STR † THE FREEDOM BLOG

A Florida grand jury has returned an indictment in the case of missing toddler Caylee Anthony; it remains sealed pending an arrest.

Since WMFO has been messing up The Hour of Bein’ Good, I figured that I oughta get some kinda show out and this is a pretty good one.  Some lesbian called up and tried to pass herself off as a conservative to defend Sarah Palin which is a joke - and one that’ll send you to Hell!

God is Love!

.

Dear Lord,

The American Holocaust is still going on. Abortion is still legal in America. We pray in Jesus’ name that you will find it in your heart to forgive us, O’Lord.

Real American are fighting every day to stop abortion but liberals go on killing your creation every day.

50 Million (50,000,000) Americans have been killed so far.

Please forgive them because they are blinded by liberal hatred against life. Please support us in our war against the American Holocaust.

Amen

Facts about Late Term Abortion

• Late term abortions are legal in most states. “Late Term” means that an abortion can be done up to the moment of birth. This means that a birth is being induced and in the act of birth the baby is being killed.
• Some late term abortions are being done by putting a salt-acid mixture into the baby’s lungs so that the child suffocates.
• In case of a failed late term abortions, means that if the child is BORN ALIVE, the “doctor” will often kill the crying (LIVING) baby. The act of killing is often been done by drowning the struggling child in a bowl of water. Sometimes the baby will be just strangled to death or it’s head is being cut off.
• The remains of the child will be thrown in the trash or the corps will be used for medical testings.

• INFANTICIDE - The following issues have been raised in order to get you to think more critically about infanticide and why infanticide would be an acceptable form of family planning among the majority of pre-industrial societies. It is normal for people in one society to judge the behavior of people in other societies in terms of the moral values of their own society. This is, in fact, the very definition of ethnocentrism. However, many issues can be raised regarding a variety of methods of family planning that place the practice of infanticide within a broader anthropological perspective.

• Most Americans would consider infanticide to be morally wrong. However, infanticide is widely practiced throughout the world. Is infanticide necessarily immoral and, if so, is it universally wrong? By what criteria do we make that determination, and do those criteria distinguish unambiguously between abortion, which is legal in our society, and infanticide which is not, but which is accepted and practiced in other societies?
• Abortion is legal and is accepted by the majority of the American population as morally correct. Why is abortion an acceptable method of family planning in the U.S., but not infanticide? To what extent are we, by accepting abortion and rejecting infanticide, defining one method of terminating a human life as morally acceptable while condemning another form as morally unacceptable? If infanticide is practiced by peoples who do not have access to abortion technology, can they be considered morally wrong for terminating a human life by the best means they have available to them while accepting our method of terminating a life because we possess the technological means to end that life before birth?
• How does the fact that our own society’s stand on both the legality and morality of abortion has changed radically in the past 30 years affect our certainty regarding the immorality of infanticide? Isn’t it quite possible that future generations may come to accept infanticide as a reasonable method of family planning, just as we now accept abortion and increasingly accept euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide –practices which would have resulted in a doctor’s losing his or her license to practice medicine a mere 10 years ago?
• Steven Pinker, in his article, “Why They Kill Their Newborns”, distinguishes between neonaticide and the killing of older children (filicide). He shows that, while our own society condemns infanticide, we are, in fact, quite tolerant of those who kill newly born children. He reports that of nearly 300 women charged with neonaticide in the U.S., not one spent more than a night in jail. The general population was much more willing to deal leniently, for example, with the Grossberg-Peterson case involving the killing of a newborn than they were with the case of Susan Smith, who killed her two sons: one 14 months old, and the other 3 year old.
• Our notion that infanticide is committed by disturbed individuals is also not supported by research. First of all, women who practice neonaticide generally go on to become loving supportive mothers when they do have and raise children (as do mothers who have had abortions), in contrast to those women who kill older children. Secondly, as Pinker states, “it’s hard to maintain that neonaticide is an illness when we learn that it has been practiced and accepted in most cultures throughout history.” That many societies practice infanticide is clearly illustrated by the articles in the Infanticide packet.
• The acceptance of abortion but not infanticide in the U.S. has been justified on the grounds that a baby is alive while a fetus is not. When does a human life begin? How do we define life? In the article referred to above, Steven Pinker discusses how difficult it is to determine when a human organism becomes a person with a right to life. Conception, birth, the end of the second trimester are all rather arbitrary definition points for when a human organism becomes a person. Viability is also problematic, given that the human infant cannot survive on its own for several years after its birth and that many infants cannot survive at all without medical intervention, to say nothing of large numbers of the elderly. Furthermore, infant viability is a matter of degree and is clearly much less developed in humans than in most other mammals. Given the difficulty of establishing clear objective criteria for when personhood is achieved –in some societies “personhood” is not conferred until well after birth– on what grounds do we claim that one point in the human organism’s development is more valid and objective (i.e., less arbitrary) for establishing “personhood” and, thus, a right to life than any other point? If the definition of “personhood” is largely socially determined, to what extent is the criteria used for defining “personhood” in our own society any more objective and valid than that used in other societies? How does the controversy over when an abortion is acceptably performed in the U.S. affect our understanding of the social basis of our society’s definition of when life begins? What factors determine who is likely to accept Pinker’s definition and who is likely to reject it? How does their stand on the issue reflect their personal interests rather than an objective scientific look at the issue? Furthermore, when we set arbitrary boundaries as our defining points for the beginning of life, to what extent do we inadvertently kill human organisms that develop more quickly than the established norm? Finally, why is “personhood” used to determine when a human organism is alive rather than some less subjective critria? If we don’t use “doghood” or “cathood” to determine when dogs and cats are alive, are we being logically inconsistent to use “personhood” to determine when humans are alive? Is there a uniform, objective biological definition for the beginning of life that can be applied systematically to all living organisms, including dogs, cats and humans?
• Most biology textbooks define life as possessing the following characteristics: Cells, energy, heredity, reproduction and responsiveness to the environment. All living things are composed of cells. Even such microscopic unicellular organisms as bacteria are considered alive. All living things also acquire and use energy to maintain metabolism. All living organisms also possess DNA organized into genes and chromosomes which form the blueprint for how that organism will develop and grow. Similarly, all living organisms are potentially capable of reproduction. Being able to reproduce offspring which share their genetic material, living organisms (unlike non-living matter) are able to cause the transfer of genetic information from one generation to the next. Finally, living organisms are responsive to their environments. That is, they are affected by their environments and attempt to adapt to those environments. Are these characteristics, which are presented as distinguishing living organisms in nearly every biology textbook written, less applicable to a fetus than to a baby or a young child, to an invalid or an octogenarian, or for that matter to any human being? (Would they also apply to both the sperm and the unfertilized egg? The Roman Catholic Church maintains that they do, which is why it opposed artificial birth control.) If so, then on what logical or scientific grounds is it determined that a baby or a child is alive but not a fetus? What does this say about our society’s support of abortion but not infanticide? Is it logically consistent? And if it is not, then why is it so widely accepted?

