Category Archives: Traditional Values

All Hail Margaret Sanger?

margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-abortion-blacks-african-americans

A few weeks ago President Obama decided to insult Pope Francis by giving the blessed rosary beads given to him by the Pope to Nancy Pelosi.

The first insult, re-gifting something that a leader of one of the largest religious groups in the world gave him. Really? It’d be like giving Quran’s signed by Osama bin Laden to the families of 9/11 victims. Why didn’t he just save them and to include in his Presidential library? Does he not understand the gesture and value? Does he care?

The second insult, last September, Vatican Chief Justice Cardinal Raymond Burke said that Pelosi must be denied communion under the law of the Catholic church because of her longstanding support for abortion. She was shunned when she went to Rome. It doesn’t really sound like Nancy’s a treasure to the Catholic church. She openly states that she disagrees with the church’s stance on abortion. Really? How? What scripture is she using to base that belief on? Does she study?

Nancy seems to know more about what’s best for us as it pertains to healthcare, religion, and abortion. Maybe she should be the “Grand Pubah” of the universe. Hey Nancy, here’s a hint here for you. The Bible, yes, the scripture you say you live by as a Catholic says (I will paraphrase) that if anyone adds a word or deletes a word the same will be done to their lives.

It would appear the other supreme ruler (President Obama) seems to feel that “no-thing” applies to him. Yes, I said “no-thing” because it doesn’t matter whether it’s the law, social graces, or just good manners, he is above it all! I believe he knew exactly what he was doing with the Pope’s gift, he just doesn’t care!

To further add insult to injury, Nancy then goes on to accept one of the highest awards bestowed by Planned Parenthood, the Margaret Sanger Award. Oh joy!

That’s an organization started by a racist, black-hating woman named Margaret Sanger. Margaret didn’t care about a woman’s right to choose, nor did she care about “female reproductive health”. She didn’t care about overpopulation. She wanted to keep the blacks and other less desirable (her view, not mine) people from populating the planet in any way.

Does my pointing out the history of Planned Parenthood aggravate you? How about a few quotes from the award’s namesake herself, Ms. Sanger, as a reminder:

“[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

Can you imagine if these words were associates with a Republican? I was guilty by association for allowing a person who is against gay marriage speak at a prayer event I chair! OMG! How evil am I? (The speaker was Brad Dacus from the Pacific Justice Institute.) I wasn’t getting or giving an award (unlike Nancy Pelosi). I just allowed him to speak about his personal life.

Here’s another gem!
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

How do you who lean Left and extoll the virtues of Planned Parenthood for “the great things they do” not know about this woman’s agenda? Personally, I think you do, you just don’t care! Shame on those who know this and continue to support Planned Parenthood. They don’t care about women’s rights or health. They care about making sure the “less desirables” don’t keep procreating.

And last but not least:

Read more at http://therealside.com/2014/04/all-hail-margaret-sanger/#mlG6mGvuDQ4Fx8TW.99

World Vision’s Secular Myopia

Even better than having 'Vision' in your name is having it in your brain.

Even better than having ‘Vision’ in your name is having it in your brain.

Maybe it was a Mexican divorce.

Last Monday World Vision President Richard Stearns walks hand–in–hand down the aisle pledging fealty to homosexual marriage until death do they part. This is big news, because World Vision is a Christian charity and the nation’s 10th largest.

Then, only 48 hours later, the happy couple is fighting over who gets to keep the china as Stearns backpedals furiously.

And through all the uproar Stearns has this slightly baffled aspect, as if he’d just spent the last two days selling flowers in Terminal A for the Moonies, and now his parents have whisked him back home where he decides joining the Jaycees isn’t that bad after all.

For those who missed the controversy, in Christianity Today World Vision announced it “will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman” — an implied endorsement of homosexual marriage.

Stearns characterized this surrender as a “very narrow policy change.” Yet AP described it as “a dramatic policy change on one of the most divisive social issues facing religious groups.”

During an interview Stearns became defensive, “We’re not caving to some kind of pressure. We’re not on some slippery slope…This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues.”

Which makes one grateful World Vision didn’t have any members of Westboro Baptist on the board.

Still you can’t help but wonder what version of the Bible Stearns and the board is consulting. “This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture. People can say, ‘Scripture is very clear on this issue,’ and my answer is, ‘Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.”

This is sophistry. Bart Ehrman is James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the UNC and a best–selling author, yet he denies the divinity of Christ, which at the time this is written World Vision still supports. Evidently Stearns and the board pick–and–choose among theologians as they pick–and–choose among Bible verses.

Then demonstrating his utter cluelessness regarding fundamental issues of church doctrine and how the secular world views the faithful, Stearns remarked, “I don’t want to predict the reaction we will get. I think we’ve got a very persuasive series of reasons for why we’re doing this, and it’s my hope that all of our donors and partners will understand it, and will agree with our exhortation to unite around what unites us.”

I suppose this type of reasoning makes sense when your reading matter is limited to The New York Times and Sojourners.

But in the Evangelical Christian world his “persuasive series of reasons” produced a stunning backlash. In the ensuing 48 hours World Vision lost money, support and credibility. Approximately 5,000 individual sponsors and contributors canceled, costing the organization upwards of $2.1 million. 60 church partners called the office to withdraw their support. And a number of employees at headquarters resigned. Some in protest, some because of the stress of dealing with the fallout from Stearns’ colossal stupidity.

Wednesday a chastened Stearns and board chairman Jim Beré signed a contrite letter that read, “We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.”

Later in a conference call with reporters, Stearns elaborated, “We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness” and if he “could have a do-over on one thing, I would have done much more consultation with Christian leaders.”

But he just ran out of time, what will all the meetings with The New York Times editorial board, the Human Rights Campaign and the cast of The Laramie Project.

The rapid retraction is a good first step, but the fact remains World Vision’s current leadership is unfit to run the organization.

In a post–divorce interview with Religion News Service, Stearns is taken aback by the notion he bears any responsibility. “No, there have been no serious requests for my resignation. I would certainly under- stand if the board wanted to make a decision around that. Some of the board members have asked the question about their own resignation. Right now, our feeling is we were all in this together. We made certainly, in retrospect, a bad decision, but we did it with the right motivations.”

Here we agree. Stearns and the board are all in it together and they should all take the honorable path and resign.

Here’s just a brief rundown of the unnecessary havoc these morally blind people have caused:

  1. Seriously damaged a reputation in the Evangelical community it took 63 years to build.
  2. Proved themselves totally unfit to manage the reputation and public relations of a billion dollar organization by demonstrating a basic failure to understand the culture and media.
  3. Potentially endangered employees working in Africa where governments are passing laws criminalizing homosexual conduct.
  4. Cost the organization millions of dollars.
  5. Opened World Vision up to scrutiny and attack from militant homosexual organizations and a hostile Obama administration.
  6. Distracted the staff from the mission of serving the world’s poor.

Any one of these offenses is enough, but all are an indictment that only resignation, reflection and repentance will answer.

Naturally many Christian leaders are welcoming World Vision’s return to the fold and urging Christians to resume financial and prayer support.  But as for me, if I want to make a contribution to an organization run by leadership that is this slippery and disingenuous, I’ll send a check to Congress.

Perry, Paul & Huckabee at CPAC 2014

Gen. John Bell Hood, another Texan that could get a crowd moving.

Gen. John Bell Hood, another Texan that could get a crowd moving.

Gen. Robert E. Lee used Texas infantry as his reliable shock troops during the Civil War. If Hood’s division couldn’t drive the Yankees from a position, then no troops could.

Evidently CPAC schedulers are of the same opinion.

On both of the first two days of the conservative conference Texas speakers were used to soften up the crowd for all the speakers that followed.

On Thursday it was Sen. Ted Cruz (R–TX) and on Friday it was Gov. Rick Perry (R–TX).

Perry hit the stage cold to the tune of AC/DC’s ‘Back in Black’ and did so without anyone to introduce him. Perry is now sporting black nerd glasses that make him look more intellectual without softening him up so much that he looks like pajama boy in the Obamacare ad.

The governor began by stating that on the battlefield of ideas “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” Then there was a long pause, which started to produce debate flashbacks for me, but it proved to be just a slow Internet connection.

Besides being another step on the stairway to political redemption, the speech was a rousing defense of federalism. Perry says for the solution to the problems facing the country we should not look to Washington, but instead we should look to the states that “are laboratories of innovation.”

And the states provide a contrast between two visions. In the blue vision the state “plays an increasing roll in the lives of citizens.” Taxes are high, public employee pensions are out of control and jobs are leaving.

Perry contrasted that smothering philosophy with the red state vision where “freedom of the individual comes first and the reach of government is limited.” There taxes are low, spending is low and opportunity is high.

Then Perry did something surprising. On Friday when Chris Christie spoke the examples were mostly about him and about New Jersey. But that’s not what Perry did. He started off by giving other Republican governors credit for their good ideas and successful records.

He mentioned Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Scott in Florida. Then Perry proceeded to list accomplishments particular to each.

Perry was halfway through his speech before he even mentioned Texas. He spoke first of the common denominator among all red state leaders, “Conservative governors who know freedom of the individual must come before the power of the state…the contrast is crystal clear.” He then used an example from the world of transportation. “If you rent a U–Haul to move your company it costs twice as much to go from San Francisco to Austin as it does the other way around, because you can’t find enough trucks to flee the Golden State.”

Only then did Perry say, “Let’s pick a large red state, shoot let’s pick Texas” as he began listing his accomplishments. This is one of the reasons Perry is so likable: He doesn’t appear to take himself too seriously. He, in contrast to Obama, is not The Great I Am.

His speech was full of humor, substance and energy. Perry has been on the comeback trail now for two years and he’s making progress. His demeanor and energy level is in marked contrast to that of the disastrous 2012 presidential campaign.

I have no way of knowing if he’s a terror to his staff or if he kicks the family dog, but you certainly can’t tell it from his personal appearances. If it wasn’t for his squishiness on illegals, I’d almost be ready to vote for Perry today.

I can’t say that for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Politically Huckabee is simply George Bush who can tell a joke. There are many things I admire about Huckabee: His faith, his conservative social values and his sense of humor in particular. But as president he would be spending at least as much as Bush and I see no indication that he’s ever seriously considered putting Uncle Sam on a diet.

And speaking of diets, Huckabee’s is evidently not going too well. In stark contrast to his former fit self, now if the occasion arose Huckabee could fill in quite nicely as Chris Christie’s body double.

Huckabee’s speech began on a discordant note. He was given the same 10 minutes as Rick Perry, but he wasted some of the time complaining about only getting 10 minutes. In contrast to Perry’s upbeat and dynamic address, Huckabee came off as slightly petulant.

His speech was structured around a series of “I knows” that included, “I know the IRS is a criminal organization. I know that life begins at conception. I know there’s a God and this nation would not exist if He had not been the midwife of its birth.”

He even obliquely addressed homosexual marriage when he quoted Mrs. Billy Graham who said, “If God does not bring fiery judgment on America, God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Huckabee concluded with a final “I know” that brought back memories of his rocky beginning when he said, “I know my time is up and I must go.”

Diet jokes aside, he simply wasn’t a heavyweight on Day Two and if Huckabee is indeed running for president in 2016 this speech didn’t help his case.

Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) was the other major league presidential candidate speech of the day. He had double the time allotted to Perry, yet I don’t think his speech had the same impact. They are two entirely different personalities. Paul comes off as somewhat remote and clinical when he speaks. He certainly says the right things and delivers a polished speech, but he doesn’t have the infectious enthusiasm of Rick Perry.

Personally I wonder how many of the reporters who pronounced Chris Christie as rehabilitated after the response to his speech the day before were around for Paul’s. The packed room was on its feet and cheering before the senator could say a word. Christie on the other hand had a much smaller crowd and response was polite until very late in his performance.

Paul’s speech was about liberty but it was also about sending a message to the Mitch McConnells, John McCains, Lindsey Grahams and other establishment RINOs. Paul asked the audience to “Imagine a time when our great country is governed by the Constitution. You may think I’m talking about electing Republicans, but I’m not. I’m talking about electing lovers of liberty.”

“It isn’t good enough to pick the lesser of two equals,” Paul explained. “We must elect men and women of principle and conviction and action who will lead us back to greatness. There is a great and tumultuous battle underway not for the Republican Party but for the entire country.

Then in a challenge to elected leaders and party supporters alike, Paul asked, “The question is will we be bold and proclaim our message with passion or will we be sunshine patriots retreating when we come under fire?”

Paul then focused on the NSA, data mining and the entire security mindset of the government, which he believes is dangerous. He referenced the Sons of Liberty from the Revolution who stood up to King George and predicted, “The Sons of Liberty would today call out to the president. ‘We will not submit. We will not trade our liberty for security. Not now. Not ever.’”

Getting down to cases with an audience that skewed toward youth and tech savvy, Paul explained, “If you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance. I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.”

His other examples of government overreach in the name of security included detention without a trial, individual warrants applied to a class of people, credit card data collection, cell phone metadata and other violations of the 4th Amendment.

The senator stated flatly “Government unrestrained by law becomes nothing short of tyranny.” Then he used Daniel Webster to show the fight for liberty has been an ongoing struggle that must be continued today. “Daniel Webster anticipated our modern day saviors who wish to save us from too much freedom. He wrote: ‘Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It’s hardly too strong to say the Con was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.’”

Paul wasn’t giving so much a speech, as he was Peter the Hermit asking the young people to join in a crusade. He has passionate ideas and beliefs, but Paul’s delivery is simply not as winning as that of Perry. One can be serious without being sepulchral.

It will be very interesting to follow the arc of both campaigns as I see Perry being a bigger threat to Paul than the other Texan, Ted Cruz.

Will the Real United States of America Please Stand Up!

where-is-america-headed-website-300x170

Where is she? Many of those “Tea Party”, “right-wing, Bible-thumping”, “Mom and apple pie” type of people are being made out to be lunatics.

Why? For loving God, country, and freedom. It seems that loving America enough to make her a priority is unconstitutional. At least according to the very grounded and always controversial opinions of the 9th Circuit Court.

The Court says that school districts can ban clothing when the “officials’ concerns of racial violence outweighed students’ freedom of expression rights. Administrators feared the American flag shirts would enflame the passions of Latino students celebrating the Mexican holiday” of Cinco de Mayo. Really, I am not joking!

Wanting to keep the kids safe is great. I can’t disagree with that. But I can disagree with this particular decision around Americans wearing shirts with an American flag on them. These kids took exception to the school administration allowing celebrations day around Mexican independence day and exercised their freedom to express themselves civilly.

America is getting harder and harder to find. Some schools have stopped saying the pledge because it’s too divisive or it takes too much time. Then there was the young boy who was told he couldn’t have an American flag on his bike on school grounds because of safety concerns! What low-IQ administrator came up with that one?

In some school districts, Bibles can’t be handed out on the sidewalk in front of schools because it’s too close to blurring the separation of church and state clause! (Good luck finding that one in the Constitution!)

Then there was the young man who dared to give out copies of the Constitution on a college campus. He was awarded $50,000 of your taxpayer money (not to mention taxpayer money wasted on the salaries of all those who were involved from the school administrators to the security guard to the campus attorneys) because his rights to free speech were infringed! Yup. How dare he want to give out a copy of the foundation of what America was built on, at an American college campus, maintained with American tax dollars, by security guards paid in American tax dollars. Some people have a lot of nerve! What if he wanted to give out the Communist Manifesto? Do think there would have been the same reaction?

Many of you on the left, for some reason, foam at the mouth when you read pieces like this. But, try to have an open mind and endeavor to reason this out together, shall we?

One of the first books those religion-hating forefathers allocated money to print was the Bible. (They must have been very confused old men given that old “separation of church and state” clause!). Then to add insult to injury, those same men wanted the Bibles placed in public education facilities and schools. Oh, the humanity of it all!

You see, America became great because of what it stood for, what it was willing to fight and die for, and the foundation that all men are created equal. We all have the right to succeed or fail. That’s why so many wanted (and still want) to come to this country.

I am extremely proud of my Italian heritage. I grew up in a place known as Little Italy in Boston. It was not uncommon to hear people speaking Italian in the streets and stores. With that said, when a non-neighborhood person came into a store (the area was very touristy because of historic landmarks like the Old North Church) everyone slipped into English out of respect for our country. Orders were placed in English.

My little Italian friends who had recently arrived in the U.S. were very proud to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag even though they weren’t yet citizens. Why? Because they knew what America stood for and wanted to be part of it.

Every August there is a month of celebration coinciding with Italian festivals taking place back in Italy. Celebrating heritage, like the Mexican kids on campus today. The difference? Always present at the Italian festivals was the American flag, flown higher than the Italian flag or any other flag. America was always first. Period! We have lost that.

Progressives think that we got this strong and respected around the world by chance or luck or karma or whatever. Nothing successful ever happens by accident and if it does, it won’t be sustainable. Success requires work, maintenance, and someone to care about and for it. America first! If you think it will just happen, sit around and watch. Something will happen but not what you want to happen.

America is becoming unrecognizable. We need to find her and prop her up.

Don’t wait! On Cinco de Mayo, celebrate by wearing an American flag. Celebrate Mexican independence by relating it too American Independence Day.

And ultimately, if you’re told you can’t wear an American flag shirt on Cinco de Mayo, stage a sit in by the school flag pole wearing American-themed shirts and join in the celebration.

Read More at TRS

 

American Exceptionalism; A loss Or An Opportunity

By Michael Lewinski  02/26/14

Economist, Richard Ebeling attributes American Exceptionalism to a set of principles emanating from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. On the success of the American economy he noted , “The history of the United States from the time of its founding in the late 18th century up to the early decades of the 20th century was a period during which virtually all market activities were free from government regulation, control or manipulation.”

The reason for this success he observed, “Before ‘America,’ virtually all societies were founded on conquest and plunder. But nowhere else than in America was there such a conscious and explicit claim that kings and their governments were not the giver and taker of ‘rights’ belonging to the people. Outside of protecting each in his individual rights, every individual was self-governing and sovereign in guiding and directing his own life. His life was his own to plan and implement. The government did not control, order, or plan his life for him. He chose his own career; he earned his own way; he was responsible for caring for himself and his family; all of his associations and relationships with others… were based on his voluntary agreement in mutual consent with others.

