Remember When? Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown

Video Rewind: May 19, 1992 — Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown

On this day in 1992, former Vice President Dan Quayle took a jab at TV character Murphy Brown, played by Candice Bergen.Quayle mentioned during a speech in San Francisco, California, that Bergen’s character was “mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice.”Quayle’s remarks upset a lot of women, who viewed the character as a strong, professional single

The statement that Vice President Dan Quayle made about the Murphy Brown tv series brought about an unending round of criticisms toward him by the traditional liberal democrat voices of the day. I feel comfortable in saying the “d” word because I grew up in a democrat household. My father was a merchant seaman. He belonged to the seafarers’ union and walked picket lines. He was heavily involved in union business and would not buy a product unless, if possible, it was made by a union company. My family’s democrat ties go back to the years of the Great Depression which began on October 27, 1929 and lasted for ten years. I have belonged to three unions. Unfortunately, today’s labor unions are tied to the democrat party and democrat candidates.

As I have watched the news videos of the riots that have been taking place in Baltimore, Maryland, I have noticed that the great majority of the rioters are those of African Heritage (the term “African American” has been fabricated). I am of English heritage, but am in no way I an English American: I am an American. I also noticed that the riots of yesterday didn’t begin with great force until teenagers from a local high school joined in the fracas at the end of their school day. As I also noticed, those who were from the school were black. I was very pleased to see one black mother confronting her teenaged son who was about to join in the rioting. Her son was wearing a “hoodie.” I remember when the group of liberal black democrat congressmen wore “hoodies” on the floor of the House Of Representatives last year as they tried to show that it was “hoodie-phobic” to question those who were covering much of their face with what I knew as a teenager as a “hooded sweat shirt.” Getting back to the “very smart mother” that I mentioned, her son also had a neckerchief covering his face.

Liberal democrat politicians try to reward bad behavior and ignore the lawlessness acts that they commit. The people who were affected the most by the rioting which is taking place in Baltimore are the poor residents who are helpless to protect their homes from the looting, rioting, and being torched. Many residents are defenseless against the great majority of rioters who are young and black, who are destroying cars and who are ransacking and looting businesses who used to provide needed services for the many elderly and other residents of the community.

The black teenagers appear to see nothing wrong with destroying the property of innocent people, or throwing stones at police officers. Neither do they see anything wrong with assaulting white people who were seated at a local street side restaurant or who were walking down a neighborhood street not having anything to do with the situation of that community. The concept of vigilante justice, and the concept of mob enforced “judge, jury, and executioner,” seems to be the norm in Baltimore, as has been the case in Ferguson, Missouri.

Think about how many times we have heard a pro-athlete say, “Hi Mom!” But, please! Tell me! Where is the mention of “Dad.” As Dan Quayle mentioned in his speech, the role of the father is being diminished. Too many young black women are having sex outside of marriage, giving birth to a child, or children, and being abandoned by the “sperm donor.” As a result, a great majority of black children grow up in homes that are fatherless. As the little boys become teenagers, the mothers become unable to control their children. The result of that family dysfunction is “coming home to roost” in Baltimore.

There is a great need for predominantly black churches to get serious about their responsibilities toward their communities. The government and police force of Baltimore are mainly black. Therefore, local pastors should see their important role as being the preaching of the love of Jesus, as opposed to bringing in such race-batters as the rev from New York to stir up hate in their congregations.

Throughout this discussion, I have used the word, “black,” very often, which was for the purpose of emphasis. I am not “white” and those of African Heritage are not “black.” If you think that I am wrong, just match your skin color against a can of white of black paint (or whatever color your skin may be). I choose to say, those of Americans of European heritage and those of African heritage. I have a greater genuine love and concern for those young looters than that which is shown by the so-called “black leaders.” My leader is Jesus Christ, as is the case of those friends of mine who are of African heritage.

We are seeing in our nation today the result of having a nation that is being led by people who have no intimate relationship with Jesus as their Lord and Savior. The democrat party took over the white house, senate and house of representatives in 2009 and held that majority for four years. That party has a party plank of supporting abortion on demand and homosexual marriage. The republican party does not have those party planks. A vote for a democrat candidate is a vote to ignore the teachings of God. A vote for a democrat is a vote to alienate God’s chosen people, who are of the nation of Israel.The democrat party shows no evidence of desiring to follow the teachings of God. As long as our nation continues to elect democrats, we will continue to be led by people who defy the teachings of God. Democrat presidents appoint judges to the federal courts who rule in favor of abortion on demand and homosexual marriage. At this time in our nation’s history our nation’s supreme court is determining if the definition of marriage should be changed from one man and one woman to two men and two women. But, let me say that, “two men having continual homosexual sex is not marriage.” Neither is “two women having continual homosexual sex marriage.” Let me say this, when it comes to homosexuals, and their sexual activities, “do you know what they do?” Is that normal?

Parents need to get control of their children. They need to get their children involved in church activities. Pastors need to ensure that their sermons are based on the Word of God, and not on political rhetoric. Traditional democrat and union members need to get serious about their relationship with God. They need to stop turning their backs on God when they support democrat initiatives such as abortion on demand and homosexual marriage. The democrat party’s “lady of the left” is adamant on her support for abortion on demand and homosexual marriage. It is beyond me how someone who claims to know Jesus as their Lord and Savior can cast their vote for such a candidate who supports abortion on demand and homosexual marriage. By the way, “it’s not gay marriage!” The correct word is “homosexual,” not “gay!” As believers in Christ, we should be correct and accurate in the words that we use. As a nation we need to remember the Words of God that He spoke to the nation of Israel in the year 1004 B.C., as follows.

2 Chronicles 7:14 King James Bible

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land”

Our nation is quickly approaching a point in its history where all of our freedoms and liberties will be determined by a godless society. We must elect to office those candidates who unashamedly admit to being believers of Christ and supporters of the teachings of the Bible. The democrat lady of the left has used the term, “freedom of worship.” That term is very incorrect. The correct constitutional guarantee is “freedom of religion.” Freedom of worship relates to going into a building. Freedom of Religion relates to our being able to go outside of that building and practice what we learned inside of the building. Our nation’s leader also used the same words as the lady of the left; with both of them making those statements during a short period of time. We must elect to public office those people who will not defy the Words of God. If Christians do not get out and vote in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections, we may lose our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. Consider the following media reports that relate to “Freedom Of Worship” as opposed to “Freedom Of Religion.”

By Jonathan Imbody – – Monday, January 28, 2013
President Obama marked Religious Freedom Day earlier this month by framing religious liberty as “the freedom to worship as we choose.” If the president had not been restricting and attacking religious freedom so egregiously, he might merit a pass for using “freedom to worship” as poor shorthand for religious liberty.

The First Amendment of our Constitution actually reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion in America extends well beyond the freedom to worship. It includes the freedom to live out our conscientiously held beliefs.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Freedom of Worship vs. Freedom of Religion

Paul Moses February 22, 2012 – 10:29pm

save_freedom_worship-43-NRThere is much ado lately about the few times in the past three years when President Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the phrase “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion.” The term was good enough for FDR to include in his Four Freedoms in a speech before Congress on January 6, 1941 – “the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – anywhere in the world,” as he wrote it himself. The same term is now Exhibit A for those prosecuting the charge that the Obama administration is set on subverting the freedom of religion.The case was made in 2010 at First Things:

Recently, both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been caught using the phrase freedom of worship in prominent speeches, rather than the freedom of religion the President called for in Cairo.If the swap-out occurred only once or twice, one might appropriately conclude it was merely a rhetorical accident. However, both the President and his Secretary of State have now replaced freedom of religion with freedom of worship too many times to seem inadvertent.

(Click onto any blue line, letter, number or symbol to see the video and other posts from this blog)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s