  The definition of when life begins has changed radically in the U.S. during the past 40 years. To what extent has the definition of when life begins changed because newer definitions serve the changing interests of the individuals or political groups doing the defining? To what extent is the changing definition of life and the recourse to such concepts as “personhood” a function of the pivotal role that the abortion issue plays in American politics? Proponents of abortion in the U.S. refer to abortion as a “right” and challenge any qualification on a woman’s “right to choose”. Any factor that threatens that “right” is vigorously opposed, including mandatory waiting periods and parental notification laws. To what extent might the application of an objective interspecies definition of life to humans in general and to fetuses in particular, also be perceived as a threat by those who want to promote abortion as their “right”? A recent article in The Economist titled “The War That Never Ends” (June 13, 2003) examined the abortion issue in the U.S. at the 25th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. The article distinguished between the continuing controversy over abortion in the U.S. and its general acceptance in Europe, including in such predominantly Roman Catholic countries as France, Spain and Italy. The article viewed the problem this way.

Now that dirty, filthy, homo hippie drug addicts found a home at the Marxist Socialist News Broadcasting Commune it’s more important than ever to make sure that we start training the next generation of reporters who actually report the truth.  Honest and fair men like Sean Hannity, Brit Hume and even Ann Coulter ain’t gonna be around forever.  A quick look at the so-called “reporters” on MSNBC is gonna make it obvious where they get their reporters - they grab some crazy homeless person off the street give ‘em a haircut (but not a bath), put a suit on ‘em and turn on the cameras.  Lemme put it this way - Paul Harvey ain’t got no restless legs syndrome.

I been hearing about a summer camp for kids that are kinda like Liberty University but they teach kids the basics of being a newsman.  I gotta say that I weren’t too sure about the whole thing but if they’re gonna turn out pistols like this young man, then y’all can sign up my kids right now and I don’t care how much it costs, neither!

