Author Archives: Lisa Richards

About Lisa Richards

Lisa Richards is a life-long Conservative Republican with a capital "C," fighting leftist progressivism like a hyped-up hormonal verbal paper-shredder on over-drive. A writer of politics and history, Richards believes in upholding an defending the Constitution and American Exceptionalism without apologies. Lisa Richards Holds a Bachelors of Science in Political Science from Sacred Heart University. She resides in her native state of Connecticut with her family and an assortment of rescued animals

Tolerance: The Ultimate “F” Bomb that’s Destroying America’s Culture

 

 Finger Statue

 

Tolerance is not a wonderful thing; it’s the ultimate “F” bomb forcing Americans to assimilate to multiculturalism (Cultural Marxism), and that ideology is dangerous.

Tolerance toward everyone and every foreign culture within any country’s borders has long gotten people, armies, and countries slaughtered by brutal enemies. But that is the grand scheme behind “tolerance.”

It’s one thing to for foreign cultures to come to America and become American, but it’s a threat when those cultures demand America assimilate to them.

Today tolerance is permitting two threats to takeover America: Islam’s culture and violence and illegal and legal immigration from third world countries demanding America assimilate to those cultures.

tolerance

First the Ted Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act opened the amnesty floodgates for “an extension of civil rights sentiments beyond our borders,” and America has been losing its culture to many cultures that hate us ever since. Kennedy’s Immigration Act refused the continuing admittance of white Europeans to America. There was no tolerance for Irish, English, Scots, and Germans, and only a small number of Visas were extended to Italians and some Eastern European countries. Why? Progressive leftist intolerance demands Americans accept illegal and legal immigration from non-white third world countries, while apologizing for white America’s prosperity (despite America having prosperity in all races) uneducated and unskilled third world countries are forbidden to experience.

America ought to express regret to those foreigners who hate the United States, but adore our food stamp and welfare programs. After all, Americans are obliged to“tolerate” and assimilate to those taking over with foreign cultures!

our continent not yours

Yet the so-called tolerant Left forbids non-white third world countries from rising up and prospering their own lands. The excuse; those people would lose their culture. Never mind the fact those people are starving to death in their natural resources lands they should be allowed to build wealthy from. The Left wants those cultures to come to America and takeover America’s despicable white culture with resentment toward Americans. And Americans better tolerate this conquering with a repentant smile.

And whatever we filthy Americans do, apologize to illegal aliens—a word now banned by the Associated Press, because “illegal” is considered a “negative connotation.”  Never mind the negative connotation of foreign cultures demanding America surrender to them.

end free speech

Next: The “T” word has run further toward America’s ruination since 9/11. Now Americans are expected to apologize to Islam for its violent world-wide mass slaughter. America should apologize to the world for existing while Islamic enemies slaughter Americans.

violence

We hate America

Who cares that Islam and other foreign cultures are  taking over and destroying America, and who cares if they have no tolerance for America and Americans,  non-Muslim Americans must request forgiveness from Islamists even as Islamists slaughter us.  

By-the-way, it’s not a negative connotation to say you despise Jews—after all, don’t you think “they” own too many banks—, Israel—can’t “they” find another place to settle their 5000 year-old land—, Christians—look how they’ve taken over the world by beheading everyone into submission!  And whites; look how they extinguished every, single African and indigenous tribe on earth.

Yes, tolerance! It is of utmost importance when it comes to demeaning and destroying America. 

dem socialists of america

This so-called broad-mindedness, which tells Americans we must be charitable toward all, is a progressive code phrase set up to destroy liberty. Tolerance demands Americans lock-step to, and follow, everything and everyone, while hating white Christian, conservative Americans and America’s imperialistic founding— that intolerable Constitution that upholds Natures Laws, i.e. individual freedom and liberty to all.

What is intolerable is many Americans accept this hatred. Those who detest America will never “tolerate” Americans, so why are we “tolerating” them? Because politically correct government leaders and the anti-American Left demand Americans endure the destruction of our nation, culture, language, and people. It is after all the best way to apologize for America’s existence.

As author Bruce Bawer noted in City Journal:  

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

 

The Left does not want America to last, that’s why it adores illegal and legal immigration from third world countries and terror states. The Left wants angry unskilled, uneducated people invading America and living off the welfare state.

Leftists want jihadists bombing American cities and Americans submitting to the enemy. That is because the “House of Submission” Bawer refers to lacks tolerance for the 19th and early 20th century immigration: Immigrate to America because it offers opportunity to become wealthy—something Europe forbade unless one belonged to the aristocracy. Wealth opportunity is not tolerated by progressives. Old immigration helped build America; it rejected terrorists and anarchists and promoted prosperity, something “tolerance” is determined to undermine.

Early 20th century immigrants may have been poor and many lived in overcrowded cities, but work opportunity, earning and saving money, meant rising out of poverty. Those immigrants assimilated to America’s culture because they wanted to be American. Tolerance instructs today’s immigrants that America is a nation of racists and Americans should assimilate to foreign cultures living here.

Tolerance says Americans are“totalitarian in nature,” so make all believe we are a “nation of immigrants.”

The “Tolerance” pro-amnesty phrase—“America is a nation of immigrants”—has further brainwashed Americans into believing we are Al Gore’s “out of one, many,” and not “E Pluribus Unum,” “Out of Many, One.”

If America is a nation of immigrants, then there are no American-born or nationalized Americans.

If America’s current population is 307 million people and 50 million are legal and illegal, and of that, 12 million illegal, then only 13% of the U.S. population are naturalized citizens and 16% illegal.  That means America is a nation of majority American citizens born or naturalized. Thus we are not a nation of immigrants, but Americans.

How intolerant!

Notice it’s perfectly acceptable for illegal immigrants from Mexico, South America, and other third world countries to take “Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion) from American taxpayers, after all, America is too white, too rich, and has no right offering opportunity to anyone who wants to work their way legally and honestly toward their dream!

If most third world immigrants are unskilled, it’s America’s fault. We offer too much work opportunity!

If Islam creates terror, it’s simply lashing out at that fact America offers Islamic terrorists too many prospects for Ivy League educations.

How intolerant!

This is the Left: They despise everything America stands for: The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration, law-abiding immigration to become American, freedom, liberty, free speech that says you can’t say “illegal alien” to describe people illegally entering and living inside U.S. borders. And forget religious freedom that allows Christians to say the name Jesus and own Bibles when Korans should be the only holy book allowed in America.

You talk about Intolerable!

The only time the Left tolerates the Bill of Rights and Constitution is for itself—to spread its progressive propaganda created to destroy the Constitution, Bill of Rights and America.

“Tolerance” is giving America the finger with a big “F” you. It is getting America attacked and people slaughtered in the name of multiculturalism. 

Those who hate America will never tolerate Americans or this nation as it was founded, so why are we tolerating those who hate America and want to destroy her?

Wake Up America! Islam is Not the Girl Scouts! It’s a Radical Political Movement of Death

flag being burned in blaze

 

Tolerance toward Islam has turned into an apology crusade that is helping Islam inflict terror on America.

Day after day, year after year since 9/11, we have been advised by the Left that there is a “moderate Islam” and a “radical Islam.” Really; that’s like saying there was moderate Japanese torture against the Chinese versus the brutal version.  And how about those “moderate” concentration camps Hitler used against Jews: You know, the ones with less gas for echo-friendly purposes. Of course I’ve always been a fan of Stalin’s “moderate” Gulags opposed to those nasty, filthy ones.

Since 9/11 Americans have been told do not to refer to Islam as violent or evil, despite Islam’s 1400 year history of brutal violence inflicted upon the world. And never mind Islam demands take over and control the world, America must apologize for Islam’s aggressive history and every brutish act it incurs upon mankind. After all, America made Islam sadistic, not Mohammad and his followers!

0119080827_M_blood3

Furthermore, since 9/11 more people have been brainwashed into believing Christianity has a radical, forceful side that brutalized the world. Those people either believe the Borgias invented Christianity, or these self-loathing apologists are simply looking for any excuse to demean Christianity because Christ’s redemption is too soppy and the Ten Commandments accountability really sucks for occupying leftists.

Of course when it comes to defending Islam, it never hurts to inflict whitewashed Crusade history into the Islam versus Christianity argument. This always helps make Islam appear tolerant. Islam may have stormed the West, conquered Spain, North Africa and Middle East, terrorized the world for 400 years with its Holy Wars while Christians turned the other cheek–before realizing self-defense is actually justified–but we must ignore facts and make sure defensive Crusaders look like pillaging, plundering, blood-thirsty brutes that savaged Islam and forced all Muslims to convert to Christianity.

If that were true, Mohammad’s waged war for expansion through forced conversion by the sword would have failed while he was alive. If the above were true, Islam would have ceased to exist and the Middle East today would be Jewish and Christian.And Caftans would be mini dresses!

The fact is Islam demands all people living under its rule convert to Islam, not live and worship as they choose.

But facts are to be ignored in lieu of blaming Christians and America for everything wrong in the world.

That leads us to “tolerance,” the one word that is permitting Islamic terror to infiltrate the United States, as it has in Europe, and spread its political terror and death.

Americans are told by leaders and leftist media warriors that we must “tolerate” Islam, be “tolerant” toward Muslims, or be designated racists and an Islamophobes. The problem is, as we continue tolerating Islam and its militant teachings further, we are inviting more Boston and Fort Hood bombings and shootings, as well as another 9/11.

Tolerance is giving a free pass to a violent, political movement whose goal is death, not peace. 

