Quantcast

I am a Proud Conservative: Do You Stand With Me?

J Montana~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/01/01 21:41:40
Yes
No
You!
Add Photos & Videos
With all that is wrong in the world today, we still carry around our need to thrive and our will to survive at all costs. Our nation is in the worst economic trouble that we have seen in decades. I hear the words" I want change". What does that mean exactly? As a Nation struggling to take care of our own, we are failing and falling short. I see us putting our faith in our Nation's leaders instead of worrying what is in our own backyard.

Many great leaders will come and go. Will our needs be met during our lifetime? My fear is that no, they will not. We are so divided as a nation, now more than ever before, and it is pushing us further and further from the goals that we seek to solve and achieve to be that great Nation. With each new Commander in Chief that we choose, we hope for new miracles or promises to help us at least sustain our viability as we have come to be accustomed to for generations. Many of us fear that our God and our privileges are being stripped away from us. God is still on our money and in our Constitution.

I looked up the exact job descriptions for the Office of the President of the United States of America and for once I knew that our problems may just be getting started. The President is the chief and highest representative of the government and is also the head of his political party. His powers assigned or his duties are granted to him by the Constitution. He is given the power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President of the United States of America is the head of the U.S. Military. As Commander in Chief, he can authorize the use of troops overseas without declaring war. To declare war officially, he must get the approval of the Congress. He is granted the power to make treaties, with two-thirds consent of the Senate. He embarks and receives ambassadors and other public ministers from foreign countries. He has the power to appoint ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, federal judges, and any officials as provided for by the Congress, with the approval of the Senate. And last but not least The commander in Chief gives an annual State of the Union Address to Congress. I never once read where he can turn water into wine.

The President is not capable of feeding our starving children, providing affordable Healthcare, or of changing the way our economy is headed for our future. These are not in his powers. Yet we stand and judge him and cast stones at him and the Great leaders that led our Nation in years past. He is human and has and will make mistakes. We can only help by casting a vote.

Congress can either stop or allow the President to declare a state of war with the exception of immediate foreign threat. There are two keys according to the Constitution to ignite the engine of war. Only through the approval of Congress can The President have and receive Federal funding for the war. I understand that many Americans feel that we were "fooled" by the Democratic National Committee into either voting for Obama or trying to trust that he will do the right thing by us, even if they did not vote for him. Then we see that there are Americans that want to lead rallies and protest to impeach a man that was voted in by the majority. I assure you of this, when he has not done his job, the powers given to him by the constitution, or broken a law, he would be impeached. He is here for now and you can cast a vote to keep him as your Commander in Chief or to give him the boot for the damage he has done for the past 3 years.

We all know that The Democratic party is trying to placate us because Obama has to be re- elected in 2012. I hear "Shhhh! Keep this out of the media, Obama has to be re-elected in 2012" and I feel that America will either choose to believe again or choose someone new to be in office. It is very rare that a President has not served two terms in office. It is up to Americans to vote. There is nothing that we can do to change the fact that Obama is our chosen President. I understand that it matters to those of us that did not vote for him and for those that did as well. They have eyes and will see it for what it is. Rest assured I will be there on voting day to vote him out.

We can agree or disagree that some Americans just go to far. I see friends being bashed by others that do not see the same views. I thought that I lived in America where everyone's opinion counts and should be respected. I have friends on both sides of the political arena and I respect them all. I will not associate with a Holier than thou person that thinks that their "Cause" is greater than a friendship. It is wrong. It says in 1 Corinthians Chapter 12 verses 20 - 26

20 But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you," nor again the head to the feet, "I do not need you."

22 Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary,

23 and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,

24 whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give
greater honor to a part that is without it,

25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.

26 If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.

Bipartisanship mean compromise. I feel that we live in a era where the two parties of a divided nation have separated into gridlock. I see judgments passed and in some of your minds you have already tried and convicted those that have an opposing opinions, as well as on the previous and current President. The first Amendment to the Constitution assures us that we have a voice and that it should be heard. But at what cost? I am not saying that the Constitution of the United States should read like the Bible, but as you know from history it does. In the book of Luke it says "Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back." Luke 6:36-38

Instead of asking what Our Country and our President can do for us or has broken a promise not to do, would it be better to cast aside our selfishness and take responsibility for ourselves? I do not want to ask what can be given to me. Instead I would hope to have something taken away. I want the hatred for our brothers to be taken away. As the famous quote says, "What does it take to change to essence of a man?" The answer that was given was "Time" "I need time to change."

Until we take it upon ourselves to change and accept responsibility for what is in our own backyard, we are not going to be capable to cast aspersions on one another. But we still do. Each and every day society cast stones at what we do not understand and what we fear.

If you could take away one thing from your life , what would it be?

If you could take away one thing from this world, what choice would you make?



Do you stand with me?