I don’t like to keep harping about this, but I ain’t gonna vote for McCain/Palin but it ain’t right to pick on a woman the way the lie-beral media’s done.  I think it just proves they’re all homos cuz they don’t like women.  I mean, when the Marxist Socialist News Broadcasting Commies spend their entire broadcast day beating up a woman, you’d think someone’d call the cops on ‘em.  I don’t know why nobody has.

I’m gonna admit, though, that this video almost made me change my mind.  One of the most important qualities a president can have is to be “not snotty”.  And that is one on thing that Mrs. Palin never is.  I’m gonna give her that - she knows how to be respectful towards them that deserves respect.

I guess the news organization, Boston News Net, thinks they can absolve themselves from lie-beral guilt by pretending to be balanced.  They had me on a time or two and every time I go on, I wind up passing out a couple of bibles or hear someone’s testimony.

They asked me to talk about Sarah Palin and even though I don’t like her, you gotta stand up for women.

Friends,

I just discovered this a few minutes ago, and I’ve no idea why the mainstream media is ignoring it. I was reading Conservapedia’s excellent article about Barrack Hussein Obama - it’s just about the most balanced account of the man’s life on the Internet.

An obvious forgery

I was going onto the discussion page to ask them why they had not included Larry Sinclair’s evidence of Obama’s homosexual drug-use, when I noticed this astute and sobering observation concerning Hussein Obama’s birth certificate:

It’s interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is 151 1961 - 010641. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:

151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753

and then add the individual digits of the result thus:

1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18

the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or 666, sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting.

It’s not just interesting… it blows the whole Obama conspiracy wide open:

Do the Demoncrats think that we wouldn’t notice that their candidate was the anti-Christ foretold in the book of Revelation? All it took was the god-given intellect of one Conservapedia reader to bust Obama’s devil-code wide open.

Yours in Christ,

Jimmy Goddard

I still ain’t voting for him and the Eskimo woman, but I gotta say that I admire him for trying to be more like President Bush and putting aside politics to focus on the needs of the nation.  You just can’t always do everything at once.

There’s a whole bunch people out there trying to throw a lotta blame around about how the mortgage industry got into the brief slump it’s going through right now.  And of course the lie-beral media who follow Homobama around like zombies doing his bidding wanna make it all the Republicans fault.  Now, y’all know my feelings about John McCain.  We can’t have a president that can’t salute the flag.  But he’s a pretty good senator and he knows his banking stuff pretty good.  He’s right when he says that getting rid of all the stupid rules that tied the hands of the banks (and that bondage stuff is straight out of the homo agenda) and kept ‘em from making the money that keeps our economy strong was the right thing to do.  The markets is gonna get everything worked out but sometimes they need a gentle push like you’d give your boy to get him down the aisle on his first altar call.

But it takes a real smart guy to cut to the chase and put the blame squarely where it belongs.  On the lie-berals.  Republicans know better than to give out loans to negros and taco-jockeys.  We know that we ain’t never gonna see that money again.  Neil Cavuto knows it to and he ain’t afraid to spit in Satan’s face and tell the truth - it’s the LIE-BERALS that forced Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to give deadbeats any kinda money they wanted to buy a house so they could pretend to “feel good” about themselves.  Them kinda deadbeat don’t need a free home from the government.  They need a boot in the butt and the promise of more to come if they don’t get off that butt and get a job like Jesus wants ‘em to.

I’ve lost count of how many times lie-berals have destroyed America.  I’m hoping this gonna be the last.

My dear friends,

If like me, you are a subscriber to that wonderful source of God’s news and views the Human Events newsletter, you probably just received a touching personal mass-mailout message from that high-kicking hero Chuck Norris.

This is a man who knows how to kick ass, and personally I’d love to see the fun he could have in a room full of Muslims. But! it turns out he is also one of the great thinkers of our age too and yet another good reason to vote for Mccain instead of that untried, dark-horse ultra-leftist woodpile candidate of the Democ-rats Barrack Obama - and his evil running mate Binden.

(By the way! Have you noticed how when you first see a Democ-rat bumper sticker it seems as if you are reading the words Osama Bin Laden instead of Obama Binden? I think that’s God’s way of telling we in America who love truth to be wary.)

Same difference?

Anyway, back to my personal friend Chuck Norris. I hear include the full personal message he sent to me and like-minded Christians:

A Personal Note from Chuck Norris

Dear Friend,

America is in a fight for her future—a fight we can’t afford to lose.

Illegal immigrants are swarming over our borders. Our nation and American families are crippled by debt. We are still vulnerable to Islamist terrorist attacks. And our faith and traditional values are under constant assault from the liberal establishment.

