Yes, Tired of Lies is still alive and well, albeit not necessarily sane having stayed away far tooooooooo long just to see the hands on the clock roll over into a new day, a new month, and a new year -- So, HAPPY NEW YEAR 2008!
One of my readers has posted a blog on all the fours which he copied from elsewhere. I am posting this with a thanks to both Eskypades and Escalera Photography for some insight. Hope you enjoy mine!
1. Four jobs you’ve had in your life: Funeral Home Service Provider, Maitre de, UPS truck loader, & Chaplain.
2. Four movies you could (and do) watch over and over: Amazing Grace, The Hunt for Red October, Dances With Wolves, Ratatouille.
3. Four places you’ve lived: Nardvik, Iceland; Key West, Florida; Aberdeen, South Dakota; and Wichita, Kansas.
4. Four fiction books you can’t live without: Safely Home (Randy Alcorn); Lord Foulgrin's Letters (Randy Alcorn); The Fourth Reich (Van Kampen); Pilgrim's Progress (John Bunyan).
5. Four non-fiction books you consider essential: The Bible; Disciplines of a Godly Man; Lords of the Earth (Don Richardson); and Eternity in Their Hearts (Don Richardson).
6. Four TV channels you love to watch: The Travel Channel, Discovery, The Learning Channel, National Geographic.
7. Four places you’ve been on vacation: Ireland; British Columbia, Canada; Liberia, West Africa; Bolzano, Italy.
8. Four websites you visit daily: BBC News, Fox News, RealtyTrac, and Wikipedia.
9. Four of your favorite foods: Lamb, Steak, Gnocchi, and Chocolate!
10. Four places you’d rather be: South Island, New Zealand; Nuuk, Greenland; Patagonia, Argentina; Liberia, West Africa!
11. Four albums you can’t live without: Andre Rieu, Rachmaninoff, Lang Lang, and John Tesh. (Sorry, can't pick any particular album as I like them all!)
Enjoy and check back again as I should have links established for all my likes!
Signed,
Tired of Lies
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Clarification Re: Huckabee vs. Romney
I appreciate the comment by Stephen and wanted to make a comment for clarification. The intention of my blog is not to make fun of any particular person's beliefs. It is designed with the intention of following in the steps of what we see currently in the world of American politics.
As pointed out, the Constitution states, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust of the United States." While this vital document in US politics may frame such protection, it has little to no bearing on how the people of the US vote as a general rule. Religion is very much an important criteria to the general populace as seen by the fact that almost without one exception, EVERY would-be politician is seen courting the votes of evangelical or Protestant churches. This was especially true of Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush, and now the whole plethora of candidates.
While I am neither a Southern Baptist, nor a Mormon, the purpose of my comments was to point out that religion DOES make a difference. Each candidate attempts to use it to their advantage one way or the other. Personally, I believe there are a lot of people who are not aware of the truth in regards to a person's beliefs.
I for one find it very disconcerting that a presidential candidate will attempt to use half-truths or outright avoidance to try and show how he is very much like the group of peoples of whom he is trying to capture the votes! Romney started this by attempting to portray himself as a "Christian."
For what it is worth, I will state that if a Mormon, or a Scientologist, or a Catholic, or a Southern Baptist, or even an atheist gets into office, we still have a responsibility to give respect to that individual as the duly elected President of the United States. While I would have my own preference as to who gets into the White House, I will accept whoever makes it in January 2009. However, the people of America have a right to be told the truth which seems to be hidden (on the whole) within the realm of politics. The left rants all they want to and the liberal media jumps on the same bandwagons.
I can't help but wonder how much more castigation Huckabee would have received if one of the other candidates had made a comment about his faith. The thought that the other candidate (whoever it might be) apologizing for questioning Huckabee's faith in God and the Holy Bible is laughable at best!!
As pointed out, the Constitution states, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust of the United States." While this vital document in US politics may frame such protection, it has little to no bearing on how the people of the US vote as a general rule. Religion is very much an important criteria to the general populace as seen by the fact that almost without one exception, EVERY would-be politician is seen courting the votes of evangelical or Protestant churches. This was especially true of Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush, and now the whole plethora of candidates.
While I am neither a Southern Baptist, nor a Mormon, the purpose of my comments was to point out that religion DOES make a difference. Each candidate attempts to use it to their advantage one way or the other. Personally, I believe there are a lot of people who are not aware of the truth in regards to a person's beliefs.
I for one find it very disconcerting that a presidential candidate will attempt to use half-truths or outright avoidance to try and show how he is very much like the group of peoples of whom he is trying to capture the votes! Romney started this by attempting to portray himself as a "Christian."
For what it is worth, I will state that if a Mormon, or a Scientologist, or a Catholic, or a Southern Baptist, or even an atheist gets into office, we still have a responsibility to give respect to that individual as the duly elected President of the United States. While I would have my own preference as to who gets into the White House, I will accept whoever makes it in January 2009. However, the people of America have a right to be told the truth which seems to be hidden (on the whole) within the realm of politics. The left rants all they want to and the liberal media jumps on the same bandwagons.
I can't help but wonder how much more castigation Huckabee would have received if one of the other candidates had made a comment about his faith. The thought that the other candidate (whoever it might be) apologizing for questioning Huckabee's faith in God and the Holy Bible is laughable at best!!
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Huckabee vs. Romney!!
*** Edited with websites at bottom of post ***
While it has been a long time since I have posted, I have decided to add a post in regards to an event being commented on the web in regards to two of the Republican candidates.
It is understood that Mike Huckabee as a former Southern Baptist preacher will make comments based on his own understanding of Christianity. The same could also be said about Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. A Mormon is also considered to be a member of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
What I am struggling to understand is why the current furor between the two camps is even making the front pages. Let's briefly recap what occurred.
1. Huckabee ASKS in an interview, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" Sounds like a pretty good question to me and should not have raised any more eyebrows than if Romney had asked, "Don't Baptists believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven to the exclusion of all other religions?"
2. Romney gets upset and says that personal attacks on one's religion should not be an issue; however, attacks on policy and politics is acceptable. He also comments, "I don't believe that the people of this country are going to choose a person based on their faith and what church they go to." -- My question is then - what's the problem? If Romney's church does believe that, then they should be happy to answer doctrinal questions. If they don't believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers, then they have a right to come out with blazing guns for libel and slander against their religion. However, neither of these two things have come to pass.
3. Huckabee then backpeddles with an apology to Romney which in brief was, "I would never pick out some part of your faith and make it an issue." If he felt he had a reason to say something or question a certain aspect of Romney's religion, then why not stand for he believes is right. His (Huckabee's) faith states something completely different than what is found in Mormonism.
4. Romney says that the apology has been accepted. So should this be the end of the issue? I think not! Let me explain with a little information that anybody who wishes to do a little digging like I have can find.
Foxnews comments that, "The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical account.
A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.
"We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all," said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. "That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for." -- End of Foxnews quote
Does or should this then clarify for those who call themselves "evangelicals" that Mormonism is actually just another branch of Christianity or should there be other concerns and questions which should be asked? The facts of Mormonism from historical records -
A. Polygamy only went underground in order to gain statehood. Temple marriages (for the purpose of celestial procreation) are still practiced and performed on a regular basis. This ceremony is not just for one man and one woman, but can involve marriage by proxy by men or women to other men or women who are both alive or who have been dead. This is only for being able to populate the next worlds!
B. Mormonism DOES teach that Jesus and the devil are brothers. They both had a plan for the world, Jesus won the day, and the devil was cast from heaven because he was not a happy camper. At first glance, Mormonism doctrine on this seems vague until you actually read what they have stated. "All beings are created AND are God's spirit children."
C. Let us define the phrase "God's spirit children." Mormonism teaches that somewhere on the planet KOLOB God lives with an innumerable host of spirit wives. Each wife has the privilege of producing spirit children for the purpose of populating the earth. Mormon doctrine teaches that ALL humans are spirit babies on this planet KOLOB and up until recently even taught (again a historical fact) that the good spirit babies were light-skinned on earth AND the bad spirit babies were dark-skinned!!
D. So, their very doctrinal background makes it clear that to them Jesus and the devil were at the very least - spirit baby brothers on this celestial planet called KOLOB (which one has to ask - WHERE IS THIS PLACE?)
