Cast your minds back to 2008 when Prop 8 was passed by 54% of the voting public.  How did the losing side react? Vandalism, violence, threats of violence, mail laced with a “white powdery substance” sent to Mormon temples, intimidation and sheer, unadulterated hate and anger. Now, compare that reaction to that of those who supported Prop 8 in the wake of it being overturned.

Nothing more than: “We will appeal this decision.”

The Left has insisted for years that the Right is inherently violent to the point of actually labeling us as “low-grade, domestic terrorists” in one government report. Now, if we are so predisposed to violence and hate and the Left is so dedicated to non-violence and “tolerance,” how does one explain the 180 degree difference in reactions to political set backs like Prop 8? One side accepted defeat peacefully and calmly. The other side rampaged in the streets.

The difference is crystal clear, at least when it comes to gay marriage, as to who is more prone to violence and hate and who is not.

The automatic “our opposition are racist hatemongers” response was just about the worst possible response they could come up with. How can it be said that this cultural center is supposed to foster understanding between Islam and the rest of the country if it’s first official act is to call those to whom they are reaching out vicious and hateful names? In so doing, are they not undermining the very purpose they claim this center represents?

Now, some of this negative reaction, to be fair, is coming from the Left who is eager to reinforce the self-serving notion that ALL conservatives EVERYWHERE are racist, homophobic, sexist and so on and so on. It is their default mode. A Conservative says “Good morning” to a liberal, black reporter and this is spun into a racist assault on the first amendment rights and, in some cases, the very life of said reporter.

But, as we have seen in the last few years, this is, more or less, the default mode for many in the Muslim world as well. A cartoon of the Muslim Prophet was used as an excuse for mass rioting and violence around the world because such a cartoon is an “insult” to Muslims. Hundreds actually died as a result. Then there was controversy over a food snack logo that allegedly “looked like” the Arabic symbol for Mohamed. This too was deemed a great offense to Islam. Then there was the incident where a school teacher overseas allowed a Muslim school child to name a teddy bear, Mohamed. There not only demands that this teacher be fired but that she be dragged out into the street and killed for this insult.

So now, an imam, here in the US, wants to build an Islamic cultural center/mosque just feet from the site where Islamic extremists, who claimed to be doing so in the name of Islam, killed 3,000 innocent people. And it would seem that this man and his supporters cannot see how a reasonable person would be offended by this. Taking offense to such a project could only spring from racism and hate. And yet, apparently, killing people in response to cartoons and teddy bears is an understandable, reasoned response. So, if this is the mindset of those who wish to build this center to again “bridge the great divide” between Muslims and the rest of America, they are doomed to failure. And even if this Imam condemned the violence over cartoons and teddy bears, calling everyone who opposes you horrible names is not a good way to assure them that you are sincere in your attempt to reach out to them.

To Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his supporters: If you are serious about building that bridge of understanding, try to understand those who are angered about your proposed center. Build the center elsewhere. Now is not the right time for such a place in the location you have chosen. It is far too soon. If you want to be given respect and tolerance in the US, try practicing it yourself.

I don’t know if the Golden Rule is known in Islam so I will offer it here: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In other words, if you want to be tolerated, tolerate others. If you want understanding, try to understand others. If you are truly interested in “building bridges” try building bridges to others first; otherwise you’re campaign is off to a really, really lousy start.

Mitt and Tagg Romney at the Boston Celtics Game

Please DO NOT forget to vote for Mitt in this poll.  All we need is about 120 votes to put Mitt in the lead.

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2012-online-presidential-straw-poll/

Read here.

By the way, if you want a good laugh, I found this video on the same page:

Google “national enquirer” and you will not even be able to pull up their website by clicking on the link in Google.  This is NOT a coincidence that the Enquirer’s website has been SHUT DOWN!  Of course I could be wrong, but a high traffic website like theirs doesn’t just go under construction like that without have a redirect.  Today it was working just fine.  There is some fishy stuff going on here.

