What's Wrong with America? [Updated]

>> Tuesday, March 6, 2012


Prime example... Mike Malloy, a liberal talk show host, had this to say on Friday last:

“Their God … keeps smashing them into little grease spots on the pavement in Alabama, and Mississippi, and Arkansas, and Georgia, and Oklahoma... You know, the Bible belt, where [in a mocking voice] they ain’t gonna let no goddamned science get in the way, it says in the Bible, blah blah blah blah blah. So, according to their way of thinking, God with his omnipotent thumb reaches down here and so far tonight has smashed about 20 people into a grease spot on highway 12, or whatever the hell highway they live next to.”

On this same day, Rush Limbaugh stooped to the Left's level and called a woman advocating that government provide free birth control for promiscuity in addition to genuine medical need (some physical conditions suffered by women are greatly ameliorated by the use of birth control pills). Rush has since apologized, spending more than 30 minutes on air doing so. Will Mr. Malloy do likewise? Whether he will or not is beside the point. And that point being, there is something very wrong with America.

Liberalism is what is wrong. Liberalism has turned everything moral on its head; everything that was once immoral is now moral, and what was once moral is now immoral. Liberalism now (and has ever) pushes its new morality, and demands the rest of us both accept it as moral, and pay for it. All this while bashing everyone who disagrees; who cling to the genuine morality, and God's standard.

Homosexuality used to be an abomination; a public shame. Now it is a badge of honor, to be paraded every year in the city streets, and protected from discrimination every day. Homosexuality is now celebrated.

Out of wedlock births used to be considered a public shame because it violates God's standard of chasteness until marriage. Now it is rewarded with government benefits and grants, and is viewed as completely acceptable, despite studies which show that children born to single mothers, with no involved father figure tend to do more poorly in life (education, socially, and career-wise) than children born to involved married parents.

Abortion used to be considered a terrible moral crime, and a shame upon the women who got them. Today it is still considered such, by and large, but largely by Liberalism.

Usury has always been immoral, yet everyone who provides you credit or loan, practices it daily.

I could cite more.

The point is, Liberalism is the problem*. It's mindset is aberrant and reprobate.

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.  --Romans 1:18-32

This is the why; the foundational reason for why America has fallen so far from God's grace; why judgment lies, even now, at the door. Edmund Burke said 'all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.' And this is why America is in the sorry shape that it is... good men, for decades, have chosen to do nothing to fight back the encroachment of morality-eroding Liberalism.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!  --Isaiah 5:20,21

And isn't this where we are today, in America? Liberals like Maher can call Sarah Palin a "c^nt" and not feel the slightest need to apologize; in Maher's case specifically, no pressure from HBO to apologize. Mike Malloy can mock Christians and the states they live in; in effect mocking God himself, but will likely never feel any personal remorse for having said the evil things he did. All the while Rush Limbaugh, recognizing a serious mistake on his part, is personally compelled to issue a written apology on Saturday, and take up considerable time on air yesterday to apologize further. 

Why is it Liberalism feels no remorse for it's daily slander of the right? for the millions of unborn murdered in what should be the safest place on earth... their mother's womb? How is it that Liberalism sees nothing immoral about forcing conscientious objectors to Obama's healthcare mandate to provide abortions and contraception to employees? How is it they cannot see that taxing one segment of society and increasingly exorbitant rates is immoral? How is it that there is one standard of conduct for Liberals in the public arena and quite another for Conservatives?

I'll tell you. Based on the verses quoted from Romans above, Liberalism is, as Michael Savage so apted stated, a mental disorder.

Here then is a warning to Liberals everywhere...

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption...  --Galatians 6:7,8

And with that warning comes hope...

...but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.  --Galatians 6:8b 

It doesn't have to end badly for you individually, or America. You have a choice. WE, as a nation, have a choice to turn away from our wickedness, repent, and turn again to God.

------------ UPDATED - 2:54pm -------------

This is what's wrong with Liberalism. It asks questions of people to which it already knows the answer. Case in point...

Christian actor Kirk Cameron was a guest on “Piers Morgan Tonight” over the weekend to discuss “Monumental,” his new project on the roots of America coming to theaters later this month, when the British host of the program suddenly turned subject and asked Cameron his views on homosexual marriage.
Cameron’s calm answer explaining his view that marriage “was defined by God a long time ago … one man, one woman for life” has drawn a firestorm of criticism from fellow celebrities, homosexual organizations and even rock musician Nikki Sixx, who blasted Cameron as “a–hole of the week” for his answer, and Roseanne Barr, who called Cameron “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.”

Nikki Sixx? Reprobate. Roseanne Barr? Ditto. That's not a slam, it's a statement of truth. Why should folk with good moral values care about the opinions of those without? To a point because these folk are darlings of the media, and their voices carry weight with the rest of the unregenerate/degenerate populace, but we should only care to the point of being personally ready to give an answer for what and why Godly men and women believe. No Godly man or woman ever, except to confirm that righteousness and holy standards do exist in the mind of God, need care what the unregenerate think of them. People who spend their entire lives in the dark will invariably shield their eyes when the light of truth is shone upon them. Some will respond and desire the light but, sadly, many will not.

Cameron's response:

“In a recent interview about my film, “Monumental,” I was asked to share my views on homosexuality, gay marriage and abortion,” Cameron says. “I spoke as honestly as I could, but some people believe my responses were not loving toward those in the gay community. That is not true. I can assuredly say that it’s my life’s mission to love all people.

“The only way to properly answer these kind of questions is to begin the discussion with another question: Is life and sexuality sacred or are they not?” he continues. “If they are, then God has something to say about these things. If not, then everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter.

“I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand in America,” he continues. “I should be able to express moral views on social issues – especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years – without being slandered, accused of hate speech and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.

“In any society that is governed by the rule of law, some form of morality is always imposed. It’s inescapable,” Cameron asserts. “But it is also a complicated subject, and that is why I believe we need to learn how to debate these things with greater love and respect.
This much is so true of Liberalism... it demands, as Kirk Cameron says, that those of us whose moral underpinnings greatly differ from those of Liberalism must bend our beliefs to their moral standards or be silent. Tolerance to Liberalism is an oxymoron; it only tolerates its moral positions.

And this is a fine illustration of what's wrong with America.


*Liberalism is not the sole enemy of a would-be moral America. But it is pervasive throughout America's culture, its attitude toward God, and all things holy.


BenT - the Unbeliever,  March 7, 2012 at 12:45 AM  

First lets bring a little context to this equivalence party.

The Mike Malloy Show is on Sirius Satellite and 13 other radio stations. According to his website Rush Limbaugh is on 600 radio stations nationwide. So not quite apples to apples.

Mike Malloy (who I had never heard of before today) is a no one in the Democratic party. He doesn't influence elections, or legislation, or ideology. Rush Limbaugh is the center of the Republican party. There may be no one person more influential on the right.

Limbaugh didn't just call the woman a "slut" and a "prostitute" and it wasn't just something he said and quickly tried to take back. He spent a good three days calling her a slut and a prostitute, spinning her public policy advocacy as a form of nymphomania and telling degrading stories about her sex life -- all culminating in a joking dare that if she wanted the taxpayers to pay for her insatiable appetite for sex she should agree to make sex tapes for Rush and his fans to watch. It went on for days. This was finally followed by a non-apology apology in duress.
Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo

“I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words.”
Rush Limbaugh, Monday's show

See if Rush had only said "sex addict without morals" and "lady-of-the-evening" he wouldn't have felt like he needed to apologize at all.

Rush Limbaugh = Conservatives = Moral Values

The logic doesn't compute.

BenT - the Unbeliever,  March 7, 2012 at 1:03 AM  

Kirk Cameron in his adult film career has become known for taking religious roles and it very much looks like his new movie is aimed at tying patriotism and evangelical religion together. Piers Morgan hosts a second rate talk show. Why are you surprised Morgan asked Cameron about his faith? Or controversial questions that might generate future ratings?

There was no liberal conspiracy or persecution. There was capitalism and sensationalism.

...And if the most prominent "liberals" that responded are Roseanne Barr and some rock "star" then its a tempest in a teapot.