E. To compound matters, the Mormon doctrine teaches that for Jesus Christ to come down and become flesh it required that God the Father come down in some type of spirit or flesh form and have conjugal relations with the young virgin, by the name of Mary, in order that Jesus could be born.
F. Finally for now, Mormon doctrine teaches that each good Mormon's (elder's) responsibility is to prepare for the next world where he will become a god of his own planet (not sure the name as KOLOB has already been taken - maybe KOLOB 2, KOLOB 3, etc.). In this utopian environment, this new god-man will spend large amounts of time having celestial sex with his own harem in order to produce their own spirit children which will in turn probably populate some other world-type planet as humanoids!
G. I won't even go in to the wearing of "holy" or "sanctified" undergarments that all good Mormons are required to wear or touch at all times!
*****
Ok, enough of that for now. My questions for Romney's camp are - if this stuff is not true, why is it being listed in Mormon teaching? Why are Mormon leaders not discrediting their past leaders for teaching interesting doctrines to their past congregants? Why if this is what they believe should it make a difference? But, of course, there is the rub!!! Hard to court true evangelicals if you hold to such weird doctrine, unless those who are true evangelicals either turn a blind eye or simply are unaware of what you believe!
The questions for Huckabee's camp are: Why apologize for stating what history shows to be the truth? Why back down on the position he holds within the realm of the Christianity he claims to adhere to?
Questions for America would have to be: Would it make a difference to Americans if the person was an "atheist"? What if they were members of some other cult such as the "Church of Scientology" which is a group currently in the process of being banned from the entire country of Germany?!?!
Maybe strange weird doctrines do not detract from holding the highest office of the land. If that is the case and Americans really don't care, maybe we should consider inviting E.T. to assume at the least the position of Secretary of State, or maybe even Spock of Vulcan to be our Secretary of Defense!!
*** Please note a few websites available for searching the above information ***
http://www.exmormon.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob
http://www.lifeafter.org/
Signed,
Tired of Lies
While it has been a long time since I have posted, I have decided to add a post in regards to an event being commented on the web in regards to two of the Republican candidates.
It is understood that Mike Huckabee as a former Southern Baptist preacher will make comments based on his own understanding of Christianity. The same could also be said about Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. A Mormon is also considered to be a member of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
What I am struggling to understand is why the current furor between the two camps is even making the front pages. Let's briefly recap what occurred.
1. Huckabee ASKS in an interview, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" Sounds like a pretty good question to me and should not have raised any more eyebrows than if Romney had asked, "Don't Baptists believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven to the exclusion of all other religions?"
2. Romney gets upset and says that personal attacks on one's religion should not be an issue; however, attacks on policy and politics is acceptable. He also comments, "I don't believe that the people of this country are going to choose a person based on their faith and what church they go to." -- My question is then - what's the problem? If Romney's church does believe that, then they should be happy to answer doctrinal questions. If they don't believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers, then they have a right to come out with blazing guns for libel and slander against their religion. However, neither of these two things have come to pass.
3. Huckabee then backpeddles with an apology to Romney which in brief was, "I would never pick out some part of your faith and make it an issue." If he felt he had a reason to say something or question a certain aspect of Romney's religion, then why not stand for he believes is right. His (Huckabee's) faith states something completely different than what is found in Mormonism.
4. Romney says that the apology has been accepted. So should this be the end of the issue? I think not! Let me explain with a little information that anybody who wishes to do a little digging like I have can find.
Foxnews comments that, "The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical account.
A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.
"We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all," said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. "That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for." -- End of Foxnews quote
Does or should this then clarify for those who call themselves "evangelicals" that Mormonism is actually just another branch of Christianity or should there be other concerns and questions which should be asked? The facts of Mormonism from historical records -
A. Polygamy only went underground in order to gain statehood. Temple marriages (for the purpose of celestial procreation) are still practiced and performed on a regular basis. This ceremony is not just for one man and one woman, but can involve marriage by proxy by men or women to other men or women who are both alive or who have been dead. This is only for being able to populate the next worlds!
B. Mormonism DOES teach that Jesus and the devil are brothers. They both had a plan for the world, Jesus won the day, and the devil was cast from heaven because he was not a happy camper. At first glance, Mormonism doctrine on this seems vague until you actually read what they have stated. "All beings are created AND are God's spirit children."
