Monthly Archives: June 2013

Famed singer butchers anthem at gay pride event

Jason H. Smith (CC)

Jason H. Smith (CC)

The meat dress she infamously wore to the MTV Music Awards a few years back is far less rancid than some of the reprehensible things that have come out of pop star Lady Gaga’s mouth. With that in mind, it should come as no surprise the anything-for-attention media darling would have no qualms about replacing key phrases in our National Anthem to create an alignment with her own skewed philosophy.

That is exactly what she did during an appalling rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner to begin a gay pride gathering in New York City recently. Not only did she change the words — and meaning — of the anthem just days before Independence Day, she held firmly to a rainbow flag all the while. Apparently making a reference to the recognizable symbol of homosexual culture, Gaga’s performance swapped “flag of pride” for “banner” in the song’s penultimate line. The most egregious edit came at the very end, though, when she described her vision of America: “O’re the land of the free,” she continued, “and the home for the gay?”

Homosexual activists have rightly been very celebratory in light of recent Supreme Court decisions in their favor. Though I wholeheartedly disagree with the redefinition of marriage, I understand much of this nation is on board with these changes and have an absolute right to speak out in their defense. When one of the cause’s most prominent voices rewrites the National Anthem to uphold a position many find immoral, though, it is incumbent on the rest of us to hold her accountable.

There is no question many in the movement do not want mere equality for gays — which they have had all along — but superiority. Gaga’s irresponsible performance proved just that by admitting she sees a “home for the gay” at the apparent exclusion of everyone else. Should any other group — especially one heavily populated by either whites or Christians — dare use patriotic sentiment to champion a separatist cause, its members would be mercilessly and justifiably chastised. When the otherwise unpardonable act is perpetrated on behalf of the influential homosexual lobby, however, one struggles to hear even the hint of disapproval from major media.

Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.


Evangelicals Swing Both Ways on Social Issues

Obama Show PapersA significant proportion of the US population feels marginalized and suffers from perceived widespread disrespect. Their desires are discounted and in some instances actively discouraged by state, federal and local government. Families are either split or prevented from coming together, which results in children who are denied the benefits of a two–parent family. Circumstances beyond the control of these individuals have put them in the shadows, outside the mainstream of American society and at the mercy of an often cruel and heartless public.

And that’s why Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Public Policy Center have both come out in support of homosexual marriage. As Daly said in an interview with Christianity Today, “What are the solutions to help get these families together, get them in a lawful state, one that can be recognized, and then move forward? I think that is a healthy situation for the country. Let’s get behind this, not play politics with it left or right and not fearmonger with it. These are people that need dignity. Even though in some cases they’ve broken the law, there’s always that heartfelt story out there where you just tear up looking at what they’re facing now. We need to do what’s humane.”

No wait. That’s the quote Daly used in support of amnesty for illegal aliens. As of the time this post was written Focus and the Southern Baptists still oppose homosexual marriage. But can someone point out to me why their reasoning on illegal aliens doesn’t apply to homosexuals, too? Both groups have been in an unlawful relationship for a number of years and they want to either escape worldly consequences in one case and Biblical responsibility in the other.

I know the Bible says welcome the stranger and not welcome the sodomite, but when you base your theology on feelings instead of Truth, there is no difference in the two situations. A plain reading of the Bible shows marriage is one man to one woman and homosexuality is prohibited — occasionally by fire and brimstone. And strangers are to be welcomed as individuals by individuals, but nowhere does it say stealth invasions in violation of the law are to be encouraged. In fact, I would challenge anyone to show me where in the Bible a law breaker or sinner is rewarded for his or her transgression?

Or for that matter, where people are encouraged to emulate a class of law breakers in the future?

The situation is simply not there. Illegals aren’t mentioned by name in either testament, but if we can’t apply observations or analogous situations from the Bible to modern life, then the book is dead and useless.

Look at how similar both situations are. Both population groups feel put upon. Homosexuals and illegals want to come out of the shadows and gain the stamp of approval from government and society at large: A marriage license in one case and documentos de ciudadanía in the other.

If Daly and my own Southern Baptist governing body are to be consistent, then they have to either support both or oppose both.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision that branded people like me who oppose the perversion of God’s institution of marriage as hate–filled bigots, Daly and Focus helped to produce an e–book that contained five questions and answers about same sex marriage that outlined their opposition. The irony is the same questions and answers apply to illegal aliens, but they support legalizing them.

Here are the questions and answers with the marriage–related in regular text and the illegal–related in boldface.

1. Why does marriage matter to the government? Why do borders matter to the government?

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage ensures the well-being of children…Government recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for having and raising children. Borders protect citizens from the incursions of lawbreakers great and small and it makes sure the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship go to people who have earned it. Defending the borders is one of the principle responsibilities of government.

2. What are the consequences of redefining marriage? What are the consequences of redefining citizenship?

Redefining marriage would hurt children. Decades of social science-including very recent and robust studies-show that children do better when raised by a married mom and dad.

Redefining marriage would further separate marriage from the needs of children. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. Redefining citizenship would hurt the rule of law. Separating citizenship from the responsibility to obey the law only encourages future disrespect for the law and future illegal immigration. Ideally law–abiding individuals make better citizens.

3. Why do you want to interfere with love? Why can’t we just live and let live? Why do you want to interfere with ambition?

Marriage laws don’t ban anything; they define marriage. Immigration law doesn’t ban ambition, it only defines where one is allowed to be ambitious.