Is your faith so fragile it can stand no questioning at all?

But here's the fact. You and Kirk Cameron don't live in a Christian nation. You live in a secular nation of multiple faiths of which Christianity is the majority.

That means you get Christmas and Easter and politicians writing laws favoring your beliefs to the detriment of everyone else. What the rest of us get is to live our lives in peace. Even if that means we want to be sluts or homosexuals or heathens or have abortions or single parents.

Marshall Art March 7, 2012 at 9:53 AM  

It really doesn't matter which lib celebrity trashes the true definition of morality. They do it in such great numbers that it must come close to Limbaugh's total audience. And the frequency of their derision is almost constant.

What they hope to do by their actions, whether consciously or not, is to garner support for their desires to alter what constitutes moral behavior, as if numbers determine what is or isn't moral. It can be said that if the whole world decides that sex with small children is moral, it would then be moral. But it would only be considered moral by the whole world, while still NOT being moral at all. Morality exists outside of human invention. It was here before us, so to speak, and will remain after we are gone, or if no one remains that cares to pay it heed.

Rush shouldn't have apologized. He should have remained firm and reiterated why what he said was absolutely appropriate. The word "slut" is not all that harsh that it cannot be used. What is harsh about it is how the use of it, pointed at one who is well suited to its use, reflects to that person their own corrupt character, and that reflection brings them unbearable shame. One who isn't a slut doesn't lose any sleep over being called what doesn't apply. Only those who are deserving of the term that aptly describes their behavior are offended. Too bad. Here's a tip. Stop being a slut. Live a life of high moral character and no one can hurt you with words like that.

So Rush's apology was in error. The words were indeed appropriate based on what Fluke was demanding for herself and other women like her.

As to what kind of nation ours is, it is a fallen culture. It is corrupted, possibly beyond hope, except that Hope that still exists for those who resist the temptations of this reprobate society. Eric is spot on. I've spoken of the moral decline of our nation many times. Only the immoral disagree because they are given over to their immorality. It's really sad.

ELAshley March 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM  

First of all, it's not about equivalency, it's about glaring double standards. Liberalism can say whatever it wantd, wherever it wants, and not have to apologize. Conservativism, however, does not share the same freedoms of speech; it is made to feel second class-- inferior --because it believes in an absolute, codified moral standard.


"Why are you surprised Morgan asked Cameron about his faith? Or controversial questions that might generate future ratings?"

I'm not surprised. I expect Liberalism to question the faith of Christians, or those Liberalism deems christian (Romney, for example. The world views Monmonism as Christian, though it isn't at all), but rarely does Liberalism question anyone else, especially Liberals. Bill Maher, for example; Liberalism doesn't question his faith (assuming he has any). The point being, Liberalism uses such questions to stir up trouble (especially among political candidates, e.g., when George Stephanopoulos, during the January 7th debate, asked a completely irrelevant question about a candidates thoughts on banning contraceptives-- not one of the candidates wants to ban contraceptives. Stephanopoulos' question was thrown into the debate to create public stir and outrage. It was a set-up.

The point of Morgan's question, however, as you said, was simply to draw ratings; he knew it would be a firebrand issue among his viewers who are primarily liberal.

No Christian's faith is so fragile it can't take criticism or questioning... The FAITH can withstand ANY amount of criticism but, sadly, many believers have not equipped themselves with knowledge enough to defend their faith; the faith isn't fragile, but often the follower is.

As to holidays, I have to say that Christmas is as close to pagan as a holiday can get without actually crossing the line. And Easter, as it is both commercialized and practiced by the world at large today (not to be confused with actual Christianity) is pagan. Bunnies and eggs? Pagan. But I'm not concerned about holidays. I'm concerned about the direction this nation is heading. It is becoming increasingly pagan and anti-Christian with each passing year. With that advancement, Liberalism degrades more and more what little moral fiber there is left in America.

There is only one moral standard. Everything else is immoral. If it were not so, nothing could be said to be honestly, or genuinely moral as one man's morality could differ 180 degrees from his neighbors. Light is not Darkness, nor is Darkness Light.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk

Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.

Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery


"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP