Is CNN attacking Christianity?

Is CNN attacking Christianity?

Last week CNN gave over three minutes on a major news program covering a small town Baptist Church minister in Fayetteville North Carolina. He was proclaiming to Fathers, that if their sons show the ‘limp wrist,’ they should punch them. Other such UN-Christian phrases were said during his sermon. Phrases I for one do not condone.   

My question is not that what he said was right or wrong, but why is this newsworthy? Why did CNN think that this small town Baptist Church deserved to be put on display, in front of millions across the country, if not for the reason of putting Christianity up for judgment?

When I saw that program, it disturbed me that CNN seemed to be putting my faith in a poor light across the country as if to say, “See, Christians hate gay people, they want their sexuality beaten out of them.”

If it ended there, I would not ask anyone to read this. However, This Sunday morning I watched as CNN brought out a former Methodist minister that has turned away from her faith and is now a proclaimed Atheist. Again I ask anyone reading this, why is this national news?  If not to show weaknesses in people who are Christians, then what is the worthiness of its information to the public?

So as you prepare to comment on this opinion, please answer how CNN ignores a story about a Christian minister in Iran who converted to Christianity. This minister has been in prison for more than a year and has already been convicted and sentenced to death. In case you don’t watch all the news, you should also know that his lawyer has been ordered by the Iranian religious leaders to stop defending him under penalty of imprisonment.  

After he was sentenced, he was given the opportunity to deny Jesus and return to the Muslim Faith. He refused and is now about to become a martyr. So why has CNN, MSNBC, CBS and others not reported this. Only FOX news gives the story any recognition on a regular basis. I believe that if a Muslim was on trial for his religion, the whole world would be in an uproar, and out President Obama would be advocating for him every day of his time in office.

So is CNN and others on an anti Christian war? You decide and let me know.

Take a national survy

This survey of 1,000 Adults nationwide was conducted on April 23-24, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

National Survey of 1,000 Adults
Conducted April 23-24, 2012
By Rasmussen Reports

1* How closely have you followed news reports about the government bailouts of the auto industry?

2* Looking back, was the government bailout of General Motors and Chrysler a success or a failure?

3* When it comes to the government bailout of GM and Chrysler, did the government make money, lose money or break even?

4* General Motors went through a special bankruptcy process allowing the federal government to take over the company in exchange for bailout money. Was it appropriate for the government to use a special bankruptcy process in exchange for bailout money or would it have been better to use the regular procedures and leave ownership of General Motors in the private sector?

5* If General Motors had gone through the regular bankruptcy process, would private investors have put up money to take control of the company?

6* If General Motors had gone through the regular process and private investors bought the company, would most General Motors workers still have their jobs?

7* If private investors had taken over General Motors instead of the government, would the CEO have been given a $20 million severance package after being fired?

8* Suppose General Motors had gone through the regular bankruptcy process and avoided government ownership. If the company had been taken over by private investors instead of the government, would it be better off today?

9* Official estimates indicate that the government will lose tens of billions of dollars on the auto bailouts. Knowing that the government lost money on the auto bailouts, would you say that the bailouts were a success or a failure?

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidenc

Answer in comment section with the question number and the answer of your choice. please sign the survey, I recommend anonymous, but you can do as you please. 

Suvey questions asked 1000 liely voters

Take the survey. Put your answers in your reply. Answer the questions honestly and sign as anonymous. I will let you know the results.

1* Should the government be allowed to do anything that a majority of voters want or should there be legal limits on government to protect the natural and civil rights of individuals?

2* How important is it for leaders of the government to be selected by voters?

3* How important is it for there to be strict limits on government so that it cannot not take away individual rights and freedom?

4* Which is more important: ensuring that leaders are selected by voters or insuring that there are strict limits on government so that it cannot take away individual rights and freedom?

5* Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? A government powerful enough to do everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.

Wall Street preotesters!

This was sent to me by a friend. I find it it very interesting and pretty damn close to how I feel, how about you?

I don't want you to think this is an original piece that I put together.  I gathered much of the text from a variety of articles I have recently read - but none seemed to bring together the thoughts that I have on the protests we have seen lately.  So, with a little plagiarism, I have been able to present my point of view on our current protests:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Sociologists have shown that a middle class represses the likelihood of a citizen-led political revolution. When enough people make enough money to have something to lose, they are unlikely to try to upend the system.   A middle class, then, ensures that a good proportion of citizens are comfortable and that goes a long way towards encouraging them to relax and enjoy the status quo.  The ability to consume, correlates with a complacent citizenry.

And therein lies our current problem:  We have lost our middle class.

By the end of 2001, only 1% of the American population owned 38% of the nation's wealth. Conversely, 40% of the population - our poorest - owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. It's just gotten worse in the last decade.

The basic premise of the protests is that at a time when unemployment is high and staying that way, it is no longer acceptable that 1% of our population controls 40% of its wealth. That the Wall Street financiers who did so much to crash the world financial markets are part of this 1%. The logic is that the super-rich are to blame for the problems we all are experiencing. but, being so rich, they are insulated from the damage they have caused.

Who was complaining when they were buying and flipping houses they could not afford? Who was telling Wall Street to slow it down when even cab drivers were making killer bank on their portfolios?  None of us.  Including those who are protesting.

I would be inclined to support these protestors if:

*   They were clean
*   They accepted some of the responsibility for their circumstances

Because they do have a point even if they are unable to articulate it: 

We must rebuild our middle class if we are to survive as a nation with the philosophy and goals of our founding fathers.

When enough people make enough money to have something to lose, they are unlikely to try to upend the system.

