That's right, Ice...Man. We ARE dangerous!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
It they are upset by the Christian leaders stance on civil disobedience they will really piss their pants when they hear the stance of many millions of the rest of us angry American patriots.
"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
DANGEROUS...
Rush is right to call these purveyors of socialism the "state owned media."
LA Times is simply following the libtard run DHS in considering Christians, the Manhattan Declaration, tea parties, etc. as “dangerous” right wing extremists, etc.
Anything really new here from the LA Times? No. Move along.
Another reason why the LA Times is losing money and circulation.
The hypocracy is stunning. I sometimes wonder if just ignoring leftist media would be the effective thing to do.
Does anyone think civil disobedience would have worked in Maoist China or even current China, Cuba, or Stalinist Russia?
I recall William F. Buckley once said civil disobedience requires a decent nation to work, or something like that.
Now, as for homosexual shacking up - I really don't give a rip if the government wants to recognize it or not. I do care about it being characterized as marriage, as the definition of the word's really really clear, no matter how many erasers the liberals take to the dictionary.
If the whole thing was ‘well, we wanna recognize these homosexuals who have forgone the promiscuous lifestyle and want to restrict their sexual contact to a single partner’, eh, no skin off my teeth. Since I want to cut, slash and burn all government employee benefits anyway, it's not a big deal to me.
The problem comes when the government wants to make the rest of us recognize this shacking up as being equal to marriage. Sorry, not within your powers as delineated by the US and state constitutions. Thought control’s just not spelled out anywhere. In fact, it's really explicitly enshrined in there that the government shall never try to impose it's will on the people, and further enshrines the people's ability to rebel should the nitwits try.
In many ways, the people have drawn the line in the sand on this issue, not because everyone really gives a rip if the homosexuals plan on pretending to be monogamous, but because along with it comes the full burden of thought control.
Even in California, one of the most liberal states in the country, the people have enshrined in their constitution that simple, time honored, dictionary definition, underlining it for the government as they apparently missed it the first hundred times.
Go ahead, cross that line. Mock all you want those who plan to simply not obey the thought control. Because honestly, if the First amendment doesn't work, it's going to fall to the second to get the job done. And while you're pondering this, dear liberals, you also might want to spend a half hour pondering the oathkeepers.org website, and wonder, just a little bit, how you intend on enforcing your will upon the rest of us.
God’s law is higher than man’s law and we choose this day Whom to serve.
It is only dangerous if you believe that the Governement is your ultimate authority, (or if you are controlled by Satan).
The truth is that liberals thought they ‘had’ conservative Christians by trying to pass anti-Christian legislation which would violate individuals and the Churches’ collective rights, but the truth is that we do not answer to them, we answer to God where their “laws” violate His! ~The liberals now cry “unfair” foul..~ but they were the cheaters by passing such conscience violating laws in the first place!~
Pacifism is a real evil. Augustine advocated the Just War idea and I agree with him. Acts 10, Peter never told Cornelius to give us his soldiering, just to be born again and filled with the Spirit. Pacifists are in control of the Dem Party and put our nation at risk to the Islamofascists and the Koreans, Russians and Chinese once again. The only time I will be a pacifist is when Jesus is King over all the Earth. Then evil will be no more and no one will have to worry about dumbed down liberals who will get us all killed.
GOD, family, country, in that order.
In spite of many politicians wanting everyone to think govt. should be numero uno.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of theseColoniescitizens;
Now this is much simpler, and even more benign, than any left-wing civil disobedience, including many civil rights actions, where the goal was to disrupt and inconvenience until the other side gave in.
Such a law deserves no more respect than laws dictating separate drinking fountains based on skin color.
Yeah, baby, and it's about freaking time.
What does one communist (Mandela), one plagurizing, womanizing, communist sympathizer (King) and some skeleton- like East Indian have to do with Christianity and God’s laws?
So if moslem leaders also refuse to obey “gay rights” laws, what happens to “sharia” in the eyes of liberals?