Previous 31 - 40 Next
You were inaccurate, to say the least, about WMD in Iraq. Both Brigitte Gabriel and Melanie Phillips, in their books, quote Saddam Hussein's top Air Force General as saying that WMD was moved out of Iraq prior to the U.S. going into Iraq in 2003. This general says flat out that commercial passenger jets were stripped of seats, galleys, overhead bins, and lavatories and loaded with WMD and taken to Syria. Gabriel and Phillips are both well-respected and trusted in the battle to save our country and our world. Also, Bush wasn't alone in saying that WMD existed in Iraq. Many other intelligence agencies in other countries concurred.
I wonder if he similarly doesn't like Bill de Blasio, mayor of NYC, because he's married to a black woman?????
In response to:

Still One Nation Under God

majer Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 8:07 AM
There is no "separation clause" in the first amendment. There is an "establishment clause" that prohibits establishing a national religion, but there is no separation clause. I dare anyone to find it anywhere in the Constitution. The liberals have taken a phrase included in a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists and run wild with it. There is no legal basis for separation of church and state in the Constitution.
In response to:

Culture of Death (Continued)

majer Wrote: Dec 17, 2013 10:53 AM
I'm very disappointed in your take, Mr. Thomas, on the 3/5 clause. So many people are ignorant about this clause and its intended purpose. It was a numeration system only and was not intended as a pronouncement on the "humanness" of a person. If this clause had not been implemented, the South would have had an overwhelming majority in the new House of Representatives, a majority that they would have kept for decades, possibly ensuring that the Civil War would have been fought in the 20th century instead of in the 19th century. That Southern majority would never have allowed slavery to be abolished. The 3/5 clause was a way to keep the representation of the South manageable and, by the way, this clause was applied equally to indigenous American Indians as well as to Black slaves. The 3/5 clause was actually the first shot across the bow (fired by the representatives from the Norhern colonies) in an attempt to end slavery. People don't seem to realize that we have the same moral dilemma going on in our own times with the abortion issue. The abortion issue has been raging all my life. The slavery issue was raging since the 1600s, and there were many people and groups working to abolish it in early America. But, how long does it take to change hearts and minds? It can take generations, as we see ourselves from the debates about abortion. Slavery was a blot on America, but it was a blot on the entire world at that time. Slavery was an accepted practice on every inhabited continent back then and had been for over 3,000 years. And, it is still practiced today. Again, how long does it take to change hearts and minds? And I might add that, as evil as slavery was, its intended purpose was not to kill people. To slaveowners, slaves were a financial investment. A sick, starving, or dead slave was of no use to a slaveowner. In contrast, the ONLY purpose of abortion is to kill. Who is worse: the slaveowners whose intention was not to kill, but to get a day's work in the fields, or the people of today who promote and practice murder--infanticide--of innocent children? You should read David Barton's (Wallbuilders.com) books about early America to learn about the truth of the 3/5 clause. Most people today are terribly ignorant of its intended purpose, including you, Mr. Thomas.
I can't believe that you failed to mention Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments" (which was published on August 13) in your entire article. The possible use of Article V to rein in the federal government was outlined by Mark Levin in his book, not by David Long. Give credit where credit is due. However, hurrah for David Long for pursuing this.
In response to:

Health Care for the Pushy

majer Wrote: Nov 07, 2013 10:07 AM
Stam, you are absolutely right. I'm an American married to a Canadian and we've lived in Ontario for the past six years. Being used to the great and timely medical care in the U.S., I was horrified by the socialized health care system here. It took us two and a half years to even find a doctor who would accept us as new patients. When I had a neurological problem a few years ago, the doctor referred me to a specialist. That was in May 2011 and my appointment with the specialist was in June 2013. That's two years waiting for an appointment! That's what my fellow Americans will face. In addition, the price of everything will go up in the U.S. Canadians pay for their "free" health care every time they go to a checkout. Do you want to pay $26 for a lousy two-pound stewing chicken? You will. A case of beer in the U.S. costs about $17. Here it is $50. A tiny rib-eye steak (about 3 ounces) is about $10. In addition, we pay over $5,000 a year for heating costs and car and home insurance costs are astronomical. We are both retired from professional jobs and bring home a healthy monthly income, but we barely make it from month to month because the cost of living here is so high. All you suckers who want obamacare will be singing the blues eventually. Last point: Socialized medicine is a communist concept. Read history. Every maniacal dictator in the 20th century instituted socialized medicine once they gained power. Having power over people's health care and who lives and who dies is the ultimate control over people. Wake up!
What do you get if you have a mediocre (or worse) population? A mediocre (or worse) country. The liberals love this because it's much easier to control and manipulate low-educated or non-educated people.
In response to:

Mitt Rasputin

majer Wrote: Aug 24, 2013 9:15 AM
America passed up a chance to have a decent man in the White House and also passed up a chance to have a man who actually has experience in business, economics, management, and leadership in charge. We would already be seeing drastic improvements in the economy and lowering of the unemployment rate if the country had elected Romney. The problem wasn't Romney. The problem was, and is, the brain-dead and immature low information voters, including the youth, who will pay for their ignorance along with the rest of us. America really screwed up when it rejected Romney.
In response to:

Obama Remaking America's Image

majer Wrote: Aug 09, 2013 9:43 AM
Obama doesn't love America. He may be a U.S. citizen by birth, but he's not a cultural American. He didn't grow up learning about American history in school, waving little American flags at 4th of July parades, or roasting wienies and marshmallows around a campfire. Hawaii became a state in 1959, but its culture was far removed from mainstream American culture back then (and still is, in my opinion). So Obama didn't grow up like other American kids. In his words and actions, I see disdain and loathing for the country he's supposed to be leading. He's a divider, not a uniter, and he's a pathological liar to boot. Never, in its entire history, has this country had such an evil man foisted on it. And never have we had so many morons who have the right to vote. God help us.
In response to:

Detroit: The Left’s Model for Success

majer Wrote: Jul 22, 2013 10:23 AM
Why in hell should the creditors lose their money? They didn't do anything wrong. It's the stupid people in Detroit who have, for over 50 years, voted for incompetent and corrupt liberals who should pay some price for their own stupidity. Detroit is 80% black, and those blacks are too stupid to realize that the democrats have kept them on the plantation, the government plantation. They need to wake up.
We'll also be shrugging off polygamy and other alternative styles of marriage. Just you wait.
Previous 31 - 40 Next