When I first looked at this posting I thought “more stuff to be conspiracy minded about” but when I clicked on the link, that 199 people on Facebook had already read the article from, but a blank page came up, I thought something didn’t look right.  Then I realized that the url wasn’t redirecting to the the main website.  I then tried to go to their main page but the whole National Enquirer site is shut down.   I then did a Google search and when the National Enquirer link comes up in Google, it takes you to a weird url.

Of course I am not certain that there is a cover up going on, but it just looks fishy.  If anyone happens to find anything information on this, please post in the comment section.

Update: A few have said that the link to the Enquirer website is working fine for them, please comment below and let me know if it is working for you, or no.

The first time I have been able to read of this article is on Solid Principles’ blog: http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/enquirer-exclusive-obama-cheating-scandal-shocking-new-reports/

In a party that has often picked its presidential nominees by primogeniture, Mitt Romney is now the front-runner for 2012 and presumably will hold on to that status for the foreseeable future. “No Apology,” however, is not a classic candidate-in-­waiting book, since it lacks the standard treacly dose of intimate anecdotes meant to reveal the politician’s softer side. Instead, even the few personal stories featured in its pages are intended to illustrate Romney’s ideology and policy ­preferences.

Romney, who ran for the Republican nomination in 2008, writes in the introduction that “this book gives me a chance to say more than I did during my campaign” about the issues that are important to him. As a candidate, he explains, he felt limited by the rigid formats of debates and advertisements. Romney’s bigger campaign problems may well have been his failure to settle on a consistent message and his constant struggle to escape both the caricature of him as a flip-flopper and the suspicions surrounding his Mormonism. Romney deals not a whit with either his well-earned reputation for moving right on critical issues or the unique political challenges his Mormon faith represents. If he runs again, he will have to address both matters. It is striking that he chose not to do so here.

Despite his emphasis on policy, Romney offers no major new proposals, and often merely lists the pros and cons of the leading options for tackling some of the thorniest issues facing the country. But the book will be helpful to those unfamiliar with Romney’s worldview and starched style, his impressive business background and strong family bonds. “No Apology” resonates with Romney’s voice and manner, including his corny sense of humor, blunt patriotism and strait-laced formality. “I am optimistic about America’s future,” he writes, “because I’ve seen the heart of the American people.” That he neglects to put forward significant new ideas is due in part to his old-­fashioned instincts. He longs to restore many aspects of American life he remembers from childhood and believes that the solutions are already out there, just waiting for a competent conservative president to implement them.

The Romney who emerges from “No Apology” is the version some of his advisers hoped to promote in 2008: a steady, smart technocrat with a record of accomplishment in the private sector and a history of working across party lines. Taking a cue from George W. Bush’s successful 2000 strategy, Romney now plays down the divisive social matters that tripped him up before, saying that the best course on issues like abortion and gay marriage might be just “to agree to disagree.”

The book’s title is drawn in large part from the conservative complaint that the current occupant of the Oval Office, in both words and attitude, is too quick to place blame on America. Throughout the book, Romney uses rhetoric clearly intended to woo the Fox News-Rush Limbaugh wing of the party, a group at present drawn to the magnetic Sarah Palin. “It is an extraor­dinary moment we are in,” Romney writes, “when an American president is eager to note all of America’s failings, real and perceived, and reluctant to speak out in defense of American values and America’s contributions to the freedoms enjoyed around the globe.”

Romney’s primary worry is that America will become “the France of the 21st century — still a great country, but no longer the world’s leading nation.” He scores President Obama for what he casts as a failure to be sufficiently tough with China, Russia, terrorists and terrorist states, and for what he views as a host of misguided economic policies. Some of the book reads like an accessible lecture for bright college students, although Romney has a habit of repeating certain buzzwords to irksome effect. He may make no apology, but Romney’s readers might require one for this typical turn of phrase: “America is freedom, and freedom must be strong.”

But the principal theme in the book is Romney’s censure of Barack Obama, leveled in a less caustic fashion than Rove’s, but still an overarching assault. He avoids personal attacks on the president but says that one of Obama’s “presuppositions is that America is in a state of inevitable decline” and that his policies are “the most harmful to the future generations of America.” Even if Romney is not the Republican standard-bearer in 2012, he has formulated a sharp argument against the incumbent and, more than any other would-be challenger thus far, has laid down a clear road map for his party when things get rolling next year.