C. Let us define the phrase "God's spirit children." Mormonism teaches that somewhere on the planet KOLOB God lives with an innumerable host of spirit wives. Each wife has the privilege of producing spirit children for the purpose of populating the earth. Mormon doctrine teaches that ALL humans are spirit babies on this planet KOLOB and up until recently even taught (again a historical fact) that the good spirit babies were light-skinned on earth AND the bad spirit babies were dark-skinned!!
D. So, their very doctrinal background makes it clear that to them Jesus and the devil were at the very least - spirit baby brothers on this celestial planet called KOLOB (which one has to ask - WHERE IS THIS PLACE?)
E. To compound matters, the Mormon doctrine teaches that for Jesus Christ to come down and become flesh it required that God the Father come down in some type of spirit or flesh form and have conjugal relations with the young virgin, by the name of Mary, in order that Jesus could be born.
F. Finally for now, Mormon doctrine teaches that each good Mormon's (elder's) responsibility is to prepare for the next world where he will become a god of his own planet (not sure the name as KOLOB has already been taken - maybe KOLOB 2, KOLOB 3, etc.). In this utopian environment, this new god-man will spend large amounts of time having celestial sex with his own harem in order to produce their own spirit children which will in turn probably populate some other world-type planet as humanoids!
G. I won't even go in to the wearing of "holy" or "sanctified" undergarments that all good Mormons are required to wear or touch at all times!
*****
Ok, enough of that for now. My questions for Romney's camp are - if this stuff is not true, why is it being listed in Mormon teaching? Why are Mormon leaders not discrediting their past leaders for teaching interesting doctrines to their past congregants? Why if this is what they believe should it make a difference? But, of course, there is the rub!!! Hard to court true evangelicals if you hold to such weird doctrine, unless those who are true evangelicals either turn a blind eye or simply are unaware of what you believe!
The questions for Huckabee's camp are: Why apologize for stating what history shows to be the truth? Why back down on the position he holds within the realm of the Christianity he claims to adhere to?
Questions for America would have to be: Would it make a difference to Americans if the person was an "atheist"? What if they were members of some other cult such as the "Church of Scientology" which is a group currently in the process of being banned from the entire country of Germany?!?!
Maybe strange weird doctrines do not detract from holding the highest office of the land. If that is the case and Americans really don't care, maybe we should consider inviting E.T. to assume at the least the position of Secretary of State, or maybe even Spock of Vulcan to be our Secretary of Defense!!
*** Please note a few websites available for searching the above information ***
http://www.exmormon.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob
http://www.lifeafter.org/
Signed,
Tired of Lies
Sunday, July 29, 2007
The Sovereignty of God
There are many in the world of Christendom who either hold firmly to the doctrine known as "The Sovereignty of God" or they hold to the doctrine that states "God is not in full control of the universe which He created."
I would encourage you to watch this almost 8 minute video on YouTube. It is the personal testimony of a man who know what it means to live life in a way that most of the world would consider to be worthless. Some would even question the mental capabilities of his parents in even considering allowing him to be born. Abortion would have been an option for many people.
This is a man who does NOT live in some ivory tower as some ministers of the Bible do. He lives and exudes the grace and mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ in his life and in his personal outreach to others.
Testimony of Johnny Farese
I hope you are touched by what you see. For those who are skeptical, consider this question -- Based on the infinitesimal amount of ALL the knowledge that is to be gained in the entire world, what if in the balance of what you do NOT know, you have missed the most important truths that will ever be known by mankind? The truth is spoken most convincingly by a man who rightly places his hands in the Sovereign care of His Creator and Redeemer.
The world will tell you that such people do not exist, but they do. The world will tell you we are better off without those who are imperfect in body, soul, or mind. The world will tell you many things which are untrue all for the sake of trying to appease a conscience which is fully and totally guilty before a righteous and holy God - the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Signed,
Tired of Lies
I would encourage you to watch this almost 8 minute video on YouTube. It is the personal testimony of a man who know what it means to live life in a way that most of the world would consider to be worthless. Some would even question the mental capabilities of his parents in even considering allowing him to be born. Abortion would have been an option for many people.
This is a man who does NOT live in some ivory tower as some ministers of the Bible do. He lives and exudes the grace and mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ in his life and in his personal outreach to others.
