity based on feeling and individuals wants is not morality.

    Let’s take Ted Kennedy. While Kennedy accomplished much in his life, we can debate whether it was good or bad. The liberals worship his name and family as if they were royalty. It is puzzling to me that a man who let a woman die in a river and used his status to escape “justice”, who worked actively against a US President with Russia in the 80’s (borderline treason), who was a wealthy man (fine with me..but was the kind liberals usually believe are evil because of their wealth), who was known for his “loose” living (women and booze) and whose family fortune was made with stock manipulation and illegal booze….is so idolized by the left.
    The man was no role model, but the idolization says alot about “liberal morals”.

    Your comments about Bush are still not facts just your assumptions based mainly on the rabid liberals who hate the man.

    Foreign interventionism – are you speaking of Bush defending America against Terrorists who killed 3000 of our citizens on 9/11? Well, in case you haven’t seen the news, Obama still has our troops in Iraq–counter to his policy before the election.
    More importantly, Obama still has our troops in Afghanistan and has actually increased the numbers. In addition, July and August have been the deadliest months for our troops and 2009 the deadliest year since that war began.
    So Obama has maintained that “interventionism” in the Middle East AND he is the commander of the military with more casualties than in the Bush years.
    Where’s the outrage from your liberal friends?

    Also, Obama is quite active in intervening in foreign lands.
    Obama has actively supported efforts to reseat the ousted Zelaya in Honduras who was constitutionally thrown out of his position. He had his sights set on dictatorship. Obama supports him.

    Obama has withdrawn pro-democracy program funds from the US to Iran. Obama has barely uttered a word about Iran’s slaughter of its own citizens who dared to protest their fraud election and their government. Obama’s values don’t include defense of freedom and democracy in Iran, and clearly his values even go so far as to stifle any US support of it that may have existed.

    Obama bowed to a Saudi King after years of telling us that Bush and others were beholden to the Saudi King and oil.

    obama is funding the terror group Hamas, a group who wishes for Israel’s destruction. Obama is actively trying to force Israel to stop expanding settlements and give up Jerusalem.

    I guess foreign interventionism is only intervention when defending the US and freedom, but is something else when we coddle enemies, dictators, terrorists and aid in Israel’s destruction.

    Excessive and wasteful spending – I couldn’t agree more. And conservatives said it loudly and clearly while Bush was in office. Of course, even with Bush’s approvals of excessive spending (much of it deficit spending), the deficit was improving after 2004 until 2008, his last year. The last two years of Bush’s term Democrats controlled Congress. In 2008, with Democrat control the deficit tripled. Since then, with Democrat’s complete power, the deficit will quadruple this year as compared to the 2008 deficit.
    Is spending yourself into oblivion a liberal moral value?

    Inflating of Executive Power – What specifically did Bush do to inflate power? Obama has nearly 40 czars accountable to no one but him and unconstitutional. Obama took over the banks and car companies.

    Justification of Torture – Bush didn’t justify “torture”. Three terrorists were waterboarded (something that happens to many of our military members in training) in order to gain information that saved the lives of Americans. The Congress including Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi were briefed on all of the information that they now choose to forget because they had no objections about it at the time.

    Mangling of English language – that’s a laugher…you’re going to get me all “wee-weed” up. (that’s Obama-speak)…not to mention that Obama can’t give a speech without his TOTUS.

    Poor Conservationist record – Are you talking about the same Bush whose house the Chicago Tribune called “a model of environmental rectitude”? (Unlike Gore’s house that consumes 12 times the energy of an average house in Nashville) Or are you comparing Bush to the leaders of the Democrats in Congress who tried to sneak through somewhere around 8 new fuel-guzzling, carbon-inducing jets to toot around in? Conservation for thee, but not for me…is that a liberal tagline?

  19. No, sharprightturn, the point in my initial post was that the Founding Fathers were the liberals of THEIR day, not the liberals of today. The conservatives of today, if they lived in THOSE days, would likely have been Loyalists. Why would today’s conservatives be Loyalists? That would be a bit too reactionary, wouldn’t it? It’s possible that the conservatives of the 23rd Century will be comparable to the liberals of today.

    Yes, the conservatives of today are comparable to the Founding Fathers; but there’s a problem. It’s the 21st Century. A progressive radical person in the 18th Century responds to the challenges and dilemmas of their day in a particular way; transport them 250 years into the future and they’ll adjust their response to their new time accordingly.

