Category Archives: War on Women

Christian Persecution Took Down Rome

Lessons learned from perseverance, Constantine & Constantinople

The goodness of Christian teachings attracted people to the new faith, prolonging their lives through better healthcare and by sustaining their procreation. The Roman state took a hit for being barbaric persecutors, serving only to attract attention to the appeal of Christianity.

We learn from history. It’s the one thiRoman_Empire_with_dioceses_in_300_ADng that doesn’t change. If little else can be agreed, most will agree that Jesus Christ was – and still is – a controversial historical figure. Persecuting Christians was the rule of the day. This is drawn from the most convincing evidence of a variety of sources (see “More Reading” below). Click map to enlarge for the Roman Empire in circa 300 A.D.

Background Recap

Christianity, the Roman Empire & Israel’s Place in It – Christianity began in Judae (Israel) with the birth of Jesus Christ in 1 A.D. and it spread through the eastern Middle East. Jesus was a Jew who taught God’s new covenant (New Testament). He was crucified by the Romans about 30 A.D. because His teachings and popularity posed a threat to the Roman state.

Roman religion was a variation of Greek mythology with gods residing over every undertaking. When Christianity hit the scene it was scattered and underestimated as an insignificant sect of the Jews. Christians believe Jesus Christ fulfilled the Jewish Torah’s (Old Testament) predictions of their promised Messiah (Savior). Constantine’s monumental influence on Christianity resulted in the first Christian church, the Roman Catholic Church.

I take exception to some representation made by this video but it’s a good foundation for how unlikely Christianity was to survive; and how Christianity overcame those odds. Constantine enters at minute 38:00. This depicts the development of Christianity, how Christians were socially misunderstood and how the faith flourished regardless of political persecutions under many Roman emperors leading up to Constantine.

Courtesy of XIxItalianoxIX on YouTube

Christianity Flourished Underground

Many Jews converted to Christianity. It was a faith open to all people regardless of religious beliefs or bloodline. Its teachings not only attracted people of various statures in life, it prolonged life through better healthcare and it sustained Christians’ procreation (summarized about minute 25:00).

Christianity flourished despite if not because of intense Roman oppression and horrific persecutions. Women played a particularly important role in protecting the survival of Christianity (about minute 21:00). Ironically the very nature of Roman persecutions intended to stifle Christianity brought more believers to it (minutes 17:28 and 25:00).

During the brief 50-years between 250-300 A.D. Christianity grew from about 1-million Christians in a population of 60-million to about 6-million Christians in roughly the same count 50-years later. Christians had become a power that could threaten the Roman state.

doicletianIn 303 A.D. Roman Emperor Diocletian made a last effort to strike back at Christians and return Rome to its days of mythical gods and traditional religion. He demanded Christians adhere to the Roman tradition of sacrifice made to mythological gods. Roman sacrifices could be of incense, liquids, plants, or animals. It was a complex ritual performed in the presence of the community in front of the temple or in a private place in the house close to an alter.

Diocletian ordered all Christian writings and places of worship destroyed (minute 35:20). Christians lost their rights, they were imprisoned and many were tortured for not adhering to Roman laws. Being eaten by lions in the Coliseum or burning and crucifixion were common methods of death. Many Christians were imprisoned.

Some Christians gave in to the intimidation but it’s estimated about 5,000 died rather than betray their faith. Witnessing Christians’ willingness to die for their faith demonstrated impressive dedication. The Roman state took a hit for being barbaric persecutors of the devout, serving only to draw sympathy and attract attention to the appeal of Christianity.

Constantine The Great

I began this study with initial impressions of Constantine as a cruel Roman emperor. In further research I came to see him as a devout believer and benevolent servant of the Christian faith. Perhaps his conversion to Christianity changed him; perhaps initial impressions were tied to the era’s horrific persecutions of Christians or the bloody nature of Roman conquerers. The fact remains, some historical accounts are not kind to Constantine. I came to admire his devotion to Christianity.

constantine3Flavius Valerius Constantinus (Constantine) was born 280 A.D. He ruled from 324-337 after sharing a stint with Lucinius from 306-324. The Roman Empire’s successes had always hinged on their military might and knack for conquest. Their leaders’ names were made by winning wars.

Constantine’s father, Constantinus, was from an important Roman family. His mother was the daughter of a tavern-inn owner. When the Roman Empire was split into four parts in 293 A.D. Diocletian made Constantine’s father the emperor of Gaul and Britain. Constantine married Fausta, the daughter of Maximian who was another trusted officer and friend of Diocletian.

In 305 A.D. Diocletian stepped down and Constantine, despite being senior in rank, found himself a virtual prisoner of Galerius who’d served Diocletian well during his reign of Christian persecution. In 306 an overly confident Galerius let Constantine return to his father on a campaign to Britain. When his father died that same year the troops hailed Constantine as the new Augustus of Rome.

Galerius refused to accept Constantine’s new status but he faced strong support for Constantine as the son of Constantinus and because his wife’s father was the influential Maximian who’d returned to power in Rome. Galerius was forced to acknowledge Constantine as the new Augustus. While still residing in Constantine’s court Maximian turned against him in favor of his own son, Maxentius.

Constantine coinSome accounts describe Constantine as an autocratic ruler, a tyrant of absolute power who spent an abundance of money on military campaigns and who surrounded himself with pompous splendor. It was suggested that Constantine murdered his father-in-law (as well as his wife and son). Other accounts say his father-in-law, Maximian, committed suicide when Constantine revolted against him with no mentions of his wife and son.

At a conference of all ceasers and Augusti in 308 A.D. they demanded Constantine relinquish his title but he refused. About 310 A.D. Constantine decided to take Rome. He led a small army to the Alps for an important battle outside of Rome on the Tiber River, against his rival Maxentius, emperor of Rome from 278-312.

Eusebius of CaesareaAccording to Roman historian Eusebius (263-339 A.D.), Constantine had a vision while staring up at the sky the day before his Tiber River battle. He reportedly saw a flaming cross above the sun with the words “In hoc signo vinces” (“in this sign you will conquer“). The video depicts this at about minute 38:55.

Constantine gave credit for his Alps’ military success to the Christian faith and is saidarch1 to have entered Rome with Maxentius’s head on a pike. About 315 A.D. just outside the Roman Coliseum where hundreds of Christians lost their lives Constantine erected the triumphal “Arch of Constantine” and took control of the western half of the Roman Empire (about video minute 38:35).

arch inscriptionConstantine inscribed his Arch with the third line of it reading “instinctu divinitatis,” meaning “to the inspiration of a divinity.” Christians were sure which ‘divinity’ Constantine meant and that led to free confidence in spreading their faith. Constantine’s embracement of Christianity had begun its launch into the official religion of the Roman Empire. [Click images to enlarge.]

Christianity under Constantine peaked with sweeping changes pulsating throughout the Roman Empire. He gave tax exemptions to Christian clergy and major amounts of land and money were given to the church. Christianity gained both physical and financial power. Under Constantine’s rule the church also became more efficient and 1st RomanCathChurch, Constantinecentralized and his organizational skills ensured doctrinal decisions were reconciled.

Constantine’s bishops organized the new covenant texts and he relied on historians of the day to advise him which books were appropriate to become a part of the testaments and which were set aside. He is also given credit for distributing the first 50-copies of the New Testament. Universal enforcement of church decisions began with Constantine when he gave powers to and for the first time officially recognized Rome’s bishop.

[Abbreviated Rendering]: In 331 C.E. the Roman Emperor Constantine sent a letter, the text of which has survived, to Bishop Eusebius asking him to arrange for the production of fifty 1st Greek NTbibles. Books were to be skillfully executed copies of “the divine scriptures.” Eusebius was an advisor and confidant of the Emperor, widely regarded as the principal architect of the political philosophy of Constantine’s reconstituted empire. He knew Constantine was concerned about the unity of the church and the unity of the state. The inclusiveness of Athanasius‘* list has the look of political accommodation, resolving disagreement about the canonical status of Hebrews and Revelation by including both. Their publication was palpable evidence of the unity of the church and hence the unity of the empire. (*Athanasius was a theologian, ecclesiastical statesman & Egyptian leader.)

Constantine is described as becoming Pope-like and calling the first general ecumenical (worldwide) council in 325 A.D. to settle questions of church doctrine. The most important decision attributed to them is claimed the adoption of Nicene creed: The assertion that denial of Christ’s divinity was heresy and is said to have become the basis of all church doctrine from that time forward. Anyone who departed from the creed was branded a heretic. Commonly accepted events of this Council are held as misconceptions by some:

[Abbreviated Rendering] Constantine did not define the canon of the New Testament at the first Council of Nicaea in 325AD – in fact, the Council did not make mention of the Biblical canon. It was already defined by common use by the early 2nd century in the form in which it is still found in Catholic Bibles. Another little known fact is the Emperor Constantine had no voting power at the council – he was there merely as an observer. The full texts of the 20 Canons issued by the Council survive, as well as ancient summaries of the texts, and the famous Nicene Creed.

StPeter 1stApostleChristians widely accept Apostle Peter as the first leader of the Roman Catholic Christian Church, which is traced back to the Gospel of Matthew:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:  and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16: 18-19)

Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea; and Augustine, a bishop and theologian, are said to have preserved successors of the Rome bishop:

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD

“After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.”

Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD

“For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.”

The ‘City of Constantine,’ Constantinople

By 323 A.D. Constantine had unified the Roman Empire and brought it under his control by defeating his eastern co-emperor and rival, Licinius. The once imperial capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was Byzantium, named after its legendary King Byzas with settlers going back to the Greek city-state of Megara around 667 B.C.

About 330 A.D. Constantine changed the name of Byzantium to “Constantinople,” meaning “City of Constantine.” Today the city is called Istanbul, a name it has maintained since its change in 1923.

Istanbul Turkey[Abbreviated Rendering: Click to enlarge image.] “Stanbulin,” (Greek for “to the city”) once commonly found on road signs to the capital, was punned by devout Turks into Islambol, where “Islam abounds.” The names Islambol and Konstantiniye were used interchangeably in Ottoman documents up until the empire’s demise in 1923. Westerners continued to refer to the city as Constantinople well into the 20th century. In the 19th century, however, the city’s large foreign expatriate community took to calling the old city Stamboul. Western accounts of the old city during this period make regular references to the name.

CityNameChange_ConstantonopleAccording to a popular story for many years, the Byzantines did not refer to the city by its actual name, but, because of it size, simply as ‘Polis’ (the City), and when they wanted to say ‘to the City’, they said ‘eist enpolin’ (is-tin-polin), which was the (possible) origin of the name ‘Istanbul’. Recent research has shown that the name ‘Istanbul’ was used if not during the Byzantine period, at least during the 11th century and that the Turks knew the city by this name.

About the same time that Constantine changed the city’s name German tribes began invading across Europe. Europe plunged into the “Dark Ages” causing economic and political turmoil. Language barriers of the less expressive, dying Latin language and the more creative, predominant Greek led to the West’s eventual religious estrangement from the East. By the 11th century this resulted in “The Great Schism,” a separation between Constantine’s Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orhtodox.

Constantine died in 337 A.D. and realizing he was on his deathbed he asked to be baptized. After Constantine died the Roman Empire was divided up among his sons and Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.

Paganism was banned at the end of 4th century and restrictions were placed on Judaism. The power and the wealth of the church grew quickly with the help of faithful Christians who donated their land and other possessions. By the beginning of the 6th century Christianity had 34 million followers and they made up half of the Roman Empire.

First Article in this Series: Christianity, the Roman Empire & Israel’s Place in It

More Reading: YouTube, Map of Roman Empire, God’s Word First, Constantine The Great, Facts And Details,, Rome Tour Guide, Arch of Constantine, Encyclopedia, Britannica I, Encyclppedia Britannina II, Catholic Apologetics,, Got,, Sephardic Studies/Instanbul, Westar Institute, Misconceptions of the Bible, The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea

Why Miss California’s Seemingly Ignorant “Euthanasia, That’s a Vaccine Right?” Is Technically Correct

 miss cal



Many Americans who watch the Miss America Pageant no doubt wonder if intelligence is still a qualification for young women entering beauty pageants. It appears as long as beauty queens are left-winged and give the desired politically correct answers leftist judges demand, beauty overcomes inglorious stupidity.