As Islam expert Dr. Robert Spencer explains

Christians today are being kidnapped, imprisoned, wrongly arrested, beaten, and murdered — not because of anything they have done, but because they have dared to believe…beliefs that are considered blasphemous in authoritative Islam. And it is hardly better elsewhere in the Islamic world: nowhere in majority-Muslim countries today do people who believe these things enjoy full equality of rights with Muslims…We see jihadists attacking Christians with increasing fury. We also see the world largely yawning and indifferent as all this goes on… Muslims, by contrast, are in the daily mainstream media playlets always cast as non-Western, nonwhite, poor, and oppressed, but wise and serene in their victimization.

 

This is why it is imperative we relish paintings of Christ made out of urine and feces and “tolerate” the execution of anyone who dares publish cartoons of Mohammad.

Always be intolerant of Christians and Jews, but never poke fun at Islam, it might insult Islam!

Butcher all who insult islam

What about the fact Islam persecutes its own people through violent honor killings called for by the Koran and Sharia Law? What about Islam’s raping and beating Muslim women (leftists will argue non-Muslims beat their wives and rape women as well, but the Bible and Christianity does NOT commend violence against humanity) as well as torturing and murdering gay Muslims, because homosexuality must be extinguished in Islam?

Forget it; never assume “Muslim extremists” represent Islam despite what the Koran states. The Left won’t hear of it.

Islam is aided by the Left, which adores Islam for the fact that Islam is out to destroy the world and all non-Muslims, especially Christians and Jews, whom the Left and anti-Catholic Christians seeking to use the Church as a punching bag, have always hated.

But Islam is an extreme ideology seeking destruction of all non-Muslims, i.e. infidels—and that includes leftists prostrating themselves to an enemy that will kill those useful idiots unless they convert to Islam.

According to ex-Muslim and author of The Pigman Bosch Fawstin:

Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and State is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic (“Sharia”) Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian. Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some “extremist” form of it. If jihadists were actually “perverting a great religion,” Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can’t is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God. From the Koran:“Slay the idolators wherever you find them…” Chapter 9, verse 5 “When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them….” Ch. 47:4″

 

dis-honor-killing

Everything about Islam violates Natures Laws and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights which upholds every individual’s human rights given to all people by birthright.

Nothing in Islam or the Koran conveys love everyone or there would not be calls for killing all non-Muslims. Christ commanded “love your enemy” and “love your neighbor as yourself,” Mohammad commanded kill all the unbelievers. Christ said “follow me,” not follow me or I’ll kill you, so believing in Christ is a free-will choice for each individual. It doesn’t work that way in Islam where everyone must submit or die.

Also, Christ never carried a sword or murdered anyone as Mohammad did as he violently slaughtered his way across the globe, making people die for him.

No matter how many facts are placed before the Left, who adores destructive extremists, Islam must be the victim and America and Christianity the racist extremists. It’s the only way to level the field of liberty—literally.

islam burns US flag

Refusing to call Islam the enemy empowers Islamic terror. Objecting to identifying Islam as what it is—a movement of political violence against the world—empowers and enables Islamic violence seeking world takeover.

Hey Marco Rubio! After Boston Do You Still Want to Legalize Foreigners With Questionable Backgrounds?

 Boston-Marathon-bombing-victim-John-Tlumacki

 

Senator Marco Rubio and his Gang of Eight, which should be renamed “Gangsters of Eight,” wants 12 million illegals granted amnesty, i.e. citizenship, because they’ve lived and worked in America for five years or more. Rubio knows many illegals have turned out to be violent criminals crowding U.S. prisons, but he is ignoring that as well as the fact that over the years many foreigners living in America have bombed America in an act of Islamic jihad like the two Boston bombers, granted citizenship right after 9/11, despite their background.

America welcomes people from across the globe, but leaders like the Gang of Eight seem more interested in grabbing immigrant votes than saying no to uneducated, low-skilled immigrants, as well as people from questionable countries where Islamic terrorism reigns.

Explosions At 117th Boston Marathon

First: Many illegals south of the U.S. border are proven to be low-skilled and uneducated, and that downs the American economy.

Second, the problem with legalizing 12 million illegals is many are violent criminals now filling our prison systems.

illegal criminals

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office

At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004–a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years–about 27 percent. The majority of criminal aliens incarcerated at the end of calendar year 2004 were identified as citizens of Mexico. We estimate the federal cost of incarcerating criminal aliens–Bureau of Prisons (BOP)’s cost to incarcerate criminals and reimbursements to state and local governments under SCAAP–totaled approximately $5.8 billion for calendar years 2001 through 2004.

 

The next problem is assimilation.

According to the Department of Justice:

[I]n fiscal year (FY) 2010, slightly less than 1 percent of the 40,651 foreign national inmates from treaty nations in federal prison were transferred to their home countries.”

The DOJ says its reason for low transfers back to native countries is many illegal criminals cant speak English, therefore:

insufficient translation services may keep some inmates from fully understanding and participating in the program.” As a result, “Overall, [the Bureau of Prisons] BOP and [International Prisoner Transfer Unit] IPTU, combined, rejected 97 percent of requests from foreign national inmates because they determined the inmates were ineligible or not suitable for transfer. Specifically, from FY 2005 through FY 2010, the BOP rejected 67,455 of 74,733 (90 percent) transfer requests.

In other words, it pays for criminal illegals not to assimilate and speak English, that way they can stay in the U.S, on the taxpayer’s dime where they will be well taken care of, on the taxpayers dime.

The biggest threat is terrorism: We have foreigners, both legal and illegal from Islamic countries with connections to Islamic terror. Despite those threatening connections, the word “racism” has forced the government and Americans to express apologetic tolerance to anyone connected to Islam, even when they have YouTube and Face Book pages demanding jihad against “infidels,” whom they believe must be exterminated.

As a result, we are faced once again with terrorism in our nation committed by two foreign nationals from an Islamic terrorist nation—Chechnya.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

The Boston Marathon Bombers were brothers who arrived in America after 9/11. 26 year-old Russian-born Tamerlan Tzarnaev, the suspect police killed, has been a legal permanent U.S. resident since 2007. His younger brother Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, a 19-year-old, also reported as living here legally, was born in Kyrgystan or Chechnya. Before coming to the United States, both men attended school in Dagestan, which Russian journalists say contains an Islamism extremist insurgency. It is also reported the two brothers came to the U.S. on grounds of asylum and had difficulty assimilating and making friends.

But was it really difficulty assimilating or refusal to become Western, because their social media pages show growing anti-American Islamic extremism.

Just because some immigrants cannot make friends has nothing to do with Americans not welcoming people. Americans welcome people from all over the world. Those who do not assimilate do not want anything to do with this country’s culture. Those who say they do not have any friends after 10 years do not want friends and that right there is a sign that something terribly wrong with those individuals.

Were the brothers connected to Islamic terror? Yes.

Tamerlan’s Youtube page features Islamist terror videos by Sheikh Feiz Mohammad who “urges Muslims to kill the enemies of Islam and praises martyrs with a violent interpretation of jihad.”

In Tamerlan’s YouTube profile he states he is Muslim and doesn’t drink or smoke anymore because “God said no alcohol,” and he believes “There are no values anymore…people can’t control themselves,” and as a Muslim “I’m very religious.”

If this bombers had talked about purchasing AR-15’s and posted Rand Paul videos, they would have been incarcerated long-ago on the grounds of terrorism.

More Islamic terror connections: The Boston bombs are the same as IEDs used by jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Times Square Bomber used a similar pressure cooker bomb; bombs jihadists can learn how to build at home with instructions from the Al Qaeda magazine Inspire. But that doesn’t matter to the left-wing media who are disappointed the bombers were not “far right-wing American militia nuts” with Sarah Palin bumper stickers and reading NRA magazines.

For the left-wing media, it’s a huge disappointment to hear Islam is still terrorizing America when too many white men continue to vote Republican!

Never mind the two Boston bombers are white. The fact they are Islamist terrorists makes them off limits.

Facts are facts: These Islamic connections should have been a heads-up warning with U.S. immigration when the two men arrived after 9/11. The YouTube pages by these men should have been a signal to the government that these men posed a national threat, but the government is more interested in spying on innocent, law-abiding Americans, who, heaven forbid, may legally own firearms for sport, hunting, and protection from violent criminals.

Tolerance must come first above the security of American lives.

And Rubio still wants to legalize 12 million illegals? We must ask important questions to Marco Rubio and the Gang of Eight:

1. Should these two Chechens have been granted citizenship? They were from an Islamist terror nation with radical beliefs and became more threatening over the years. They plotted and bombed marathon spectators and then killed a cop in and high speed car chase.

2. Should America legalize illegals demanding citizenship because they live in this country five years or more?

3. Do Americans owe foreigners citizenship just because they demand it and Washington leaders need votes to remain in office until we watch their feet leave office first?

4. How many illegals waiting for amnesty in this country are violent criminals?

5. How many illegals from Islamic countries are living here with dangerous plans for America?

Thanks to vote-grabbing politicians, we don’t know until it’s too late.

If Baby Killer Kermit Gosnell Tortured Animals to Death Versus Black Babies The Left Would Demand His Life

black baby and preg mom

 

If 20 pregnant women and 20 pregnant dogs were lined up before a firing squad and fired on, which group’s potential murder would the Left be most horrified over; dogs or human beings?

By the way the Left is ignoring Dr. Kermit B. Gosnell’s torturous murders of born children in his abortion clinic; I have to assume the Left’s horror only extends to the killing of animals and not human beings—unless of course it’s the killing of an Islamic terrorist, then all hell will break loose and we’ll see riots in the streets for the dead terrorist.

Maybe that’s why the Left is ignoring Kermit Gosnell: He’s a medical terrorist who performed abortions in the most heinous manner imaginable.

Dr. Kermit B. Gosnell regularly delivered live babies and murdered them. This news is not important to the left wing, pro-abortion mainstream media, because Dr. Gosnell did not slaughter kittens and puppies.

Gosnell “catered to women” who could not get abortions legally, because they were 20 weeks to six months or more into their pregnancies.