That’s why I wrote my new book, Black Belt Patriotism. It’s my take on the dangers that are threatening this country and the solutions we need to reawaken the American Dream and strengthen this great nation.

In Black Belt Patriotism, I get back to basics in ten practical, down-to-earth chapters. I apply the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to today’s problems and share my own personal thoughts on the importance of faith and freedom.

Look, I’m no politician, and I’m not a political expert. I’m a concerned citizen, just like you. And I see too many things in this country going in the wrong direction. But I believe in this great country of ours, and I remember a better America—an America of hard work, determination, faith, and respect for history and human life. I know we can get back on track. All we need is strong faith, dedication, and a renewed commitment to Black Belt Patriotism.

Please click on one of the links below to order your copy today.

Sincerely,

Chuck Norris

Wonderful as my personal friend’s message is, I wonder if he didn’t hold himself back too much here. What I intend to do now is to give my Christian readers the benefit of what I think to be his true thoughts about these issues that are so urgent in these End Times.

The first paragraph most eloquently speaks for itself. The only point that - I think - must be lingering at the back of every Christian’s mind is the dark worry that if we elect an immigrant for President in the form of half Ethiopian Barrack Obama, will he not just open all the gates and let that filthy brown swarm completely overrun all that is white and pure in this great nation?

The next paragraph too is straightforward. And what a catchy title God has blessed Mr Norris with! I hope my fellow patriots have, like me, rushed out to buy this wonderful book.

The third paragraph, I feel, needs elucidation. Now, I haven’t read Mr Norris’ book. Like our current Great Leader George W Bush, I prefer to get my wisdom direct from The Lord rather than the misleading words man puts in books, but thanks to the faith that guides me, I think i have a strong idea of Mr Norris’ intents in this fine work of prose. Those ten chapters are going to kick some ass! They’re going to lay it down on the line was to where this country has been led into sin, how to fight the darkness, the blackness the impurity that threatens us and why praying to Allah is a straight down line to hell.

I think Chuck Norris is a patriot in the line of that great American Nathan Bedford Forrest who once writ: “Never stand and take a charge… charge them too.”

[Funnily enough, Forrest also once said: “I've got no respect for any young man who won't join the colors.” So who's calling him racist?! It's just a certain type of uppity presidential candidate that he wouldn't approve of.]

The final paragraph specifies the kind of black that will help us. The right kind. And that we need to be strong and kick ass those who will to destroy us.

What a great American!

Friends, thank you for reading, I pray you will take wisdom from these words and bathe in the light of God’s love and holy peace as a result,

Sam Johnston.

Friends,

Why are the dumbocrats such hypocrites? It’s normally them who accuse just about every man and his dog of sexism. But just because Jesus decideed to appoint a woman to be the vice-President of his political party the lib-tards have decided to foget all about political correctness and go on the attack.

One hockey-mom has been the victim of the worst sexist abuse in the entire history of America: Sarah Palin. Is it enough that Brack Hussein Obama called her a pig? (The strongest insult in Obama’s muslim faith) - she has come under repeated attack by the mainstream media. If you do not believe me, take a look at these gratuitous attacks that the drive-by media has unleashed on our next Veep:

Do you think a male candidate would have been treated this disrespectfully? Only a libtard uses expressions like “The Bush Doctrine”. What he calls a doctrine we conservatives call common-sense!

This blatently sexist attack - there’s no way this female commedian would have done an impression of Mrs Palin if she had been a man. It’s outrageous that such sexist attacks are allowed to continue on primetime TV.

Barrack Hussein Obama insults poor Mrs. Palin by calling her a pig infront of an an audience of sneering defeatocrats.

Liberal Hollywood actor Matt Damon criticizes our Plucky hockey-mom. Would he have criticized her if she had been a man? Of course not. Damon, you disgust me. You have let down the whole of America.

It’s obvious that the liberals hate Mrs. Palin. The Bible predicted that we Christians would be hated, and it’s plain to anybody that this poort Hockey Mom is suffering more than Job. The fact that the liberals hate her proves beyond doubt that she is the one chosen by God to be our next Vice President.

Yours in Christ,

Jimmy Goddard

As we are all overwhelmed thought of our future President and Vice-President having children fighting the glorious shower of freedom that is Iraq, we felt our time was better spent this 9/11 sending our love and prayers to them.  This is one of our most popular and moving posts which has been reading by more than seven million people throughout the world and quoted at any number of Values Voter conferences throughout this, the greatest country on God’s green earth!

God Bless America!
Newton Wilcox