How far we have fallen. How unexceptional we have become. Where, in America, has big government not “interfered with the free-market interactions and activities of people?” Nowhere! Not in your personal life, your family life, your work life, or any other element traditionally left to civil society.

Look around you. Big Brother wants to put its “minders” in the newsrooms. It’s nullifying Freedom of Religion, 2nd Amendment rights, and spying on the people with its warrentless electronic searches. The IRS harasses and suppresses its political opponents. A regulatory juggernaut is methodically making us poorer by crushing wealth creation and destroying jobs.

The question before us is whether the contemporary rejection of American Exceptionalism will stand, or if instead, we will again embrace the core values which enhance the freedom embedded in a strong, vibrant civil society unencumbered by a Progressive, controlling, centrally planned government.

Conservatives Ready for Sexual Cowardice

Mainstream media closely follows the Michael Sam story

Mainstream media closely follows the Michael Sam story

When does doing something — other than charging a machine gun nest — that has been done countless times previously stop being ‘courageous?’ Sally Jenkins of the WaPost has ruled that football player Michael Sam’s advice to people interested in dating him is a monumental story: “There are great courageous sports stories being played on the international stage at the Sochi Olympics, yet nothing has resonated like this.”

Ho hum. Pardon me if I’m not vibrating like Ms. Jenkins. If Sam doesn’t want awkward situations where female groupies try to make time with him, why doesn’t he just open an account on eHomony.com?

Other than the occasional soap–on–a–rope joke whispered out of Sam and the gaystapo’s earshot, he will have smooth sailing in the locker room. The Canadian Football League may be treating Sam comments as international hate crimes. (Winnipeg Blue Bombers defensive tackle Bryant Turner Jr.  was fined after tweeting: “Michael Sam locker room gonna come with complimentary robes.”)

But in the NFL he’ll be treated like Bao Bao, the new panda baby at the national zoo. For teammates and football fans, Sam will be just another seldom–seen species that has problems when it comes to reproduction. Maybe he’ll be able to share Internet bandwidth with Bao Bao after he gets his own Sam Cam.

I tell you what real courage would be in a situation like this. A married potential NFL draftee announcing that he’s open to adulterous relationships and no one’s wife, girlfriend or daughter is off limits. Now that takes some courage and would certainly create a frisson of sexual tension at home, the locker room and various team functions.

Sam, on the other hand, is just a me–too narcissist hoping for a spot as Grand Marshall in a ‘pride parade.’ He’s certainly not the first athlete to go public. You can’t throw a rock without hitting a figure skater that walks on the wild side. Then you’ve got Billie Jean King, Jason Collins, innumerable female softball players and gymnasts.

In showbiz there’s Ellen, Rosie, Jodie and Neil and that’s just the ones with ‘e’ in their name. Even superheroes are getting in on the act. Green Lantern only lets his love light shine for men. Society has reached a point where we can start hanging clothes in that particular closet because it’s now empty.

And for the sake of accuracy, Sam is in limbo right now. He’s a former college player who has yet to make an NFL team. And it’s entirely possible he won’t be the only homosexual player in the NFL, just the most vocal.

(If you ask Deacon Jones, he probably considers all NFL kickers to be gay, but at least they’ve made the team, in contrast to Sam who is merely potential.)

Besides, when is giving in to a compulsion courageous? How about a linebacker who holds a news conference announcing he’s only interested in 18–year–old cheerleaders? Is that brave? Would Woody Allen be courageous if he finally admitted to abusing Dylan? The statute of limitations is up and like Woody says, “The heart wants what the heart wants.” Which is pretty much the foundational philosophy of the alternate lifestyle left.

In the wake of his proclamation Sam’s NFL draft value dropped almost a hundred points. This will be blamed on homophobia, but the real reason is how many teams — other than the Dallas Cowboys — need another narcissistic exhibitionist?

If NFL teams avoided signing Tim Tebow because of the alleged ‘distraction’ factor, what director of player personnel is going to volunteer to draft the Michael Sam three–ring circus?

The Broncos’ John Elway volunteered to lead the ‘some of my best friends…’ caucus when he said he would have no problem with Sam on his team, which is easy for Elway to say since he’s retired and showers at home.

But the real question is why announce now? Sam told his Missouri teammates that he was playing for the other side before last season. It was a simple statement that didn’t require a phone call to the New York Times. This current public relations campaign screams exploitation and not by the hetero community. It sounds like national homosexual advocacy organizations snooped into his private life and convinced Sam to take a stand that will benefit their fund raising.

If Sam has any doubts about his NFL future, and he’s not a sure thing, then his public statement guarantees a lucrative future career as a homosexual symbol. If he makes the NFL he demonstrates homosexuals are everywhere. If he doesn’t make the team he’s a living symbol of heterosexual bigotry. Either way Sam is on the speaking and interview circuit for a decade and national lobby groups stay current and in the news.

And while we’re discussing fanatics, the homosexual lobby is starting to remind me of some of the more zealous Mormons. There are groups of Latter Day Saints who baptize the dead by proxy so the deceased can enter into heaven in spite of the poor choices they made while alive. In like fashion homosexual scholars browse through history looking for notable figures they can recruit into the homosexual hall of fame.

Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind, along with Abraham Lincoln, my relative President James Buchanan and Janis Joplin to mention but a few. Something tells me activists are going to be taking a long hard look at unmarried early professional football players.

In the meantime, I’m ready for some sexual cowardice. How about returning to the days of a gentleman never tells? I know it’s unlikely, but one can dream.

So let’s close with a riddle: What do Michael Sam and Manti Te’o have in common? All their girlfriends are imaginary.

Fool Me Once Shame On You, Fool Me 437,253 Times… Well…

pinocchio-obama

It’s not really 437,253 times, but it seems close. The president has “fudged,” “fibbed,” or ”misspoke,” I mean, “lied” so many times that we have lost count. Really! We live in such a politically correct world that we can’t even call a lie a lie anymore because we don’t want to presume what someone was thinking when they said what they said.

Like President Clinton saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” At what point was oral sex no longer “sex relations”? Or the other famous one, “I am not a crook.” President Nixon emphatically stating that he had nothing to do with planning and approving the Watergate break in.

We have decided there are no lies, just what we want words to mean when we say them. But if they don’t mean what you think they mean, that doesn’t mean it’s a lie. It just means that you didn’t understand or they misspoke. Confused? Good! It means you won’t fall for their lies.

I long for a president that would just come out and say things like, “I tried this and it didn’t work. We are going back to the drawing board and will inform you of our progress” or “the numbers originally indicated we would have “X” amount of people back to work, but sadly that failed. We are going to review and rework the plan and will keep you informed of the next step.” Or how about, ”I know war is ugly. I know putting our young people in harm’s way is not an easy task. As president, I plan to make sure they have all they need to succeed and save the good people of the Republic of I-Screwed-Up-astan.” A little truth would go a long way.

Unfortunately, President Obama couldn’t find the truth if you put it in a paper bag marked it “truth,” added a “selfie” of him and the pretty, prime minister from Australia, then put both his hands on it.

Let’s look at facts…

“Income equality is the worst it’s ever been.” (Hit the “wrong answer” buzzer now!) The numbers show that income equality was much worse in 2000 and 2007. If you look at how government is playing with taxes, tax rates, and Obamacare the inequality rate is close to what it was in 1987. This is along the “if you like your doctor you can keep…” Well, you get it.

In a recent interview Obama said there are now 9 million Americans signed up for healthcare under the affordable healthcare act. (Hit the “wrong answer” buzzer again please.) In actuality over 6 million people have lost their healthcare under this disaster and have had to go to the ever flawless Healthcare.gov site for insurance. Here are a few little-known facts that the mainstream media refuses to tell you. Many of those 6 million have had to sign up under Obamacare only to receive less services, less hospital options, and substandard healthcare. And President Obama considers this a success! Some have signed up only to be moved to Medicare. Really?! Was that in the plan? Many others already had insurance, such as Medicare, and were told they needed to sign up using Healthcare.gov. These numbers are the ones the government is using to wave the victory flag. Seriously folks! It’s government math at its finest.

Raising minimum wage will help families. This is like taking advice on the stock market from a butcher filing for bankruptcy. Obama has never owned or run a business. He has never signed a paycheck for an employee. Less than 35% of his cabinet and the people in his administration have ever run a business and the ones that have, he dismisses their advice. Bill Gates came out last week and said policy would be a disaster and would, most definitely, cause job losses, as have many other economists. The commander-in-chief is basically saying, “What do they know? I’m right. Full speed ahead.” And to prove it, he immediately raised the minimum wage on all federal contract employees to $10.10 an hour! (Applause signs please.) Oh, wait. It’s such a good thing that it doesn’t start until 2015 and it only affects new contractors not current ones. Apparently “immediately” doesn’t mean “right now.”

There are so many more Obama “lies” I could share with you. Benghazi was the result of a rogue movie maker’s clip about Muhammed. If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. It won’t add one dime to the deficit. Green energy creates thousands and thousands of new jobs. Shall I go on?