Read the full article here.

From the Associated Press 4 hours ago:

WASHINGTON — Sen. Scott Brown says he thinks former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is qualified to be president but right now he’s supporting former Gov. Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican nomination.

As for his own ambitions, he say “absolutely in 2012″ he’s ruling out any run for the presidency. And in an NBC interview Friday, Brown said “I’m not even going to jump” at a question about whether he would seek the presidency later on.

Brown said, “I’ve been here three months … and I’m very focused on doing my job.” Asked if he regretted bolting the Republican caucus recently to support Democrats on a jobs bill, he said, “I don’t really care. .. I’m going to be the independent person I have always been.”

By Heather Sells

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Gay rights advocates often claim that gay Americans are denied employment, fired from their jobs, or otherwise discriminated against just because they are gay.

In response, advocacy groups have been pushing for a federal law to protect lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgendered individuals from employment discrimination.

But some wonder if such a law could endanger the religious freedom Americans have enjoyed since this country was founded.

Currently, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Now, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote soon on a bill that would create special protections for gays.

For more on the impact ENDA could have, click play for comments from Regent University law professor Bradley Jacobs, following Heather Sells’ report.

Many Christians fear this protection will come at the expense of their freedom and what it could mean for businesses and public schools.

“ENDA is in principle a good idea — that is to say continuing protections for employees against unjustified discrimination,” explained Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies, president of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance. “The difficulty here is that the behavior in question is homosexuality.”

Religious Employers Not Exempt

ENDA has been introduced in every Congress except one since 1994. But this year, the momentum to pass the bill appears much stronger. The real question for people of faith is just how robust are its religious exemptions?

Right now, a number of loopholes exist. Under the ENDA legislation’s current configuration, Christian retailers are not exempt. That means any Christian business with 15 or more employees would have to comply if the law was passed.

Scottie Velvin and her husband have owned The Harvest Company, a Christian bookstore in Chesapeake, Va., for more than 20 years. They’re following ENDA closely although they have fewer than 15 workers. They believe ENDA could influence the publishers whose books they buy and possibly future employees.

“Long-term we may see some changes,” Velvin told CBN News. “I’m not naive enough to think this is the end of it. Bills in the past have been altered and amended and it could very easily happen to this one.”

A Cause for Concern

Attorney Austin R. Nimocks with the The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian non-profit organization, argues that Christian businesses like Velvin’s have every reason to be concerned.

“A law that would require an organization to retain employees who don’t fulfill that organization’s mission is a dangerous law,” he said. “It’s like requiring an environmental group to fill up its board with a bunch of lumberjacks or requiring a Democratic senator to hire a bunch of Republican staffers.”

Also at risk, Christian para-church organizations like the humanitarian group World Vision. It has spent years in court defending its religious status. It may have to again under the religious exemption language found in ENDA.

Tying Hands of Educators?

Nimocks and other conservatives believe ENDA will also impede public schools. The special protections for gay and transgendered teachers will make it extremely difficult for districts that might want to remove them from the classroom.

“The ability of school and school districts and principals to make sure that there are proper educators and influences for the children is going to be much more difficult,” Nimocks said.

Religious freedom advocates believe ENDA’s religious exemption language could and should be strengthened.

“It would be really good to have language in ENDA that says this is a bill that’s intended to protect certain employees but not at the expense of religious freedom,” Carlson-Thies said.

Is Marriage Next?

Many advocates are wondering what could come next. First, it was hate crimes. Then ENDA — followed by same-sex marriage? That’s already been the pattern in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.

“We know this president and the leadership of this Congress have advocated for the repeal of DOMA,” Nimocks explained. “So redefining marriage at the federal level could definitely be the next step.”

For now, Christian employers and employees are hoping Congress will not just protect sexual freedom, but constitutionally mandated religious freedom as well.

Colby May, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, is scheduled to appear on Tuesday’s broadcast of The 700 Club to discuss the ENDA legislation. Click play to watch the interview.

Original article here.