John and Ann Betar weren’t supposed to get married. Her father had arranged for her to wed another man, but she and John fled Bridgeport and eloped in New York.
That was more than 80 years ago. The couple is still happily hitched, a fact that has led to their naming as the “longest married couple” in the U.S. for 2013 by Worldwide Marriage Encounter, a Christian marriage group based in San Bernardino, Calif.
The Betars are scheduled to receive a plaque and other gifts from the group at their granddaughter’s home in Fairfield on Saturday.
They told the New York Daily News that there are no secrets to a long marriage, only a few simple rules.
“We just live with contentment and we don’t live beyond our means,” John Betar said. “Just go with the flow.”
….and that right there, is the kind of marriage that I am holding out for; something that I know will last the ages. Too many people’s marriages are built on stubble and are a “flash in the pan.” I really do not want that; I want one that will last till “death do us part.” This is why I am still single.
The Boy Scouts of America require all of their members to take an oath promising to be “morally straight.” Now the organization appears to be getting pressured to change their previous position on homosexual behavior. And it sounds like they may be planning to cave into the pressure. Maybe a time out is in order here. Before this organization rushes ahead and makes such a radical change, it would be wise for them to consider the bigger picture. Either fornication, adultery and homosexual behavior are morally wrong according to God in the Bible….or they are not wrong. If those activities are morally wrong, then the Boy Scouts are being true to their mission by discouraging their members from pursuing those immoral acts. If this organization which preaches “morals” and “character” is determined to be more specific in defining a sexual agenda, then perhaps that is actually a good thing. Maybe it is long overdue. Homosexuals make up a very small percentage of the public. On the other hand, a large number of Boy Scouts will face plenty of temptations in the area of fornication….and one day, adultery. Maybe sexuality is an area the Boy Scouts should be addressing….but that is really up to them….and their mission….and their understanding of what they believe it means to be “morally straight.” — Boy Scouts Struggle to Define Sexual Morality
What Dan Delzell is missing is this; The Boy Scouts is no longer a Christian organization at all. At one time, the Boy Scouts tought children a sense of morality and ethics, which was, sometimes, reinforced by a Christian Home and in some cases, Church attendance. But the Boy Scouts has long since abdicated that positions. Which lead to the creation of Boy Scout-type groups in some of the major Denominations. Like Royal Rangers and other such groups. The Baptists call it something else, and I forget what it is.
The truth is that, if Parents want to teach responsibility and morality; and yes; Christianity — they should do it themselves and not expect a group like the Boy Scouts or even a Church or School. It is not their jobs. It is the job of the parents. The point I am making here is that morality and yes,even religion should start in the home, not in a Church or anywhere else. It does not always happen that way; it did not with me. I was saved at a Christian School and I am grateful for that.
“Soldiers with minority religious beliefs and atheists often feel like second-class citizens when Christianity is seemingly officially endorsed by their own base,” American Atheists president David Silverman told Fox News. “We are very happy the Pentagon and the Army decided to do the right thing.” A military spokesman told Fox News the cross was literally dismantled and will be removed from the base to be in “compliance with Army regulations and to avoid any misconception of religious favoritism or disrespect.” “After a Christian prayer, the cross was removed from the roof of the chapel,” the spokesman said. “During the removal, the cross was dismantled; however the cross was reassembled and currently awaits transportation to a larger operational base.” The military told Fox News the cross will only be brought out during Christian services and will be designated as a “non-permanent religious symbol.” Silverman said a Christian chapel on an Army base in Afghanistan could have put American troops in danger. “It inflames this Muslim versus Christian mentality,” he said. “This is not a Muslim versus Christian war — but if the Army base has a large chapel on it that has been converted to Christian-only, it sends a message that could be interpreted as hostile to Islam.” An Army spokesman said all chapels must be religiously neutral. “The primary purpose of making a chapel a neutral, multi-use facility is to accommodate the free exercise of religion for all faith groups using it,” he said. “We take the spiritual fitness of our Soldiers seriously and encourage them to practice their faith and exercise their beliefs however they choose.” Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, of the Family Research Council, told Fox News a Christian cleansing of the military is under way. “I don’t think you can categorize it any other way,” he said. “There is a strong effort, led partially by the Administration as well as by atheist groups to destroy the identity of who we are as a nation and that means robbing us of our history.” —- Military: Crosses Removed ‘Out of Respect for Other Faiths’ | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes
On one hand, I would hate to think that having Christian symbols on a battle front could be putting our Military at risk. On the other hand, I would hate to see Christianity being removed from the Military entirely. However, we are in a Muslim Nation is Afghan region; one would think that the Military would want to be respectful of those people and their culture.
