1 - 6
What in the world is with you? Today's Russia is an unapologetically Christian nation with growing Church attendance and a very forthright anti-Islamist policy. They have rejected the homosexual hegemonist agenda, and have passed laws to protect their children from it. They are struggling to shake off 70 years of the most evil system of government in history, and to emerge into fresh air, and they are succeeding. Now comes with indignation Townhall.com, deeclaring we must cling to past enmities and, instead of congratulating Russia for their obvious effort to morally succeed where we are failing, rather fantasizing that the present is the past and inviting us all to join them. No, thanks. I would rather encourage that which is good than try to undo it. in Christ, Fr. James+
If I own myself and am, properly, absolutely sovereign over my own actions, what if I decide it is in my sovereign best interest, for reasons that are satisfactory to me, to go rob Fred's house? What if I'm better armed and trained, and, a'la Nietzsche, see that as the only moral justification I need?
The problem is, most of the behavior that madfe America great is now illegal. Move onto a patch of uninhabited land with a cow, a mule, some chickens and some bags of seed, and you will be in trouble with thw BLM, the EPA and the Forest Service. Hunt for food, and you'll be arrested for poaching. Set up a business on your own and you'll be hammered for permits and premises compliance, Now Phoenix has jailed a pastor for having prayer meetings in his house, on pretext of zoning laws with which he has complied! We live in a homogenized, pasteurized, cookie-cutter society, where actual initiative has actuallly been outlawed and only outlaws are permitted any initiative. Job One is to change that.
In response to:

The Reddest of Presidents

frosselli Wrote: Jul 24, 2012 3:19 PM
I watched this happen in New York (I'm old enough to say that!). The Democrats systematically destroyed neighborhoods in a process they called "gentrification," thereby running the people who couldn't affprd the new, fashionable condos out (all the stories you've heard about the methods they used to get people out of the buildings are true). But, never fear! They provided "public housing:" crime-ridden, institutionally-painted, occasionally-maintained high-rises. Their residents are completely dependent on government for their most basic needs, roadblocks to their independence having been carefully placed. These places are little more than Democrat vote-farms. Looks like it''s now the national plan.
In response to:

The Reddest of Presidents

frosselli Wrote: Jul 24, 2012 3:03 PM
The answer is, Yes. Many of us do noit like the way Mr. Romney ran Massachusetts. The salient point, however, is that he governed the way he ran. The man's record is that he keeps his campaign promises and is faithful to his constituency. The promises and the constituency have changed, and the evidence of his rcord is that he will be faithful to them. The alternative, of course, is Mr. Obama--and the sure and certain destruction of our way of life.
In response to:

The Reddest of Presidents

frosselli Wrote: Jul 24, 2012 2:51 PM
Someone who's broke cannot (a) write as many letters, because paper, envelopes and stamps cost money; (b) make as many phone calls; (c) contribute as much to as many causes. The broker one is, the more circumscribed one's field of action is. So, if one is in a position to pursue dictatorship, and is so inclined, it is essential to first impoverish the people. It seems to me that this is the reason Mr. Obama has resisted and refused every effort at job or wealth creation that has been proposed since he came into office, and has promoted an unprecedente amount of government dependency.
1 - 6