Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • RSS Feed


  • Tax Hike Wall of Shame























    Right Michigan Multimedia

    MORE...

    Does John Conyers hate Jesus?


    By Nick, Section News
    Posted on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:08:46 AM EST













    (John Conyers pictured with Ellen Johnson, Executive Director of "Godless Americans," the nation's leading explicitly anti-faith PAC.)

    There's unbelievable and then there's unbelievable.  This one is the latter.  The United States Congress has passed resolutions in recent days honoring and commemorating two holiday celebrations... HR487 celebrating Christmas and HR635 celebrating the Muslim observance of Ramadan.  

    Not hard to believe.  These are politically correct times and the Democrats control Congress.  If they're going to honor one they're going to honor the other... after all, we can't show preferential treatment to any one religion, right?  Even if the strict adherents of one faith look after the poor, the sick, the prisoners, the widows and orphans and those most in need while adherents of the other strap vests full of high-explosive to their chests and detonate themselves around women and children.

    That said, you might want to sit down.  There were eighteen members of the Democrat caucus who either voted NO or simply voted PRESENT on one of these resolutions while seventeen of them voted YES on the other (the other missed the vote).  And no, they weren't taking a stand against radical jihadists and islamofascists.  

    They were taking a stand against Christians.

    That's right... 18 Democrats voted NO or PRESENT when asked to commemorate and honor Christmas but managed (17 of them) to vote YES when asked to commemorate Ramadan.  And leading the charge?  The Representative from Michigan's 14th House District, Congressman John Conyers.

    The politically correct Ramadan vote I can understand... but Congressman... what have you got against Jesus?

    < Thursday in the Sphere, December 13 | Friday in the Sphere, December 14 >
    Display: Sort:
    It's a double-edged sword (none / 0) (#1)
    by PlainTruth on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:44:45 AM EST
    It was not just Conyers and his band of Dems that were inconsistent. I noticed that 36 Republicans voted YEA for Christmas and PRESENT for Ramadan.

    Rather than pointing out inconsistencies in the voting records of politicians (which is a full-time job), the bigger issue is why do politicians believe they have a responsibility to pass these kinds of resolutions? Don't they have real work to do? It's not the business of Congress to be recognizing Christmas, Ramadan, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or the Winter Solstice. What a pompous, egotistical group of people to believe that somehow their recognition matters.

    Aren't there some laws they could be rescinding or something? Maybe take a few minutes and read the Constitution.

    • Yup by Nick, 12/13/2007 09:56:30 AM EST (none / 0)
    generalizations (none / 0) (#3)
    by whatever on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:13:24 AM EST
    While I'm not muslim, I have to take exception to the blanket statement that one faith is represented solely by people strapping bombs to themselves and the other faith is represented solely by Mother Teresa types.

    Yikes.

    That's like badmouthing a resolution honoring Italian-Americans because Italians all belong to the Mafia.

    I think the issue is worth debating (the abundance of resolutions clogging up the floor of the house and senate), but your reasoning why it should be debated is rather hateful and...well, you get the idea.

    In the history of the human race, muslims have nothing on Christians when it comes to genocide. torture, and slaughter.

    A bit of a reality check for you.

    I expect nothing less (none / 0) (#5)
    by PMOTVRWC on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:47:23 AM EST
    from Congress and especially John Conyers, they'll pander to the most extremeist groups just for the hope of a vote.

    response to Nick (none / 0) (#6)
    by whatever on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    Actually, I don't condone anyone voting on a resolution for any religion. It's a quagmire of time and resources.

    We have freedom of religion in this country. Legislators should leave it alone at that. For example, the big beef here is that certain legislators gave kudos to muslims but not to Christians (and I understand the criticism)...but the religious landscape is much richer and broader than just those two entities. In other words, what about the dozens of other groups NOT mentioned at all?

    Like I said, it's a quagmire anyway you slice it. Better to leave that type of thing completely out resolutions and let our good citizens worship who they want and where they want without feeling there has to be a government seal of approval stamped on it.

    Hello (none / 0) (#7)
    by LX on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    Why would you be surprised with Conyers actions?

    Clue: HE'S IN THE ARABS POCKET!!!!

    Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with this article that exposed Conyers involvement with the still, `unindicted co-conspirator CAIR' pressuring their puppet to remove that label with CAIR's involvement in the terrorism trial.

    http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071121/NATION/111210046/1002

    This a good article involving the trail in Texas,

    http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/569

    You ask does Conyers hate Jesus. How about plain and simple, does Conyers and others hate America?

    I also would like to point out to you that this vote on HR 635 occurred on October 2, 2007. Where have you been? More importantly, you mentioned nothing of the 30 cosponsors of HR 635, of which, include not only Rep. John Conyers, but also Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan's D-11 and Democrat Presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00635:@@@P

    The sole Michigan cosponsor to HR 847 (You had a dyslexic moment Nick) is Republican Rep. Tim Walberg, D-7. God bless him and kudos to the 372 Representatives that overwhelmingly passed this bill.

    I also believe it is important to be mentioned that according to Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) that establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees, of which there are only 10, New Year's Day, Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day.

    I am curious; does anyone think that school districts, which receive federal tax dollars, should have to refund the federal money that compensates its district employees for closing their schools on non-recognized holidays? (example: Ramadan, EID, ect.,)

    This is no quagmire as one poster suggests, however, it sure shows what happens when groups merely colonize in our great nation and do not or more the obvious, refuse to integrate.

    colonize? (none / 0) (#8)
    by whatever on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:33:55 PM EST
    Actually, most of us are ancestors of visitors to this country who refused to colonize and conform to the status quo (Native Americans) who were already here.

    Let's get our history straight.

    • Umm.... by Nick, 12/13/2007 02:36:01 PM EST (5.00 / 1)
    colonize, indeed! (none / 0) (#10)
    by John Galt on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 09:15:04 AM EST
    If we want to talk about "history", let's not forget that the "Indigenous Americans" were not a dominant culture here.  Were your ancestors supposed to conform to Chocataw or Cherokee?  Seminole or Huron?

    And with much of the continent that wasn't colonized - there was plenty of room for our ancestors to define their own.  

    Sometimes cultures die out.  Sometimes because of force and violence.  But pulling out "cultural norms" of 400 years ago is pretty pathetic.  I'm sure, based on the same pedantic analogy, you would fully support further enslavement of blacks - because, of course, it's what occurred in our "history".  

    History does not make one right, it only provides perspective.

    Sorry, but... (none / 0) (#11)
    by rdww on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    ... the comment below is just wrong, and reflects badly on conservatism:
    "..while adherents of the other strap vests full of high-explosive to their chests and detonate themselves around women and children."

    rdww (none / 0) (#13)
    by LX on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 03:45:01 PM EST
    I can tell you what reflects badly on conservatism. Moronic statements from ball less individuals, such as you, that are unable to accept the fact that the cult of Islam, that's right, cult, does indeed suicide bomb with women and children present and the biggest growing trend is female suicide bombers. The act has been dubbed Burqa-cide.

    Not one of them should be trusted.

    • And a very... by rdww, 12/15/2007 04:21:19 AM EST (none / 0)
      • Whoa... by Nick, 12/15/2007 10:06:03 AM EST (none / 0)
      • Wowzers... by John Galt, 12/15/2007 12:20:42 PM EST (none / 0)
    rdww says (none / 0) (#15)
    by PMOTVRWC on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:21:50 PM EST
    that the coment,...."while adherents of the other strap vests full of high-explosive to their chests and detonate themselves around women and children." reflects badly on conservatives.  Why should telling the truth reflect badly on conservatives.

    Read On;

    From The Washington Times

    Article published Dec 14, 2007
    Bhutto: Fatal bomb was rigged to baby

    December 14, 2007

    By Betsy Pisik - MARDAN, Pakistan -- The bomb that ravaged Benazir Bhutto's homecoming processional in October appears to have been rigged to the clothes of a baby who was held up for the former prime minister to embrace, Mrs. Bhutto said.

    A man approached her armored truck, Mrs. Bhutto recounted, and was trying to hand across a small child as her motorcade inched through the thronged streets of Karachi. She remembers gesturing for the man to come closer.

    "It was about 1 or 2 years old, and I think it was a girl," Mrs. Bhutto told The Washington Times in her first public remarks about the baby.

    "We feel it was a baby, kidnapped, and its clothes were rigged with explosives. He kept trying to hand it to people to hand to me. I'm a mother, I love babies, but the [streetlights] had already gone out, and I was worried about the baby getting dropped or hurt."

    Mrs. Bhutto would have been killed, she said, if she hadn't stepped back to loosen the shoes on her swollen feet.

    "The baby, the bomb, it went off only feet from me; there was nothing between us but the wall of the truck," she said.

    "We were rocking from side to side, this huge truck. We saw the bodies, the blood everywhere; we saw the carnage. Some bodies were naked, with their clothes burned off," she said, shutting her kohl-rimmed eyes against the vision.

    More than 170 supporters were killed in coordinated blasts along the route, a horror that was carried on live television and has shaped the already tumultuous campaign season here.

    For Mrs. Bhutto, whose Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) is contesting "as the underdog" for 264 seats in the Pakistani parliament, the blast and subsequent failure of the Musharraf government to investigate have made a political rivalry intensely personal.

    She has complained to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and demanded an investigation, but party officials complain bitterly that the government and intelligence services have done nothing and are probably even involved.

    "I wanted him to say to me, 'BB, bring in Interpol, Scotland Yard. Let's get to the bottom of this.' " Instead, she said, she has "not been allowed" to file a police report.