It is a mixed bag, and all the more reason why we really need to get out of that Country. Our mission is done there; we killed Osama and we need to leave. We do not want to make the same mistake the Russians made there. Besides all that, Al-Qaeda has moved into other regions and is much more a threat to other interests in other parts for the world now.
So, to this Independent, the quicker we leave, the better.
I really hated to use Right Wing Watch’s video, but it was all I could get.
Now, the money quote is here and I will high the part that I have said all along, about Sarah Palin and her ilk. It is not just her, however; it is people like Michelle Malkin and others. (Not Ann Coulter, she is not a Feminist at all…)
Swanson: Now remember, the goal is that these women have to be independent. The goal is lots and lots of birth control. The goal is lots and lots and lots of fornication. The goal is abortion. The day-after pill will help. And it will help a lot. Remember, the goal is to get that girl a job because she needs no stinkin’ husband, she’s got the fascist corporation and government-mandated insurance programs and socialist welfare that will take care of her womb to tomb. Who needs a cotton-pickin’ husband? Who needs a family? That’s pretty much the worldview that’s dominating, my friends. That’s what the college is all about.
Buehner: Because her feminist professors have told her her husband will abuse her, she will be like a slave to him. Instead she will just go to the slave market and sell herself, at least sell her body, to the highest bidder. See, that’s much, much better!
Swanson: And Dave, you talk about the two kinds of feminists now, this is your new division, you say there’s two kinds of feminists.
Buehner: There are.
Swanson: All of them want to be free from the family. They want to be free from the husband. Who needs a stinkin’ husband? Who wants to be submitting to a husband and find security in the family when she can find security in the state or a sugar daddy for the four years that she needs to get through college?
Buehner: Right. Actually, you’re talking about perhaps even a third stream of feminism. There’s the Sarah Palin kind of feminism that wants to have a husband, just not one to submit to. And she still wants to..
Swanson: But talk about the two forms of feminism you see that are rising today.
Buehner: Right, there are two forms of feminism, and it actually has to do with a division of how attractive a woman is. So, you have the group that is very attractive, they’re in the sororities, they’re gonna be in the beauty contests. They’re actually going to get the good jobs. They’re going to leverage their attractiveness in the marketplace because it has a market value. Marketing. It helps market who you are. They’re going to proceed, now they will probably some of them become the Sarah Palin-style feminists, they’ll get themselves a husband, but they’ll never be dependent on the husband, they’ll never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.
Swanson: Okay, so you have the cute feminists.
Buehner: Right, you have the good-looking ones.
Swanson: Well, who are the others?
Buehner: Well, the other ones are those who we should say are, um, attractive-deficient. And they have not been…
Buehner: Attractively challenged. Optically challenged. These are the kinds that will look for careers mostly likely in academia.
Swanson: Now, just to say, they’re ugly. They’re the feminazis that Rush Limbaugh likes to refer to.
Buehner: Right, right, and they’re generally very angry about it because their attractive…or their lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace. So they can get jobs…
Swanson: And they’re certainly not going to get a lot of power sexually.
Buehner: No, but they can get jobs in the government bureaucracy, they can work as an FDA administrator, or you can actually run the EPA if you want, or academia. Academia’s actually the best place because you can be angry, ugly and you can also get tenure. It’s great, it’s the big trifecta.
Swanson: You’re gonna make some people mad about what you’ve just said. There will be some very angry feminists.
Buehner: You mean there will be angrier angry feminists.
Swanson: Angrier angry feminists are gonna come at you for what you just said, and probably from our listening audience, because if we tick anybody off we’re ticking two different folks off, the feminists and the homosexuals, they can’t stand this kind of stuff.
Buehner: Neither one of them have a high regard for the family or for the Word of God.
Swanson: That’s true, yeah, you’re right, you’re right, you’re right. And they’re the ones who are destroying society.
…
Buehner: The systems we are living in are coming down before our very eyes, the fiat currency won’t last, the corporate economies, they’re going to collapse. What’s going to last will be those who go back to a biblical worldview. I believe history will go back to this period of time and will look at feminism and say there was a time in which women lost the love of their children. They no longer cared about having children, they no longer loved their children, they no longer loved their husbands, where for all of history women very much cared about protecting the family. Now they only cared about themselves. They were riled up into a froth about how they were victims of society, patriarchal society, and they decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.
Now, I quoted all of that, because I wanted to make a point. These guys are absolutely correct and it is something that I have know for a very long time. Feminism is not a Liberal problem, it is now a Conservative problem. The Bible clearly states that a Woman is to submit to her husband, in more than one place. What has happened is that Feminism has crept into the Conservative and yes, Republican circles. Sarah Palin in a perfect example of that sort of so-called “Conservative Feminism.”
Here are the Bible verses that back that up:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. — (Ephesians 5:22-23 KJV)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18 KJV)
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:12-15 KJV)
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. — (1 Corinthians 7:4 KJV)
This is not anything new, this is the Word of God; and the doctrines in it have not changed at all, nor will they ever. The World might change, Politics might change, Republican Party might change and the Conservative movement might change —- but the Word of God, it never changes and it never conforms to us and our vain doctrines. We, if anything, should conform to it.
Hey, the way I see it, if she can get away with slandering a public servant like Chuck Hagel, then so can I. She, and the Jewish right are doing this because Chuck Hagel does not run around with his nose firmly planted up the Israeli Lobby’s ass. As he should not.
Screw them, screw them hard. It is because Rubin and the rest of the goddamned Jewish right, that we have 4000+ of our young man and woman in graves across this Country; from fighting a war that had ZERO to do with 9/11! All because President George W. Bush could not be bothered to check to see of the intellegence that “Curveball” in Germany gave us was good or not.
People want to know what is wrong with the Republican Party? Start looking at the damned Neocons, and the history of the Jewish Right; and you will see just what is wrong the Republican Party!
…and don’t even get me started on the fact that Rubin and her ilk are the direct descendants who brought bogus charges against the Lord Jesus Christ and put him on the cross. I haven’t forgotten about that; and neither has God the Father. Their judgement is coming and swiftly. I await the day with hope and faith that the Lord will give unto those who played the role of useful idiot to Satan himself. (See the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for reference, best done in the King James Version of the Bible.)
One of my biggest beefs with the Christian world is that they seem to be “hell-bent,” So to speak —- on shoving THEIR version of Christianity down my throat. I have my personal and very private beliefs thank you and I ask you nicely — don’t tread on me and my private convictions.
In other words, keep your silly damned nose out of my business and my religion or lack of it. I read my Bible and yes, I do pray daily. But I will not submit to your idiotic, muddled, dish rag, version of Christianity. Never did, never will.
I really dislike having to write things like this; but I cannot be silent on this issue. It, to me, is that important. As I have written in my blog’s long bio; my feelings about pro-life versus pro-choice are basically inline with this organization here.
Having said all of that; I happen to see this on Memeorandum and even as a pro-life independent, who tends to disagree with the far-left and the far-right, I was quite shocked to read it.
Check out this quote from liberal progressive website, Salon.com:
I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice. . . .
Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.
I was speechless; actually, I did utter a few choice words, none of which I wish to publish here!
Well, luckily for me, National Review, which is a solidly Republican publication, has a blog called “The Corner” and a writer there by the name of Katrina Trinko sums it up quite nicely, as to how I feel:
By this same logic, isn’t infanticide also fine and dandy? After all, if we’re talking about autonomy, kids aren’t exactly independent as soon as they are born. No infant can take care of themselves. And even later on in childhood, children rely heavily on the adults in their life to provide shelter, food, and emotional support. What about kids and adults who become disabled in life? What about quadriplegics? They’re not going to be able to take care of themselves. Is it okay if we just off the lot of them? Heck, what about needy friends who seem to be falling apart unless we talk to them regularly and console them? Okay to just shoot a couple of them so that we don’t have the burden? Should we ship the grandparents that spent all their money and are now financially dependent on us to the local executioner?
Yes, if the fetus is a life — and a human being — and not a clump of cells, that makes a huge difference. No one would ask a woman to respect the rights of a clump of cells. But it is valid to ask her, difficult as it is to have an unwanted pregnancy, to realize that the death of the child — the child who was totally innocent and has done nothing except be conceived — is not an appropriate way to handle this.
I have one word: Amen.
I have news for Democrats, especially the progressive part of that party. You are not doing a darned thing for your party or your cause. Because as much as I am for Unions, the middle class and seeing that our poor are taken care of, and not allowed to starve or like here in Michigan; not to freeze….I just cannot and will not, ever, agree with this sort of inhuman philosophy. I am a Christian of 30 year vintage and my Bible says, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Now, I realize that people like Ed Brayton will not like this at all. However, this is just one issue that is not up for debate at all, at least not with me.
Everything else, politics, economics — everything — is up for debate. However, the wholesale slaughter of the unborn is not something that I am willing to concede on, not one iota.
He is making a good point, but this guy is literally begging to get sued by someone.
VERNAL — When George Burnett first set up shop in Vernal, he knew he had to find away to connect with his adopted community if his custom seat cover business was going to survive.
So, armed with a sandwich board emblazoned with the phrase “Honk If You (Heart) Drilling!,” Burnett took to the corner of 500 East and Main Street and began his one-man crusade to boost the spirit of a community that was getting its first glimpse of another oil and gas bust.
Fast-forward nearly five years and Burnett — now a local celebrity for his tireless support of the Uintah Basin’s energy industry — has launched a new business that’s earning rave reviews just weeks after opening its doors.