Gosnell’s abortion procedures went beyond anything conceived of. Anyone who reads the “Report Of The Grand Jury” will think they are reading the script to a violent horror movie:

This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.

 

Making things worse, Gosnell’s employees were not nurses or doctors; they pretended to be licensed medical practitioners, making diagnoses and performing medical procedures only licensed, schooled medical doctors or nurses can perform.

Despite screams of pain from mothers and birthed babies being tortured to death, these so-called “doctors” ignored it all. The horrific style was part of “Gosnell’s approach…,” “keep volume high, expenses low – and break the law.”

According the Grand Jury:

Gosnell’s approach, whenever possible, was to force full labor and delivery of premature infants on ill-informed women. The women would check in during the day, make payment, and take labor-inducing drugs. The doctor wouldn’t appear until evening, often 8:00, 9:00, or 10:00 p.m., and only then deal with any of the women who were ready to deliver.”

If that wasn’t enough:

Many of them gave birth before he even got there. By maximizing the pain and danger for his patients, he minimized the work, and cost, for himself and his staff. The policy, in effect, was labor without labor. There remained, however, a final difficulty. When you perform late-term ‘abortions’ by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care. But that was not what the Women’s Medical Society was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it “ensuring fetal demise.” The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that “snipping.’

 

Just imagine veterinarians performing such vile procedures on animals. Animals rights activists already scream bloody murder over pet shops and “puppy mills,” but never put their efforts against abuse into fighting the murder of human beings, specifically babies born in abortion clinics where doctors order their murders.

According to investigators:

Medical equipment – such as the defibrillator, the EKG, the pulse oximeter, the blood pressure cuff – was generally broken; even when it worked, it wasn’t used. The emergency exit was padlocked shut. And scattered throughout, in cabinets, in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and bags and plastic jugs, were fetal remains. It was a baby charnel house.

Imagine veterinarians joking about killing animals the way Dr. Gosnell joked about murdering born babies:

[One baby boy] was breathing and moving when Dr. Gosnell severed his spine and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal. The doctor joked that this baby was so big he could ‘walk me to the bus stop.’

 

PETA and the Left would march on Gosnell’s home no doubt calling for his “disposal.” But then again, Gosnell is an animal, so don’t look for the Left to stand up against him.

At Gosnell’s clinic, there was “Another, Baby Boy B, whose body was found at the clinic frozen in a one-gallon spring-water bottle, was at least 28 weeks of gestational age when he was killed. Baby C was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.”

Gosnell’s “nurse” watched her boss, who never hid his violent practice, murder babies born six months old and up daily, never once dialing 911 or going to police, begging they raid Gosner to prevent murder. She too is on trial for murder and faces life in prison.

The Grand Jury Report states Gosnell induced labor on every woman, causing as much pain as possible to mother and child, tearing open cervix’s, colons, puncturing uterus’s, ripping intestines, leaving parts of fetuses inside mothers, procedures so painful and cheap (Gosnell liked cheap procedures) they caused convulsive seizures, causing women to fall of operating tables onto their heads, never receiving care, and much more.

Gosnell’s staff said he found the screams of mothers and children annoying.

There is another side to Gosnell’s eugenics horrors the media ignores: Gosnell is black man who purposely mistreated impoverished black women in the most heinous fashion possible. Yet, when one white patient entered his clinic, he used the utmost care. 

black baby in gun crosshairs

The only reason Gosnell was caught is because police raided his clinic for selling illegal prescriptions: Money flowed into the clinic via “fake prescriptions that brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.” Otherwise the racist Gosnell and his “doctors” would still be torturing poor black women and their birthed babies.

Why isn’t this racist, murderous Gosnell making left wing media headlines? He’s a black abortionist who murdered poor black babies.

Why doesn’t the Left care about that racism? Because Gosnell was accomplishing the century long progressives plan: Population control to eliminate poor children from society, furthering Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project to exterminate the black race, and allowing only the fittest and wealthiest among us to survive.

If Dr. Kermit Gosnell was a veterinarian who slaughtered animals, the Left would demand his life. But he murdered black children, so he did the world a favor.

 

How “Marriage Equality” Could Destroy Everyone’s Liberty

chained

Whenever the phrase “equality” is used to make anything legal, look out, it’s not about fairness or liberty; it’s about having whatever one personally wants no matter the consequences to society and life in general.

The phrase “equality” is a very compelling argument. After all, here in the United States where liberty reigns and the Constitution upholds our natural rights to God-given liberty, we don’t want to take away anyone’s liberty.

Everything beyond our natural rights is a privilege individuals must work for—unless it is marriage. In that case, we are talking about something that has never been equal, because religions and societies are not equal.

Marriage is not listed in the Constitution, and for good reason: Marriage is a religious liberty instituted by God before governments ever existed. Government did not create marriage, government should never be allowed to dictate marriage or people will indeed lose private life. That’s why marriage is state-by-state.

But don’t think for one moment government would not like to get its expansive paws on marriage and dictate the rules of marriage and divorce.

Think about it: Do citizens apply for marriage licenses in Washington, D.C. or local town and city halls? If Americans sought D.C.’s permission to obtain marriage licenses, leaders would have the power to control how and when individuals marry, and heaven forbid, control marital life.

So, whenever Americans hear talk of “marriage equality,” look out, it’s an open door for government to finally become completely involved in private life, and when that happens, don’t think marriage affirmative action won’t be next on the list.

And therein lay the problem and questions no one’s asking both sides of the marriage argument.

What would the government do if marriage is taken from individual state’s and those rights are handed over to federal power?

There goes another Fourth Amendment liberty right down the tubes!

We must ask serious questions rather than assuming “that will never happen in America,” because too much of what we thought would “never happen here” already has and we are on the verge of all-out socialism.

Do readers really want marriage socialized and determined by the Federal Government? Could the Federal Government actually take control of marriage if given power to define marriage? If so, what are the possible repercussions?

If the Federal Government is given power over marriage, it would no longer be a state-by-state issue; a state’s right.

If the Federal Government has the power to define marriage, Washington could hold all Christian churches in contempt of the law if they refuse to perform same sex marriages.

Suppose the Federal Government were to twist Biblical scriptures “Judge  not lest you be judged,” and “whoever casts the first stone,”  falsely claiming scriptures demand no church can say no to same sex marriage or churches are violating scripture. Just imagine the Federal Government holding churches in contempt of the scriptures.

Never put anything past those who want to control the lives of citizens and use the Bible as a weapon against Christianity.

There goes more religious freedom.

Americans aren’t taking into account religious freedom; not having government impose its will upon our lives, which includes marriage. If we completely lose religious freedom, and we’ve lost much to the Left, Americans will in fact lose all liberty, because religious freedom is the foundation of this country.

Open the doors and let government into marriage and we wind up saying “I do” to the government.

As if we aren’t already.

Again, marriage has never been government instituted, but many determined to have rights to marry in all 50 states by-way-of  federal government mandate are not considering facts: They too will lose all rights to private life if the Federal Government is allowed to define and mandate marriage.

If given power to define marriage and give it “equality,” government could have power to define and determine who gets married and when.

How does Marriage Affirmative Action sound to readers?

Suppose the Federal Government said Christians can’t be married this year because the Federal Government does not have an equal quota on all marriages Christian, Jewish, gay, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, black, white, Asian, etc.?

What if  race-card panderers, who claim America is too white, place a quota on white marriages to lesson American’s birthing more whiteness?

Never assume power-hungry, vote-grabbing politicians, those with race-card platforms, and those who hate Christians and traditionalists, would never do any of the above to Americans.

Here’s another question: If the Federal Government has control over marriage, couldn’t it have the say over who can and cannot divorce?

Just imagine the Federal Government telling abused women they cannot divorce dangerous husbands who beat them.  Or denying Muslim women rights to divorce Muslim husbands threatening to behead wives, because Islam says women are second class citizens. Islam would no doubt demand Sharia Law marriage equality in America since it does in Europe. Abused women, Muslim and non-Muslim, already face difficulty when trying to free themselves from abusive situations; if government gets involved, government could say America has too much divorce, and then watch the real war on women begin.

Imagine the Federal Government not letting women divorce pedophile husbands on the grounds some claim pedophilia is a life-style choice, or, because some psychiatrists consider pedophilia a mental disorder that needs understanding and not condemnation.

Why would that be far-fetched when courts free pedophiles all the time on grounds of mental health disabilities rather than declaring them violent criminals and imprisoning them for life.

And let’s not forget divorce attorneys! They must rubbing their hands with glee over the fact they might become twice as wealthy if gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

Never assume this could not happen in a country where the Federal Government long-ago overreached it’s 17 Enumerated Powers into the states.

And let’s not forget polygamists; they consider their marriages religious liberty.

If Americans seriously think polygamists are not hoping the Supreme Court sides with gay marriage and the Federal Government makes marriage legal for everyone, America is wearing rose colored-glasses. Polygamists want equal rights to marriage,  they’ve already jumped on the bandwagon for “marriage equality” and are demanding federal rights to marry multiple wives, including young girls forced into polygamist marriages in Colorado City, Utah.

Hey, give one group rights to marry, you must then provide full liberty and equality to all, right?

No one realizes how much power “marriage equality” holds for government to overreach state’s further and completely intrude on and order everyone’s fourth Amendment rights if marriage is government controlled.

Don’t ever think the Federal Government would never do that.

It’s Open Season on the Second Amendment: Part II

gun arrested

 

 

In last week’s column I discussed the 2010 Supreme Court ruling (McDONALD ET AL, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS) upholding the  Second Amendment. The ruling doesn’t matter to leftists, neither do statistics proving law-abiding citizens with guns deter crime.  The Left is determined to shoot the Second Amendment and let innocents become victims to those who will always be able to obtain guns illegally if guns are banned.

What about the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms? According the the Court, the Second Amendment stands as written: We have gun rights.