4. Isn’t denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry the same as a ban on interracial marriage? Aren’t immigration law supporters just using the law as an excuse for bigotry?

No. Racism kept the races apart, and that is a bad thing. Marriage unites the two sexes, and that is a good thing. Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. No. Immigration law is color–blind, but it cannot be geography–blind. The fact that most illegal border crossers come from countries adjacent to the US does not make the enforcement of the law biased, no more than spraying for mosquitoes means you oppose flying.

5. Why doesn’t government just get out of the marriage business altogether? Why doesn’t government get out of the employment verification business altogether?

Marriage is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life…A study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution found that, between 1970 and 1996, $229 billion in welfare expenditures could be attributed to social problems related to the breakdown of marriage. A good job is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life. Illegal immigrants are exploited by employers and compete unfairly with low–income workers. Americans would be happy to do the work now taken by illegals if the pay rates were not distorted and artificially depressed by law–breakers. Employers who circumvent the market and rig the system against the people who need the jobs the most, create unemployment which increases stress on families and marriages.

There is no intellectual consistency in Daly’s or the SBC’s position on illegal immigration and homosexual marriage. Daly contends, “When you look at it, the immigration issue is not just a legal issue. We respect what needs to be done there and hopefully we can strengthen laws, enforce laws and do all the things that we need to do in that way, because it’s important for a country to establish its borders and maintain its borders. But when you look at the family impact now and the stories we’ve received over the past year or two, it’s pretty tragic what’s occurring.”

Illegal immigration breaks at least three of the Ten Commandments. Illegals often steal the identity of citizens to get papers. They lie about their status in the country. And the motivation that brought them here in the first place was coveting a lifestyle they didn’t have.

And what’s occurring is all self–induced. Would Daly advocate keeping a drug addict supplied with heroin so he won’t feel compelled to steal and possibly break up his family if he’s sent to jail? How about telling a wife to put up with infidelity if it keeps the family together and the children aren’t upset?

Daly and the SBC are busy undermining their credibility and authority. It’s a shame. I expected better.

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge June 29th

When:Saturday, June 29th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Taylor is finishing up his move to Texas so Sean Venkman from Real Deal Talk Radio fills in. Big thanks to Sean for doing it and Taylor is planning on calling in.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio


Our Culture of Deranged Values

A friend shared a message with me recently that illustrated some of the absurdities we find in American society today. The caption was, “You know you live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots,” and then lists several provocative issues that illustrate how far we’ve departed from the principles of freedom and common sense which were dominant at our founding. Taking some liberties with the original phraseology, and adding some other examples, we clearly have become a warped and twisted culture with few core values, and a perverted sense of propriety.

For example, you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally.

School children have to get parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion or take a morning after pill.

We have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, or check out a library book but not to vote, in many states.

We have politicians that want to ban law-abiding citizens from owning guns but give fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and want to give weapons to the resistance in Syria that beheads opponents and eats their hearts.

You can buy two 16-ounce sodas but not a 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might contribute to obesity.

An 80-year-old woman can be strip-searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched.

A seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is cute but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.

Children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes.

Hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones.

The government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize not working, with 99 weeks of unemployment checks.

You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself luxuries, while your neighbor buys iPhones, TV’s, and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage.

We have politicians who believe that the best way to make our communities safer is to strip the citizens of the ability to defend themselves.

The government’s idea of making health care more affordable is to dictate the terms of health insurance policies, which makes premiums skyrocket.

Our notion of “fairness” in taxation is to make those who pay the most, pay even more, and let more people pay none.

We have a whole segment of the population who profess tolerance, but show little or none for those who disagree.

Some Christian leaders declare the “end of times,” and are ridiculed by the media and the left, yet the doomsday scenarios of the climate change alarmists are conveniently forgotten when they don’t materialize.

School children are allowed to spew the most vulgar words and expressions, but face suspension if they talk openly about God or Jesus Christ.

School children can be expelled for giving an aspirin to another child, but can share all the prophylactics they want.

Our exhaled breath, carbon dioxide, can now be regulated as a pollutant, but flatulence is not.

Our government classifies pro-lifers and veterans as potential terrorists, but not Islamists who want to destroy America.

Many children have legally-protected open access to the most violent video games, movies, and internet sites yet are suspended from school for holding up a pop tart in the shape of a gun.

A child can be suspended for wearing a T-shirt acknowledging the NRA, which teaches gun safety, but is just fine wearing one with the image of Che Guevara, who was a mass murderer.

A crucifix in a glass of urine passes as art, but don’t even think about doing anything pejorative with a visage of Mohammed, even a cartoon!

Minority youth use a racist term in their speech to one another incessantly, but a “cracker” who used the term 30 years ago, has a $100 million cooking franchise collapse.

Many colleges encourage students to participate in “sex week” activities but one student is suspended for refusing to stomp on a picture of Jesus.

Students can be taught explicitly about homosexuality, but can’t have mentioned to them the possibility of intelligent design of the universe.

Such inanity evidencing the devolution of our culture could go on inexorably. But clearly we are a ludicrous, upside-down society of skewed priorities and values, shaped by convoluted notions of what acceptable or politically correct behavior should be. Common sense, once common, is no more. It truly makes one wonder if there’s any hope for us. The prophet Isaiah said, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” It’s a morally dark day in America, and it’s getting darker.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at [email protected].


