Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Monday, September 10, 2012

Did Ireton Vote For Or Against God – Or Both – At The DNC (and what about Ms. Mitchell)?


With both Bobbsey Twins in attendance, it’s not surprising that the Democrat circus in Charlotte last week was a reasonable facsimile of a Salisbury City Council meeting. What sealed the deal was adopting an absurd party platform that omitted any reference to God – the first time in a couple decades that the donkey lovers have so openly committed that sacrilege in public.

Although he failed to prevent that debacle, after it made the media the Emperor Obama acted promptly to correct it by ordering his assembled supporters to pay lip service to the Lord. As soon as the convention came to order on Wednesday, one of his lackeys addressed the mob for that purpose, and another debacle ensued.

It is now obvious that many if not most of the Democrats really don’t want God mentioned in their platform.

When the question was called on the motion to restore the reference to “God-given potential” it didn’t go down well with the left-leaning rabble. The voice vote was about even, and the Chair called for another, with the same result, and then another, until finally someone told him to avoid further embarrassment by simple declaring the motion adopted, whereupon the meeting was flooded with boos from the assembled buffoons.

It was impossible to tell how individual delegates voted, although in the case of Laura Mitchell can there be any doubt - she led the effort to kill the Lord’s Prayer at City Council meetings.

The next City Council meeting will be an opportunity for the dynamic duo to tell us whether they voted against God from the get-go or switched position at the command of their leader.

Also, Ireton and Mitchell should disclose the source of funds for their trip to Charlotte last week. And Jimmy should also disclose whether he or the Democrat party paid for the substitute teacher for his classes, not the Board of Education (ie – taxpayers).

Inquiring minds want to know!

14 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Daddio said...

9:51 comment should not have been posted. I thought you were going to reject those types with cursing in `em?

Anonymous said...

I'm torn on this issue. I am a christian but I also firmly believe in the separation of church and state. As far as funding for the trip I believe in full disclosure for any elected official. Left or Right. I feel there isn't one single financial detail that should be withheld from the public. It's our money.

Anonymous said...

seeing how poor Mitchell is / was, she would do and say anything to keep her money coming in... So Id say she voted both just to vote... When you have someone like her who tries to work the system anyway she can wouldn't surprise me at all if she followed the coat tails of the mayor... And it doesn't surprise me that the mayor wants to ride the coat tails of the govnea (yes spelled this way on a purpose) in which he is riding Obama bin laden's coat tail to become a senator...

Anonymous said...

Ireton is an Obamanista -- nuff said!

thomas augustus littleton said...

"A fool says in his heart, there is no God."

Note Ms. Mitchell's foolish hat & the Mayor's, (according to God), abomination lifestyle. And anyone who votes to exclude prayer from council meetings automatically loses my vote. This isn't Sodom or Gomorrah; Salisbury can do so much better than these two!

Anonymous said...

I could care less.

Anonymous said...

Joe:

Please put this at the top!

thomas augustus littleton said...

@12:50,

Since you "could care less," I guess that means you do care to some degree. I assume you meant you couldn't care less. Those who don't care and are demonstrably illiterate probably should refrain from voting.

Anonymous said...

Who wants to know? I couldn't give a whip about it.

Anonymous said...

1233p - Abomination lifestyle? Really? Better check your bible a little closer and make sure you/your spouse isnt wearing pants!!! Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Anonymous said...

God as my fashion consultant. I just don't know.

Anonymous said...

3:05- Even the men didn't wear pants back then - DUH. Get another talking point.

Separation of church and state is NOT the elimination of church IN state. The whole context lies with countries whose government was run by or was the church itself. This entire argument is tired and weak at best.

I'm sure if it was Islam being pushed the dem talking heads would be all for it. Wait untill you read parts of THAT book...

thomas augustus littleton said...

3:05,

Go ahead and mock God, but "be not deceived, God is not mocked."

Nature and Nature's God evince that natural sex is to be absolutely between male and female. Let homosexuals live in peace and don't harass them. It is up to God to punish sin. But for God's sake, don't let the rest of us spit in the face of God by electing abominations as our representatives.