Just Because all Dems Seem to be Liberal doesn't mean all Conservatives are Republicans

Written by David DiCrescenzo on . Posted in Guest Articles

A big mistake liberals make is to think all conservatives are republicans; there are plenty of conservatives like myself who are registered independents.

I love being an independent! It means a lot to me to even say that I'm independent, I have my own mind.

I don't feel the need to embrace an ideology on its entirety just because my party says I should, or because some people of a party say I should.

I think for myself, I believe on what makes sense and follows a logical train of thought.

The biggest problem I have with liberals is that the majority simply embrace the democrat party without ever questioning the logic of anything! They'll defend things that make absolutely no sense and completely contradicts other areas of their ideologies.

And independent mind would be able to support the pro-choice ideology but still see how barbaric selling baby parts for profit is, instead of trying to justify it. Even for the atheist this should be a moral issue, not a pro-choice issue.

But at the same time it makes no sense to be perfectly ok with abortion but raise hell when someone destroys turtle eggs.

It also makes no sense to say you're against religion, criticize Christians and call all Christians religious zealots, but defend Islam and make sure that everyone knows there are good and bad ones.

It makes no sense to be against Bush's spending but fine with Obama's spending (which is more than double).

It make no sense to be against deporting illegals because they do the work that Americans don't want to do, but at the same time complain that unemployment is high among unskilled people and give them welfare so they don't have to do take the jobs that the illegals are more than willing to take.

It makes no sense to want free college for everyone, when we already have millions of unemployed or under employed college grads - we need to increase demand, not supply.

It makes no sense to ask for more government spending when we have 97 trillion of unfunded liabilities.

It makes no sense to embrace the climate change agenda without questioning geoengineering by the government.

It makes no sense to cheer the strong stock market as a sign of economic recovery when only the "evil" top 1% benefits from it.

I can go one forever with things that democrats embrace that makes no sense simply because they contradict their own ideology.

What do I wish for our Country?

People that can think on their own! People that read, research, that are curious, that understand that morality doesn't require religion to exist, people that reject dogma.

We've given up so much of our liberties that even our thoughts are scrutinized these days, one must conform at any cost.

Children are medicated into conforming, adults are sued into conforming.

A mind sure is a beautiful thing....don't let them take it away!


Sybele Capezzutti

Add a comment

Who's Funding the Abortion Market and Why...? Part II

Written by David DiCrescenzo on . Posted in Guest Articles

Jodi Fowler:  Who's Funding the Abortion Market and Why...?  Part II

"Post-Margaret Sanger, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) continued gaining strength after the Supreme Court ruling granting pro-abortion rights decision to women in 1973 via Roe v. Wade. Attorneys Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee were the Roe v. Wade plaintiff’s lawyers and needed a woman wanting an abortion. Jane Roe, a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey, became the pregnant plaintiff while Wade, the defendant, was actually Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade,representing the State of Texas.

Her first child, born when McCorvey was 16 years old, was raised by her mother, her second child raised by the child’s father, and since she gave birth before the court’s decision in favor of broader abortion rules, she gave her third baby up for adoption. McCorvey, a young, pregnant woman without funds to obtain an abortion, claimed her pregnancy was due to rape, but later rescinded that claim, stating she, “invented the rape story to make a stronger case for an abortion.”

Click here for complete article...

Add a comment

Who's Funding the Abortion Market and Why...? Part 1

Written by David DiCrescenzo on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher's note:  A few years ago, a reader and good friend posed the question of "Who's Funding the Abortion Market and Why?"  She did a great job answering that in a four part series of which this is part one. The entire series will be available over the next week.

She was and is qualified to ask and answer the question on the strength of a lengthy career as an RN serving in many capacities over the years.

Jodi Fowler:  Part 1

"Did a certain name pop into your mind after reading the title? If you thought George Soros, give yourself a pat on the back. Soros, often referred to as a generous philanthropist, is also said to be a “champion of the culture of death,” promoting his radical progressive agenda to include not only euthanasia via doctor-assisted suicide, and legalization of many types of illicit drugs, but, also, taxpayer-funded abortion. Maybe George is spending too much time with Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, a long-time advocate of eugenics.

Abortion has taken an astonishingly high priority in Soros’ heinous agenda. For years, this viper has wrapped his arms (and millions of his dollars), around the business of population control via the promotion of aborting millions of babies worldwide, channeling funding to pro-abortion organizations via his Open Society Institute. In an article written for ChronicleMagazines.org, Srdja Trifkovic states:..."

Click here for complete article...


Add a comment

A legal immigrant speaks out...

Written by David DiCrescenzo on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher’s note:  Sybele Capezzutti has once again put some thoughts together and states very plainly what we are facing with regards to our porous border.  For my money, we could use a lot more legal immigrants like her and a whole lot less of what has been invading and infecting our country like a viral parasite feeding off a host; oh wait…that’s what the illegals are.  

Sybele Capezzutti:  I've been asked why I'm against open borders and do not support Obama's views on illegal immigration being that I am an immigrant myself.

First, I am a legal immigrant that followed the law and as such it is an insult to someone like me that people that chose not to follow the law is being rewarded for their actions instead of being punished.