Getting Hammered Radio – Friday, June 28, 2013



When: Friday, June 28, 2013 at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Getting Hammered with Steve Hamilton and Stevie J West

Tonight: We’re talking Mob Rule in Texas, The latest on Snowden, and a Marine Corps General now possibly being the target of probe into leak of Iran cyberattack?? Plus updates on all the news of the week.

Stevie is on the road but calling in, so we’re taking it easy tonight. Grab a cold one and join us for the show, it’s Friday night at Casa de Hammy’s and we’re Getting Hammered! :)

Pelosi distorts July 4 to celebrate “health independence”

In a desperate effort to prop up an utterly unpopular law, Democrat hack and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seeks to redefine Independence Day with a shameless Obamacare plug.
While Americans across the nation take time to reflect on the sacrifice made by our founders to grant us the freedom — such as it is — we enjoy today, Pelosi claims “we’ll also be observing health independence.”
She is referring, of course, to the abysmal and falsely labeled Affordable Care Act, which was unfortunately upheld by the Supreme Court about one year prior to her recent comments.
Without cracking a smile, which is admittedly tough given her penchant for cosmetic surgery, she said the law “captures the spirit of our founders.”
There is nothing in our Constitution on which she could possibly base that absurd allegation, but history has proven Pelosi and her cohorts on the lunatic left care little about backing up their reckless rhetoric.
Obamacare offers the exact opposite of “health independence,” as those subjected to its coverage are completely at the mercy of federal regulators. Pelosi did not stop with the requisite propaganda in support of her party, she also threw in a few jabs aimed at the right.
“If Paul Revere were here today,” she speculated, “we would need someone like him to be running through the streets saying, ‘Sequester is coming!'”
Reckless spending is somehow equated with liberty to the faulty mind of a leftist like Pelosi. In that regard, it is no wonder she will be spending Independence Day expressing gratitude for the most bloated, wasteful, and unnecessary bill in American history.
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Rebuttal of Obama’s latest lies on nuclear weapons


On June 19th, in Berlin, speaking to a crowd of German pacifists, Barack Obama delivered a cretinous speech calling for the total nuclear disarmament of the United States and for creating a fantasy “world without nuclear weapons”. Indeed, disarming the US completely has been his goal since the beginning of his presidency.

Obama claims that such world is realistically achievable and would be more peaceful and more secure than the current world; that cutting the US nuclear arsenal – even unilaterally – and refusing to modernize what remains of this arsenal is the way to achieve it; and that if the US disarms itself, other countries will follow suit and be nice enough to disarm themselves, too – they will be convinced by “the power of America’s moral example” and “American leadership.”

All of that is utter garbage.

Firstly, despite Obama’s deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, NOBODY is following his “example” and “moral leadership” – because nobody cares about them. Other countries, including Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan, care only about their military power and their national interests. In fact, they (correctly) see America’s unilateral disarmament as a sign of weakness. That makes them more likely to build up, rather than cut or dismantle, their own arsenals.

As even Jimmy Carter’s SECDEF, Harold Brown (himself a nuclear scientists who designed some of America’s warheads), says, “When we build, they build. When we cut, they build.”

Indeed, Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan are presently all GROWING and MODERNIZING their arsenals, as are India and probably Israel, while Iran relentlessly continues pursuing nuclear weapons. North Korea has even explicitly announced it will grow its arsenal, saying so AFTER the latest crisis and AFTER Obama’s latest Berlin promise to cut America’s further.

Even the pacifist Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and Danish pacifist Hans Kristensen (now blogging for FAS) admit that all other nuclear powers are currently modernizing their nuclear arsenals (Kristensen even speaks of “rampant modernization”) and utterly refuse to scrap or even cut these arsenals. SIPRI also admits that China is growing its nuclear stockpile, but vastly understates it at just 250 warheads.

Real experts, like former DOD chief nuclear strategist Dr Philip Karber and retired Russian general Viktor Yesin estimate that China has at least 1,600-1,800, and possibly up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, not the 240-400 often claimed by Western disarmament advocates – representing massive growth since the 1980s.

What’s more, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India refuse to even discuss signing any arms limitation treaties, let alone opening their arsenals to inspection or admitting how many weapons they have!

What’s more, China is hiding much of its arsenal in a network of 3,000 miles of tunnels and bunkers!

And now, according to Russian and American analysts alike, including Vasiliy Kashin and Foreign Policy’s John Reed, China is developing a stealthy intercontinental bomber that could strike the continental US. The Chinese air force has even created mockup models of this bomber. Hardly signs of China willing to disarm itself.

In addition, Russia is blatantly violating the INF Treaty by developing and testing an IRBM, and also violating the CFE Treaty! How can we trust Russia to comply with New START and reciprocate the newest cuts proposed by Obama when Russia is not complying with existing arms reduction treaties? We can’t!

NOBODY is following Obama’s pointless, useless example – because they know that unilateral disarmament is a road to inviting aggression and subjugation, a road to disaster – not to security and peace. Only Obama doesn’t realize that – or he does, and is disarming America unilaterally and deliberately precisely to invite aggression against America.

The goal of “a world without nuclear weapons” isn’t just “distant”; it’s utterly unrealistic and ridiculous.

The world is not “moving towards nuclear zero”; it isn’t even on the beginning of the road to nuclear zero, and never will be. The world (other than Obama’s America) is going in the EXACTLY OPPOSITE direction: more nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed states.

Obama’s legacy will not be “a world without nuclear weapons”, or even a planet going in that direction. Obama’s legacy will be a planet going in the exactly opposite direction, and quite possibly, a nuclear-armed Iran.

Obama has asked Putin to agree to further nuclear arsenal reductions. But Putin’s Russia continually and stubbornly refuses – because it knows it is military strength, not weakness, that brings about security, peace, and global influence. It is also loathe to cut its nuclear arsenal while China retains its own large stockpile – as the Kremlin even pointed out in its reaction to Obama’s proposal.

Since Putin came to power, Russia has been steadily rebuilding its arsenal. Under the widely touted New START treaty, Russia was allowed to build up its nuclear arsenal – both the warheads and the delivery systems – and has done exactly that, and continues to do so to this day.

Currently, Russia has 434 multiple-warhead ICBMs (collectively capable of delivering 1,684 warheads to the US), 251 intercontinental bombers (Tu-95, Tu-160, Tu-22M) capable of delivering 7 warheads each, 14 ballistic missile submarines (16-20 missiles each, each missile capable of carrying 4-12 warheads depending on the missile type), 2,800 strategic warheads for the forementioned systems, and up to 4,000 tactical warheads deliverable by a wide range of systems: tactical aircraft (Su-24/25/34), short-range missiles, submarines, cruise missiles, surface ships, artillery pieces, etc.

Russia is not just modernizing, but building up its nuclear arsenal. It is producing additional ICBMs and bombers and producing newer sub-launched missiles (Liner and Bulava) capable of carrying far more warheads than previous generations of missiles. Likewise, its land-based road-mobile Yars-M ICBMs can carry 10 warheads, versus only 1 for previous generation Topol missiles.

And yet, Obama has prohibited US ICBMs from carrying more than 1 warhead each!

So under Obama’s policies, Russia is not cutting anything. The US is the only country in the world cutting its nuclear arsenal.

Moscow is also developing an intermediate range ballistic missile in violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces  Treaty, which prohibits such development.

In addition, Russia is developing missile defenses – the same kind of defensive stuff which Russia doesn’t want the US to deploy – which would help Russia mop up the few remaining US missiles that might survive a Russian nuclear first strike.

Russia absolutely refuses to even consider any cuts to its arsenal (indeed, it categorically rejected Obama’s proposal immediately after he made it); if it agrees to a new treaty, it – like New START – will require cuts only in America’s arsenal, i.e. America’s unilateral disarmament. No wonder Obama plans to do so by “executive agreement” without Senate ratification; he knows even the current Senate, even with 54 Democrats, is unlikely to ratify such treaty. So he plans to (illegally) avoid the Senate altogether, making it irrelevant. (And the Senate allows him to do so.)

Meanwhile, America’s allies around the world, from South Korea to Japan to Europe are all becoming increasingly worried and are now seriously mulling developing their own nuclear weapons. 66.5% of South Koreans already want to do so. Japan has recently opened a facility allowing it to produce enough material for 3,600 warheads if need be.

So NOBODY is reciprocating Obama’s unilateral cuts. NOBODY. This is what always happens when one makes unilateral cuts in one’s own arsenal; the same has happened everytime America tried unilateral cuts, including the 1970s, 1990s, and early 2000s. Since the Cold War’s end, the US has reduced its nuclear arsenal by over 75%*; nobody has reciprocated. Russia agreed to some cuts during the 1990s, when it was weak; it is now steadily building its arsenal up.

So we know very well what the result will be if Obama cuts America’s arsenal further: nobody will reciprocate. America will get much weaker and much less secure, and the world much less peaceful, as a result, contrary to Obama’s blatant lies.

And contrary to his blatant lies stated in Berlin, a US arsenal cut further by a whopping 1/3 – to just 1,000 warheads – will be woefully inadequate to provide for nuclear deterrence, given Russia’s and China’s large arsenals, North Korea’s nascent one, and Iran’s nuclear program. This will leave US allies no choice but to develop their own arsenals.

It is military STRENGTH, not weakness and disarmament, that makes a nation safe. Cutting one’s own weapon arsenals only makes one weaker and less secure. This is especially true with nuclear weapons – a business in which no margin of risk is acceptable.

There is absolutely no reason at all to cut America’s nuclear arsenal any further, ESPECIALLY not now, when all potential adversaries – Russia, China, and North Korea – are all steadily building up and modernizing their arsenals of nuclear warheads and delivery systems, and when Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. It would be decidedly AGAINST America’s national security interest.

Obama falsely claims a world without nuclear weapons would be more peaceful and secure. That is also utterly false. The world actually was “nuclear-free” from the dawn of humanity until 1945 – and yet, that didn’t prevent the bloodiest, most destructive wars in human history from happening: the Peloponesian War, the Punic Wars, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of Religion the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the two World Wars. 60 million people died in WW2 alone.

All of human history prior to 1945 is one of incessant wars between the world’s great powers. But since 1945, the advent of nukes, there has been NO war between the great powers (US, Russia, Britain, France, China).

And it didn’t happen by accident or pure luck. It happened because nuclear weapons are here – they’re restraining the world’s leading powers far more effectively than treaties or the useless UN.

Eliminating nuclear weapons would mean eliminating the sole meaningful restraint on the great powers – one that forces them to coexist rather than fight each other. A restraint that has never failed, not even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when US nuclear deterrence and the naval quarantine of Cuba forced Khrushchev to back down.

A world without nuclear weapons would be the pre-1945 world, with no restraint on the great powers, which would feel free to go at each other’s throats again. It would be far less secure and peaceful than today’s world.

But fear not, such a world will never exist.

