Gays, stop BULLYING the Chick-Fil-A dude!

 

Here we go again with the Nazi-gays, pitch forks and torches in hand, once again going after Dan Cathy, CEO of Chic-Fil-A!  Last I checked he has the RIGHT to his stance on gay marriage. Mr. Cathy’s view is shared by millions and it is faith based for many.

Why are people constantly being asked to forgo their religious beliefs over so called gay marriage? This seems to be an all or nothing issue for Nazi-gays? Why? Why is there no consideration for a person wanting to be faithful to the word of God?

Given our current economic climate, are these Nazi-gays really calling for a boycott? Really? Over a CEO’s personal view on gay marriage? That’s pretty immature. I’m sure at least one gay person (probably more) works for Chic-Fil-A; so, calling for a boycott is a GREAT way to secure his/her job (written with sarcasm, of course).

Until gay people realize that acceptance, tolerance and such can NOT be legislated, or forced upon others, we will never have our kumbaya moment. Many of us simply refuse to allow ourselves to be TERRORIZED or BULLYIED into a non heart felt, for the sake of political correctness agreement so that a select few can be appeased.  Hell, some gay people don’t even believe in “gay marriage”.

The gay community is always screaming about tolerance, but are mute when when it comes time for them to extend the same courtesy.  Going on  “terror tantrums” and calling people hateful names really does not help the gay cause (whatever that is). 

And for the record, opposing gay marriage DOES…. NOT…. EQUAL…..HATE!  Gay people can call their union whatever they like, but they need to accept that they do not have the right to decide that others must use the same definition.

Quite frankly, these little terror tantrums are getting old and boring. The majority of people are basically being asked to go against their faith.  And even in the absence of faith, no one group of people should have the right to dictate to others how marriage is defined.  The liberal political pets are always such a self centered group of beings; it’s unbelievable. Soon more and more people will tire of this selfish nonsense.

The moment a person says something that gays don’t like, they are labeled as homophobic. When Barack Obama publicly stated that he opposed gay marriage, why didn’t the Nazi-gays go after him? The answer: because the Nazi-gays are the real haters and a bunch of hypocrites and wimps!

The real insult came from Obama when he changed his stance on gay marriage from opposing it to accepting it.  It was a blatant political move to shore up the gay vote. That was the real insult!   That act by Obama proved that he doesn’t care about the ‘gay cause”, or any other cause for that matter. He’s simply  playing a game of political chess.

Do not be fooled for one minute that liberals are so concerned over gay marriage.  This issue is so beyond gay marriage that even Ray Charles can see what’s really up (and he’s blind and dead).   The gay marriage issue is a front to continue the war on Christianity. This is why Christians are constantly being asked to “ignore” their beliefs.  And as usual, liberals are using gays the way they use all of their other political pets.

I hope that  Mr. Cathy continues to state his beliefs, very loudly and very clearly.  I certainly will.  Marriage is between a man and a woman so says the word of God, and no one can make me view it differently…and I WILL NOT allow ANYONE to define me as hateful because of my beliefs.

By the way, those Chick-Fil-A waffle fries are to die for! They will make you wanna slap yo’ Momma!

Technorati Tags: vanessa anderson,conservative blogger,gay marriage,chic-fil-a,faith,christianity,bullying

When is the individual accountable for their bad behavior?

 

So.... at what point is the individual responsible for their own circumstances? At what point is it ok to hold a person accountable  for their actions?

For example; if a woman gets knocked up by a guy she has only known for two weeks, knowing that neither of them have jobs and that he has four babies by three other women, why should anyone else have to be a part of their equation in the form of being taxed to death to support the woman and child?

At what point do we say, YOU screwed up, not me? And at what point do we stop rewarding woman who drop babies like candy from a pez dispenser with welfare checks, WIC, free housing, free medical care, free daycare and free everything else when they clearly chose not to take advantage of free birth control?

And why do so many CONTINUE to support the behavior and entitlements that have rendered a large number of blacks as underclass citizens and in need of  government assistance (generational) for the last 60-70 years (by design… by democrats).

Let’s take the “gentleman” that has fathered THIRTY kids… if these children will end up being financial burdens on the state (taxpayers), why shouldn’t the state also have the right to sterilize men (or women) like him after the fifth kid? Tenth kid? Twentieth kid?  Why are men AND women simply allowed to procreate irresponsibly and then expect taxpayers to support their children.  When is enough really enough? Why do these people get to behave badly without consequences for their actions?!!

Shouldn’t there be some deterrents in place for this incredibly poor behavior and reckless regard for the welfare of the children they are producing? What are we waiting for… a 100 percent illegitimacy rate for blacks? We are already at 72 percent.  Do we let the white illegitimacy rate get to 72% before we say…. ummmm…. perhaps we should do something?