Testimony of Johnny Farese
I hope you are touched by what you see. For those who are skeptical, consider this question -- Based on the infinitesimal amount of ALL the knowledge that is to be gained in the entire world, what if in the balance of what you do NOT know, you have missed the most important truths that will ever be known by mankind? The truth is spoken most convincingly by a man who rightly places his hands in the Sovereign care of His Creator and Redeemer.
The world will tell you that such people do not exist, but they do. The world will tell you we are better off without those who are imperfect in body, soul, or mind. The world will tell you many things which are untrue all for the sake of trying to appease a conscience which is fully and totally guilty before a righteous and holy God - the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Signed,
Tired of Lies
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Is Music Amoral?
I have come across an article that addresses music from several different levels. Obviously, the truth of this particular subject matter many would consider to be subjective. I am going to post the link here for the article to which I would HIGHLY recommend a good reading of it. I will add some comments of my own in the near future so stay tuned.
Music is Moral Article
I do know that there will be many detractors on this one, and most who call themselves Christians would not even bother because their mind is made up. I can only say that this article simply reinforces what I have tried to share with many through the years - both believers and unbelievers. Interestingly enough, it is ONLY ever believers who disagree that ALL music is moral! Why is that?
Signed,
Tired of Lies
Edited - July 26, 2007
To be fair, I am including a link to an article given by Eskypades in response to the "Music Is Moral" article link I have posted above. I appreciate the time Eskypades has put into his response. While I disagree with much of his premise and feel that some of it is supposition, I also recognize that there are varying degrees of thought processes on this issue.
The link is for an article by Dr. Barry Leisch and can be found here:
Is Music Neutral? (Note: This link opens in a new window.)
It is correct to assume that I hold to the position that I do from a Biblical perspective, the same could probably be said for Eskypades as well. Therefore, in the end, I can only recommend that those who have concern over this issue study the matter carefully and allow the Holy Spirit to reveal to them the truth found in His Word.
In the future, I may address a few of the thoughts that Eskypades has addressed, but for the time being, I do not wish to be bogged down in trying to respond to each point. That is not the point of this particular blog. I also welcome any other comments on any of my articles.
Music is Moral Article
I do know that there will be many detractors on this one, and most who call themselves Christians would not even bother because their mind is made up. I can only say that this article simply reinforces what I have tried to share with many through the years - both believers and unbelievers. Interestingly enough, it is ONLY ever believers who disagree that ALL music is moral! Why is that?
Signed,
Tired of Lies
Edited - July 26, 2007
To be fair, I am including a link to an article given by Eskypades in response to the "Music Is Moral" article link I have posted above. I appreciate the time Eskypades has put into his response. While I disagree with much of his premise and feel that some of it is supposition, I also recognize that there are varying degrees of thought processes on this issue.
The link is for an article by Dr. Barry Leisch and can be found here:
Is Music Neutral? (Note: This link opens in a new window.)
It is correct to assume that I hold to the position that I do from a Biblical perspective, the same could probably be said for Eskypades as well. Therefore, in the end, I can only recommend that those who have concern over this issue study the matter carefully and allow the Holy Spirit to reveal to them the truth found in His Word.
In the future, I may address a few of the thoughts that Eskypades has addressed, but for the time being, I do not wish to be bogged down in trying to respond to each point. That is not the point of this particular blog. I also welcome any other comments on any of my articles.
Friday, July 20, 2007
What is Truth in Politics?
Hmmm, seems like a good question to start with considering this "AConservativeBlog"! To ascertain this question, we must decide A) who is doing the asking?, and B) who is being asked? You might ask, what difference does it make? Actually quite a bit as we will hopefully see in brief detail.
Let's start with "Who is doing the asking?" If one is of the mainstream variety of politicians who are trying to run this country into the ground and who have forgotten that our government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, then the question poses a great problem. Take the example of a fairly recent president (BC) who decided that actual truth was not actually what mattered but how you defined what you think is possibly, maybe, not sure, don't want to get indicted, sort of truth. How could we forget, "Define is!"