As I stated above, none of the world’s nuclear powers, other than Obama’s America, is cutting its arsenal or is willing to disarm itself. NOBODY is following Obama’s “lead” to “Global Zero.” Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel are all building up.

So a world without nuclear weapons will NEVER exist. N-E-V-E-R. (Unless even more powerful, and cheaper, weapons are invented – in which case the Left will move on to prohibit America and her allies from developing them while not opposing their acquisition by America’s adversaries.) No amount of willpower or wishful thinking will change that fact.

“A world without nuclear weapons” is an utter, childish fantasy, just like a world without hunger, thirst, disease, or crime. It will never happen.

Unfortunately, it is possible to create a world without AMERICAN nuclear weapons – and that is what Traitor Obama really intends to do, by disarming America unilaterally.

He must be stopped at all costs. Congress should attach a firm and total PROHIBITION on any further cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent – whether unilaterally, by “executive agreement”, or by treaty. Period. Any lawmaker who does not support such prohibition must be voted out of office. Period. Additionally, Obama should be impeached and removed from office.

Do not allow Obama to mislead you, Dear Readers: his unilateral disarmament of America will impress nobody and will only encourage adversaries to build up their arsenals and to commit aggression against America and its allies. And it will certainly not lead to a world without nuclear weapons – which will never exist.

*This 75% cut in America’s nuclear arsenal since 1991 also utterly disproves Obama’s false claim that the US still relies on “Cold War postures” – had that been true, which it isn’t, the US would’ve still kept over 20,000 nuclear weapons.

Was Paula Deen Set Up?

When I first heard about Paula Deen using the N’ word I thought something wasn’t right. Then when I saw the liberal media pounding her and all these products pulling out from her I knew something was up. First of all this comment by her was made some 30 years ago when she had a customer put a gun to her head and she used it in a deposition after the guy had been caught. Fast forward to today when she recently made a comment to a friend about having a plantation party with black servants. Big Deal. So what??? The PC police are at it again with the constant barrage of the liberal media and Obama Administration’s war against the rich and conservatives.

We are all familiar with how the NSA and IRS are spying and monitoring conservatives and this fits right in with that pattern. Paula Deen is a southern conservative woman with good conservative values. The Obama administration hates that and everything America stands for as well as America’s wealth. He wants to redistribute America’s wealth and take it from people who worked hard for it and give it to people sitting on their fat rear ends with their hands out looking for free stuff. Someone in the IRS must have gone into Deen’s past and found this remark and used it against her. Now all these major companies that supported her are dropping out thus destroying her reputation and redistributing her wealth.

When Matt Lauer interviewed her he was a bit too rough on her I thought. As she said and I’m paraphrasing, ”Those who are without sin cast the first stone.” She also said “who hasn’t said something they later regretted?” She also told Matt that she has chastised young people who work for her for using that kind of language in the work place. Besides 30 years ago using that word was common in children’s games when selecting who would be ”it.” Black people call each other that all the time and you hear it on rap records constantly without complaint from the media. Travon Martin referred to George Zimmerman as that in his call to his girlfriend who is now testifying. If we’re going to go down that route where were all the feminists calling for Bill Mahr’s resignation and sponsors pulling out of his show when he called Sarah Palin the ’T’ word and ‘C’ word on his show?

Yes Paula Deen is being set up. Who’s next?

See Paula Deen’s interview with Matt LauIer below.

Paula Deen Talks to Matt Lauer, As One More “Sinned” Against Than Sinning | TI

You No-Longer Have State’s Rights! You Have Government-Provided Allowances



Whether or not everyone agrees with or supports same-sex marriage is beside the point when individual state’s are being ripped from the people and states.

What is most important today is our government—federal, as well as state and local. It has overreached into our Fourth Amendment rights by invading our homes and lives to redefine us, now government has decided it has full rights to redefine all of our 10th Amendment states.    

Congratulations, you no longer have State’s Rights, you have government-provided allowances!

Whether or not Americans—gay or straight—continue to have 10 Amendment Rights, or anything written and singed into the Bill of Rights, should be of great concern to all. Facts are facts: We Americans have handed over our lives to the government that tells us it is better capable of determining our lives, life-styles, religion, how we speak, act, think, talk, spend our money, whether or not we can conduct businesses without government regulation and control, and so forth.

We allow the government to convince us that the Supreme Court is a superlative entity so infallible; it is the second coming of Christ in nine black robes–Judicial Supremacy.

Don’t bother trying to find that phrase in the Constitution. The supreme Court invented it in 1958 with the Cooper v. Aaron case: “[T]he Supreme Court for the first time, made the sweeping assertion that ‘The federal judiciary is supreme in exposition of the law of the Constitution.'”  And there’s  “no mention of the power of judicial review in the Constitution,” because the Founders did not want the Supreme Court to be “supreme in the exposition of laws of the Constitution.” The court upholds the law, but they are not the lawmakers:

judicial power was to decide cases according to law. The judicial power was given to the federal courts. And that Article VI tells you when you want to find out what the law is, where to go. And the Constitution is there.


But Americans took the bait, allowing the Supreme Court and Federal Government to define our lives and how we should live.

For some bizarre reason, many Americans enjoy being shackled to a government ordered society that strips people of all free will.

Gov Screws You

The latest Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was followed by the sending of Proposition 8 back to California, where it technically belongs.

You’ll have to excuse me, I foolishly assume that California voters, who voted against same sex marriage in their state, have rights to vote freely for laws and policies they want and do not want in their individual state, which has nothing to do with the other 49 individual states.  