And for the foolish…. abortion is not the answer. That solution makes the individual even more callous and despicable.  Just throwing this in here because I know some mentally crippled person will use abortion as an argument for this issue.

Women:  have more respect for yourself. My goodness… how does a woman CHOOSE to be the third or fourth woman or even the THIRTIETH woman to “spread ‘en”  for a worthless seed dropper?  Take charge and create your own life circumstances by WAITING for a man that is willing to make you his wife instead of  a semen receptacle.  There is NOTHING cute about this behavior! 

And many of the fifty percent of citizens who pay taxes to support the non  tax payers that are guilty of this bad behavior (they usually end up paying no taxes, but get fat tax refunds)  are broke too. They can no longer afford to carry you…. and are just plain tired of you.

Technorati Tags: vanessa anderson,conservative blogger,politics,illegitimacy,welfare,entitlements,bad behavior,consequences

The Washington Post has “Trayvon Martined” a Romney story.

A very silly story was reported about the likely GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney by The Washington Post a few days ago.  Reportedly, Romney bullied a gay classmate by cutting off his hair as other classmates held him down.  This happened in 1965;  forty-seven whole, long years ago.  Is this a clue as to how desperate liberals really are to cast shadows of doubt over Romney?  And is it a sign to show just how liberal media entities will go to help Barack Obama get elected?
There are many problems with this article; the first is that it was actually written, but also, after reading the article, it was never reported that Romney made any comments about the alleged victim’s sexuality.  The story only reported that Romney commented about the alleged victim’s “style” or manner of dress…his looks.  
It’s becoming clear that The Washington Post “Trayvon Martined” this story; meaning they created hype, exaggerated details, or totally  manufactured the story.  Breitbart News has already begun to dismantle the shanty “details” pulled together by the Washington Post.
Automobile Magazine also interviewed some of the same characters that were interviewed by The Washington Post; however, the portrait of Romney emerges a bit differently.  And even The Washington Post’s story actually compliments Romney:

It was at Cranbrook where he first lived on his own, found his future wife and made his own decisions. One can see the institution’s influence on his demeanor and actions during those years, but also how it helped form the clubbiness and earnestness, the sense of leadership and enthusiasm, apparent in his careers as a businessman and a politician. “He strongly bought in to community service,” said Richard Moon, a schoolmate at the time. “That hard work was its own reward.” What is less visible today is what was most apparent to his prep-school peers: his jocularity.

So, Romney was a prankster who showed a sense of leadership and enthusiasm even back then?
Any credibility that this story had for the first ten seconds of being published is dissipating quite quickly and anything from the Washington Post should be viewed with a side glance from now on.
John Lauber died in 20044, so there is no possibility of getting his side of the story, but ABC News is reporting outrage from Lauber’s family over this seemingly fabricated story. Betsy Lauber stated:

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family.”

Another sister, Christine Lauber also spoke out and made this comment: 

“Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything.  If he were still alive today, he would be furious [about the story], she said with tears in her eyes.”

How far is too far to go back into someone’s life for “vetting purposes”? While it is extremely important to know as much information about a potential President of the United States as possible, is it really necessary to go back to their high school days? Especially in the absence of a pattern of behavior? If any stage in one’s life is fair game for digging into, then I’m sure we’ll be reading about how Romney crapped in his diaper when he was an infant because it is certainly looking as if  the Left is just that desperate.

Technorati Tags: vanessa anderson,conservative blogger,trayvon-martined,biased media,liberal media,barack obama,mitt romney,presidential election,media double standard,politics

Which has been worse for Blacks? R or D?

 

 

Is Tyra Banks evil for firing employees?

 

It’s been recently reported that Tyra Banks wanted to shake up things on her long running show, America’s Next Top Model, due to sagging ratings. In an effort to shake things up, Banks fired multiple people from her staff, including three of the most prominent faces connected to the show: Jay Manuel, “Miss” J. Alexander and Nigel Barker.  Hollywood.com is reporting that the contracts for these three has not been renewed.

After having a successful show for nineteen years, is Ms. Banks being greedy by trying to revamp her show in order to make more money?  Is she greedy and evil like the corporations that liberals complain about all the time? After all, those three cast members have been there with her since the beginning. Some could argue that they helped make the show as successful as it was…so why toss them to the side when the going gets tough?  Why not continue to invest in them and “hope” the show gets better? Or is terminating people and attempting to remodel your brand  only evil when corporations do it?

Oh…since Tyra is a “member” of the one percent, will she soon be occupied by the 99 percent? Ooops… I forgot, Tyra Banks is a liberal, so that good ole double standard applies!

Technorati Tags: vanessa anderson,consrevative blogger,women,double standard,tyra bank,americas next top model,conservatism,liberalism

But, but… this is common sense!