On the other hand, truth only seems to be important when the person doing the asking can only remember current history. Classic example, President GWB supposedly needs to be impeached because a small handful of AG's were fired recently. The flaming liberal crowd must be crowing with delight at the problems they think they are creating by telling their version of the truth in this matter. However, they have ALL conveniently forgotten that ex-prez BC had Janet Reno fire ALL 93 AG's in 1993! For those who want to bring up that he was impeached and so should GWB remember that BC was NOT impeached for having 93 AG's fired, but because he was a dishonest man who could not keep his hands off a certain intern and lied about it under oath. Not to mention the TRUTH that he broke his marriage vows made before God and to his wife!
And speaking of his wife/hopeful prez wannabe HRC, as more than one person has noted, she has stated that if elected she will fire all of Bush's appointees with no regards to each individual's performance or decisions. She feels this is perfectly acceptable just as it was for her hubby. However, HRC is trying to lead the pack in trying to close in for the kill of GWB when he has eight of his DAs fired "based on their performance and judgment in prosecutorial discretion!"
Obviously THAT kind of truth is not relevant! The White House staff need to wake up and smell the coffee because what happened in past administrations and will probably happen in future administrations has NO bearing whatsoever on what is currently happening. And so it would seem that as long as we have a long-eared ass in the Big Chair on Pennsylvania Ave, we can be assured of TRUTH. However, the people should take note of the elephants who have long memories and do not forget past injustices -- but then again, THAT also has no bearing on actual truth does it?
Well, that's their story and they are sticking to it, so help them God, oops, what I mean to say is so help them based on the benevolent-deity-of-their-choosing-or-not-as-the-case-may-be for you be assured that the One True God has nothing but contempt for their version of TRUTH. TRUTH is defined by a much higher standard than that to which our country's politicians are being held accountable. But more on that later. Can't mix politics and religion, you know separation of church and state and all that stuff. Don't want the You-Decide-What-Is-Truth Police trying to correct us for being too right-wing, extreme, or conservative!!
Signed,
Tired of Lies
Let's start with "Who is doing the asking?" If one is of the mainstream variety of politicians who are trying to run this country into the ground and who have forgotten that our government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, then the question poses a great problem. Take the example of a fairly recent president (BC) who decided that actual truth was not actually what mattered but how you defined what you think is possibly, maybe, not sure, don't want to get indicted, sort of truth. How could we forget, "Define is!"
On the other hand, truth only seems to be important when the person doing the asking can only remember current history. Classic example, President GWB supposedly needs to be impeached because a small handful of AG's were fired recently. The flaming liberal crowd must be crowing with delight at the problems they think they are creating by telling their version of the truth in this matter. However, they have ALL conveniently forgotten that ex-prez BC had Janet Reno fire ALL 93 AG's in 1993! For those who want to bring up that he was impeached and so should GWB remember that BC was NOT impeached for having 93 AG's fired, but because he was a dishonest man who could not keep his hands off a certain intern and lied about it under oath. Not to mention the TRUTH that he broke his marriage vows made before God and to his wife!
And speaking of his wife/hopeful prez wannabe HRC, as more than one person has noted, she has stated that if elected she will fire all of Bush's appointees with no regards to each individual's performance or decisions. She feels this is perfectly acceptable just as it was for her hubby. However, HRC is trying to lead the pack in trying to close in for the kill of GWB when he has eight of his DAs fired "based on their performance and judgment in prosecutorial discretion!"
Obviously THAT kind of truth is not relevant! The White House staff need to wake up and smell the coffee because what happened in past administrations and will probably happen in future administrations has NO bearing whatsoever on what is currently happening. And so it would seem that as long as we have a long-eared ass in the Big Chair on Pennsylvania Ave, we can be assured of TRUTH. However, the people should take note of the elephants who have long memories and do not forget past injustices -- but then again, THAT also has no bearing on actual truth does it?
Well, that's their story and they are sticking to it, so help them God, oops, what I mean to say is so help them based on the benevolent-deity-of-their-choosing-or-not-as-the-case-may-be for you be assured that the One True God has nothing but contempt for their version of TRUTH. TRUTH is defined by a much higher standard than that to which our country's politicians are being held accountable. But more on that later. Can't mix politics and religion, you know separation of church and state and all that stuff. Don't want the You-Decide-What-Is-Truth Police trying to correct us for being too right-wing, extreme, or conservative!!
Signed,
Tired of Lies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