Credit: What Would You Take Away? by J Montana
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • joe ramirez 2012/01/01 21:46:13
    Yes
    joe ramirez
    +30
    The only way this nation can survive is to return to our God, and ask him to forgive us for our national sins and blatant disrespect for him and his commandment's!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Brad # ... John 2012/01/07 03:26:09
    Brad # 2486547
    +1
    Bill Ayers. Time to leave Neverland.
  • Guru_T_... Brad # ... 2012/01/07 04:42:55
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    Red herring. Time to get yourself some new material.
  • Brad # ... Guru_T_... 2012/01/07 05:00:11
    Brad # 2486547
    +2
    I said David was right..you said he wasn't...I said Bill Ayres, because he is a domestic terrorist and Obama hung out with him....it's a fact and it doesn't matter if it is new material or old material...it's history.
  • Guru_T_... Brad # ... 2012/01/07 06:39:17
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    Your statement is just a red herring and nothing more.
  • Brad # ... Guru_T_... 2012/01/07 14:57:51
    Brad # 2486547
    Only in your world.
  • Guru_T_... Brad # ... 2012/01/08 20:47:48
    Guru_T_Firefly
    I live in reality. Wish you were here.
  • Brad # ... Guru_T_... 2012/01/09 12:26:54
    Brad # 2486547
    You deny that Obama was involved with Ayres.....that is because you can't accept that the President of the U.S. was involved with a man who was a domestic terrorist and killed people with his bombs. Because of this..you live in your unreal world. Ayres and Obama..is a fact...that is reality. Wish YOU were here.
  • Guru_T_... Brad # ... 2012/01/09 15:50:33 (edited)
    Guru_T_Firefly
    No, I deny that he still is and deny that Ayres has any influence over Obama. We've all had friends that we no longer hang around with. Well, those of us who ever actually had any friends at all, that is. I'm still in reality, wish you were here.
  • Brad # ... Guru_T_... 2012/01/09 16:50:06
    Brad # 2486547
    He only stopped hanging around Ayres when he started running for President. He also stopped hanging around his anti-american preacher after 20 years. You are truly off the deep end if you think these radicals didn't have some sort of lasting influence over him. Rufus_t....lost in space.........a true nowhere man.
  • Guru_T_... Brad # ... 2012/01/09 17:05:51
    Guru_T_Firefly
    Sorry, but no. I live in reality. Wish you were here.
  • Brad # ... Guru_T_... 2012/01/09 18:24:53
    Brad # 2486547
    No, you live in fantasy land. Come back home to Earth.
    fanstasy world
  • DavidK John 2012/01/07 05:54:25
    DavidK
    shows how little you libtards pay attention......
  • AnnS (A... DavidK 2012/01/06 01:23:12
    AnnS (Anti-RP2012]
    Right, domestic terorists too; cop killers bombers Bill and Bernadine. Yeah right! "Just a guy in my neighborhood" Obama's friends of the family:

    "In the 1960s, Dohrn was a leader of the Students for a Democratic Society's “Weatherman” faction, which in 1969 went underground to become America’s first terrorist cult. At a 1969 “War Council” in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman “fork salute,” she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” The “War Council” ended with a formal declaration of war against “AmeriKKKa,” always spelled with three K’s to signify the United States' allegedly ineradicable white racism.
  • Brad # ... 99%Occu... 2012/01/05 13:42:46
    Brad # 2486547
    +4
    Well Clinton looked for him for 6 years and couldn't find him. Actually he had the chance to kill Bin Laden in 1998 and chose not to.
  • Guru_T_... Brad # ... 2012/01/05 15:29:52
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +3
    And George spent eight grueling years ignoring bin Laden.
  • judge Guru_T_... 2012/01/05 20:29:10
  • Guru_T_... judge 2012/01/06 12:53:40
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    Yeah, that's old news, isn't it. I'm sure that the Bush family always wore knee-pads when meeting with their bin Laden oil gods.
  • judge Guru_T_... 2012/01/06 17:29:36
    judge
    Conflict of interest in any case. Conflict of interest
  • Brad # ... Guru_T_... 2012/01/07 03:32:16
    Brad # 2486547
    +1
    Bush did more than Clinton...maybe Clinton get Bin Laden in Sudan, there's not a 9/11.

    I applaud Obama for continuing to hunt for Osama and getting him.
  • Guru_T_... Brad # ... 2012/01/07 04:43:58
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    Bush certainly did more wrong than Clinton.
  • John Brad # ... 2012/01/06 00:36:56
    John
    +2
    He didn't choose any such thing. We weren't after him until 9/11 and Bush was in charge then. But I'm not blaming Bush for not getting him. I'm sure he wanted to. But don't under estimate Obama's success either. He did a dam good job of getting him.
  • Brad # ... John 2012/01/07 03:38:32
    Brad # 2486547
    +1
    Why wasn't Clinton after him? He blew the U.S. Embassies in Africa..he attacked the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 and 17 sailors were killed. The CIA told Clinton that they had a chance to get him, but Clinton backed out. The 19 hijackers were in America training to fly planes but not land planes in 2000, under Clinton's watch.