Apparently I’ve been misinterpreting the 10th Amendment which states “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Notice “to the people,” who no longer have a say concerning their individual states and lives. Activists must decide, because the Federal Government has made activists the final arbiters of the Constitution’s laws.

Some individuals, gay and straight, do not agree with same sex marriage. Some of those individuals do not agree with heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage.  Many voters disagree with single motherhood. Whatever one’s social views, shouldn’t individuals have rights to express those beliefs and opinions without the Federal Government invading states and mandating government judgment upon the people?

Not according to the government. You see, if people think and act through self-determination, they understand every person is a God-created being with free thought and will. Free-thinking people will in fact determine the truth that lie within the Constitution and understand their rights. When that happens, as in 1776 signing of the Declaration of Independence, all hell breaks loose and government loses its grip of control, while people gain liberty.

That cannot be allowed in a country where government elites wish to rewrite liberty in the government’s image!

Look what former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Professor Steven Markham of Hillsdale College says concerning activists rewriting the Constitution and Amendments:

Proponents of a ‘21st century constitution’ or ‘living constitution’ aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.


This week’s Supreme Court rulings are not truly a gay-straight issue, rather a state-by-state’s rights issue being abused in order to rip liberty from every individual’s hands, making people subjects of Washington politicians seeking the gay vote to keep politicians in power in case the black and single female poverty vote ever fails to continue its magical spell of oppression for personal power.

If gays really think the Federal Government desiresautonomy for individual, they are kidding themselves. Gay Americans are the latest propaganda means used by greedy politicians and leftist activists seeking further erosion of the 10th Amendment for political self-gain.

Markham notes that

Since shortly after the Civil War, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been understood as protecting a relatively limited array of rights that are a function of American federal citizenship, such as the right to be heard in courts of justice and the right to diplomatic protection. In defining the protections of the privileges or immunities clause in this manner, the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) rejected the argument that the clause also protects rights that are a function of state citizenship, asserting that this would lead to federal courts serving as a ‘perpetual censor’ of state and local governments. This decision has served as a bulwark of American federalism. Although a considerable amount of federal judicial authority has since been achieved over the states through interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, many proponents of a 21st century constitution seek additional federal oversight of state and local laws. Their strategy in this regard is to refashion the privileges or immunities clause as a new and essentially unlimited bill of rights within the 14th Amendment. The practical consequences of this would be to authorize federal judges to impose an ever broader and more stultifying uniformity upon the nation. Whatever modicum of federalism remains extant at the outset of this century, considerably less would remain tomorrow.


Unlimited rights not in the Constitution are already pushed for power.

The Federal government has poverty votes generating more black poverty via racism. Where’s the 10th Amendment right to not have government tell a particular race of human beings how and where to live because of race and skin color? It’s there, but government convinced black Americans that slavery incurred black poverty and teen pregnancy and government running black lives is the only way to become emancipated.  

Darn Abe Lincoln for not signing that Emancipation Bill!

Don’t forget the War On Women: Single women were convinced if they don’t vote Democrat, they will lose their breasts to cancer! Suddenly free birth control means you receive already performed mammograms in America where legalized abortion is not legal enough.

Quick Note: Even if Roe V Wade were overturned, abortion would still be legal in Democrat controlled states, especially Massachusetts where Democrat politicians do the over-crowded planet a favor by drowning the pregnant woman with the baby.

Then there’s the Amnesty Bill: Shock! Illegal aliens are forbidden to live in a country they illegally entered. That’s because white Republicans hate immigration and the only way immigrants can enter America is illegally.

But that’s not enough to abolish the 10th Amendment and your stat’s rights.

Progressive leftist activists have been clamoring to place gay Americans in the Emancipation Proclamation. Gays have been enslaved! Gays are forbidden same-sex marriage! The last time I checked marriage is not a Constitutional Amendment; marriage is not a federally mandated rule of law, rather state-by-state laws: Couples must go to their local town hall to obtain marriage licenses. But progressive activists are determined that marriage become a Federal Government law providing marriage rights.

Look out America! Don’t think the day can’t come when D.C. mandates marriage and Americans beg D.C. for marriage licenses. Imagine being told:  “Sorry, you can’t get married if the government does not have a marriage equality quota of gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Jewish, Muslim (which will no doubt demand Sharia Law be pushed into a Constitutional amendment) polygamy marriages (don’t assume polygamists are not plotting to get their marriages federally legalized), etc.

It could happen in America with a progressive government that signed off on the Constitution.

We are not looking ahead, but allowing government to mandate our lives, while destroying the Constitution and our rights.

Is God Trying To Send Us A Message

I have noticed in the past couple of years that there seems to be more near death experiences that have been reported on, you know, people who were clinically dead then came back to life to tell their story. Some people reported meeting relatives that have passed years before, others said that they had met Jesus, one woman who said she met Jesus after she was crushed by rocks during her ride on the rapids somewhere out in the mid-west. Jesus told her he was going to send her back so she can comfort her family when her son dies at the age of nineteen, years later when her son died at the age of nineteen; she was there to comfort her family.

There was another story about a five year old who was having dreams and started painting pictures of Jesus, the thing is, her parents were atheists and never exposed their daughter to any religious pictures at all, they soon after became Christians. While another woman who left and came back said that the picture the little girl had painted was exactly the Jesus she had met when she had her experience of near death.

There are many more stories on record of people that left and came back to spread the word that Heaven and Jesus do exist. I started thinking, is this part of Gods plan? Is he trying to send us a warning, that he sees what is going on and we had better start turning back towards him?

There is no doubt that our society is on a downward spiral, a society that dismisses God but celebrates homosexuality, is a society on the way down, you cannot even mention God in schools, but you can teach homosexuality. A society that allows abortion in the name of women’s health and a woman’s right to choose. A woman has the right to choose to have her appendix taken out or her tonsils taken out, but she does not have the right to take a human life, just because that life is inside her.

A fourteen year old girl at school is not allowed to be given an aspirin, but if she wants a birth control pill she is given them freely, without even having to notify her parents. We have a society that encourages promiscuity, instead of teaching our children the benefit of abstinence, society tells them it is O.K. by giving out free birth control at school or teaching them how to put a condom on a cucumber.

Parental control over their kids is being eroded in this country, we have to be careful what we teach them and God forbid we should discipline them, society does not allow that. However, as soon as a kid does something wrong, society is the first to come out and say, “What kind of parents do they have?”

All you have to do is pick up the newspaper on a daily basis, it is plain to see the erosion of values and morality in this country, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principals. Dwight Eisenhower said, “all men are endowed by their Creator.” In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men created equal.

“ Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

Church attendance has gone down over the years, people seem to be moving away from God as time goes by, it seems to me that the more we move away from God, the more screwed up our society seems to get. I was born and raised a Roman-Catholic, but believe me, I am by no means a holy roller, I believe in keeping my religion to myself. But I will say this, the more we move away from God, the more he will move away from us, and I would hate to see God abandon us, especially now when he is so desperately needed, because our society is in free fall.

My latest book “What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids”  Available Here


This is one man’s opinion.


Copperhead Movie: An Interesting Take on the Civil War

Wednesday, June 25, 2013 – Orthodox mythology of the Civil War holds that the Northern states rallied in unity behind the messianic President Lincoln on a noble mission to liberate the slaves and preserve the Union. Its terrible cost in American lives – unmatched by any other conflict before or since – is taken as a measure of that nobility, and anyone who challenges that view can only be an idiot, or worse, a closet racist. The truth, as usual, is a little more complicated.

Copperhead, a movie set to open this coming Friday, June 28, grapples with one of these complicated truths: Northern opposition to the war. This is a truly unique Civil War movie. There are no battle scenes; no exploration of different campaigns and the military logic that informed them. Rather, this movie explores the politically uncomfortable realities – the divergence of interests and opinions, of rhetoric versus reality, and the social upheavals – that accompany major conflict. It may not change your view on the Civil War, but certainly challenges orthodox thinking, and deepens our understanding of an aspect that is rarely mentioned.

Copperheads were the derogatory name given by Republicans to “Peace Democrats,” a wing of the Democratic Party that opposed the Civil War. While Republicans were referring to the poisonous snake of that name, Copperheads responded by defiantly wearing lady liberty lapel buttons cut from copperhead pennies. They wielded a fair amount of influence, especially in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, but their protest was felt throughout the North. Most Copperheads believed the war was unconstitutional and destructive, and that Lincoln was abusing his power. Some low-income laborers, for example in the coal fields of Pennsylvania, also saw liberation of the slaves as a threat to their jobs. Prominent leaders included Ohio Representative Clement Vallandigham.

The Copperheads’ polar opposites were the “Radical Republicans,” represented by such figures as Ohio Senator Benjamin Wade, Horace Greeley, Frederick Douglass, Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens, who believed that Lincoln was not working hard or fast enough to emancipate the slaves. Their sentiments at the time were perhaps best captured by General Order Number 38, written by Union General Ambrose Burnside, making it illegal to criticize the war effort. The Order was used as pretext to arrest Clement Vallandigham for treason. Embarrassed by this excess, Lincoln commuted the sentence, but banished Vallandigham to the Confederacy.

The movie centers on two upstate New York families and the town’s reactions to their unyielding positions as the war’s effects hit home. The Copperheads are represented by patriarch Abner Beech (Billy Campbell), his wife M’rye (Genevieve Steele) son, Jeff (Casey Brown), and the orphan they have taken in, Jimmy (Josh Cruddash). The Beech’s run a dairy farm.

The Radical Republicans are represented by the family of Jee Hagadorn (Angus Macfayden of Braveheart fame), his daughter Esther (Lucy Boynton), and son Ni (Augustus Prew). Jee runs a saw mill and manufactures wooden barrels. Avery, an elderly Republican who attempts to keep peace among the various town factions, is played ably by Peter Fonda. One criticism of the film is that it is slow in developing the characters, thus it takes a while to figure out how each one fits into the story.

The period covered in the film, 1862, saw Democrat Horatio Seymour elected governor of New York State, along with a number of other Democrats. A Democrat was elected governor of New Jersey and Copperheads also won majorities in the Illinois and Indiana legislatures that year. Abner Beech provokes the town following the election by holding a celebratory bonfire, which the town’s Republicans see as an open act of defiance.

The antagonists opposing sentiments are well captured when Abner comments aloud to his family on a local newspaper story following the election: “Benjamin Wade, a Republican of Ohio, says anyone who quotes the Constitution in the current crisis is a traitor. A traitor! Can you imagine? But listen how a Democrat paper in Ohio gave it right back to him: ‘Such an abolitionist should be hung until the flesh rots off his bones and the winds of Heaven whistle Yankee Doodle through his loathsome skeleton.’”