    In declaring emergency rule on Nov. 3, Mr. Musharraf outlawed political rallies, citing the attack on Mrs. Bhutto's homecoming. The emergency is to be lifted tomorrow, but even then, it is clear the charismatic daughter of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Bhutto will not be campaigning as she did 17 years ago.

    The PPP chose Mardan, in Pakistan's conservative North West Frontier province, for its party leader's first campaign appearance this season. However, instead of the tumultuous outdoor demonstrations she usually addresses, Mrs. Bhutto rallied the party's faithful in the walled courtyard of the party's regional headquarters.

    She said she chose the courtyard not for security, but because authorities would enable a loudspeaker to reach a larger crowd. She is rattled, though: In an interview just after the well-received appearance, she confessed that she was tense all day, unsure whether she would arrive in Mardan before nightfall.

    Only a small crowd lined the route when her motorcade wailed past, but the people could not see her through the black-tinted windows that security no longer allows her to roll down. The PPP thinks a helicopter would be a worthwhile campaign investment but ultimately rejects it as too easy to shoot down.

    Mobility is important in a sprawling country with 160 million people and nearly 300 seats in parliament at stake.

    Mrs. Bhutto is such a valuable election asset that the PPP charges candidates as much as $3,000 to join her ticket. The practice is not uncommon in Pakistan, where Mr. Musharraf and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif dominate rival wings of the Pakistan Muslim League.

    This pay-to-play policy is well known and universally loathed, a sign to many Pakistanis that politics has been and always will be a corrupt game played by the people who can afford it.

    Ordinary Pakistanis and aspiring politicians complain that the parties have too tall a hierarchy, that candidates must appeal to the leadership before they are allowed to run, and that fortune favors the insiders and their friends and children.

    Mrs. Bhutto, universally known here as Benazir or just "BB," agrees with critics who say that large personalities dominate Pakistan's political scene. However, she defends the celebrity factor as "electability" and said merit and experience justify what others see as nepotism.

    "People want to belong to a party that will get them votes; it is a simple matter of electability," she said, adding that in this regard, she is little different from American Democratic hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Like Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Bhutto has been married to a larger-than-life man who dominates her political career.

    Unlike former President Bill Clinton, however, Asif Ali Zardari is considered by many to be a political liability. The businessman and former polo player has been charged with, but never convicted of, ordering the killings of political and business rivals -- including his wife's brother, Mir Murtaza -- and of fraud and corruption.

    Mrs. Bhutto, whose marriage was arranged, defends her husband of 20 years with what sounds like genuine passion.

    "People say he is a liability, but they hit me by getting at him," she said, praising Mr. Zardari for sticking by her through political scandal, financial investigations, scathing accusations and an eight-year jail term she insisted was politically motivated.

    "I am very proud that he has stood by me; he stood his ground," she said, curling her hands around a tea mug and whispering intently in a room echoing with entourage and favor-seekers. "He is a proud man, and he was humiliated. ... I don't consider him a liability."

    Her face beaming, Mrs. Bhutto added, "I always think, what if he was not as brave as he turned out to be? What if he had listened to the army and divorced me? He could have chosen his business, you know. But he has paid a lot politically and personally. I am very lucky to have him. I think that people respect that he has stayed with me.

    "If he had left, it would have been even worse."
     

    Even if rdww is right... EVEN IF... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Nick on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    That still doesn't explain why John Conyers voted against Christmas.  Because the fact of the matter is he voted YES to support Muslims and PRESENT when he had the same chance to support Christians.  

    What is it about the Christian faith that John Conyers hates?  What is it about Jesus' followers that he hates?  What is it about Jesus Himself?

    That's what I really want to know.

    The two bills... (none / 0) (#20)
    by John Galt on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 12:24:37 PM EST
    Wasn't there a difference between both bills?  I was listening to Frank Beckman, and I heard the Christian bill extended sympathy against violence towards Christians and any religion, while the Ramadan was just support for Ramadan?

    I mean, not like we need to strengthen the case against the Con-man, but that's pretty sad when you don't want to promote peace for all religions.

    Or, as they say on another blog, "religion of peace, my ass".

    Easter Sunday (none / 0) (#21)
    by Eric T on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 09:02:00 PM EST
    Easter Sunday should be a Federal Holiday. Triple time if you get stuck having to work that day.

    Serious About This... (none / 0) (#24)
    by American Princess on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    I have a CafePress account. I think it needs Why Does John Conyers Hate Jesus? coffee mugs and tee shirts. I will give you a cut of the profits, I don't care. I just believe the world needs more of this. MORE.

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Join the RightMichigan.com Facebook Group HERE!
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!

    Related Links

    + HR487
    + HR635
    + Also by Nick
    create account | faq | search