Sunday funny
Sorry this is late. (If you were my Facebook or Twitter friend, you’d know what I’ve been up to this weekend!)
This is so true! By Glenn Foden on CNSNnews.com…
Apr.19, 2009 6:10 pm |
Cartoons |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Jill,
I need some information from you if you can. You have been interviewed by Foxnews many times in the past especially on Sean Hannity’s show. I would be greatful if you could provide me some contact information in the way of phone numbers to Foxnews and Sean Hannity’s show. foxnews.com has limited contact information. Thanks! I would really appeciate it.
It’d be funnier if the artist could spell.
I think gay marriage should be legalized at the federal level, and all states should be forced to allow it. :)
Sentance? lmfao!!
Yes, the someone should have caught the mistake before this went to print.
However, it is typical of liberals to attack spelling instead of substance.
The substance is spot on.
Private property rights are “states rights” when the state is taking property to give to someone who promises to pay more taxes too.
But when someone fills in a puddle in the back yard it is a federal issue worth 10 years in prison.
Liberals are sort of consistent. They support whatever view results in increased government power over individuals. It is a federal issue when the states won’t comply with liberal dogma.
When enough states legalize “non traditional marriage” then liberal federal judges will mandate it in all states to the politicians in Washington won’t have to.
The QOTD is just – I can’t even find the words. I blame Georgetown though, more than Obama. What did they expect? They should have NEVER complied.
Jasper,
The link to the Barbara Simpson’s (World Net Daily) quote of the day is incorrect.
* * * * *
Kristen,
Also, according to the liberal definition of “separation of church and state” no government employee should be allowed to speak at ANY religious institution or event, including the President.
The way the Obama administration is trying to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives reminds me a bit of the brown shirts of pre-war Germany.
Does it really remind you of that Doyle?
Janet — very good point!
Thanks Eileen #2 – although I can’t really take credit for it because I heard the statement on a radio show.
although I can’t really take credit for it because I heard the statement on a radio show.
Posted by: Janet at April 20, 2009 1:39 PM
Of course you did.
I’m a liberal, and that’s not my definition by the way.
Hal,
Aren’t WE cynical today….
“Of course” I took credit, or “of course” I heard it on a radio show?
I’m a liberal, and that’s not my definition by the way.
What IS your definition of separation of church and state? (No fair quoting anything the media, radio or TV has ever said about it – which doesn’t leave you with much source of interpretation…)
Of course you heard it on a radio talk show.
My definition of separation of church and state is the same as the first amendment; The government should not act in ways that favors a particular religion or that favors religion generally, nor should government prohibit the free exercise of religion. I would probably favor more religious freedom than some courts have, such as allowing the use of peyote by Native Americans. I don’t see how the government can Constitutionally prohibit Mormons from polygamy. I don’t see anything objectionable President Obama or Bush speaking at a church, religious university, or anywhere else related to religion.
“I don’t see anything objectionable President Obama or Bush speaking at a church, religious university, or anywhere else related to religion.”
But Hal,
Some people might misconstrue Obama’s presence at ND or Georgetown as favoring a particular religion (Catholicism) on the day of the visit. That line of thinking makes about as much sense as saying that having the Bible in public school shows favor to Christians.
Having a Bible in public school to study it and study Christianity is fine. Reading the Bible in public school as a religious exercise is not fine. (except for private reading on down-time) I think there is broad consensus on both these points.
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
With respect to religion the two operative words are expressly and exclusively, the United States
‘congress’,
and
‘establishment’.
The first ammendment, with regard to religion, does not apply to state legislatures, county councils, city councils, school districts, etc.
It take some real creative massaging to extend it to any other legislative body other than the Untited States Congress. But unfortunately we have had some very innovative thinkers on the United States Supreme Court and the lower federal Courts and they can and have, incrementally, turned the United States Constitution on it’s head.
The word ‘establishment’, absent historical context, is not readily understood.
The men who insisted on the guarantee of a ‘bill of rights’ as a condition for ratifying the United States Constitution had experienced the abuse and injustice of a specific religion funded and protected by a ‘central government’.
They were determined that the proposed federal government would not ‘establish’ a particular christian denomination or religion.
Coincidental with the ratifaction of the Constitution a majority of the 13 colonies/states had ‘established’ churches. A practice which persisted until after the civil war.
But gradually, over time, citizens detemined that it was WRONG to use the power of the law to confiscate a man’s money to force him to support an institution he did not believe was worthy of his support. Accordingly these ‘established churches’ were ‘dis-established’.
The view of peopel who opposed this action was known as ‘antidisestablishmentarianism’.
The predictable consequence of ‘dis-establishment’ was the decline of said church/religion.
When given a ‘choice’, people voted with their pocketbooks and they cast their ‘ballot’ with their church or denomination of ‘choice’, or they found some other place of their choosing to invest THEIR money.
The formerly ‘established’ church facilities soon fell into disrepair.
[The same thing would happen to Planned Parenthood if taxpayers had a ‘choice’ where their tax dollars went.]
Personally, I believe both history and experience demonstrate that ‘established’ churches/religions are a bad idea.
Almost as bad an idea as slavery and taxpayer funded child killing.
But I digress.
The point is this:
If the framers of the constitution, and the citizens of the states who ratified it, were so monolithic and absolute in the ‘principle of separation of church and state’, how do you explain the existence of ‘established churches’ in the very same states that ratified the constitution and subsequently ten ammendments, the first of which prohibited ‘CONGRESS’ from ‘establishing’ a federal religion/church?
Today we have nattering naybobs who become apoplectic if the intersection of two perpendicular planes in the background of political advertisement form a ‘plus sign’ [+], because this sly subliminal ‘plus sign’ [+] could be construed by some to be a ‘christian’ symbol.
Or, Mother Earth forbid that the two words ‘Choose Life’ should appear on a license plate because those same two words appear together in the ‘bible’ and therefore they have to be considered ‘religious speech’ and even if you built a wall to separate the two, the subversive nature of the ‘religious message’ might still be communicated to some one, some how, some where, unawares and the damage done would be severe and irreversible.
A talibanesque theocracy would be inevitable.
The President of the United States ‘requests’ of a religious institution that it conceal it’s religious symbols while he uses their facilities for a photo op.
pbho, what were you thinking?
Georgetown, what were you thinking?
That is just plain tacky!
If you ‘invite’ yourself, or I invite you, to my home for dinner, you may inform me of any food alergies you have, but you do not get to arbitrarily determine the menu.
That would be, at the least, presumptious.
You do not get to ‘request’ that we do not pray to our GOD or ask that we conceal our books, music, art, symbols simply because you may be offended, or someone, somewhere may be offended if one of those religious articles happens to appear in the background of a photograph or a video clip.
We choose to whom we will extend hospitality. We do it on our terms and our conditions.
A man’s/woman’s home is his/her castle and he/she does not share the throne with guests, invited or un-invited.
pbho has no understanding of history,not an iota of dignity, no sense of decorum, no concept of protocol, no hint of noblesse oblige. He is so arrogant that he believes he can go anywhere he wants, and do and say anything he pleases, with no regard to the people and the nation he is supposed to represent.
pbho is the quintessential ‘ugly american’.
yor bro ken
“Reading the Bible in public school as a religious exercise is not fine.”
oh, of course not, the danger of it!! public schools are so much better now that prayer has been removed.
oh, of course not, the danger of it!! public schools are so much better now that prayer has been removed.
Posted by: Jasper at April 20, 2009 8:50 PM
Maybe you’re right Jasper. Maybe if more of our public school students had school-sponsored payer we’d would have had less Government sponsored torture over the last 8 years.
“He is so arrogant that he believes he can go anywhere he wants, and do and say anything he pleases, with no regard to the people and the nation he is supposed to represent.”
Well, at least he hasn’t invaded any countries yet or locked up innocent people without rights. That would have been very arrogant.
Maybe if more of our public school students had school-sponsored payer we’d would have had less Government sponsored torture over the last 8 years.
Depends on your definition of government-sponsored torture though, doesn’t it? Use of US funds to dismember and kill unborn foreign babies might well be considered torture. Especially if you’re the innocent one being ripped into pieces while you’re still alive.
yeah, I don’t consider that torture.
Hal, there is still a chance, now, today, to repent of your evil. Tomorrow, there may not be.
If you were the one being ripped to pieces, or having a needle full of poison plunged into your heart, or having scissors shoved into the back of your skull, I bet you would think it was wrong.
And it would be.
ken — you never cease to amaze me! 8:48 pm is so astutely expressed!!! You really do need to write a book.
Hal, keep believing the distorted talking points of the Left and someday you will have a rude awakening — but don’t worry we will be there for you!