Echoing Romeo and Juliet, Jeff Beech becomes enamored of Esther Hagadorn. Esther only courts him, however, after he agrees to use his middle name, “Tom.” She finds “Jeff” unacceptable, because it reminds her of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, even though he explains that he was named after Thomas Jefferson. He agrees anyway and becomes “Tom” to her family and his friends. Abner’s response to the influence Esther and her father is having on his son’s political views is classic Dad: “The way to a woman’s heart, boy, ain’t by rejecting one’s own kin and parroting the asinine opinions of her father.” Nonetheless, Jeff defies his father, joins the Union Army and goes off to war.

Jee Hagadorn, meanwhile, seeks to dissuade Esther from her interest in Tom with a torrid quote from Mark: “Brother will betray brother unto death, and the father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death…” He adds “I am a blind pilgrim on this earth, but even I can see when a boy sparks a girl.” To which Esther responds “Dear father, sparks don’t always lead to a fire.” He then flatly states, “If you marry him, well, he will kill me.”

Jee Hagadorn’s son, Ni – short for “Benaiah” one of David’s Old Testament generals – tolerates his father’s rigid dogmatism with sarcasm and defiance. Ni relates to Jimmy how every day his father lambasts him for not living up to his name. “I should’ve named you Pete, or Steve, or William Henry!” Jee wails. “I get this every day,” Ni tells Jimmy, but adds, “I said ‘Now listen here, patriarchs in glass houses mustn’t heave stones. You’re named after Jehoaddan, that’s in the Bible. He made a covenant with God. I ain’t never seen you make no covenant. All you do is make barrels.’” Jimmy asks “What did he say?” Ni smiles, “I left before he could say anything.”

The movie’s plot thickens as news of town casualties come back from the front, and the Radical Republicans, led by Jee Hagadorn, become increasingly hostile to Beech and the other Copperheads. Beech finds almost no buyers for his dairy products, and is scorned by the local preacher at the Sunday service. It is easy to imagine such drama playing out in a small town, where residents interact on a daily basis. I won’t spoil the dramatic ending for you.

The film has an unmistakable air of authenticity. It was shot entirely on location at Nova Scotia’s King’s Landing, a “living museum” reconstructed to mimic a 19th century North American town. The book on which the film was based, Copperheads, was written in 1893 by Harold Frederic, an author who lived through the period in question. His novel therefore captured the mannerisms and speech of the day.

Copperhead was directed by Ron Maxwell, who also directed two other well-known Civil War classics, Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. The screenplay was written by Bill Kaufman, a novelist whose contrarian political leanings appear well-fitted for this contrarian plot. Kauffman has been described as a pacifist, an anarchist, an anti-war conservative, even paleoconservative; he is most decidedly anti-war and this is a prevailing theme in Copperhead.

This is perhaps best captured in an exchange between Jimmy and Abner. Jimmy asks, “Mr. Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal. Those slaves are men, aren’t they?”

Abner responds, “They are, they surely are. But their cure is worse than the disease. War ain’t a cure for this. Slavery ain’t right… but killing people, destroying whole cities and towns and turning the government in Washington into God’s almighty army isn’t right either. Why make things worse… only make for a lot of dead boys.”

One is tempted to draw a comparison between Copperheadism and the anti-war sentiments of sixties radicals. The Copperheads were boisterous activists and a few did have sympathies for the Southern cause. However similarities cease there. Copperheads really were opposed to the war, both because they saw the death and destruction as unnecessary, and because they believed it to be unconstitutional. Most also remained loyal to the Union.

Leftist leaders of the anti-war movement, on the other hand, aren’t really anti-war, but anti-US. This is best exemplified by  Obama’s friend Bill Ayers, who wrote in his manifesto Prairie Fire, “We are communist women and men… Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside… Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. Without armed struggle there can be no victory.” Peace Democrats, for sure.

Conservatives will appreciate the other major theme of the movie, the U.S. Constitution. Many Copperheads firmly believed the war was unconstitutional and that Lincoln was abusing his power. What is left completely out of the movie, however, is the fact that some were also racist, and opposed the war on that basis. So while one can appreciate their devotion to the Constitution, and enjoy the movie because of it, their image remains tarnished by that reality.

Kauffman deliberately remained faithful to the book’s rich dialog. As Maxwell explained, “That line where an ear of burnt corn is described as ‘tougher than Pharaoh’s heart’ is so good you’d be crazy to cut it. The book was filled with them, illuminating a time and a place and a mind-set that’s been positively informed by the memorizing of scripture.”

This loyalty to the day’s dialog is refreshing in its honesty and wholesomeness. There is only one curse word to be found, and that uttered by the town bad boy, from which such might be expected – but even that seems out of place. I kept contrasting this in my mind with the idiotic Hansel and Gretel, Witch Hunters, which I had to sit through recently. The film pretended to be set in some fantasy medieval period, but was so rife with “F” and “S” bombs you couldn’t even enjoy the sophomoric humor, much less believe the setting. As Hollywood would doubtless be surprised to learn, Copperheads is enriched by both its authenticity and the absence of such base gimmicks. This historical honesty also evidences the nation’s then devout Christianity, another welcome departure from typical Hollywood fare.

As Paul Buhle & Dave Wagner write in a Swan’s Commentary review: “This is a movie with a script that is for a change equal to the complicated politics of the dangerous moment it explores, when the outcome of the Civil War was far from certain.”

This is a movie well worth seeing; both for its accurate depiction of the times, its rich narrative, and the unique, rarely discussed subject matter, which was in fact a major component of the days’ controversies. It is also completely family friendly – a rarity in Hollywood these days.

Here is a theater listing.


« Older Entries