Second, and most important....the kind of people that resort to illegally entering or staying in the country are exactly the kind of people that I would have never associated with in my country of birth. They didn't follow the laws there, they were not educated in their own language, they had no skills to survive there, they did not contribute to society there, and they only come here because this government offers more than the government where they came from. 

These are people that I would have stayed away from in my own country of birth and now I'm being told that I have to be compassionate and welcome them here?

I spent years in Florida and had very few Brazilian friends because I refused to be involved with a community of illegals that couldn't even speak and write in their own language properly, that scammed the system every way possible, they were embarrassing to me!

To the ones that support amnesty, please understand something....there are only 2 reasons why someone was not able to get a passport and/or a visa: One cannot obtain a passport by their own government if they have a criminal record, it’s that simple. And if you are able to get a passport but not a visa it's because the American Consulate has done the proper background check and either found legal reasons (criminal record) or economic reasons (lack of proof of income or ties to the country of birth) to deny the visa. And honest people who are denied a visa do not resort to entering the country illegally, that's a fact. Most of the illegals crossing the border don't even have a passport, which puts them on the first case scenario.

It's not that complicated! 

And to use as a base for supporting this ludicrous immigration bill all the Irish, German and Italian immigrants of the past is not only insulting to my intelligence but plain ignorant!

Yes, they were poor immigrants, but they were LEGAL and the country wanted them here to grow both the agriculture and factory industries, we actually needed more labor at the time, and those immigrants embraced the American culture and loved this country for the opportunity they were given, something I don't see coming from illegals.

I'm sick and tired of the propaganda from the left and the tireless effort to flood America with the scum of the earth by using the compassion card! 

It is a marxist strategy, no ifs or buts about it, and all of you that support this insanity are being used through your "white guilt".

Simply pathetic!

Add a comment

Will the Supreme Court Put Itself on the Wrong Side of History?

Written by David DiCrescenzo on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher’s note:  With the decision by SCOTUS down to days or hours, this timely and very well thought out, if necessarily a tad lengthy, article by Tim Dunkin is a must read.  

Tim very clearly points out the parallels between what the slave owners of yesteryear and the powerful “Big Gay” lobby of today are doing.

I would ask that all of my readers take the time to read and consider Tim’s argument. 

Tim Dunkin:  Sometime later this month, possibly as early as next week, the Supreme Court of the United States of America is going to impose gay “marriage” onto every state in the union. They will not do so because there are any sound or convincing moral, ethical, legal, or (especially) constitutional arguments in favor of gay “marriage.”  Rather, they will do so because the political class in America wants it, and as recent experience has shown, the political class nearly always gets what it wants, regardless of what We the People think.  

The Left likes to flatter itself by asserting that the push for gay “marriage” is about liberty. Indeed, they have been quite successful in convincing themselves that it is the “new civil rights struggle,” as if the push for a special redefinition of marriage for the benefit of a group of people who choose their lifestyle and who already enjoyed equality before the law and the full panoply of constitutional liberties, and who are in fact more well-off than the average American, can in any way, shape, or form compare their experience with an entire race of people (born that way) who spent several centuries in slavery, and then another century after that being cheated of the civil rights that they had been promised but never really given.  Please.  What tone-deaf, illiterate nonsense on the part of the gays and their supporters.  

Instead (as I have been pointing out for years, and which recent months have been proving me right about), the radical gay agenda is antithetical to our constitutional rights.  Freedom of religion?  Nope.  Freedom of association?  Nope.  Freedom of speech?  Nope.   The Left has systematically been setting out to use the power of government to curtail exactly those constitutional liberties that would allow folks to live their own lives apart from having to support the gay agenda, among other things, with which they disagree.  Gay “marriage” has been playing a huge, huge part in this destruction of liberty.

In doing this, the Supreme Court will be mimicking in spirit an earlier terrible ruling that also set back the cause of the expansion of genuine liberty in America for decades – the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.  

The parallels here are uncanny.  In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a small but wealthy minority, generally localized into a certain geographical area, which purported to represent its entire section but which really did not, and which used its disproportionate political power to dominate one political party while bullying the other into acquiescing to its wishes most of the time.  The slaveholding plantation owners, always a small percentage of the population, nevertheless were the wealthiest people in the South, and held more wealth in aggregate than even northern industrialists and shipping magnates at the time.  This slaveholding class was concentrated, for the most part, in the flatlands of the Atlantic and Caribbean coasts, and up the Mississippi river. The slaveholders constantly presented themselves as the representatives of “the South,” even though most Southerners didn’t own slaves, and the small farmers in the mountains had almost nothing in common with them.   Before the war, they largely controlled the Democratic Party, and were able to influence the Whigs far more than they should have.  

So today, the Supreme Court is set to rule in favor of a small but wealthy minority, generally localized into a certain geographical, which purports to represent its entire section but which really does not, and which uses its disproportionate political power to dominate one political party while bullying the other into acquiescing to its wishes most of the time.  Gays are wealthier, per capita, than the average American due largely to the fact that their lifestyle is a concomitant with the decadence that generally attends to wealth and leisure.  Gays are mostly found in liberal enclaves on the coasts and around a few major progressive cities in the interior.  Gays purport to find support among the large majority of Americans, even though they do not (as the actual voting has always shown).  And gays pretty much control the Democrat Party, and have been successful in cowing most Republican politicians into yielding to them as well.  

Add a comment