In 2010, Justice Thomas declared this: “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms…recognized in District of Columbia v Heller …fully applicable to the states…” and “The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as ‘fundamental’ to the American scheme of ordered liberty…and deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions…” going on to state the “due process” clause in the Fourteenth Amendment “only speaks of process”… “Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable is against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by the Fourteenth Amendment which provides inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Thomas said Constitution Amendments are written in such a plainspoken way, all citizens can understand the law.  There is no argument, except by those who do not favor upholding the Constitution.

Justice Alito said of murder rates by violent criminals with guns versus victims without:

Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates or other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.

 

Justice Stevens dissented with typical mental leftism:

The decision to keep a loaded handgun in the house is often motivated by the desire to protect life, liberty, and property.  It is comparable…to decisions about…education and upbringing of one’s children.  For it is the kind of decision that may have profound consequences for every member of the family, and…the world beyond…that may result in death or serious injury…that claim borders on the frivolous.  Petitioners make no effort to demonstrate that the requirements are unreasonable or that they impose a severe burden on the underlying right they have asserted…

 

That belief falls in line with Bill Clinton’s anti-gun presidency and Attorney General Janet Reno making the idiotic declaration: “I think it should be at least as hard to get a license to possess a gun as it is to drive an automobile.”

Only progressives consider protecting one’s self and family from harm so frivolous and unreasonable, they place their jackboots in their own mouths by moronically comparing owning guns to something every American is allowed to do by age 21: Drive an automobile!

This so-called reasoning was discussed in 1993 by Time Magazine, which said Australia and Great Britain placed such tough standards on purchasing guns, violent gun crimes were only 22 in the UK and 10 in Australia compared to 10, 567 in the United States. Never mind that in Australia, only business owners and gun club members are allowed to own firearms.  Time claimed strict gun enforcement created low death-by-gun crime rates in both countries.

Time’s data was false.  UK firearms prevention of non-gun club members has not prevented violent crimes.

According to Dave Workman of the Examiner: in June of 2010, an active British gun club member went on a mass murdering shooting spree, killing “dozens” with “…a sporting shotgun and .22-caliber rifle.”  Police investigations reports the man “may have illegally owned those guns…” he used to murder. CCRKB Chairman Alan Gottlieb of Bellevue notes:

American gun prohibitionists have frequently held up the gun laws of Great Britain as their model.  They have created the impression that English-style gun laws would prevent outrages in this country.  Today’s shooting spree, which apparently left victims in 30 different locations, should forever put the lie to this argument.

 

English-style gun laws are the reason Americans enacted a Second Amendment:  English laws allow the right of self-defense to few, the rest must suffer their victimization. In a law-abiding manner of course!

And progressives never want citizens considering this: If gun restrictions and bans ware removed and all Americans easily own firearms, would criminals think twice before committing crimes against innocents?  If criminals knew victims might be armed and on an equal level to attackers, would criminals be willing to commit crimes knowing they might encounter equal resistance?

That question was answered in the 1998 book by Scholar John R. Lott titled More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control.  Lott told Chicago University School of Law:

Criminals are deterred by higher penalties.  Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent. Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves

 

Ah, victims in better positions to defend themselves. What an unreasonable and frivolous assumption! Why that would “impose a severe burden on the underlying” entitlement violent criminals assert against whining victims!

As to schools and gun violence, whenever American schools are held hostage by armed, crazed lunatics shooting classmates and teachers, more gun bans are demanded.  Yet students involved in violent gun crimes violate every gun restriction:

The Columbine Killers,” Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold illegally purchased 20 firearms.  The two teenagers did what all criminals do—purchase weapons without entering gun stores and applying for gun permits.  In fact, the two murdered fellow students with one illegally purchased TEC-9 handgun and two shotguns purchased by a girlfriend, with no prior criminal record, who was able to pass all background checks, proving austere gun laws do not preclude violent crimes.

 

Anti-gun advocates argue against this claim, insisting gun bans will end gun crimes.  Not true.

Cato Institute produced research data evidencing waiting periods have been useless—before and after the 1993 enactment of the Brady Bill. Murder and robbery rates have not declined due to wait-listing and background checks.  As demonstrated with the Columbine murders, anyone can illegally purchase firearms through any means if so desired.

Gun laws never prevent crimes. Anti-gun laws and severe purchasing restrictions lead to skyrocketing sales of illegal guns as well as aiding and abetting violent crime. The fact is crime is lower in countries where citizens are allowed to own firearms.

Gary Lampo of the Cato Institute notes that statistics asserting other nations have lower gun crime rates is false.  Switzerland and Israel offer guns and licenses to all citizens on demand without waiting periods and guns are “easily obtainable in both nations,” where carrying concealed weapons is permitted to all.  As a result, Cato reports violent crime is low in both nations where “home firearm ownership… [is]…at least as high as those in the United States.”

Preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against criminals escalates violence.

Violent crime and gun bans in the District of Columbia led to the high court ruling for Chicago that forced the Supreme Court to uphold the Second Amendment as the right of the citizens. Never mind, facts will not prevent progressives from assaulting the Second Amendment in order to ban American’s from our right to keep and bear arms.



It’s Open Season on The Second Amendment: Part I

constitution in the croiss hairs

In 2010, after 234 years, the United States Supreme Court finally recognized the Constitution’s Second Amendment as the law intended for citizens to protect themselves.  Despite the high court ruling, if the Left gets it’s way, and Progressives are determined, not only will Americans lose their rights to keep and bear arms, left-wing leaders and anti-gun lobbyist will have the Second Amendment shot to death.

Americans fought for decades in order to get the high court to concede to the Second Amendment and allow states to exercise individual rights to bear arms. Second Amendment proponents met with opposition and enacted bills making firearms purchases difficult, enforcing strict waiting periods and background checks.

Opponents asserted such regulations must be enforced because:

…handguns are the principal instrumentality responsible for the increase in homicides in the country.

Second Amendment supporters disagree, affirming the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms is, and always has been, constitutionally intended as a clearly written fundamental right: The right of the people to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, as well as violent criminals.

After decades fighting and challenging progressive legislation, the United States Supreme Court faced two infringement rights cases: one in particular– McDONALD ET AL, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL –was the kicker. McDonald forced the court to translate Second Amendment specifics.  In doing so, the court deemed the Second Amendment lawful unto citizens, providing individual rights for owning and carrying concealed firearms.

What is The Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment does not in any way specify withholding firearm rights from the people, nor is the Amendment vague and difficult to understand. It’s specific in its wording: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to secure a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Furthermore, look at Jefferson’s original Virginia draft: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”

Jefferson intended that all Americans have rights to protect themselves with firearms.

The final framed and signed Constitution has the double clause: 1) “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,”  2) “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In other words, the Second Amendment is not written for hunters and target shooting, nor is it solely for law enforcement and the National Guard, or Diane Feinstein’s right to carry a sidearm while demanding everyone else use pepper spray and rape whistles.

Certainly states must never leave citizens unprotected, but all too often citizens are unable to wait for law enforcement to save them from rapists and murderers. Citizens must be able to defend themselves in such cases. The Second Amendment provides such protection.

Furthermore, the right to own firearms should never be violated or contravened by state or federal government.

British legal scholar St. George Tucker backed up Madison’s words in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.  Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.  In England, the people have been disarmed… under the specious pretext of preserving…the landed aristocracy…their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants…interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun…for the destruction of game…

 

Founder William Rawle also backed up Madison and Tucker, stating:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people.  Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

 

Justice Story, a Madison appointee noted:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

The Founders were unambiguous.  They knew what they enacted into law.  They purposely granted privileges and rights protecting individual persons.  “Well regulated” is specific for legal-bound lawmen, but the amendment does not take the right to bear arms out of the citizens hands and dispense that birthright-by-Constitution over to law enforcement. Yet, despite a very well thought-out, framed and signed law, anti-gun lobbyists are seeking every avenue to ban guns completely—except to violent criminals whose rights must never be infringed.

Guilt By Criminal Abuse

The double clause has been at the gun debate forefront for decades with legislators, activists, and justices’ arguing the Second Amendment does not hold for civilians, claiming guns kill more people, and if guns are banned there will be less violent gun crimes.

gun arrested

The Second Amendment does not sit well with opponents.  Challengers insist the Amendment does not apply to citizens, only military and police. And Brady Bill supporters proclaim America the most violent country on earth because of the Second Amendment:

…the United  States citizens kill each other with firearms at a rate of 14.8 per hundred thousand.

This statement speaks of criminals who bypass laws, purchasing weapons illegally no matter what bills the U.S. has in place.

Research proves gun deaths occur mainly due to criminal activity via illegal guns sales, not abiding by the Second Amendment.

False data and the Brady Bill have made it difficult for obedient citizens to purchase firearms.

Don’t Count You Bullets Before They’re Allowed to be Loaded

It took 234 years and the entire twentieth century fighting anti-gun bills for the United States Supreme Court to finally accept and established the Second Amendment as the right of all United States citizens.  Still, the 2010 ruling does not mean individual states, legislators, activists, and governors fighting against firearm ownership will not enforce tougher restrictions on gun purchasing.

Progressives do not concur with the 2010 high court ruling, preferring the Second Amendment be placed before a firing squad.

Anti-gun activists will continue pushing for a nationwide federal ban on all guns, because many legislators, citizens, and President Obama and his anti-gun pushers want United States citizens disarmed.

 

Don’t Make Me Use My Rape Whistle!

 

whistle blowing smiley

 

 

It’s  dangerous for vulnerable women to carry guns, especially if there are rapists in the vicinity!  Frightened women might prevent rapes from happening by shooting rapists, and then where will society be!

Women only need rape whistles to fight off rapists!

The above statement is not hyperbole, it’s the ludicrous thinking of the Left, who claim to champion women’s rights but do not want women protecting themselves against violent attackers, who, more often than not, don’t stop at rape but end the violent crime with bloodshed.

If however, you survive rape and have the nerve to complain that a gun would have stopped your attacker—had you been allowed to carry it on the college campus you attend— you will be attacked in a war against women by leftists who disgustingly assume the ONLY rights women should have to protect  their bodies must be limited ONLY to birth control and abortion.

Case in point: Gun-owning Colorado college student Amanda Collins was raped on the Colorado college campus she attends because the university has a “Gun Free Zone” policy prohibiting students from carrying firearms. Miss Collins’ gun was locked in her car when she was violently assaulted.  When the discussion of rape on campus was brought to a debate at the Colorado Legislature, Colorado Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar had the audacity to tell American women:

Salazar

There are some gender inequities on college campuses, this is true. And universities have been faced with that situation for a long time, that’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones, that’s why we have the whistles, because you just don’t know who you’re going to be shooting at.

 

In that case, rape whistles are nothing more than Christmas bells for violent criminals: Every time you hear a rape whistle, another rapist gets his way!

As to Amanda Collins, she had a very good idea of whom she would be shooting: A rapist!

Rape whistles and call boxes did not save Amanda Collins from rape. Had Collins been allowed to carry her locked-in-a-car firearm on campus, she certainly would have had all odds in her favor to ward off the violent attack she must live with for the rest of her life.

Salazar went on to tell women:

And you [women with guns] don’t know if you feel like you’re going to be raped, or you feel like someone’s been following you around, or that you feel like you’re in trouble, or when you may actually not be, but you pop out that gun and you pop a round at somebody…

 

In other words, women do not have rights to assume that a strange man following them is a rapist or murderer. Also, we women are idiots whenever we claim we are being followed by a stranger or stalked by a crazy ex-husband or ex-boyfriend.

Ladies, it’s simply our over-active female minds telling us violent men exist and seek to physically harm women despite overwhelming rape statistics.

We over-sensitive women should follow Ebony’s  Zerlina Maxwell’s  advice–train rapist to stop raping:

teach men not to rape

 

I don’t think that we should be telling women anything. I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there…If you train men not to grow up to become rapists, you prevent rape.

 

Give me a break! The best way to train rapists not to rape is women with firearms.

Of course we women have no right to pull guns on strange men following us, demanding they get the hell away when trying to grab us and push us into cars or drag us into a dark allies to rape us and possibly end that violent crime with murder. No, we must ask thugs: “Would you please hold off your attack for one moment while I retrieve my rape whistle from my purse?”

woman blowing whistle

Perhaps we women should ask the rapist/murder to hold our purses while we retrieve the cell phone to dial 9-11. Hey, I’m sure some rapists are happy to accommodate before the violent act.

As to Salazar’s bogus claims about gun safety, economist and author of More Guns, Less Crime  John Lott writes that U.S. states with conceal and carry laws have had

[L]arge drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect. In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law. The murder rate for these right to carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states.

Leftists could care less about facts; they are more concerned with distorting the truth in order to protect violent criminals against victims.

What is disgusting about this entire women and guns debate is Democrats are the instigators of the “War on Women.” Democrats insist women are not treated equally, they insist women are victims of a male-dominated society, yet Democrats do not want women fighting off violent men.

More proof: A female Democrat further violated Amanda Collins by claiming her gun never would have stopped the rapist and she is better off for having her firearm locked in her car.

Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak told Collins, a skilled martial artist who could not overpower the large brute with her physical skills that:

evie_hudak

Statistics are not on your side even if you had had a gun…And chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly uses it against you

 

A shocked Collins responded to the female legislator saying:

Respectfully Senator, you weren’t there. Had I been carrying a gun, he wouldn’t have known that I had my weapon. I know without a doubt in my mind, at some point I would have been able to stop my attack by using my firearm.

 

Progressives scream “War on Women” when it comes to birth control not being doled out freely to every woman, yet these government programers don’t want women owning guns, shooting rapists and would-be murderers, and preventing crimes against women.

Rapists have waged war on women for thousands of years, but American Leftists are in fact defending rapists when they tell women that guns won’t protect women, rape whistles will.

Hudak and Salazar’s heartless answers are typical of the anti-gun fascists. I’m surprised they didn’t tell Miss Collins the best thing we women can do is to make sure we receive free birth control, that way if we are raped, we won’t get pregnant after rapists physically and mentally ravage our lives.

Shoot Children and You’re the Devil, Shoot Cops and You’re Heralded as the Second Coming

cop killers poster

 

 

If you murder children with guns, the world will regard you as a monster; if you shoot cops you will become a cult hero to the Left.

When 20 year-old psycho Adam Lanza went on a gun-killing spree, murdering 20 children and seven adults, he became the most hated man in America and the propaganda mug for anti-gun leftists desperate for mass-murder-buy-guns in order to promote the anti-second Amendment cause.

 

time lanza cover

 

When former cop-turned-cop-killer Chris Dorner unleashed his guns against police, Dorner became the latest cop-killer cult hero to anti-gun race-baters and left-wing media anchors.

 

dorner with gun

 

There are only two differences between Lanza and Dorner: Lanza massacred children, Dorner massacred police officers.  Lanza did not murder cops in revenge for the criminal, drug addicted, alcoholic, wife-beating thug Rodney King, Dorner did.  Thus, Lanza is hated and Dorner is adored.

dorner fans

King’s beating and arrest by cops, who had to defend themselves against King’s violent attacks,  automatically made police racist in the eyes of leftists and media whores promoting all things anti-American and racist–including Chris Dorner.

Adam Lanza’s violence, on the other hand, gave the Left everything it’s been searching for in order to disarm citizens: Children murdered by guns. Now guns truly are assault weapons, dangerous, and the real cause of all deaths in America.

If guns are banned—or at least regulated to the point that citizens are only allowed to purchase one bullet at a time–ala Barney Fife—crime and murder will disappear. Unless necessary–to kill cops.

 

kill cops grafitti

 

Necessary murder in the eyes of left-wingers is shooting any American who appallingly wears a uniform.

The Left’s newest darling provided 11,000 reasons for the Left to adore him in a so-called manifesto:

In the end, I hope that you will realize that the small arms I utilize should not be accessed with the ease that I obtained them. Who in there right mind needs a (expletive) silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!! Mia Farrow said it best. ‘Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.’ Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. Never again should any public official state that their prayers and thoughts are with the family.

 

Lanza destroyed all evidence and records for his psychotic rampage. But that shouldn’t matter. Murder is murder. Or is it?

Dorner’s racist, unintelligent, self-styled manifesto further states: “I know I will be vilified by the LAPD and the media.”

Wrong. Dorner has not been denigrated or maligned by the media. He’s been heralded with praise for his violence.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews shivered with tingles over Dorner’s manifesto admiration of Matthews: “keep up the great work and follow Cronkite’s lead. I hold many of you [journalists, including Matthews] in the same regard.”

How touching. Where’s the Nobel Peace Prize!

Matthews ignored Dorner’s demand that he and his cronies: “Don’t honor these fallen officers/dirtbags.”

Imagine if Lanza left behind a manifesto demanding the media “not honor those fallen dirt bag children?” Matthews would have flown into a psychiatric rage and shot himself in the leg.

Instead, Matthews considers Dorner a peaceful man with a high IQ because:

[Dorner is] Someone who had great media-savvy, who knew, who had the brains to keep track of Hollywood, to keep up with Charlie Sheen, to establish relationships with people through the media, to, in some strange way, enjoy his situation and at the same time wreak havoc on anyone he came in contact to.

Whenever I seek to be well-informed, I look to the “savvy” rantings of  drug-addicted, alcoholic, wife-beater Charlie Sheen.

Furthermore, Matthews’ so-called passive “brainy” intellect, who couldn’t spell or construct proper sentences, certainly demonstrated a hatred of high powered rifles by morally murdering cops with tinier guns than fellow lunatic Lanza.

 

guns

 

 

Dorner’s violence is acceptable to the media because Dorner was black and bullied as a kid: 

Journalist, I want you to investigate every location I resided in growing up. Find any incidents where I was ever accused of being a bully. You won’t, because it doesn’t exist. It’s not in my DNA. Never was. I was the only black kid in each of my elementary school classes from first grade to seventh grade in junior high and any instances where I was disciplined for fighting was in response to fellow students provoking common childhood schoolyard fights, or calling me a nigger or other derogatory racial names. I grew up in neighborhoods where blacks make up less than 1%.

 

Poor darling! He was the only black kid in school! Someone called him names! And schoolyard fights? Has any American ever heard of such a thing occurring in school? That has NEVER HAPPENED TO ANY KID IN AMERICA!  

Can anyone imagine the New Black Panther Party referring to whites as “whitey,” “white devils,” or “Cracker, you are about to be ruled by a black man” or “You want freedom, you gonna have to kill some crackers…You gonna have to kill some of they [sic] babies,” and “I hate white people, all of them, every last iota of the cracker, I hate em’!”

Ironically Adam Lanza committed what the Black Panthers yearn for: Lanza massacred white children. Yet Lanza and his guns are vilified by the Left. That’s because murder is justifiable when murder involves killing cops: “Those Caucasian officers who join South Bureau divisions with the sole intent to victimize minorities who are uneducated, and unaware of criminal law, civil law, and civil rights,” further declaring:

[T]his is a necessary evil that I do not enjoy but must partake and complete for substantial change to occur within the LAPD and reclaim my name. The department has not changed since the Rampart and Rodney King days. It has gotten worse. The consent decree should never have been lifted. The only thing that has evolved from the consent decree is those officers involved in the Rampart scandal and Rodney King incidents have since promoted to supervisor, commanders, and command staff, and executive positions.

 

Again: If you shoot children, the world will deem you monstrous and demand gun bans. However, if you shoot cops, you will become a leftist cult hero, not to mention highly regarded Ive League college professor.

 

free muma

Angela Davis

 

On the upside, Dorner, who “wants my brain left to science,” likes Michelle Obama’s hair: “I love your new bangs, Mrs. Obama.”

Thank heavens! We can all breathe a sigh of relief! That proves Dorner, whose brain is now useless chard remains, was not a monstrous murderer like Adam Lanza! Dorner was a psychotic murderer with style and taste!

 

Karl Rove: The GOP’s Progressive Woodrow Wilson

karl-rove-mug

 

“Architect” Karl Rove is a progressive disaster to the Republican Party: He’s pushing to destroy the Tea Party and American conservatism in order to install his version of politics that mirrors Woodrow Wilson.

There’s not much difference between Wilson and Rove: Wilson wanted control over the Democrat Party and the American people abiding by his will.  Rove is doing the exact same thing: Controlling the GOP vote by putting RINO candidates up against Tea Party candidates in order to destroy conservatives.

Rove  decides GOP primary winners,  not voters.  Rove chose the 2008 and 2012 presidential candidates:  John McCain and Mitt Romney. Both decisions failed and the GOP was defeated like Waterloo on steroids.

Yet, Rove is hell-bent on choosing the 2014 and 2016 GOP candidates and preventing Tea Party candidates from getting on ballots. And the GOP machine does not care: Its goal is power, not constitutionalism.

The result: The GOP is failing because it keeps bringing this power-hungry, overweight knife to the political gun fight.

Despite Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC proving a dismal failures, the GOP refuses to learn lessons and listen to its conservative base. Instead, the GOP wants Rove to move ahead with his Wilsonian-style plan: Decide the candidates people need as president, Senate and House leaders.

 

9781451694932_p0_v1_s260x420

 

To pull off this anti-Constitution, strong-arming-the-people plan, Rove set up the Conservative Victory Group, another progressive-style Pac to choose candidates, and further to the point, advise candidates on what they can and cannot articulate.

 

Karl-Rove-puppeteer-460x307

 

Rove’s plan was laid out in the New York Times:

The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate. Steven J. Law, a leader of the Conservative Victory Project, say they are taking steps to steer Mr. King away from a Senate run. The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

 

Notice Rove’s goal: “protect Senate incumbents” from Tea Party candidates and “counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates.” In other words, down with Mia Love Tea Partiers shaking things up, no Todd Akin slip-ups allowed on ballots, and defeat upstarts like incumbent Rep. Allen West, whom Rove could not “discipline” and “impose” his GOP power.

Rove’s ideology is similar to British constitutionalism where leaders, not the people,  pick prime ministers and MPs, and decide laws as they go. That was Woodrow Wilson’s ideology. Is it any different than Rove picking candidates? Worse, is that any different than Wilson’s desire to abolish the Separation of Powers?

No, Rove has never called for abolishing Separation of Powers so presidents have parliamentary-style control.  However, if party leaders control votes, prevent people from deciding primary candidates, party leaders control Congressional leader’s votes, and Separation of Powers dissolves, and the House and Senate belong to party leaders, not voters.

To cover his fat rump, Rove made radio talk show rounds, backtracking his bashing the Tea Party.  Big deal! Rove believes he is the architect of politics and he’s attempting to design America’s leadership.

Rove assumes he knows what’s best for the people, as Wilson himself believed. Rove is Woodrow Wilson in every sense of the Progressive Movement: Mold the party, voters, and America’s future to party leadership command, not the Constitution. How is that “consent of the governed?”

There is nothing conservative about Rove’s Conservative Victory Party or Rove.

Wilson said choose elite candidates best suited for making the people’s decisions. Candidates must do the thinking for the people, because citizens are too inept at making individual decisions.

Wilson said: “Governments are what the politicians make them…:”

[T]here should be a science of administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less unbusinesslike, to strengthen and purify its organization, and to crown its duties with dutifulness.

 

Rove too wants to “make” the government.

Matt Hoskins, Executive Director of Senate Conservatives Fund said of Rove:

This is a continuation of the establishment’s effort to avoid blame for their horrible performance in the 2012 elections. They [the GOP] blew a ton of races up and down the ticket because they recruited moderate Republicans who didn’t stand for anything. Now they want to use this new PAC to trick donors into giving them more money so they can lose more races.

 

Hoskins is correct.  Rove helped destroy GOP conservative Florida Rep. Allen West by refusing to help West win reelection and stop the redistricting of West’s seat.

Rove trashed Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin as “thin-skinned,” claiming that if no one speculates “about her, she’d be upset and try and find a way to get us to speculate about her.”

It sounds like chunky skin, who was adamant Palin would run for the 2012 presidency, is not only off beam with erroneous predictions, he’s jealous of popularity that may possibly destroy his power.

Rove demonstrated disloyalty to Rep. Michele Bachmann when Bachmann demanded answers to why Muslim Brotherhood-connected Huma Abedin-Weiner was Hillary Clinton’s top aid with high security clearance in the State Department. GOP leaders Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Speaker John Boehner condemned Bachmann. Rove took the RINO side against Bachmann.

When it comes to breaking Constitution law to grant illegals amnesty, Rove tramples the Constitution for the Hispanic vote. He is empowering Tea Partier-turned-RINO Senator Marco Rubio, whom Rove says has “The framework of the proposed reforms highlights the persuasive powers of Sen. Marco Rubio.”

Notice the phrase “persuasive.”  Rove wants “persuasive” leaders making voter’s decisions. That is what Wilson wanted:

“Wherever regard for public opinion is a first principle of government, practical reform must be slow and all reform must be full of compromises… Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way.

 

This is exactly what Rove is doing with conservative voters who must reject what will surely destroy conservatism if “We The People” don’t stand up and fight Karl Rove.

Rove’s Conservative Victory Project is progressivism. His record demonstrates he’s not a Republican, he’s a left-wing progressive in GOP clothing molding the GOP into his image, just as Wilson did with Democrats and America.

 

Hillary and Obama’s 60 Minute Commandment: Cover Thy Negligent Ass

 Obama-Hillary one

 

During Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview, Hillary Clinton and President Obama morphed into one another while covering each other’s negligent asses.

The one-time presidential opponents, who tore each other to shreds during the 2008 presidential run, are now in a race to hide their September 11th disgrace and save themselves.

When caught in a lie, lie. And behave like two star-crossed lovers.

 

hillary obama umbrella kiss

 

Four years-ago these two progressive cutthroats went for the jugular, hurling  racial accusations and insults that make military combat look like a well-mannered “Downton Abbey” dinner.

Who really believed either one of these snake oiled, back-stabbing progressives during that farce of an interview? Both have thrown their own families under the biggest bus to save their own careers.

The entire 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft was a sham.

 

60 min

 

Kroft posed gentle questions, never bothering to put either cold and calculating bureaucrat on the spot for the obvious disdain and indifference  that caused the September 11th massacre of four Americans by Islamic militants.

Kroft’s interview enabled Obama and Hillary and helped them cover for each other.

The interview was nothing more than a left-wing love-fest by two people who obviously found the best plastic surgeon available and had their lips surgically attached to each other’s rear-ends.

Concerning Hillary Clinton’s term as Secretary of the State, Obama said:

Well, the main thing is I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you, because I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we’ve had. It has been a great collaboration over the last four years. I’m going to miss her. Wish she was sticking around. But she has logged in so many miles, I can’t begrudge her wanting to take it easy for a little bit. But I want the country to appreciate just what an extraordinary role she’s played during the course of my administration and a lot of the successes we’ve had internationally have been because of her hard work.

 

Take it easy a bit! Hillary avoided the press for months. The only time she spoke about Benghazi was to blame an innocent filmmaker for the slaughter. Because of Hillary and Obama, that innocent filmmaker was thrown in prison–where he remains–for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Not until last week’s Senate and Congressional Hearings, where Hillary was given a verbal concussion by Republican Senators Rand Paul, John McCain and Ron Johnson, did she finally open her mouth. And then Hillary let the world know it doesn’t make a difference to her that four men are dead.

It obviously doesn’t make a difference to 60 Minutes either, because Steve Kroft went easier on Obama and Hillary than a blue dress on Bill Clinton.

Kroft had one hour to grill the two and failed as miserably with this interview as Obama and Hillary did with Benghazi.

The adulation fawn-fest set the stage for both to cover each other’s behinds and dodge Kroft’s easy questions about Qaddafi, Syria, Arab Spring, while turning Libya into an accident.

Worse, Kroft facilitated both frauds by making the majority of the interview about the phony working friendship and a Hillary-health-issue. After all, what difference does it make that four Americans were massacred in Benghazi, we need to know if Obama loves Hillary and if Hillary’s brain is doing well? And its imperative we know why Hillary’s wearing those bizarre Bette Davis horror movie magnifier glasses: “I still have some lingering effects from falling on my head and having the blood clot.”

Just listening to this rubbish gave me a concussion.

Obama swooned:

I was a big admirer of Hillary’s before our primary battles and the general election. You know, her discipline, her stamina, her thoughtfulness, her ability to project, I think, and make clear issues that are important to the American people, I thought made her an extraordinary talent. She also was already a world figure…Hillary’s been one of the most important advisors that I’ve had on a whole range of issues.

 

Hillary adoringly said she and Obama are “very warm, close.”

You weren’t “warm” or “close” during the 2008 South Carolina Primary Debate.

Hillary in 2008:

You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.

 

Obama slapped back at Hillary:

I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes, Senator Clinton and President Clinton.

 

Hillary shouted:

I’m here, not my husband!

 

And who can forget Bill Clinton’s remarks to Charlie Rose about Obama’s lack of experience:

I mean, when’s the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running? I mean, he will have been a senator longer by the time he’s inaugurated, but essentially once you start running for president full time you don’t have time to do much else.

 

Measure those comments to Hillary’s 60 Minutes kiss-up to the man who stole her chances at being president.

Hillary:

[W]hen I got to Chicago and he [Obama] asked me if I would consider being his secretary of state, I immediately said, ‘Oh, Mr. President, there’s so many other people. Let me give you some other names.’ Because it just took me by surprise…And he kept saying, ‘Well, I want you to think about it again…’ I’ll tell you what I finally thought. I thought, ‘You know, if the roles had been reversed. And I had ended up winning. I would have desperately wanted him to be in my cabinet. So if I’m saying I would have wanted him to say yes to me, how am I going to justify saying no to my president?’ And it was a great decision, despite my hesitancy about it.

 

We can heave a sigh of relief! Had Hillary won the 2008 presidency, events in Washington and Benghazi would still be the same.

And we can relax knowing Hillary and Obama have some emotions concerning the four massacred men.

Hillary told Kroft she “deeply regrets what happened to those men,” whom she and Obama ignored. Benghazi has made Obama “realize what makes a team succeed and fail.”

I feel much better now. Benghazi is explained and finally solved!

America, we need not ask further questions about why four men were left begging for help while being slaughtered. We don’t need answers telling us why those men never received aid or answers to their pleading calls to the president and State Department.

Just knowing Hillary feels “regret” in her lingering blood clotted mind, and Obama understands “failure and success,” should tell Americans: Stop worrying about security and military might. Just move on and get over Benghazi. Our backs are covered by “thoughtful” and “warm” people who have enough “stamina” to fail us successfully.

Drones Would Have Aided Americans in Benghazi if Cows Were Involved

 

Cow drone

When four dying Americans in Benghazi needed fire-powered drones to take out Islamic militants firing mortars, those hovering drones controlled by Obama’s D.C. administration never fired on the enemy. Maybe the Americans inside the Benghazi Consulate should have kept cows at the Embassy. It’s obvious our spying government holds a deeper grudge against cow manure than terrorists massacring Americans.

According to reports: 

The EPA is using drones to spy on cattle ranchers in Nebraska and Iowa in order to make sure that farmers dispose of waste properly.

That’s right Americans, if you are a farmer and your cow manure is disposed of improperly, the Fourth Amendment-breaking, photographing spy drones flying over your farms will tell Washington. And then you and your cows will be sorry!

Since it’s lawful for the government to “monitor real estate to assure itself that the occupier of the lands is not adversely affecting the natural habitat,” perhaps the Americans in Benghazi should have told Obama and Hillary that the Taliban mortars were filled with cow dung that would “adversely affect Libya’s natural habitat.”  That might have moved the administration to save Americans and completely annihilate the Taliban.

Obama has no problem using drones to kill terrorists and spy on American farmers, but he has great difficulty when aiding our military begging for help.

Look at the laws Obama uses to conduct the War on Terror he vowed to end and ask why he ignored four men, in his service, fighting for their lives.

Obama uses Article 51 of the UN Charter  (the UN has declared it is against the drone war)  which “includes the targeted killing of persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks” to conduct drone strikes: 371 of the 424 drone strikes since 2002 have been conducted by Obama.

There is no doubt drones eliminate threats to overseas military and the United States.  So, if taking out the enemy is vital to U.S. security, why didn’t Obama (who wrongfully entered Libya without Congressional consent) or Hillary use weaponized drones to aid four Americans fighting and dying inside an American Consulate?

Then there is the National Defense Authorization Act.

Do readers remember why President Obama signed the controversial law on December 31, 2011 (full explanation he on law language here)? This law that detains Guantanamo Bay terrorists indefinitely, and stipulates unconstitutional detention and assassination of any American citizen suspected of terror, is supposed to protect military and their families overseas. That would include aiding those who died in Benghazi. Or one would reason it to be so.

Obama  said he had reservations about signing the law (which gives unconstitutional provisions to the president), but did so:

chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.

 

Apparently those services were never “crucial” enough to extend any “interest” or “security” to Americans being massacred by brutal terrorists in Benghazi.

American farmers with filthy barnyards better look out!

 

obama spy drone

 

But forget the NDAA, the president has Special Operations Teams readily available to him at all times, in all places, including the Middle East and Mediterranean, who are prepared for capture and kill raids, such as the one that took out Osama bin Laden.

The president also has:

 [T]he 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which the U.S. Congress passed just days after 9/11. The statute empowers the president ‘to use all necessary and appropriate force’ in pursuit of those responsible for the terrorist attacks.

 

Where was that protection for those men fighting for their lives in the Benghazi Consulate? Those men fought for seven hours, Ambassador Stevens was gang-raped and tortured to death, Ty Woods begged Washington for help, but was told “stand down,” even as fire-powered drones, meant to provide security, hovered overhead, but were never given orders to fire on the enemy.

What the hell is the point of the NDAA, AUMF, UN Charters, or any special operation teams if the president refuses to utilize military power to bring terrorists attacking Americans to their end?

Why bother signing controversial laws you claim protect overseas military if you tell them to stand down when they must fight?

Why send American troops overseas to fight the enemy if they are not allowed to battle without asking permission, denied help during combat, and told “stand down?”

And why are American drones used to take out terrorists in Islamic countries and spy on America’s cows, but those drones were never used to help U.S. military personnel in Benghazi who begged  for help on September 11th?

Obama orders spy drones to fly over American farms, photograph evidence of cow poop, yet refused to order weaponized drones to fire on Taliban terrorists killing Americans in Benghazi. Why?

Answer: Because controlling the constitutional rights of Americans, and our cow manure, rather than aiding our military when it needs help, is what is “necessary and appropriate” “responsibility” to “pursuit” a well-kept and deodorized America.

Maybe our men in Benghazi should have told Obama and Hillary that the terrorists were spewing cow dung all over Benghazi’s streets. Then perhaps the two would have said “Don’t stand down! Fire on those terrorists! It will make all the difference for the environment”

Because I’m Hillary Clinton! That’s Why it Doesn’t Make A Difference!

Hilary-Benghazitestimony_zpsb036f29c

 

 

A very agitated Secretary of the State Hillary Clinton testified before the House and Senate on her involvement in the Benghazi massacre. Clinton demonstrated that no one, no matter their status in Washington, has the right to question her abilities or her authority.

Secretary Clinton was kool and gracious, she even displayed her infamous cackle whenever leaders fawned over her “service to this country.” Clinton was all smiles when politely asked questions elevating her to complete innocence in the violent murders of American men in Benghazi. But when Ron Johnson, who had plainly had enough with months of unanswered questions as to why American men placed in harm’s way were left to die when Hillary had resources in place to save them, demanded Clinton answer why she didn’t make one, single phone call to evacuees on the ground, Clinton flew into a rage:

The fact is we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

 

pict32

 

What difference does it make? Are you kidding Hillary Clinton?

It makes all the difference Madame Secretary! You, Obama, and the entire administration, had every resource available to rescue those men and you did not.

This Madame Clinton would have made a difference: The United States has two AC-130U fire-support aircraft systems that use television and infrared sensors, as well as synthetic aperture strike radars able to see through everything from night darkness, clouds, and smoke. Not to mention there were reports that a security officer had “his laser targeted on firing mortars.” This officer requested back-up support from the Specter Gunship, used by Special Operations to provide support to SO Teams under fire.

According to Fox News:

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they were never told to deploy. In fact, a Pentagon official says there were never any requests to deploy assets from outside the country. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Spectre gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support. According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

That Secretary Clinton makes all the difference!

It makes all the difference, because Britain’s embassy was attacked in April and June of 2012 and Prime Minister Cameron pulled his military and ambassadors out of Libya to save them from further attacks. That made all the difference in saving British lives.

Furthermore, it makes all the difference, because someone in your department, or the administration, told CIA operators to “stand down” twice. You did not help Ambassador Stevens’ team when they said shots were fired at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.

It makes all the difference, because American men fought a bloody seven hour firefight while begging for help. And you Hillary, and the administration, are said to have watched the fighting, as well as the massacre, in real time, and it’s reported that you ignored it all.

It further makes all the difference, because drones were hovering over the Embassy during the attack:

[T]wo military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals—which Clinton denied ever seeing— back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.

 

That Madame Clinton could have made all the difference in saving those men’s lives.

When asked why she was not “the person to appear on the Sunday shows immediately following the attack,” Secretary Clinton made all the difference concerning her obligations to America with this response:

I have to confess, here in public, going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are other things I’d prefer to do on Sunday mornings. And, you know, I haven’t been on a Sunday show in way over a year. It just isn’t something that I normally jump to do. And I did feel strongly that we had a lot that we had to manage, that I had to respond to, and that that should be my priority.

 

That answer makes one hell of a difference:  Clinton’s actions speak louder than her screaming words.

You see Madame Clinton, priorities make all the difference in foreign policy. Priorities determine whether or not men and women sent into anti-American enemy controlled countries will live or die. But I guess that doesn’t make a difference any longer now that you are leaving office, does it Madame Clinton.

 

The Anti-Christian Swears His Progressivism on the Bible

 inaugcommie obama

As Barack Obama took the oath of office for the second time, he laid his hand upon two Christian Bibles: One belonging to the devout Christian President Abraham Lincoln, and the other belonging to the Born Again Christian Baptist minister Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Such actions by the progressive/statist, who invoked God in his speech, is quite an oxymoron considering Obama is the most anti-Christian president America has ever known.

 

obama anti-christian

 

What Obama did was swear progressivism on the Bible in order to continue destroying America and the Constitution.  Though he invoked God, he said faith does not bind Americans together. That’s a lie. Pilgrim settlers fled to these shores to practice Christianity without persecution by Divine Rights of Kings that prohibited free practice of faith.

The Founders were men of Christian faith, bound together to frame a document upholding God’s laws with rights to practice faith.

Obama purposely shredded every vestige of this country’s history and pushed progressivsim.

The Anti-Christian cleverly used God to demand revamped tax codes, i.e. destroy the rich and enslave the poor in more government programs paid for by the rich.  As he swore the oath on those Bibles, Obama removed Tenth Amendment state’s rights: He demanded gay marriage be a federally enacted into law, because not all Americans in every state support gay marriage.

 

 

anti-christ obama

 

Obama swearing his oath upon those Bibles is a lie. Look at his anti-Christian actions over the past four years.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama trashed American Christians: “it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion.”

Obama attended a racist church for 20 years, before youtube videos surfaced during the 2008 campaign, showing a vicious, anti-American pastor.  Obama condemned Reverend Wright for sayingG-d Damn America,” among other vile things, but claimed:

[H]e has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn. The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

 

Apparently Obama slept his way through church for 20 years, and Michelle never once told her husband “Barry, you wouldn’t believe the racist things our pastor said!”

gd America

Obama’s excuse worked. Most Americans believe Obama never heard Wright’s racism and most believe Obama is a devout Christian, despite his trashing Christians as nasty Bible gun-clingers.

Furthermore, Obama’s slip to George Stephanopoulos about “My Muslim faith” was overlooked, even after Stephanopoulos corrected Obama, saying “Christian faith.”  Obama quickly answered: “my Christian faith” so fast, it was ignored as childhood memories of his “Muslim faith.”

The fact is, no matter what his religion or beliefs actually are, it’s obvious Obama’s they have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus Christ or Christianity.

The list speaks for itself.

Obama forced Georgetown University to cover its crosses and Christian writings when he spoke on the campus.

anti-cross

Obama told the nation of Turkey that Americans do not consider themselves a Christian nation.

Even though Obama removes “Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence: “[A]ll men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, ” he conveniently uses  “Creator”when it’s to his statist advantage–such as the inaugural address.

In 2012, after the attacks in Benghazi, Obama told the UN that “Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism,” further declaring “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Even though Obama is always swift to turn that anti-Christian rhetoric around by saying the same about Christians and Jews, it doesn’t cover the fact Obama slams Christians and removes anything to do with Christianity every chance he gets.

Nor does it hide his antipathy for Evangelical pastors: Obama did not stand up for Reverend Graham when banned from the National Day of Prayer  for saying:  “Islam is a very evil and wicked religion,” after the 9/11 attacks committed by Islamic Muslims.

Let’s not forget the so-called Christian never condemned left-wing magazines and journalists who compared him to, and turned him into, the Messiah.

 

obama jesus

 

Give me a break! If Obama were Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount would have stated “Blessed are those who live on government programs, for they will reap their benefits from the rich.”

Not to mention an Obama Messiah would have campaigned against the crucifixion and taxed us all for our salvation.

Obama trashes America’s Judeo Christian founding, except when absolutely  necessary, then he uses Christianity as his progressive tool to con the masses into believing wealth-spreading and excessive unconstitutional taxes against the rich is what Jesus would do.

Obama forgets Jesus said in Matthew 26:11 “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.” In other words,  government cannot abolish poverty.

This Bible-basher obviously never read the Good Book or he would know the Bible states: “While we were with you, we gave this order: “If anyone doesn’t want to work, he shouldn’t eat.”

Forget Christianity unless you can use Christianity to push progressive statism.

During Obama’s January 21, 2013’s second inauguration, Washington D.C. Reverend Ronald E. Braxton lied to Americans. The pastor misinterpreted the Old Testament and Moses to push Obama’s progressive policies: “Moses goes to God crying. And God says to Moses, why are you crying? Tell the Israelites to go forward,” telling Obama:

Mr. President, I have to confess the Lord planted this text and this sermon in my spirit the day after you were elected. Forward is the only option…On Christ, on Christ, move forward. Stand on the rock. In the day, in the night, in good times, in hard times, don’t go back. Don’t move to the side. Move forward, forward, forward. It’s the only option.

 

If Obama were Christian, he would have disavowed that purposeful false impression of God, the Bible, Christianity, and the Israelite’s escape from Egyptian slavery, where Jews were persecuted for believing in God.  But “forward” is part of Obama’s progressive beliefs in philosophy: Anti-Christian, anti-liberty, and anti-God–who, according to the Bible, blessed Job, Abraham, and Solomon and King David, with great financial and material wealth.

All that matters to Obama is he won the election. Now he will will use every means, including God and Christianity, to try and destroy this nation.

How much more proof is needed for Americans to wake up and realize the man, who swore progressive lies on the Bible, is nothing more than Judas in golfing attire selling America out for $16 trillion sheckles of worthless paper?

 

Obama Places Children in the Political Cross-Hairs

Obama And Biden Unveil Proposal To Decrease Gun Violence In U.S.

 

One cannot be more dishonorable than the person who uses children as weapons to create political propaganda for one’s sordid self-gain. But when talking about Barack Obama and Democrats, or progressives in general, using children as weapons to gain public popularity in order to destroy constitutional rights, is not unfounded. In fact, it’s the progressive statist way.

Rather than mourn the 20 Newtown children and their teachers, Obama and Washington leaders understand children are the best prop against laws leftists want abolished. Children are after all adorable, and their cute little faces seen reading pleading letters to the president, begging him to outlaw guns so schools never again experience the horrors of Newtown’s Sandy Hook School, is a great way to push party-line agendas and pull the heartstrings of Americans, whom progressives hope to turn against their Second Amendment rights protecting Americans from tyrannical government.

Obama’s anti-gun speech used children for political props in order to pass 23 Executive Orders against guns. What more proof do we need that Obama will stop at nothing, including placing children in the cross-hairs of political misinformation to enact his plans for America, than his actions this week?

 

 The heart-string tugging began with words Vice President Biden used against guns:

It’s been 33 days since the nation’s heart was broken by the horrific, senseless violence that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School—20—20 beautiful first-graders gunned down in a place that’s supposed to be their second sanctuary.  Six members of the staff killed trying to save those children.  It’s literally been hard for the nation to comprehend, hard for the nation to fathom.

 

Yes, it’s true: It’s hard for any law-abiding,  loving person to fathom what a psycho did to those children and their teachers. But Adam Lanza does not speak for gun owners or Americans, he was psychotic, he was a monster,  he speaks for evil, not law-abiding gun owners.

The truth doesn’t matter to progressives who want the people and their children to see guns as the threat and cause of all violence in America.

Progressives hate the fact that in the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns can stop tyrants and violent criminals coddled by leftists, who believe violent people should be rehabilitated among us while they murder us. And government should control the people. The only way for that to happen is ban guns.

 

But, instead of telling the truth, Obama used children to disarm guns:

These are our kids [speaking here today in letters to me].  This is what they’re thinking about.  And so what we should be thinking about is our responsibility to care for them, and shield them from harm, and give them the tools they need to grow up and do everything that they’re capable of doing — not just to pursue their own dreams, but to help build this country.  This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe.  This is how we will be judged.  And their voices should compel us to change.

 

How many children understand politics and legislation? How many children know why the Second Amendment was written? Have the obviously left-wing parents of those children, used as props by Obama the other day, explained the facts to their children, or did those parents do what Obama did: Use their children to invoke anti-gun legislation?  The answer is obvious, because no parent who holds the Constitution with regard, and understands the rights it upholds, would ever let their child be used as a weapon against the Second Amendment. But that is what those parents allowed Obama to do to their children.

 

kid's letters against guns

 

Obama cleverly concealed his true plan against guns and the Second Amendment:

Let me be absolutely clear.  Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen.  There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting, or sport, or protection, or collection. I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.  I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown.  That’s what these reforms are designed to do.  They’re common-sense measures.  They have the support of the majority of the American people.

 

How many believe Obama supports the right to bear arms?  If so, why the constant mention of hunting and sports, but not  facts: The Second Amendment protects the citizens against government tyranny.

Obama’s claims were: The Second Amendment is only about sports, hunting and not about protecting yourselves from government tyrants. Obama did not dare tell those children the Second Amendment protects them from government stealing Constitutional rights.

This gun-grab legislation ceremony was also Obama’s attempt to brainwash children into hating guns and gun-owners: Make children believe guns are evil and if outlawed, violence against children and grownups will never again happen in America.

Those children should visit Obama’s Chicago where violent thugs murder daily with guns leftists wont take from thugs.

After Obama finished his anti-gun rant, elementary school age children read letters to the president and us people, pleading for gun bans.

 

anti-gun letter to obama

 

There was an eight year-old from Maryland named Grant who read: “[T]here should be some changes in the law with guns.  It’s a free country, but I recommend there needs be a limit with guns.” Grant further declared:

Please don’t let people own machine guns or other powerful guns like that. I think there should be a good reason to get a gun. There should be a limit about how many guns a person can own.

 

What eight year-old uses such grown-up language as “I recommend,” and “there needs to be a limit,” and  “Good reason to get a gun?” Only the parent could have written that letter, because children do not speak with that rhetoric.

 

There were more letters: A child named Julia said:

I know laws must be passed by Congress, but I beg you [Mr. President] to try very hard to make guns not allowed.

 

 

Julia letter to Obama

 

Again, these children have no idea why our Founders passed the Second Amendment, because they obviously have parents who are  anti-gun and do not want their children to understand that tyrannical governments destroy people, including children, if  people do not have the power to protect themselves from tyrants.

But it is guns that are being called tyrants, not leaders trying to steal people’s rights. It is guns that are made to be seen as the cause of violence, rather than mentally disabled and psychotic people who use guns,  or other weapons, to murder people.

The truth was never mentioned nor explained to the children Obama used for his anti-American progressive legislation.  Those innocent children were thrown into the political cross-hairs and used as weapons against America’s rights to bear arms.