 

The state of Georgia  has recently passed a law that would require welfare recipients to be drug tested. Apparently, Republicans were for the law and Democrats were against it. One question: Why would Democrats be against such a common sense measure?  Are they playing political games again and trying to appeal to the welfare crowd in hopes of keeping and expanding a voting bloc?

Isn’t it common sense to ensure that tax dollars are not being wasted on crack, meth, marijuana or other drugs?  After all, citizens are paying taxes out the wazoo to support the entitlement crowd. Why not make sure that whoever is receiving benefits are not using it to buy drugs?

Many working  in the private sector are drug tested all the time, so why treat welfare recipients differently? 

Democrats state that this requirement would cause a burden to the recipients. The law will require recipients to pay for the test which runs $30.00 to $35.00, but if the test returns negative, then the recipient would be reimbursed with their first benefit check.  Since the recipient is being reimbursed, no burden is created in actuality.  And of course, Democrats are also using their typical rhetoric by claiming that Republicans are simply trying to “bash the poor”.

A similar bill was passed by the state of Florida, but of course the ACLU stepped in on behalf of a recipient that refused the testing. The Florida law has now been put on hold by a federal judge because it supposedly violates the Fourth Amendment: unreasonable search and seizure. 

When did welfare become a right under the Constitution? And if the practice of drug testing is constitutional for the private sector employee, why wouldn’t  it be for a welfare recipient?  After all, those private sector employees are footing the bill for the welfare recipient.

We don’t see such a fuss over drug testing in the private sector simply because people prefer to work.  And if one isn’t doing drugs, what’s the big deal?

I’m glad states are beginning to clamp down, or are at least trying to. The next step should be implementing strict oversight to tackle welfare fraud.

It’s time the feds let states govern themselves and stop using the Constitution to block things that are indeed  constitutional, but simply not liked by Democrats. It seems the only time Democrats  actually care about the Constitution is when they try to use it wrongly through their political games.

Technorati Tags: welfare,constitution,ACLU,Federal government,welfare reform,drug testing,vanessa anderson,conservative blogger

Zimmerman Arrested: Does this end the chaos?

Now that George Zimmerman has been arrested for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, will there finally be an end to massive eruption of chaos that we’ve been witnessing over the last month? The answer to that may very well depend on the verdict.

For those who have already tried, convicted and sentenced Zimmerman, a guilty verdict will most likely be cheered; however, a not guilty verdict could unleash havoc by that same crowd. Several black, liberal-minded individuals have reported  that anything less than a guilty verdict will not suffice as justice.  In other words, the jury’s determination could be disregarded if it’s a not guilty verdict… and that’s AFTER they’ve heard all the evidence.

There is already talk of whether or not the Judge Jessica Recksiedler should recuse herself from the case due to a conflict of interest. And given the circus that has surrounded this case, there is a real concern that Zimmerman may not be able to get a fair trial. Is there an impartial jury in Florida?  Due to the national attention this case has garnered, can twelve people be found anywhere who is absolutely neutral-- not pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but pro justice? Perhaps they can, but  not easily. 

I certainly hope that an impartial jury can be found for the sake of justice. I would hate to see a guilty man walk free just as much as I’d hate to see an innocent man put behind bars.

Zimmerman’s arrest seems to have birthed a brand new barrage of questions: Was the arrest political?  Is the special prosecutor trying to appease the black community? Is the special prosecutor trying to make a name for herself? And the most important question of all— Will we really ever know what happened that night…the absolute truth?

As the race baiters are sucking the case dry, the opportunistic politicians and/or activists are jumping on board to make the case for anti gun laws and for taking a  second look at Florida’s “stand your ground” law.  One thing is for sure;  Martin’s murder has been and will continue to be exploited in every way imaginable.

What will it take for our nation to move forward from this latest race laced storm? There is no one answer, but at some point, perhaps we need to reach a generation of children and teach them the truth;  true American history so that they will understand that blacks were more than slaves; whites were also slaves in this country; the role political parties played in history relative to blacks and the importance of a strong family unit. 

One might think that these things are not connected to this case, but they are. The absence of truth created an opportunity for minds to be molded and conditioned to a certain way of thinking.  This is why this case has galvanized our nation and divided us along racial and even political lines.

Truth is powerful and it’s healing. Only truth can lead us to less racial division and less Trayvon Martin type deaths and far less of those senseless types of murders that occur every year but get no public outcry.   This case doesn’t affect the outrageous number of murders in black communities; this case has not addressed the true atrocity in black neighborhoods at all; the black on black crime.

Technorati Tags: vanessa anderson,black conservative,media bias,trayvon martin,george zimmerman,justice,racism,crime