I can’t help myself. Let’s hit one more.
Obama has created 8 million new jobs in the last 4 years, the problem is, he has been in office over 5 years. That’s government math, again, as seen through the eyes of a community organizer who never ran his own business.

According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, this jobs recovery has been the weakest since WWII. There has only been a gain of 2.4 million jobs since he has been in charge, if you include population growth, as has been done in years gone by but has mysteriously stopped under this president. We are looking at the lowest participation rate since 1978 when the peanut gallery (President Carter) ran the country.

Stop the lies! Vote them out!

Wake up America! You’re gonna lose this country!

Obama’s Trickle–Down Lawlessness

Virginia's new AG is following in the footsteps of America's #1 Constitution burner.

Virginia’s new AG is following in the footsteps of America’s #1 Constitution burner.

What Sen. Ted Cruz (R–TX) refers to as Obama’s “pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat” has trickled down to the new Democrat administration in Virginia.

On Saturday, January 11th Democrat Mark Herring was sworn in as attorney general of the Commonwealth. During the ceremony Herring recited his oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as attorney general according to the best of my ability (so help me God).”

Then Herring proved he was a fast Obama study by violating that oath before he had completed his second week in office.

Instead of defending the Virginia Constitution, Herring began actively working to undermine it. He declared on the 23rd that he would not defend Virginia’s constitutional ban on homosexual marriage. “It’s time for the commonwealth to be on the right side of history and the right side of the law,” he proclaimed.

Then Herring compounded the offense by joining the case of the plaintiffs suing the state to overturn the ban. This is breathtakingly unethical. It’s like Zimmerman’s defense lawyer deciding George violated neighborhood watch guidelines and asking to join the prosecution team. An honorable man when presented with the choice of doing his job and defending the Constitution or “being on the right side of history” would have resigned his office, but we’re talking about Mark Herring.

By way of background the Virginia homosexual marriage ban is an amendment to the Constitution passed in 2006 by a favorable vote of 57 percent. Herring was in the Virginia Senate at the time and he voted in favor of the amendment. But you can’t hold that against him because he ‘evolved.’

But now Herring says he is relying on the precedent set by former AG Ken Cuccinelli. Except the situations are entirely different. Cuccinelli did not defend a newly passed law that allowed the state to take over failing schools, because it violated Virginia’s Constitution. Herring is saying the Constitution of Virginia is unconstitutional because it violates the Democrat party platform and makes Ellen DeGeneres sad.

In an interview posted on TheDailyPress.com, Herring explained, “What you have to do is look at the facts and precedents and ask yourself — If this went before the Supreme Court, how do I think they would rule?” But Virginia voters didn’t elect Herring to choose the winning side in a court case. They elected him to do a job he appears unwilling to perform.

By contrast North Carolina’s Attorney General is also a Democrat who supported homosexual marriage, but he is defending his state’s law. Cooper issued a statement that said, “North Carolina should change its laws to allow marriage equality, and I believe basic fairness eventually will prevail. However, when legal arguments exist to defend a law, it is the duty of the Office of the Attorney General under North Carolina law to make those arguments in court.”

As Sen. Cruz pointed out in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “Rule of law doesn’t simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. That no one [or group] …is above the law.”

Herring’s legal operating theory is no different from jurisprudence and law in Venezuela or Mexico, where the question is not do you know the law? But rather whom do you know? The law under Democrats like Eric Holder, Barack Obama and Mark Herring is now a respecter of persons. Once feelings and fads replace the law and procedure we enter uncharted territory.

Naturally the Washington Post editorial page supports Herring’s switch. “We broadly agree with Mr. Herring’s reading of the law. The Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection cannot be reconciled with denying, on logically flimsy grounds, equal access to civil marriage for a group that has for centuries been singled out for discrimination.”

But the same ‘logic’ applies to other formerly acknowledged taboos including polygamy and incest. “Love is love” is a justification that can overturn almost every sexual prohibition.

The WaPost also claims that Herring is not abandoning his client because the two county clerks being sued have their own attorneys. Under this remarkable doctrine there is no need to expect the fire department to show up when your house is burning if a neighbor has already stepped in with his water hose.

To demonstrate Herring’s utter moral bankruptcy we will close with a look at his message during last year’s campaign. Herring repeatedly promised to “take politics out of the office” and he assured voters that he would not be an activist AG like Ken Cuccinelli.

That promise lasted exactly 12 days. Now he’s the newest member of Obama, Holder & Herring the law firm that specializes in picking and choosing which laws to follow and which laws to enforce.

Left-Leaning Loon Gun Logic Strikes Again!

706f963731

Gun Safety is Not the Issue, Disarmament Is

I stated on a recent Facebook post that I was going to deal with the phony report, “Young Guns: A Diane Sawyer Special,” that ABC News was doing on their Sunday show. Someone responded, “I hope you’re not going to spin this the way I think you’re going to.” Me? Spin something?

Why accuse me of spin before I even get there? And why on earth would I question ABC News and Diane Sawyer? I’m guessing that person leans left and feels that ABC News is “THE” definitive news source, or at least one of the many in the mainstream media.

So, am I going to spin it? YES! I’m going to spin it back towards the truth of the matter. The “Young Guns” special makes many “factual” statements. Let’s check them out:

1.7 million —  The number of kids under age 18 who lived in homes with a loaded and unlocked firearm in 2002. (CDC) Sounds like a lot doesn’t it? Considering there are over 220 million registered guns in the country, accounting for unregistered guns I would estimate there are closer to a total of 300 million guns in homes across America. 1.7 million is approximately ½ of a percent. Insignificant, by comparison.

31 — The percentage of U.S. households with at least one child and a gun in the home in 2012. (General Social Survey). OK, less than one third of American homes have both a child and at least one gun. Although we hear about gun violence more often now, it is actually on the decrease.

The next few stats were somewhat confusing. The “Young Guns” report lumps both kids and youth together, whereas the CDC definitions are different:

1,337 — The number of American kids under age 18 who died from gunshot wounds in 2010. This is trending down from 1,490 in 2005 and 1,544 in 2000. (CDC)

7,391 — The number of American kids and teens under age 20 who were hospitalized from firearm injuries in 2009. That means that on average a child or teen is shot almost every hour. (Yale School of Medicine)

98 — The number of American kids under age 18 who died from accidental shootings in 2010. This is trending down from 150 deaths in 2000 and 417 deaths in 1990. (CDC)

85 — Roughly the percentage of accidental shootings of children where the shooter was also a child in 2003-2006. (Catherine Barber, MPA, Harvard School of Public Health)

80 — The percentage of accidental shooting victims who were boys in 2010. (CDC)

Without spinning anything, let’s just break these out. Let me first say, anything we can reasonably do to protect our children should be done. Any loss of life due to negligence from someone with respect to kids is almost unforgivable.

Among the many definitions of “accidental gunshot wounds” and other gun violence sub categories listed by the CDC are:

  • Celebratory firing that was not intended to frighten, control, or harm anyone
  • A person shoots himself when using a gun to frighten, control, or harm another person
  • A person mistakenly thinks a gun is unloaded and shoots himself or another person while fooling around with it
  • A person unintentionally shoots someone while defending himself against an aggressor
  • A person unintentionally shoots another person while using a gun to commit a crime
  • Firearm injuries caused by unintentionally striking a person with the firearm, e.g., by dropping it on someone’s head, rather than with a projectile fired from the firearm (potential homicide or non-NVDRS accident)
  • Unintentional injuries from non-powder guns such as BB, pellet, and other compressed air or gas-powered guns (potential homicide or suicide)
  • A person engaged in a suicidal act, then changed his mind, but still died as a result of the act

Sawyer’s ABC News report does not clearly distinguish between crimes committed by young people vs. accidental gun injuries. Let me emphasize, all of these issues are on the decline except in gun-free, big city zones. That’s a story for another day!

I found more stats than I can print, so let’s just pick on Chicago. A few years back Chicago contributed 508 “kids” to the above statistics in little more than a year. Almost all of the ”kids” were male and a majority of those shootings occurred between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Take a minute and think it through. The majority of the shootings were done while committing a crime and because they were under 19, they are categorized as “kids.” An 18 year-old “kid” robbing a 7-11 and getting shot on his way out is considered in the above numbers. These are not accidental!

My irritation with the “Young Guns” story is that they over dramatize and lie about the whole truth in order to get us on their side. How about you just give us the facts, the “real” facts, and let us decide what to do with them? Do you realize when you lie to us we don’t act on the information and then, like the boy who cried wolf, when there’s actually a real problem we don’t believe you and when something bad happens, the blood is on YOUR hands not ours.

The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 613 by 2007, out of the over 300 million people (CDC). By comparison, there were 29,846 accidental deaths by poisoning in 2007 (CDC). Note that it is extremely easy to prevent accidental gun deaths if you simply take the proper precautions to keep your young children from accidentally gaining access to your guns.

If Sawyer was trying to get us to understand about real gun safety in our homes why use the above? Why not just tell us about the 2000 real kids whose parents or relatives did not secure their guns properly like most responsible gun owners do, who did not teach their kids about proper gun safety, and whose kids were hurt or killed? Because “gun safety” isn’t on the agenda…

America, wake up or you’re gonna lose the country!

TX Democrat Gubernatorial Candidate Wendy Davis’ Slip Is Showing

Wendy Davis memeWendy Davis is not the first Democrat to use a fetus pile as a stepping–stone to higher office. She’s only the latest. But Wendy is in such a hurry to run for governor of Texas that she’s left a lot of inconvenient facts behind.

Davis first came to prominence when she lead a filibuster on the floor of the Texas Senate in favor of allowing women to abort their child as late as three months into the pregnancy. She termed it a “human right.” In contrast to Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX) who read children’s books during his filibuster, Davis essentially read the unborn the riot act.

Although Davis is ruthless when it comes to the unborn, she expects Texas voters to have enough sympathy for her climb up from a hard–scrabble background to make her the first Democrat governor since 1995. She describes herself as a divorced teenage single mom who went from living in a trailer to Harvard Law and the Texas Senate.

Like Massachusetts’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Falseahontas), Davis believes that redneck chic is a real vote getter among women and low information voters. And just as Warren’s tale of adolescent privation and Native American ancestry didn’t hold up to scrutiny, neither does Wendy’s.

The only element of the tale that’s entirely true is she’s a woman, of sorts. As reported by The Dallas Morning News’ Wayne Slater, Davis was 21–years–old when she divorced. After the divorce she remained in the mobile home where she’d been living with her former husband. Although she may not have been too popular with neighbors since she also received three vehicles in the settlement.

Based on those qualifications I could be governor of Texas having lived in a trailer for an entire semester at college.

Davis didn’t stay single for long. Seeing an opportunity she morphed into a dress–wearing John Kerry. Wendy had her father approach a friend of his and ask, “How do you like younger women? My daughter wants to go out with you.” Husband–to–be Jeff Davis said in an interview. “I was flattered so I took her out. We dated two or three years, then got married.”

Jeff paid for Wendy’s last two years at Texas Christian University, although her spin is, “It was community resources. We paid for it together.” Sure, Jeff wrote the check and she cashed it.

Mother–of–the–Year Wendy then applied to Harvard Law School and was accepted. (I would really like to get a look at her application essay. It would no doubt move Charles Dickens to tears.) After her acceptance at Harvard, Jeff dutifully cashed in his 401(k) retirement account to cover the initial years and then took out a loan to pay for his wife’s last year.

In the meantime Wendy was faced with a dilemma regarding the children. Her daughter from her first marriage was 8 and the daughter with Jeff was 2, so it was obviously way too late to abort them. But how would it look for a hot little blonde to be toting children that reminded her of mobile housing?

So she left both girls with Jeff back in Fort Worth while she went to pursue her dream solo.

Wendy graduated in 1993 and returned to Fort Worth where one assumes her daughters asked to see a photo ID and then welcomed her home. In 1998, running as a Republican, Davis won a seat on the city council and began her climb up the political ladder.

Ironically enough, the day after Jeff made the last payment on the loan he took out for Wendy’s Harvard Law degree, she moved out and filed for divorce. Of course Wendy takes umbrage at the thought that poor Jeff was just another stepping–stone. Slater quotes her vehemently denying any exploitation, “I was a vibrant part of contributing to our family finances from the time I graduated to the time we separated in 2003,” she said. “The idea that suddenly there was this instantaneous departure after Jeff had partnered so beautifully with me in putting me through school is just absurd.”

Vibrant? Who talks like that and what does it mean? Wendy oscillated when she got a check? Here’s a rule of thumb from a media consultant: When descriptive words are excessive for the surrounding context it means they’re lying. Like when Obama talks about “robust diplomacy.”

For his part, Jeff wasn’t feeling so beautiful. The divorce filing listed adultery on Wendy’s part and he asked for a restraining order against Ms. Vibrant requesting the court require her to refrain from the use of drugs or alcohol “within 24 hours of contact with her children.”

The divorce allowed Wendy to again demonstrate her deep concern for children as she chose to give sole custody of her 12–year–old daughter to her husband; saying it just wasn’t a good time for her to have a daughter tagging along.

So there you have it. The darling of Texas Democrats and leftist abortion supporters nationwide is a liar who won’t even agree to raise her own daughter if it interferes with her overwhelming ambition. She’s used and discarded her way into Democrat political stardom.

Maybe Wendy Davis is simply the culmination of the decades–long feminist campaign to remake America. Now a woman can be as callous and unscrupulous as male politicians and still run for office.

For her part Davis realizes she’s going to have to do something about that biography. “My language should be tighter,” she said. “I’m learning about using broader, looser language. I need to be more focused on the detail.”

Or she could just trying telling the truth for a change.

Spare No Expense & Bill the Taxpayer

Artist’s rendering of the Lynn family’s preferred reburial site.

Artist’s rendering of the Lynn family’s preferred reburial site.

Prince William County, VA recently witnessed a heartwarming episode that ended in a charming example of public – private cooperation. Not too far from where I live the county is constructing a new high school that will feature all the modern conveniences for students: Olympic–size swimming pool, state of the art football field and hot–and–cold running grief counselors.

Plus it’s also a Gun Free Zone!

Last summer during preliminary construction a ground survey team discovered what appeared to be 10 to 12 abandoned graves in an overgrown portion of the site.* And making that discovery before the bulldozers arrived wasn’t easy. The plot was located in a remote area south of Manassas and covered by a tangle of third or fourth growth woods, making it impassable for vehicles and a tough slog on foot.

The graves weren’t marked with headstones, instead there were only rough fieldstones, without any inscriptions, and rectangular sunken areas in the ground. They concluded the site was an abandoned family cemetery that had not seen a burial in over 100 years.

Once the graves were discovered the school board contacted the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to obtain permission to disinter the remains. The board also followed the letter of the law and published a required legal notice in the Washington Post.

Since the high school was budgeted to be the most expensive in county history both proponents and opponents of construction had been following progress closely. After the graves were discovered the school board took the advice of community busybodies and contacted local historians to see if they could determine who was buried in the plot.

Researchers found the land had been owned by the Lynn family from approximately 1840 until the late 1890s when it was sold. Three of the graves have been identified as John Henry Lynn and his parents, William and Codelia (Keys) Lynn.

What’s more, Lynn family descendants still living in the county were surprised and gratified when the school board notified them of the discovery. After consulting with the board, Lynn representatives agreed to have the graves moved to a nearby site that would not interfere with construction.

At the conclusion of a brief, tasteful reburial ceremony Carolyn Lynn — ironically a local genealogy buff that writes a blog on Prince William County history — said, “I’m so impressed with the respect the school board demonstrated for my ancestors and my family. We had no idea there was a cemetery on the high school site and now not only do we know where the Lynns are buried, the new site is accessible and will be maintained by the county. I just want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart.”

Wow, I’m going to have to take my wife’s advice and stop smoking crack. It’s interfering with writing my column.

Of course that’s not what happened. This is 2014, not 1965. When notified of the discovery the Lynn family was outraged the school board found graves they hadn’t bothered to visit for a century!

How dare they! To make up for 100 years of disinterest family did everything but wrap their arms around the bone fragments and demand the high school be canceled. And the Lynns did it without the tiniest, most infinitesimal bit of embarrassment or gratitude, which is a way of life in the 21st Century.

Maybe it’s just me but if I’d lost the location of pee–paw’s mortal remains for the last 150 years, I’d be embarrassed if the county found him abandoned in an overgrown poison ivy preserve. I’d also be hoping the county wasn’t going to stick me with the bill for digging him up. As far as I’m concerned you buy the plot you buy grandpa, too. Besides, some bureaucrat might decide great grandpappy operated a ‘shine manufacturing business and declare the grave a Superfund site.

No one escapes that clean up bill. Just ask Monsanto.

But the Lynns didn’t feel the least bit chagrined as they went on the offensive.

Carolyn Lynn, the genealogist with the missing cemetery, at first said she was “elated” about the discovery of the family plot, but now she’s described as “disappointed and angry. [She] want[s] to know why Prince William school officials didn’t do more to accommodate the cemetery or notify area residents about plans to disinter the graves, a process that began on Veterans Day. When they were interred, that was their home. They expected to be there forever,” Lynn said of the 11 to 13 Lynn family members – including four small children — believed to be buried at the site. “Nobody thought somebody would build a football stadium over them.”

Well, yes and no. I’m also sure the dear departed didn’t figure someone in the family would take the money and run when outsiders offered to buy the plot.

On the board’s behalf, it could have been they figured if the Lynns didn’t care enough to visit the site sometime during the last century — or at least send an illegal with a weed–whacker by — why should the board jump through hoops for the family?

Other long–lost relatives took an even harder line. Derek Lynn wants the entire cemetery restored and all the vegetation and brush the Lynn family ignored for 100 years removed and the grounds restored at taxpayer expense. “These [people] spent their whole lives trying to improve the county, and now they’re out there trying to dig them up. … All we want is for the grave sites to be put back the way they were and left alone,” Lynn explained.

No word on whether or not Derek wants interpreters wearing period clothing onsite to explain the cemetery’s evolution from burial site to briar patch.

The modern Lynns would have no problem with the county paying between $3 and $9 million dollars (depending on how fast the process went) to return the remains to the original burial place and move the high school, but I certainly do. I suppose I should count taxpayers lucky that the final resolution of the problem saw the bodies reinterred at a spot on the site that is not in the construction zone. The initial tab for this solution is $30,000, but that doesn’t count continuing maintenance or the costs of previously running Prince William CSI as an archeology firm was hired, DNA was scanned and relatives tracked down.

After the dust had settled leave it to PWC School Board Chairman Milt Johns to miss the point. His hand–wringing statement was, “I hope that these steps will help to heal any wounds inflicted by the unexpected discovery of the cemetery and the process that followed. We are certainly very sorry for the dismay that resulted.”

Note to Milt: IT’S NOT YOUR FAULT, and statements like this only serve to encourage the hypersensitive.

The people that lived on the land were named Lynn; they knew the most about the deceased and possibly helped dig the graves. But evidently they didn’t give a damn about what happened after the land sold. If they cared about the future of the cemetery they could have added a deed restriction. So why should taxpayers have to pay for the Lynn family’s shabby treatment of their own relatives? And why do weak elected officials allow themselves to be buffaloed by the ‘feelings’ crowd?

If our sensitive, modern–day Lynns have a beef with anyone, it’s the ancestors who let the burial plot become a chigger playground. My suggestion is visit their graves, assuming you know where they are, and give them a piece of your mind.

 

*Facts and quotes contained in this column come from extensive reportage in The Washington Post, InsideNOVA, Northern VA Times and the Potomac Local News, to give attribution where attribution is due.

What Would Jesus Really Do?????

Jesus

   JesusI find it very interesting how people view Jesus today.  I am not a bible scholar and cannot quote more than just a few very common scripture verses, but is being able to quote chapter and verse from the Holy Bible really that important?  Knowing what the Bible says is important.  Living by Scripture, especially by the New Testament things taught by Jesus and his Apostles are important, but I find a lot of people who are so quote-crazy they don’t really seem to know much about what they are quoting.

For instance, Jesus is portrayed in most churches that I know of, and by every Christian I know as pious, benevolent, quiet, and soft spoken.  I don’t see him that way at all, at least not all the time.  As a matter of fact I think of Jesus as quite forceful, and a pain in the butt to the bureaucracy of his time; and to the “progressives” who now control our nation.  I see a side of Jesus that is often more like a drill sergeant in the Army.

The drill sergeants, and instructors I had throughout my military training were very good at their job.  They knew what they were teaching inside and out, and were very adamant about following the rules.  They were stern but as calm asDrill Sergeant could be until one of us stepped out of line.  They didn’t kill us for it, but made sure we got back in line and learned from our misstep.  They were teaching us to survive war.  I bet if I could sit there and actually watch Jesus I would see many times when he was like a drill sergeant; well-intentioned, stern, no-nonsense and fair.  He was teaching us to survive sin.

One scene every liberal and quasi-Christian likes to go to is the woman about to be stoned for adultery and Jesus says “he who is without sin cast the first stone”.  Everyone is real good at quoting that part to intimidate a Christian who is standing up for their beliefs.  And, Christians often use that as an excuse to cower, but I rarely hear the part quoted when He turns to the woman and says “go and sin no more”.   I don’t know which book, chapter, or verse it is but I do know the story.  People in general like to point to this episode as Jesus accepting the activities of this story, and giving the Joel Osteen fake smile while He makes everyone feel good about themselves.  I have always been taught that Jesus was so mild mannered and passive, yet he took a stick/club and drove the money changers out of the Temple in a fit of rage.  I find it very easy to believe Jesus was much sterner in the rock tossing scene than most would have us believe.

Jesus took on the Roman Empire and their puppet lackeys ruling the land of Israel.  That isn’t my idea of the Joel OsteenJesus and Money Changers, smiley faced, passive looking, man Jesus is portrayed to be.  I see Him as compassionate for those truly in need but at the same time having the ability to get on someone’s case mighty hard when necessary.  I don’t see Jesus handing out Obama phones to deadbeats.  What was it He said about those who don’t work, meaning those who refuse to work????? I think of Jesus as a hard-nosed but fair and compassionate leader.  He seemed to be quite the outspoken young man when he was found in the Temple after Joseph and Mary left Bethlehem without Him.

He didn’t have any problem making the Pharisees and Sadducees look like village idiots as they tried to trap Him into saying something they could use against Him.  He certainly didn’t seem to mind “hurting their feelings”.  And again, He didn’t have any inclination to shy away from violence and rage in the money changer incident.  Not quite as timid as I have always been taught!!!!!  And Jesus wasn’t exactly pleased when He came out of the Garden of Gethsemane andPharisees found his apostles sleeping.  Did He give them the Joel Osteen smile and softly ask them in a whiny voice why they couldn’t stay awake for a few hours, or did He scold them?  Again, I wasn’t there but from instances I have read in the life of Jesus I tend to think he was more like a drill sergeant “quite displeased” with the actions of his “trainee” followers.

He wasn’t the military leader the Jews of the day were looking for so many refused to accept His kingdom and follow Him, but then He allows all of us freedom of choice.  I wonder how the conversation really went when Satan took Jesus to the mountain top to tempt Him.  Was Jesus as passive and dry as the text makes him sound?  I think of Him as defiant, even dismissive, in a matter-of-fact sort of way at Satan’s blatant attempt at bribery.  Not arrogant but confident, not passive but bold.

Am I right or wrong about Jesus and His demeanor?  I don’t really know because I wasn’t there.  But from everything I read, His words and the words of His early followers, I see Jesus as a stern but loving example for us to follow.  Pandering to the “progressives” and their evil ways is not what Jesus would have us do.  He didn’t pander.  He said “hate the sin but love the sinner”.

Phil Robertson showed this in the magazine interview that has the GLAAD panties in such a wad.  He was matter-of-fact.  Phil stated what the Bible says, but also said that if people wanted to live their life that way it was their choice. Phil Phil Robertsonsaid that he would disagree and live his life as he sees fit, and allow them the same option.  As I mentioned in a previous article, Moslems don’t have that same benevolent attitude towards homosexuals.  Telling someone that standing out in the middle of a highway during the rush hour isn’t a good idea (Christians) isn’t the same as running over them with a car to save them from traffic (Moslems).

Jesus didn’t cut sinners any slack, but He gave them an option for something better.  I happen to agree that His way is best but it isn’t my responsibility to force everyone to live that way, and I won’t ever do that.  My responsibility, and that of every other Christian, is to state the Word of God, the Holy Bible, as it is written without forcing compliance; and doing my best to live as such.  Moslems force compliance under the penalty of death for those not so compliant.  Christians never call for death to those we disagree with.  We call for repentance, not forced compliance.

I continually hear Christians, and often from other Christians, belittled as “intolerant”.  Does anyone believe Jesus was really all that tolerant?  If everything in the Holy Bible, especially the New Testament, is the guide to live by, how “tolerant” would Jesus really be if He were here today?  Would Jesus jump up and down and applaud GLAAD, or would He scold them and tell them they are sinners?????  I do believe He would allow them the choice to make their decisionsEvil preaches tolerance as they wish while telling them scripture says they will not enter into the Gates of Heaven.

Abortion is another subject that causes quite a stir when it is pointed out to be murder by Christians.  “Progressives” once again get their panties in a bunch because Christians are “trying to impose their values on others”.  That isn’t true either.  Christians merely say that according to Scripture abortion is murder.  It goes against the passage that says “before you were in your mother’s womb I knew you”.  That removes the “blob of tissue” excuse from play in my mind, and that of other Christians.  If a woman wants an abortion it is between her, her doctor, and God; but don’t demand that abortion be the law of the land, don’t demand that I approve of it, and don’t demand that I pay for it.  That isn’t giving me the same freedom of choice that the pro-abortion crowd likes to crow about so much.

I don’t care how someone lives their life and don’t presume to have the authority to decide that for them, but I do have the authority and the responsibility to share my faith with them and to point out what is very clearly stated in the Bible.  Holy bibleThe commission given to me by Jesus Christ is to enlighten people with the Word, not beat them into submission with it.  At the same time pandering to avoid hurting their feelings or “offending” them isn’t what I see Jesus expecting me to do either.

Would Jesus expect me to ignore what He said is wrong so as to avoid “offending” someone or would he expect me to stand up for what I profess to believe and speak loud and clear as He did 2,000 years ago?  Passive, go along to get along, Christians are not what I believe Jesus is looking for.  All through the Bible the Israelites had to fight battle after battle.  God was with them but they still had to go out and fight the battle.  Christians are no different, at least according to the words of Jesus.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

January 6, 2014

Neal Boortz is right: “social conservatives” will cost the GOP more elections

republican logo

In a recent talk radio show, while filling in for Sean Hannity, conservative-libertarian Neal Boortz (the co-author of the FairTax) warned that Republicans will not recapture the Senate this year, because, says Boortz, they have an insatiable “urge to get into social conservatism”.

Boortz believes Republicans will once again prioritize social issues above all others, advocate radical no-compromise policies on those issues, and once again make stupid statements on these issues. He points to Georgia GOP Senate candidate Paul Broun as an example. (Broun’s most famous statement, other than his defense of Todd Akin, is his claim that evolution, embryonics, and Big Bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell.”)

Shortly after Boortz made that statement, an avalanche of insults, attacks, and false claims was launched against Boortz from every “conservative” corner of the Net. His critics, and they are legion, claim Boortz is an “establishment liberal Republican” and a “blowhard” just trying to attract attention. They furthermore deny that social issues and radical socially conservative politicians like Akin and Broun have hurt the GOP in the past.

But no amount of denial and false claims can change the fact that Boortz is absolutely right: radical policies on social issues, and politicians espousing such policies, have cost the GOP heavily in the past, and will cost it even more elections in the future.

Why? After all, didn’t social issues mobilize millions of voters in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s to the GOP’s standard? Weren’t American voters overwhelmingly socially conservative in those times?

Yes – but those were totally different times, decades ago. To advocate returning to policies of long bygone eras enacted (or advocated) in a totally different society is to lead the Party to disastrous defeats.

Today, Americans are a completely different society than they were 20-30 years ago. The GOP’s problem is that it hasn’t changed with them.

17  ago, a vast majority of Americans opposed gay marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act was passed with over 80 votes in the Senate and signed by President Clinton. Today, though, according to reliable pollsters like Gallup, a large majority of Americans approves of legalizing gay marriage and of DADT repeal. Banning gay marriage and gays from the military is a decidedly losing proposition supported only by a small minority.  Over time,  this small minority will shrink even further as older, more socially conservative voters die and are replaced by younger, socially libertarian voters.

As for contraception, support for its legality is – and has long been – so broad that most pollsters don’t even bother to ask the question.

On abortion, Americans are roughly equally divided, with the pendulum slightly swinging one way or the other from time to time. However, only a small majority supports banning abortion in all or most cases (per Gallup). So radical social conservatives’ position is again that of a tiny minority and a sure election loser.

The fact is that social issues are electoral losers for Republicans. The American people don’t want politicians to legislate morality anymore than they want them to legislate prosperity (neither of which can be really legislated, BTW – but that hasn’t stopped politicians from trying :) ).

The truth, therefore, is that – as Boortz says – Republicans will continue to lose elections by landslides if they continue to take radical positions on social issues. Or nominate radically socially conservative candidates like Paul Broun.

This truth has proven itself over and over again, even in “red states” like Missouri and Indiana where Republicans should win easily. All it took for GOP Senate candidates to lose there by landslides was a radical position on abortion and one stupid remark about rape. Not only did Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lose their races, they cost other Republicans (like Scott Brown) their races as well.

This is because the voters Republicans need to win over – siphon from the Democrats, to be precise – are suburbanites, most of whom are fiscally conservative but socially liberal (especially suburban women, and American women in general, who currently support Democrats by a large margin). Saying that abortion should be banned in all cases, that a raped woman should be forced by law to bear the child of her rapist, and that two loving people shouldn’t be allowed to marry based on sexual orientation, is an electoral loser with suburbanites, women, minorities, and youngsters.

Boortz’s critics claim this is just a call to make the GOP more liberal, more leftist, and more in line with the GOP Establishment.

On the contrary, if fiscal and defense, rather than social, issues were the conservative “litmus test”, the vast majority of the GOP’s Establishment and its past candidates (including Daddy Bush, Bob Dole, Dubya Bush, and Juan McCain) would’ve had no business being in the GOP, let alone being GOP presidential nominees. Nor would John Boehner have been Speaker.

It is social conservatives who have enabled these RINOs to hijack the party and the country. All these RINOs had to do to win social conservatives’ votes was to promise to work towards banning abortion and gay marriage, and social conservatives supported them, regardless of their lack of fiscal conservative credentials (to say it mildly). So-cons didn’t care that Daddy Bush denounced Reaganomics as “voodoo economics”, or that Dubya was a failed businessman. All they cared about were these RINOs’ useless promises on social issues. As long as the Bushes, McCain, Dole, and Boehner pledged to fight against abortion and gay marriage, social conservatives were willing to overlook everything else.

On social issues, the Bushes, McCain, and Boehner have solid records.

But if fiscal and defense, rather than social, issues were the conservative “litmus test”, those RINOs would’ve had no business being in the GOP. Ditto Eric Cantor, Rick Santorum, and Tax Hike Mike Huckabee.

Social conservatives protest that “social and fiscal issues are inextricably linked.” No, they are not.

In fact, trying to impose one’s preferred policies on social issues on the rest of the society is every bit as much a Big Government statist policy as trying to impose a health insurance mandate, a new tax, a soda ban, or a lightbulb ban. So-called “social conservatives” are every bit as much Big Government Statists as Michael Bloomberg, Bill de Blasio, and Nancy Pelosi. They only difference is what exactly their pet issues are. For “social conservatives”, it’s abortion, gay marriage, and contraceptives. For Bloomberg, de Blasio, and Pelosi, it’s lightbulbs, SUVs, soda, and fast food.

But these people are all the same: all of them want to take away YOUR right to do what you want with YOUR money, YOUR vehicle, YOUR stomach, YOUR body, and YOUR home.

As any real conservative will tell you, the ONLY legitimate purpose of any government is to protect our rights and our liberty against those who would take them away, whether that’s you, my neighbor, a religious group in my town, or the majority of the society at large. The only legitimate purpose of any government is to protect our rights and freedoms – and to let us live as we wish to, as long as we don’t threaten anyone else’s rights and freedoms.

Whenever a government goes beyond that purpose, it becomes Big Government – and a danger to people’s rights and freedoms, regardless of whether it tries to legislate morality or prosperity. (And Americans don’t want it to legislate either.)

Therein lies the problem with the two major parties: both want to take your freedoms away. The Democrats want to legislate the economy, while Republicans want to legislate morality. The Democrats want to dramatically limit what you can do with your money, while Republicans want to dramatically limit what you can do with your body. For the last four decades, both parties have tried to do that and look just how dramatically the size and scope of the federal government has expanded.

It is NONE of any government’s business to legislate whether you or I can use contraceptives, whom I can marry, and whether or not a raped woman can seek an abortion. It is NONE of any local, state, or government’s business – and NONE of YOUR damned business, social conservatives.

And just think about it: if abortion, gay marriage, and/or contraceptives were banned, that would require yet another government agency (or agencies), costing billions of dollars annually and employing tens of thousands of bureaucrats and agents, to enforce such bans. You think the IRS is bad and oppressive? Or that the NSA is? Just imagine what a National Abortion Police or a National Counter-Contraceptives Agency would do if social conservatives got their wish.

As for funding for abortion, the fiscally conservative answer is simple: end it.

Finally, social conservatives claim there is a “moral decay in America”, and that fiscal issues cannot be solved without tackling these problems.

To some extent this is true when you look at divorce, single motherhood, alcoholism, and drug usage rates. But instead of targeting these very real and very serious problems and formulating positive solutions to them, “social conservatives” have, in the last 4 decades, railed exclusively against abortion, gay marriage, contraceptives, and DADT, and still continue to obsess about them, even though they are all lost issues.

So few Americans support banning gay marriage and contraceptives, or reinstating DADT, that these issues are, politically, irrevocably lost. As for abortion, it is legally lost because no Supreme Court, especially not one led by John G. Roberts, will overturn Roe v. Wade. If “social conservatives”  couldn’t get Roe overturned in the last 4 decades, they never will.

In fact, abortion, gay marriage, contraceptives, and repealing DADT have not done any damage to America’s prosperity or well-being. Contraceptives have, in fact, helped stem the plague of STDs and unwanted pregnancies (they are highly effective at fighting both). Repealing DADT has saved taxpayers millions of dollars lost on discharging qualified, disciplined men who happened to be gay (and has not caused any turmoil in the military, contrary to grave predictions made in 2010).

Similarly, legalizing gay marriage has not done any harm to anyone. It has only increased people’s freedom by letting them marry whatever person they love. (A few decades ago, when bans on interracial marriage were being repealed, Southern “social conservatives” were saying exactly the same thing they clam today: that repealing the bans would threaten “the integrity of the institution of marriage.”)

If “social conservatives” were really concerned about America’s societal ills, like divorce and single motherhood, they’d be tackling them. But they don’t want to challenge the powerful divorce attorney lobby; instead, they prefer irrelevant issues like “gay marriage” and “contraceptives.”

Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone’s marriage, or to the integrity of the institution, in any way. Divorce – particularly no-fault divorce, now legal in all 50 states, is.

(BTW, know who was the first state Governor to sign legislation legalizing no-fault divorce in his state? Ronald Reagan.)

So Neal Boortz is absolutely right, and so.-called “social conservatives” (I prefer to call them social Big Government Nannies) are dead wrong. “Social issues” like abortion and gay marriage are sure election losers; they alienate suburbanites, youngsters, women, and minorities from the GOP; and advocating bans and legislating morality on these issues is every bit as much a Big Government Policy as banning sodas or SUVs is.

Duck Dynasty Doesn’t Duck & Cover

You watch duck dynastyThese redneck duck assassins may have the number one reality show on cable TV, but the Robertson family has proven to be completely ignorant of what elite cultural arbiters demand of backwoods celebrities when they violate trendy cultural taboos.

Instead of abjectly apologizing and disowning the Bible and his beliefs when criticized by the militant homosexual lobby, Phil Robertson is unapologetic, unbowed and unafraid, which is not following the approved script.

For example: When Chick–fil–A President Dan Cathy commented, “We are very much supportive of the family – the Biblical definition of the family unit…and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,” a firestorm ensued as hysterical homosexuals cried “hate.”

Chick–fil–A customers then set a single–day sales record for the restaurant to show their support, but it made no impression on Cathy as he immediately went into bunker mode and canceled all remaining public appearances for the year. (Details here and here.)

A few months later the Rev. Louie Giglio was invited to give the benediction at Obama’s second inauguration. Obama supporters were suspicious since he was an evangelical Christian, heterosexual and male. Any one of which would be cause for concern, but all three set off alarm bells throughout the secular left.

Sure enough, lavender lobby researchers found a sermon from the mid–90’s where Giglio said, “We must lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda of not all, but many in the homosexual community…That movement is not a benevolent movement, it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to the family.”

Giglio’s statement was prophetic, orthodox and true. But truth does not grant immunity against attacks from the left. Courage — as Robertson proved — is a defense but evidently not one available to Giglio. Instead the reverend apologized and withdrew from the event saying, “Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past 15 years. Instead, my aim is meant to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.” Whatever that’s supposed to mean. (Complete details here.)

By not following the docile, slightly–ashamed–of–his–outdated–views template, Robertson has broken the mold. He is not apologizing for repeating what the Apostle Paul writes in the New Testament.

Before we delve any deeper, I would like to point out the blow–up should never have happened. One of my specialties is crisis prevention — an option A&E evidently doesn’t offer its stars.

Phil Robertson had no business giving an in–depth interview to GQ magazine and the A&E network representative who was present should have known better. The superficial metrosexuals that comprise GQ’s subscriber base couldn’t distinguish a duck call from a whoopee cushion.

The only hunting they do is in fashion stores. What’s more, reporters for GQ and its ilk define mainstream media arrogance and cultural elitism. They hold the people who love Duck Dynasty in utter contempt.

The only conceivable method of getting GQ readers to watch the show would be if the cast of Downton Abby joined for an episode or the Robertsons pledged to go vegan. So why give a potentially dangerous interview to a publication that will do little if anything to increase the show’s ratings?

It makes more sense to limit interviews to reporters who can prove they have a Walmart credit card.

I’m not on the PR roster for Duck Commander, but here is a free list of publications to avoid in the future: Maxim, Playboy, Details, Out, The Advocate, Pink Magazine, Harpers, Cosmo and the GLEE employee newsletter. Rule of thumb: If the magazine has ads for Glad Wrap you’re probably safe, but if the ads are for GLAAD say no.

Another problem with the interview is that Phil is evidently a graduate of the Rep. Todd Akin Academy of Anatomical Description. His language was crude and overly explicit and I doubt he would use the same terms discussing the issue at his family’s dinner table, so why regale a nationwide audience with the same language?

Once the rectum was out of the bag, A&E had to weigh in with its 2 cents. The obvious move would have been to express dismay with Phil’s language — an amorphous term that could mean either particular words or particular sentiments — and explain that Duck Dynasty is a ‘reality show’ and although what Phil said does not express the A&E corporate position, they will not censor his views.

That way the network pours KY on troubled waters, keeps the most popular reality show in history on the air and none of the A&E staff members have to remove those quaint blue and yellow equal signs from their Prius’ bumpers.

But A&E corporate misjudged the Robertson family. The meek may inherit the earth, but they don’t build dynasties. Not only did Phil not apologize, backtrack or ask to be grand marshal of the next ‘pride parade’ on the calendar, the rest of the family said no Phil, no film.

Which is a fine kettle of fish indeed, but so far the damage was confined to A&E. Then the great minds at Cracker Barrel corporate decided they wanted to alienate their customer base, too. The chain of hillbilly restaurants announced it was removing “selected products which we were concerned might offend some of our guests” from all company gift shops. In effect any item with Phil’s photo on it was seized.

This is the commercial equivalent of volunteering to be collateral damage in a drone strike.

But what prompted the pile on? Was the San Francisco Cracker Barrel the subject of repeated attacks by cupcake–hurling alternate lifestyle advocates? Or maybe the Times Square Cracker Barrel feared a sit–in by demonstrators chanting, “Nobody Wants to Ate Your Hate!”

But that can’t be it. Cracker Barrel doesn’t have a single location in California or in New York City. The vast majority of Cracker Barrels are located south of the Mason Dixon line, a section of the country where Duck Dynasty is most popular. So Cracker corporate decided to offend the majority of its customers to keep from offending the odd homosexual who might wander into a restaurant while on his way to Key West.

The next day Cracker corp. apologized for being caught offending while trying not to offend. Then over the weekend A&E crumbled and grabbed the nearest available fig leaf. It reinstated Phil Robertson after issuing a classic in corporate pander–speak that implied the family’s acknowledgement of the coarse language used meant they were in complete agreement with the spineless appeasers at the network.

The novel outcome of the controversy provided an interesting contrast. When presented with a choice between God and mammon, the Robertsons opted for God. A&E on the other hand chose mammon over GLAAD.

The best part is during a time when Christians celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace a family of orthodox believers took on a secular culture that celebrates sin and won, because the family was strong and united. Lets hope other high profile Christians take note.

When will GLAAD Criticize Islam like They Do Phil Robertson?

Phil Robertson

Why is it that the Democrat Party, Republican Party, the media, homosexual groups like GLAAD, pro-abortion groups, and all other liberals who spout vile things about the TEA Party and Christians never have one word of criticism about Islam?????   Phil RobertsonA Christian can’t decline to bake a cake without national outrage but homosexuals being hanged for “aberrant sexual behavior” in Moslem nations bring no response.   If I called a homosexual any “defamatory name or term” such as “teabagger” I would immediately be inundated with the harshest of criticism but Moslems glue a man’s private parts closed and fill him with food and water until he is about to explode then hangs this same person and not a word is heard from the left wing homosexual crowd.

Phil Robertson expresses his views that homosexuality is a sin, and according to the Holy Bible they won’t go to heaven, but that he bears them no malice if that is how they wish to live their lives.  He is immediately pounced on by the twerps at GLAAD and every other Christian hating group under the sun.  Robertson is “suspended indefinitely” for his transgression.  I hear Moslems regularly calling for the murder of homosexuals, and actually see pictures of homosexuals who have been hanged or beheaded for homosexual activities.  I’m sorry GLAAD; I don’t recall your outrage at the “intolerance” of Moslems!!  I don’t recall a national outrage at this or the barbaric murder of Christians by Moslems in foreign nations.  Cat got your tongue?????  Where is the homosexual lobby outrage over Alec Baldwin and his continued verbal abuse of “faggot” reporters?????  Continuous homosexual slurs from Baldwin and not a peep out of those so outraged by Robertson’s innocuous comment.

Moslems hate America for its acceptance of pornography yet I never hear any liberals call them closed minded bigots.  Christians and Moslems both disapprove of the immodest way American women often dress yet it is the Christians who are taken to task and called names by liberals.  Why don’t these same liberals call Moslems closed minded prudish bigots for demanding women wear a burkha?????  Nudity and sex in movies and on television are just as unacceptable to Moslems as Christians, yet Moslems are not called “intolerant”.  I guess the difference is that Christians allow othershanging homosexuals4 to live their lives as they see fit. Moslems kill those same people.  Who is it that is intolerant again????? Maybe GLAAD should change their organization name to COWARDS!!!!!

And what about the “war on women”, allegedly being waged by conservatives??  Moslems either hang or stone a woman to death for adultery or the heinous crime of being raped.  Often it is a case of gang rape and when they are done, these savages murder the woman for “allowing herself to be defiled”.  And what about the genital mutilation of girls as young as six years old, or old men “marrying” an 8 year old and sexually abusing her to the point of her death?  When is the National Organization for Women going to denounce these practices????? Oh, sorry, they are busy denigrating Sarah Palin who is also being denigrated by the Democrat Party, and of course, the politically correct Republican establishment crowd.

Now we have NAMBLA (National Man Boy Love Association) claiming that pedophilia is just as much a valid sexual persuasion as homosexuality.  Christians who call this activity child sexual abuse are smeared once again as closed minded bigots determined to deny the civil rights of others.  Of course, on this one the Moslems are right there with NAMBLA.  Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death unless the self-righteous Moslems are the ones defiling the young boys in the name of “allah”, at which time homosexual activity is quite acceptable.

So, GLAAD, whIran hangs homosexuals3y do you call a national boycott and file lawsuits over a man declining to bake a cake or take a picture based on his personal religious beliefs yet say nothing about people actually murdering homosexuals?  Why do you demand Phil Robertson be destroyed for expressing his opinion yet say nothing when Ahab the Arab hangs your kind for homosexual activity?  Take your dancing debauchery of “gay rights” parades to say, Tehran or Mecca.  See if they call you names or hang you!!!!!  Selective tolerance once again?????  Cowardice maybe?????  As far as I see you are tolerated a great deal by all of us “bigots”.  TEA Party Christians aren’t your enemies, Moslems are your enemies.  You are fighting the wrong people.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

December 26, 2013

« Older Entries Recent Entries »