    I am just glad that Obama had the guts to go through with it...to actually aprove of the mission. He could have easily chickened out like Clinton did and like Carter did during the 1979 Iranian Hostage crisis.
  • Guru_T_... Brad # ... 2012/01/06 13:04:10
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    Well, actually that's not completely accurate. Clinton did look for bin Laden in 1998 and had made plans to take him out, but Pakistan warned bin Laden before anything could be done and the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in 2000, but by then, he had less than a ceremonial month to complete the task. George, Jr. had eight years and still dropped the ball.
  • Brad # ... Guru_T_... 2012/01/07 03:42:08
    Brad # 2486547
    +1
    The CIA told Clinton that they knew where Bin Laden was after he went to Afghanistan and Clinton chickened out and aborted the mission to bomb the terrorist camp. The 19 hijackers were in the U.S. training to fly planes but not land them in 2000, Clinton missed that one as well. The U.S.S Cole was bombed in October...he was still in office for another 3 months...he did nothing.
  • Guru_T_... Brad # ... 2012/01/07 04:49:45
    Guru_T_Firefly
    +1
    What the CIA says isn't always true... or accurate. By the same token, your statement isn't either. As I said, Clinton had a plan in place and Pakistan warned bin Laden and he got away. The CIA wasn't able to tell him that, though, were they. Why would their intel on Afghanistan be any more reliable? There were indeed actions in the works, but there was not enough time to guarantee the intel. Besides, aren't the CIA the ones who told Bush that there were WMD's in Iraq? I'm not buying that Clinton sat on his hands and did nothing. It's more likely that the CIA was busy verifying their intel before the screwed up again.
  • Skeeter 99%Occu... 2012/01/06 02:57:01
    Skeeter
    If the Democrats are so good at things like that, why did G. Bush have to keep looking. Wouldn't Clinton have taken care of the problem? Wait he had a chance and didn't get it done.
  • marcuss... 99%Occu... 2012/01/06 02:57:25
    marcuss LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS
    WTF are you talking about? Looking for 30 years for WHO?
  • bob 2012/01/05 04:54:46
    Yes
    bob
    +3
    liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent, you would need to be brain dead to think it does anything but that.
  • dallas bob 2012/01/05 05:41:38
  • Brad # ... dallas 2012/01/05 14:14:07
    Brad # 2486547
    +4
    Actually, 9 out of 10 top welfare states are blue states.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/319103...

    http://www.contracostatimes.c...
  • dallas Brad # ... 2012/01/05 14:34:50
  • J.W. Ho... dallas 2012/01/05 19:55:29
    J.W. Howler
    +2
    Wrong...If the program has been put in place by the government and ALL taxpayers (which includes Republicans, BTW) are REQUIRED to pay into a system they would opt out of or vote against otherwise --- then they are JUST as entitled to reap from it what those in favor of such programs do.

    I am not a Republican...I am not a Democrat...I am simply an individual-freedom loving, conservative-minded citizen who has NEVER received any kind of entitlement, and I do not FAVOR liberal-minded entitlement spending.

    However, if it IS going to be the law of the land, and I have to obey in the participation of the funding of that law, then I am SURE AS HELL going to take advantage of it if I am doing so within legal, ethical, and moral means.

    Having said that, I will go to my grave as an opposer to government entitlement legislation that has no other ultimate motive than to control me -- and that is whether I receive from it or not, simply because I MUST give to it regardless of how small or large.
  • dallas J.W. Ho... 2012/01/05 20:31:40
  • J.W. Ho... dallas 2012/01/05 22:35:11 (edited)
    J.W. Howler
    +1
    Yes, it is legally OK for everyone to use the welfare system who legally qualify after applying and being accepted.


    What the Tea Party as well as myself is supporting is LEGAL reform which INCLUDES EVERYONE.
  • Brad # ... dallas 2012/01/07 03:52:04
    Brad # 2486547
    +1
    What are you talking about? Do you know a republican who is against welfare but is getting a welfare check? If you do, then that republican is a hypocrite. My guess is the most of the welfare receipients are democrats on both red and blue states.
  • John J.W. Ho... 2012/01/06 00:43:37
    John
    +3
    If you are going to your grave thinking as you do then the sooner you go the better.
  • J.W. Ho... John 2012/01/06 01:45:47
    J.W. Howler
    Thanks for your opinion.

    I happen to agree with you, but it won't be by suicide.
  • Brad # ... John 2012/01/07 03:54:16
    Brad # 2486547
    +1
    So you are actually hoping that Howler dies because of his opinion? You liberals...I tell ya...you say you are the party of compassion but you are really hateful and big cry babies.
  • Skeeter dallas 2012/01/06 02:59:23
    Skeeter
    +1
    Then there should be zero Republicans paying the taxes that fund them. I guess that means there would be more in the coffers for Democrats to buy votes.
  • Brad # ... dallas 2012/01/07 03:49:01
    Brad # 2486547
    +1
    Of course Red states get federal money for welfare..but here is a fact that we don't know....there are democrats that live in red states..right? So how do we know it's not the democrat welfare leeches that are getting the welfare money in the red states? Your statement is idiotic because you are trying to say that all people in red states are Republican. My guess is that the majority of the welfare money in the red states goes to the democrat leeches that live in the red state.

    Food stamps and welfare checks to people who are unwilling to work is a lot different than farm subsidy checks. At least farmers are working from sunrise to sunset.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/25 02:44:55

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals