So it's been a while since I've posted last. Not that I haven't wanted to, I've just been busy. I am SUPER excited about Palin. I am one of those voters that was going to vote third party until SHE entered the race, and now I am voting the McCain-Palin ticket.
My one comment is that I was recently reading an article online about how Lindsay Lohan, a super party girl of Hollywood (so how serious can she really be) lashed out at Sarah Palin on her myspace blog. She told Sarah Palin that she should stop posing for tabloid covers because she is running for vice president of the country and we should be hearing her policies. And that Obama is the one who can lead the country...... blah, blah, blah.
Interesting Lohan should say that, considering that Obama has been featured SEVEN times, while McCain has only been featured twice. This article also lists the all the other magazines he has been on, such as: GQ, Vanity Fair, Men's Vogue and Rolling Stone, among others.
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN2249933220080822
And really , where are Obama's policies? How is he going to save our nation, aside from stealing from the 'rich' and giving to the poor, while continuing to drive jobs out of the country because the companies can't afford the taxes he imposes on them.
How is universal health care going to save our country? Why don't all those concerned just donate their money to provide for the poor and needy who cannot afford healthcare? Those are the only policies I have heard him speak on. Everything else is 'um..... uh...... well......'
This election is going to drive me crazy!!!!!! I'm just glad I don't have TV so I don't have to watch or listen to what the liberal media trashes on Sarah Palin. Sure she isn't perfect, but she has as much or more experience than Obama, the democratic presidential candidate.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Flip Floppers
I must limit my posting on political topics to one per month, if not, I would never get anything done around my house and my poor child would be neglected. So this month's topic is.... FLIP FLOPPERS!!!! and my ventings about how the media has handled these presidential candidates.
I knew things would get ugly when the media started picking on Mitt Romney back in the day when he was still in the running because of his stance change on gay 'rights' and abortion, but I truly believe his abortion change was a sincere change of heart. After all, if we are unable to change, then what would be the point of the Savior's Atonement? Anyway, the mainstream media picked him apart, ate him up and spit him out. All in the name of 'fair media coverage.'
McCain, well he's been a flip flopper since day one - and I've been calling him a liberal in Republican clothing since day one. I read the book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" last year and ever since then, I have referred to him as our generation's version of Tricky Dick (Richard Dixon).
Ahhh.... now my favorite candidate to bash, Obama. Our so-called, "First Presidential candidate of color". Whatever. One thing that upsets me about him is how this whole 'race card' is being used and he's not even black. Well, his skin color is chocolately brown and his father is an African, so I guess he could be considered an "African-American" - but the masses of black Americans that are rallying behind him don't have that much in common with him besides their skin color. He was raised by a white mother and white grandparents in Hawaii and Indonesia, pretty far away from the prejudices found back east and especially in the south for 'colored' people. His supporters were raised by their parents (whether 'black' or 'mixed'), most of whom lived through the segregation and extreme prejudices of the 50s and 60s. His ancestors were not brought to this country against their will and sold into slavery - theirs were. For all we know, his ancestors were the ones that captured his supporters ancestors and sold them off to the white Europeans to be sold as slaves. My point being - he does not have the background of a true 'black' or even 'candidate of color' candidate. He never had his ancestors lynched or mobbed by the KKK or other extreme groups. His grandparents didn't have to sit at the back of the bus or give up their seat for a white person.
And back in the day when there was more than Obama and McCain, and Obama was asked if he would use public funds to fund his campaign if his Republican opponent was, would he use them - he said, "yes" he would use public funds.
Ahhhhh..... how quickly the political landscape changes. Now he says he won't use them, even though McCain (who supported the public finance bill in the senate) is using them. I guess he saw that if he was on equal financial footing as McCain, he might not win, but since he raised so much money from the mindless masses that blindly follow his empty rhetoric - he saw that with more money he could run more media ads to blow McCain out of the water. Therefore he has 'flipped-flopped' about the campaign finances.
I won't even go into detail about how his stances have changed on the war in Iraq.
Also - a note to anyone who honestly believes that Obama is going to bring 'change' to this country - 1)are you sure he will, because the past 10 or so presidents also always said that they would bring 'change' and the only change I've seen throughout recent US history is the increase in the national deficit and our taxes and 2) are you sure you want the kind of change Obama will bring? He is a socialist to the core - and socialism is just one step away from communism.
If you really want a black president - why didn't Alan Keys get the Republican nomination?
I knew things would get ugly when the media started picking on Mitt Romney back in the day when he was still in the running because of his stance change on gay 'rights' and abortion, but I truly believe his abortion change was a sincere change of heart. After all, if we are unable to change, then what would be the point of the Savior's Atonement? Anyway, the mainstream media picked him apart, ate him up and spit him out. All in the name of 'fair media coverage.'
McCain, well he's been a flip flopper since day one - and I've been calling him a liberal in Republican clothing since day one. I read the book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" last year and ever since then, I have referred to him as our generation's version of Tricky Dick (Richard Dixon).
Ahhh.... now my favorite candidate to bash, Obama. Our so-called, "First Presidential candidate of color". Whatever. One thing that upsets me about him is how this whole 'race card' is being used and he's not even black. Well, his skin color is chocolately brown and his father is an African, so I guess he could be considered an "African-American" - but the masses of black Americans that are rallying behind him don't have that much in common with him besides their skin color. He was raised by a white mother and white grandparents in Hawaii and Indonesia, pretty far away from the prejudices found back east and especially in the south for 'colored' people. His supporters were raised by their parents (whether 'black' or 'mixed'), most of whom lived through the segregation and extreme prejudices of the 50s and 60s. His ancestors were not brought to this country against their will and sold into slavery - theirs were. For all we know, his ancestors were the ones that captured his supporters ancestors and sold them off to the white Europeans to be sold as slaves. My point being - he does not have the background of a true 'black' or even 'candidate of color' candidate. He never had his ancestors lynched or mobbed by the KKK or other extreme groups. His grandparents didn't have to sit at the back of the bus or give up their seat for a white person.
And back in the day when there was more than Obama and McCain, and Obama was asked if he would use public funds to fund his campaign if his Republican opponent was, would he use them - he said, "yes" he would use public funds.
Ahhhhh..... how quickly the political landscape changes. Now he says he won't use them, even though McCain (who supported the public finance bill in the senate) is using them. I guess he saw that if he was on equal financial footing as McCain, he might not win, but since he raised so much money from the mindless masses that blindly follow his empty rhetoric - he saw that with more money he could run more media ads to blow McCain out of the water. Therefore he has 'flipped-flopped' about the campaign finances.
I won't even go into detail about how his stances have changed on the war in Iraq.
Also - a note to anyone who honestly believes that Obama is going to bring 'change' to this country - 1)are you sure he will, because the past 10 or so presidents also always said that they would bring 'change' and the only change I've seen throughout recent US history is the increase in the national deficit and our taxes and 2) are you sure you want the kind of change Obama will bring? He is a socialist to the core - and socialism is just one step away from communism.
If you really want a black president - why didn't Alan Keys get the Republican nomination?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Gay Mormons?
I am a married 20-something woman who lives in Utah. I am a Mormon. I have been my entire life. I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be Christ's Restored church. I agree with the Church's official stance on everything, especially homosexual activity, behavior and 'marriage'.
It's not the Church I have a problem with, it's with these so-called "Homosexual Mormons" - if they believe the Church to be true, why do they want the Church to bend it's doctrines with the winds of change and condone same-sex marriage? Wouldn't that be ignoring the warning Paul gave to the Ephesians in Ephesians 4: 14? "That we henceforth be no more achildren, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of bdoctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"
As I see it, there may be a few cases of someone being born with same-sex attraction, but that doesn't mean he or she should act on it. In reality though, I see a lot of 'same-sex' attraction as being a thought that you continue to entertain until you have yourself convinced that you were born a homosexual. It's akin to my boyfriend I had my freshman year at college. I wasn't attracted to him at all when I first met him, but the more he called me up to hang out with me and the more I did things with him, the idea that I was in love with him grew on me until eventually I found myself thinking I was 'in love' with him. I wasn't, but as an 18-year freshman I thought I was.
As for other homosexuals, I really do feel for them. I have heard of too many instances where the homosexual (whether they are a man or a woman) was molested or abused as a child or even as an adult that they turn from the opposite sex and find comfort in their own sex. It's a huge mess, but that doesn't mean they don't have a choice. We always have a choice as to what we will do, we just can't choose the consequences.
That is the whole point to this existence and to why we chose the Savior's plan over Satan's plan. Satan would have forced us to do everything right so that we wouldn't sin and would all return to our Heavenly Father's presence. There would have been no opportunity for growth in that plan either. But Jesus volunteered to take the position of our Savior, to offer himself as the payment for justice so that mercy could have it's place. He guaranteed that no matter what we did or how we sinned, if we repented and had faith in him and in his Atoning sacrifice, we could be forgiven of our sins and not have to pay the eternal punishment price for it (although we would have to live with the consequences of our sin while in mortality). That leaves us with choice (free will) and freedom to grow and progress.