“I love this place. I will support this place with every fiber of my being,” said Corey Peterson, a personal trainer who stopped by the I Love Drilling Juice & Smoothie Bar on Monday morning for a thick, green drink filled with avocado, spinach and fresh apple juice.
“It’s a good place to come for lunch,” added customer Shauna Snow, “or for a good snack that’s healthy, not processed and also can give you good nutrients.”
But there is one thing about Burnett’s latest venture that’s left some folks with a bitter taste in their mouths.
“I’m very open about it, very public about it, that I’m going to charge them a little bit more, and I have liberals come in and pay the extra dollar surcharge,” Burnett said, referring to his unique pricing structure.
Charging one price to a conservative and another one to a liberal? That is grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. I wonder, would he charge a black man one price and a white man another? The point is, you charge everyone the same or you don’t stay in business, at least not for very long. I am just waiting for some black liberal to come into that shop and get charge a higher price. The lawsuit would be good!
Obama won two elections giving voice to these policies, but within the neocon-dominated punditocracy and a Congress subject to pressure by the increasingly extremist American Israel Public Affairs Committee, they are akin to kryptonite. Hagel’s critics have been quick to unsheathe the McCarthyite tactics employed whenever opposition to any position of Israel’s right-wing government is at issue. The accusation is almost always “anti-Semitism,” but rarely has that charge proven as empty as in Hagel’s case. Leading the assault have been Pavlovian attack dogs like William Kristol and The Weekly Standard, Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post, ex–AIPAC flack Josh Block, the ADL’s Abe Foxman, Bret Stephens at The Wall Street Journal, and convicted criminal and former Reagan and Bush II official Elliott Abrams, now respectably ensconced at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The allegation rests in significant measure on a 2008 quote in which Hagel—whom the interviewer, author and former US diplomat Aaron David Miller termed “a strong supporter of Israel and a believer in shared values”—criticized the use of political intimidation by the “Jewish lobby,” an infelicitous phrase he accidentally used to describe AIPAC. Hagel later said he misspoke and had meant to refer to the “Israel lobby,” just as he did elsewhere in Miller’s interview. It’s an easy mistake to make, since the “Israel lobby” is pretty darn Jewish. (Dick Cheney, for instance, has made the same error.) As it happens, Hagel is a better friend to Israel than the Likud quislings and apologists who make up what journalists mistakenly term the “pro-Israel lobby”; for starters, he is willing to tell its leaders the truth. Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general and adviser on US affairs to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, wrote recently that “Barak was thoroughly impressed not only by Hagel’s military background, but by his analysis, knowledge of the Middle East, and his understanding of Israel’s security issues and predicaments,” adding that Hagel “is not anti-Israeli and he is not an anti-Semite. In fact, if I were him I would lodge a complaint with the Anti-Defamation League, asking their assistance and support for being unfairly called an anti-Semite.”
What these hysterics may actually indicate is a genuine fear on the part of the neocons and conservative professional Jews that they are about to be exposed as generals without armies, demanding fealty to policies opposed by the vast majority of American Jews for whom they profess to speak. How marvelous, then, that Barack Obama finally decided there was one time he’d rather fight than switch. via Hooray for Hagel | The Nation
One thing that I really wish to dwell on here, and it bears repeating:
Hagel’s critics have been quick to unsheathe the McCarthyite tactics employed whenever opposition to any position of Israel’s right-wing government is at issue. The accusation is almost always “anti-Semitism,” but rarely has that charge proven as empty as in Hagel’s case.
I must admit, I can truly relate to this; I have accused of the very same stuff myself. I support Israel’s right to exist and all. But I do not support the stupidity of the Neoconservative right at all. This whole idea that America has to defend Israel unto the death is idiotic at best. Furthermore, the idea that America has to be the world’s policeman is out of touch with our economic realities here at home. The fact is that Wilsonian foreign policy is a disaster and America has had to learn the hard way many times already. We learned it in Korea, we learned in World War I, we learned it in Vietnam and now, we have learned it in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Furthermore, Israel has my support on existence; but this idea that Israel has the right to build on disputed territories and then sit, and moan and complain when Palestinian and Gaza terrorists fire rockets into Israel is mindbogglingly stupid. It is something that I cannot support at all. The said part is, that these Wilsonian Neoconservatives will tell you that I am a Jew-hater and Antisemite for simply saying what I just said to you here. I call it playing the Jew Card or playing the Semite Card. It cheapens the discussion and frosts any kind of criticism at all. Which is precisely what Joseph McCarthy did in the 1950’s.
So, as much as it pains me to say this; even though he is of the far left —- Alterman has a good point.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
I just cannot and will not, ever, agree with this sort of inhuman philosophy. I am a Christian of 30 year vintage and my Bible says, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Now, I realize that people like 