I believe there is an interesting parallel between the NBA negotiations and Congress.  The NBA has begun to see some success as a result of third party mediators.  Perhaps what we need in Washington is a group of third party mediators that can find some common ground between these two polarized parties that can get nothing, with common sense value, in place to correct this imbalance and get people bac

Is this the end of America

WILL USA SURVIVE?
The folks who are getting the free stuff, don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

The folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop, and the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... The people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff, that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff, are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... The people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff, and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 235 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that. In 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING
A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

I'M 100% for PASSING THIS ON!!!


------------------------------------
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money". -- Margaret Thatcher

My opinion on Obama care!

My opinion on Obama care!

New costs no one really new about!

Do you remember when Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill to know what’s in it!”  Here is something I wonder if any of you know about.  Something the CBO can’t include when attempting to figure out what the cost of this health bill will be, because in this particular part of the bill, it is the insurance companies who must, I repeat must give at no cost the following free medical for, “Women’s preventive health care act.”   Sounds unconstitutional to me!

Did you know that in January 2013 the Obama health plan will force insurance companies to pay for , without co-pays or deductible, virtually free women’s health care for such things as mammograms, birth control, and an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

So does anyone think that the insurance companies are going to just except these costs, no of course not!  They will pass them on to all of those who still pay for their own health policies.  If you thought your insurance costs were going down then guess again.  Cost is going up, thanks President Obama, thanks for nothing.

On a side note, do you remember how the President said that less than 30% of those on group health plans will be dropped from their plans, well a new national survey says that more than 60% will now be dropped from those plans in favor of government plans.  This will take effect in 2014 and could add two trillion dollars to the debt.

In case anyone actually reads this post, then please tell me why the Democrats fight to cut anything?  Most recently the FAA, Republicans want to stop funding airports that have little or no traffic.  Many are strictly used by the very wealthy for private plains.  So please explain to me why!  Why are they against a balanced budget amendment?  If anyone would like to discuss this I am willing to do so.

While I’m on the subject, I will give my opinion on why.  Bush threw away physical conservatism when he enacted the prescription drug plan without a way to pay for it.  I was handling all my parents bills at that time and I know that their supplement paid for their medicine with a low co-pay.  I know that many on Medicare could not afford that supplement, but with the government, just covering those who can’t afford isn’t fare.  They have to cover all, the plan was worse for them, as it turned out more costly.  Thanks Bush, thanks for nothing!

So why do they do it?  Maybe to make themselves feel better, or maybe to leave some kind of self heritage for the historians to say how great he was.  But I believe for power.  An entitlement is power.  Once you have something, you will not be willing to give it up.  50% of working America pays no income tax, that is they get it back and more at the end of the year.  Why is that?  Votes, it all comes down to votes!  Tell them that we must change the tax laws and they may have to actually pay some tax and they vote for the party that says that should not happen, you know, like throwing a wheelchair grandma over a cliff. 

Right now the Republicans seem to want to cut and the Democrats do not.  Tough choices are made by tough people, our time is running out!

Debt-Ceiling Drama a Good Excuse for Americans to Figure Out What They Really Want Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/27/debt-ceiling-drama-good-excuse-for-americans-to-figure-out-what-want/#ixzz1TLxDUNWJ

When something good happens to Americans, they often say, “Is this a great country, or what?” As the federal government approaches the possibility of failing to pay its bills, come next week or so, Americans may be wondering if the U.S. is still great.

It might be a good time to ask ourselves, "How did we get into this mess in the first place?" Some will accuse President Obama of not beginning negotiations with congressional party leaders sooner. Others will blame the Tea Party for insisting on unreasonable spending cuts, or for not taking the debt ceiling seriously.

It’s the Republicans; it’s the Democrats; it’s the greedy corporations; it’s the special interests. There seems like plenty of blame to go around, and in the partisan atmosphere of Washington, D.C., the talking heads are working overtime.

But the problem might be more fundamental and more distant than the current haggling and finger pointing may suggest. The problem seems to lie within us, the people of the United States, and with leaders from both parties who, for decades, failed to tell us the truth.

It seems like Americans have not come to grips with what we want from our government; we want two very different things at the same time.

The American commitment to individual liberty tells us that taxes should be kept low and people should be rewarded for hard work and taking risks. The Republican Party carries this banner for us and most Americans agree with the basic philosophy. Even Democrats indulge us to a point. Opinion polls show that the public is fine with increasing taxes on the “wealthy,” but not on the middle or lower classes.

Our leaders tell us the middle class has given enough, yet, nearly 50% of income earners pay no net income taxes. Is this a great country, or what?

Meanwhile, the compassionate voices in our heads say we need to take care of the poor, the sick and the elderly. The Democratic Party is there to ensure those priorities are protected, and most Americans accept the basic philosophy of that party as well. Even Republicans are wary of reforming Social Security and Medicare. Although these are the most expensive government programs, neither party really wants to cut spending or change benefits.

Our leaders promise to keep the benefits coming, even though the population is aging and they know that there is nowhere near enough money to pay for them. Is this a great country, or what?

We are in this mess because we don’t want to pay for the programs we profess to need and both parties know it. We say we want less government, but we don’t want to spare the programs that make government too big. We say we want our leaders to compromise, or we want a “balanced approach,” but we don’t really want to pay more taxes from our pockets, or accept lower benefits from the programs we depend on. Let someone else sacrifice.

The debate over the soaring debt and the debt limit has made it clear that we have reached a point where it is impossible to have both lower taxes and higher spending. 

If we are truly a great country, we will accept this reality and our leaders will show us the way of dealing with it. Let’s hope this happens soon. If not, the answer to our question will surely be “or what.”

Palazzolo is a professor of political science at the University of Richmond.