    This happens over and over. The conservatives act as a foil to the liberals, and therein lies their true function: to promote traditional values and check liberal excess. But without the liberals themselves, there would be no progress or renewal. So, evidently, each side contributes to the whole, almost despite itself. For example, in the Bible, Jesus embodies the liberal sensibility, while the Romans and Pharisees embody that of conservatism (again, for THAT time and place).

    300 years later, the Romans themselves become Christian. But the Church didn’t become liberal, no, not at all. In fact, the Church took Jesus’ liberal doctrine and wielded it as an instrument of conservatism by taking control of it and enforcing its own meaning over it.

    Now, with respect to morals, there are no absolutes. Whether something “stands the test of time” is meaningless. Stands the test of time where? According to whose opinion or standard? For how long a time are we referring to? What do you even mean by “absolute”? That everyone agrees to it? That everyone follows it? If not, how is it absolute?

  20. Alex,
    You are correct that I misread your words about Liberals “of their day”. But my point still stands…liberals are not the only owners of progress in this country no matter what time.

    By your standards, the ideals of the founders are outdated and our Constitution should be trashed. It was written in the 18th century.

    The values of our founders have stood the test of time…life, freedom, liberty, religious expression. Standards of life, freedom and liberty were not invented by our founders but are universal in time and geography.

    If those morals/standards are not absolute over time then what must you be taking a stand for today?

    Absolute means that morals are not relative to the person. Morals are standards which means those who believe in them can fail or succeed in following them. But they don’t change simply because someone fails, the times change, or someone wishes to have their own relative morality.

    I suppose you are correct in one sense…today’s liberals believe the founder’s values are outdated. Those are no longer the standards of liberals. Today’s liberals do possess a morality of control, suppression of freedoms, limits on speech, lack of self-responsiblity and more.

    Good luck to today’s liberals advocating for so-called “progress” from the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Reid, Soros, and more. Their “progress” consists of making our children indentured servants to their massive spending, to taking the earnings of those who produce and give to those who don’t (and to those who can keep them in power), controlling your healthcare, your salary, your computer, watch you watch on TV or listen to on the radio, your free elections, what your kids will be taught…and on and on ad nauseum.

    It simply is not true that all progress comes from liberals. As one example, the proponents of business and its progress are conservatives in this day. Liberals today believe the state should control corporations, healthcare, and the like. It is American business, innovation and profits that have fueled the industrial and internet revolutions. As time has proven, the state does nothing to promote progress, but instead stifles it and mismanages resources in the process (Medicare, Social Security, Cash for Clunkers, Post Office are common examples).
    To believe that liberals are the champions of progress in this day and age is laughable.

    It seems that liberals, in the name of progress, believe in ripping apart our Judeo-Christian morals and founding by advocating “marriage” of all kinds, sexual indoctrination of 5-year olds, taxpayer funded abortion, and euthanasia. But allowing profits in a business or corporation, which often is used for further capitalization (re progress) in the business just can’t be allowed.

    I think one disconnect we have here could be the definition of progress.
    To a liberal, progress is equal outcomes. To a conservative it means equal opportunity.
    To a liberal it means dependence, to a conservative it means reponsiblity and independence.
    To a liberal it means class warfare, to conservatives it means rewards for efforts.
    Liberals believe in giving a starving man a fish. Conservatives believe in teaching him to catch his own fish.

    Liberals advocate a welfare state at almost every opportunity. Welfare spending in today’s dollars is 10 times what it was in the 1960’s. But no “progress” on the problem. Liberals endlessly shout for more money for welfare programs while their policy of “handing out fish” perpetuates the problem.

    Liberals advocate abortion. But is it really progress when millions upon millions of our citizens are not with us today? Or when those mothers who had the abortions are sometimes existing in the despair of depression because of the life they took?

    Liberals don’t honor the sanctity of marriage. But is it really progress, when because of relative morality throughout the last 4 decades, we now have over half of marriages end in divorce. And that we are well on the verge of completely undermining true marriage in this country to the whims of a deviant few?

    Liberals assume that citizens are not smart enough to find a job, save money, make their own decisions. But is it really progress when much of our citizenry now EXPECTS a hand out instead of hand up? Is it progress when thousands of citizens in New Orleans were so dependent on others to do for them that they either couldn’t or wouldn’t heed the warnings, nor have the means, to get out?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: