Atheist Billboards Attack GOP Faith

Atheist Billboards have been placed around Charlotte in time for the Democratic National Convention. The billboards are being used to criticize and mock the Christian faith, as well as encourage people not to vote for Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. The boards are extremely critical of God, with sentences such as, "Sadistic God, Useless Savior," and "Baptizes Dead People." If this isn't a flat out public attack on Jesus and the God of the Bible and hateful speech towards Christians and one's belief, then what is?


Instead of keeping the convention about politics, it has now become a fight against religion and personal conviction. This billbard is really meant to criticize Mormons, but it has been funded and put up by groups who obviously want to abolish all religion and believes, except their own (and yes, atheism can be considered a type of religion, even by an atheists definition of religion, althouh they would argue different). What's more telling of how driven the city of Charlotte is to allow such critic on a candidates personal beliefs is, the atheist group tried to put these up in Tampa for the RNC but was denied.

Of course, anyone who does know Christ will understand, this is not an all out attack on the "nonexistance of God, but on religion."At no point do these billboards say there is no God, they just say that the God of Mormonism  is "an alien" and a few other things. So, they are not denying God's existence but showing, as they usually do, that they just want to get rid of specific religions and promote their own.

The "Dream University"

There is a new University that may be affordable, and offers students a chance to get a college education. Students could take online courses for as low as $2400 for up to 18 courses online! This is all happening at UCLA, and it is only for those that qualify under the "Dream Act" leaving those that do not truly dreaming.

Apparently, California is up to punishing those who are in the state's legally, by offering an opportunity to those who are illegal  ($65 per credit hour, which would be awesome) while charging over $6000 for these online courses for Americans and legal immigrants. It is almost as if being legal in this country is some sort of crime and that those of us who are legal should feel bad, as we dish out over $9000 (now, probably $10,000), work to no end to get a degree, and hope that their is a job in the degree field once graduated just to pay off the ridiculous loans. However, on the plus side, there are grants and scholarships to those who qualify and those things are definitely something to be taken advantage of in this age of rising college tuition and lost opportunities for those who cannot afford it.

It could be said that situations such as this continue to drive a wedge between legals and illegals in America. Legal citizens feel like their being taken advantage of while they play by the college rules, while some illegals feel like their receiving a service that is beneficial to them (because it is) because it gives them a chance to further their hopes to achieve the American Dream. Even so, remember, there are many illegal immigrants who come into the country and follow the rules and there may be some who feel like this is another spot on how Americans view illegal immigrants. However, it's hard to get wholly upset at them, when it is schools and government that are giving them this opportunity.

In the long run, citizens should be more upset at the fact that the government continues to allow this, and most understand why politicians allow it. People also get upset because the citizens are the ones paying the extra expense, and how can one blame somebody for taking advantage of this program to get ahead? If it's offered at a much lower cost, why would one not take advantage of it if it is considered okay by a University?

Overall, it's just another thing to make citizens feel like they are unappreciated and matter less. It is also unfair to those who have become legal residents, but then again, when has any government or school really been into fairness? It sounds good when spoken, but the truth is, nothing is truly fair.

Fashion: Michelle's $6800 Top Gets Cheers, Ann Romneys $990 Top Gets Jeers

The liberal media was basically drooling on themselves when describing how wonderful Mrs. Obama looked in her $6800 jacket. They said she out shined the queen and Kate Middleton, and that her "toned arms" looked fabulous as always. The praise was never ending, and neither was the hypocrisy.

In May, the liberal media willing to condemn Ann Romney for her $990 blouse. The media just couldn't help but point out how out of touch the Romney's were, so much so that she could afford a $990 blouse to wear on National television. However, how can the media describe the Obama's as being in touch with the American people? After all, they spend money (or someones money) on lavish vacations for themselves and their children, have $40,000 a plate fundraisers, buy ridiculously expensive clothes that makes one wonder how they can even afford, and much more.

Of course, one also wonders how much some of the liberal media pays for their clothes and could ask why it's okay for them to shop at stores like Neiman Marcus (where a plain white shirt can run over $100, easily) and other fashion retailers and figures, and yet, target a specific group to criticize if they do the same thing. It's all hypocrisy.

Olympic Gymnastics

Saturday was a hit for the men's U.S. gymnastic team. They had their problems, but overall, they did well. However, yesterdays performance left the team wondering, what happened? The men started out great, as the first competitor on the floor seemed to set the tone that the U.S. was going to be a strong contender. However, that changed as the second and third competitiors took the floor, then the palma horse, and so on. Even the team seemed genuinely shocked at their performance. Even so, the U.S. team may not have been as shocked as the Ukraine.

The Ukraine had beaten Japan, thought they were going to be standing on the podium with a bronze medal. However, that medal was not meant to be. Apparently, a judging error was brought to light, and it was revealed that Japan would win bronze, by .7.

So, the men have had their share of drama, what about the women on Sunday evening? The favored world champion, Jodyn Wieber did not score enough to go into the all-around. Even though, overall, she was in fifth place! Wieber was shocked, in tears, and at the same time happy for her teammates, but her dream of competing in the all around was broken.

Of course, it was mainly broken due to the new rules the Olympic committee has decided to put forth. I like to call it, the "fairness rule" or let's give everyone a trophy, so no one feels left out rule. In the past, the top scoring 24 gymnast have competed in the all around, but this year, the top two from each country are competing in the all around.

To many, this just does not seem right. It is also a look in to how trying to be fair to everyone, ends up being unfair to others who deserve to receive recognition. It's understandable that the Olympics wants to showcase all countries, but is it really fair that a gymnast who is in the top 24 (5th overall) is out of the all around because of the committee's desire to be fair to all countries? As awful as it is that she will not be competing in the all around, she is still a team member and everyone is hoping for a medal in women's gymnastics. As one story put it, she will "come out fighting," and she will not let her team or chances of winning a medal go.

United SteelWorkers Union Seek Out "Secret" Romney Campaign Dinner

The United Steel Workers Union is apparently upset over the fact that Mitt Romney is having a high dollar dinner in London, as a way to raise campaign funds. The dinner is $25,000 to $75,000 a head. The Union has decided to offer a reward to anyone who can find the location of this secretive dinner.

Apparently, it's okay for Obama to have lavish campaign dinners throughout the country, especially in Hollywood. His dinners are always $35,000 or $40,000 and up a head. However, when a Republican has a similar dinner, it is an outrage! Of course, when the unions (of all sorts) are using their member's money to pay for Obama's and many other Democrats campaigns, they want their member's money to go to good use and to see those people win. Otherwise, that was money wasted for them (hear the sarcasm).

Overall, this is a double standard. It is okay to so many liberals and unions that Obama out spends and goes over budget and has his campaign dinners. However, it is just wrong for Romney to do this, and it is wrong if Romney gets more money than Obama. The only reason the Unions want Obama, is because they know Obama will play into their hands, whereas Romney will not.

Obama's Business Statement and His True Campaign

The attack ads just keep getting worse from the President who, in 2008, said he wanted to run a clean campaign. Even though, his campaign then was not so clean (seeing as how many who should not have voted did so and then the famous ACORN organization mysteriously vanished after helping get votes for him). However, 2012 has proven to be a different story. Since Obama cannot run on his terrible record as President, he has decided to go with the punches and be the true politician he is, while giving elegant speeches full of hope and promise that will never happen.

In Obama's world, everything is a handout when it comes to benefits and it seems like those with money never run out of it and can keep giving to those who want it. He also thinks people of America are happy with government welfare programs being extended and doing little to encourage working, finding a career, or a job that will help build their skills (not minimum wage employment, good employment for people who are truly qualified) and get moving on making or continuing a career. Whereas Romney at least believes these people who are on Food Stamps (SNAP) or unemployment and other programs want to find good, decent paying jobs. He believes that people genuinely want to work to earn their own living and have their own opportunities instead of just collecting a check and then complaining if it's not extended because they really aren't looking for employment but they still deserve the handout.

The difference is definitely the mindset that each of these men have, Obama believes in spreading the wealth and that handouts and government control works just fine, and Romeny understands people want to be given opportunities and handouts are not opportunity and government control is not the answer. A major difference may be that Romney actually believes the in the American people and Obama has done little in his first term as President to prove he really does.

It was made obvious what Obama's view really is in his statement talking of Bain capital, "If you've got a business-you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Something that wasn't emphasized as he kept talking about not getting to where one is on one's own (which is true to an extent) was his main point of the topic, "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. " So, with that statement of all the things listed that governments helped create but Americans (many during the Depression who were in desparate need of jobs) helped build those and without them, they wouldn't be.

Before completely buying into what Obama says, think about his intent and his bad record (even as a Senator). Also, why is Obama asking for more documents from Romney, why was it like pulling teeth to get his birth certificate and why doesn't he release lists of his donors and documents from colleges, schools, and other things. Not only is this election proof that Obama is not a "clean" politician, it's also proof that he has got nothing to run on except to make someone else look worse than him.

The United Nation and Gun Control

So, while Syria and Saudi Arabia and other UN countries are violating multiple human rights and constantly encouraging violence, the United Nations has decided that it should pair with Iran and create gun control against America. Mainly, against American gun owners. Apparently, the UN and Iran want records of gun owners to be given to foreign countries. Is this not a violation of human rights and especially America's 2nd Amendment right? Of course, considering all the laws that have been passed which go against the Constitution, why not let this happen? It's only the lives of Americans that may be endangered and controlled by foreign countries, but especially the UN.

It should not be a surprise that something like this would come from the UN because the UN really has not done a good job in encouraging human rights in middle eastern countries what so ever. Of course, it shouldn't be surprising that Iran would encourage such a thing, but for the UN to go along with it is a bit strange. As the head of the NRA put it, Americans do not want to be in a "nanny state." Especially in such a state involving the UN or other countries, and it does restrict our rights that are written and spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

There is a lot of concern about what this could do and the dangers it could cause for the U.S. Hopefully, it will not happen and the current administration will fight it.