I don't claim to be perfect and I know that there has only been one perfect man to ever walk this earth and that is Jesus Christ. He knows that we can not attain that stage of perfection in this life that he did, but he wants us to strive for perfection, "aBe ye therefore bperfect, even as your cFather which is in heaven is dperfect." (Matthew 5: 48). God does not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, but he loves us nonetheless. Love does not equate with condoning our actions.
We truly are living in a day which Nephi described: "And there shall also be many which shall say: aEat, drink, and be bmerry; nevertheless, fear God—he will cjustify in committing a little dsin; yea, elie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a fpit for thy neighbor; there is gno harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
I stand for the family as ordained of God, which is one man and one woman (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve) - although when directed by God (which is not at this time), I also agree with plural marriage (one man and two or more wives). Which leads me to another subject: if we are going to allow same-sex marriage, then why not legalize plural marriage? Where do we draw the line? If we allow same-sex marriage, then all of these polygamous compounds are also going to fight for their right to have legally recognized marriages. And although I agree with polygamy when it is ordained of God, I do not agree with how these rogue Mormon offshoots are living it since they have not been authorized to practice it.
Just my thoughts that have been on my mind as of late.
It's not the Church I have a problem with, it's with these so-called "Homosexual Mormons" - if they believe the Church to be true, why do they want the Church to bend it's doctrines with the winds of change and condone same-sex marriage? Wouldn't that be ignoring the warning Paul gave to the Ephesians in Ephesians 4: 14? "That we henceforth be no more achildren, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of bdoctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"
As I see it, there may be a few cases of someone being born with same-sex attraction, but that doesn't mean he or she should act on it. In reality though, I see a lot of 'same-sex' attraction as being a thought that you continue to entertain until you have yourself convinced that you were born a homosexual. It's akin to my boyfriend I had my freshman year at college. I wasn't attracted to him at all when I first met him, but the more he called me up to hang out with me and the more I did things with him, the idea that I was in love with him grew on me until eventually I found myself thinking I was 'in love' with him. I wasn't, but as an 18-year freshman I thought I was.
As for other homosexuals, I really do feel for them. I have heard of too many instances where the homosexual (whether they are a man or a woman) was molested or abused as a child or even as an adult that they turn from the opposite sex and find comfort in their own sex. It's a huge mess, but that doesn't mean they don't have a choice. We always have a choice as to what we will do, we just can't choose the consequences.
That is the whole point to this existence and to why we chose the Savior's plan over Satan's plan. Satan would have forced us to do everything right so that we wouldn't sin and would all return to our Heavenly Father's presence. There would have been no opportunity for growth in that plan either. But Jesus volunteered to take the position of our Savior, to offer himself as the payment for justice so that mercy could have it's place. He guaranteed that no matter what we did or how we sinned, if we repented and had faith in him and in his Atoning sacrifice, we could be forgiven of our sins and not have to pay the eternal punishment price for it (although we would have to live with the consequences of our sin while in mortality). That leaves us with choice (free will) and freedom to grow and progress.
I don't claim to be perfect and I know that there has only been one perfect man to ever walk this earth and that is Jesus Christ. He knows that we can not attain that stage of perfection in this life that he did, but he wants us to strive for perfection, "aBe ye therefore bperfect, even as your cFather which is in heaven is dperfect." (Matthew 5: 48). God does not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, but he loves us nonetheless. Love does not equate with condoning our actions.
We truly are living in a day which Nephi described: "And there shall also be many which shall say: aEat, drink, and be bmerry; nevertheless, fear God—he will cjustify in committing a little dsin; yea, elie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a fpit for thy neighbor; there is gno harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
I stand for the family as ordained of God, which is one man and one woman (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve) - although when directed by God (which is not at this time), I also agree with plural marriage (one man and two or more wives). Which leads me to another subject: if we are going to allow same-sex marriage, then why not legalize plural marriage? Where do we draw the line? If we allow same-sex marriage, then all of these polygamous compounds are also going to fight for their right to have legally recognized marriages. And although I agree with polygamy when it is ordained of God, I do not agree with how these rogue Mormon offshoots are living it since they have not been authorized to practice it.
Just my thoughts that have been on my mind as of late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