I’m speaking of the the latest Miss America Pageant and the beautiful Miss California, who wowed judges with her anti-gun political correctness, but made the “Idiots Hall of Fame” headline’s with her answer to euthanasia: “That’s a vaccine, right?”

My first thought was: “If Euthanasia is a vaccine, strangulation is the best Asthma medication!”

At first I thought Miss California’s brain was perhaps crushed by years of over-weight pageants crowns, until I realized Miss California’s seemingly ignorant answer is 100% correct.

No, I’m not giving stupidity the thumbs up; I’m looking within Miss California’s answer. The young woman has no idea she stated an historical fact: Vaccines do kill diseases, but euthanasia is not about eliminating AIDS or the Flu, it’s about extermination, and you can’t find a better vaccine to kill off mankind than euthanasia.

Obviously Miss California was not joking when she responded. She truly has no idea what euthanasia or eugenics projects are, and for that, the young woman needs to read books containing words and study what she is reading. But despite proving herself ill-educated, Miss California’s brainless comment is historically true.

For instance: Leftist feminist’s ideology demands abortion as the best way to keep a woman’s life free of the hindrance of that nasty pre-existing condition called motherhood. Since pregnancy is viewed by FemiNazis as a disease worse than Cancer and AIDS, as well as the destruction of women’s sex lives, the answer to eliminating the pre-existing condition of motherhood is abortion—euthanasia.

In view of the fact abortion takes the life of unborn children, it technically is euthanasia.

Abortion is the vaccine of all vaccines against unwanted pregnancies for pre-existing conditioned women.

Of course no one in the pageant will ever utter such words. To do so might demoralize women expected to have such high morals, they make Catholic nuns look like street walkers.

History, however, proves Miss California’s uneducated answer true: Euthanasia has vaccinated millions of unwanted human beings from existence.

In author Edwin Black’s book War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race he discusses how early 19th century, British statistician Francis Galton believed forced sterilization on women considered inferior would prevent a so-called degenerate race, while superior women produced children.

American Charles Davenport, who helped launch radical feminism’s push for abortion with eugenics, believed abortion and sterilization was the answer to creating a perfect society by:

plot[ing] a bold campaign of ‘purging the blood of the American people of the handicapping and deteriorating influences of these anti-social classes,’ meaning the socially unfit, such as epileptics, the feebleminded, the deformed, the deaf, mute and blind.




Davenport’s horrific methods sterilized 50,000 Americans.

Sadly, Miss California would be on the list of “feebleminded, but would be allowed to live, because her looks could produce superior-looking, tall blonde children. And isn’t that of utmost importance!

President Theodore Roosevelt agreed with Davenport’s sterilization and euthanizing of unborn children:

Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce.


The Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation funded the euthanasia projects in America. By 1904, those seen as unfit to breed children were sterilized or forced into abortions. They were: Native Americans, epileptics, alcoholics, Jews, Mexicans, Blacks, small-time crooks, the mentally ill, the unemployed and homeless. In fact David Rockefeller stated this of China’s Mao

The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.


Look at China today: The One Child Only Policy. Girl children must be aborted or killed after birth to create a male-dominated society.

Rockefeller was so intent on sterilization and abortion for a perfect race; he funded Hitler’s eugenics scientists in order to create the master race.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld Virginia’s decision to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck, because:

Three generations of imbeciles are enough” in this country.


Justice Holmes may have been on to something: Three generations of Kennedys did actually breed  “alcoholics,” “imbecile” sleep drivers, and “degenerate” womanizers!

President Woodrow Wilson approved of sterilization and abortion against anyone considered unfit, and

created a board of examiners of feeble-minded, epileptics and other defectives. Under it, the state could determine, ‘when procreation is inadvisable like for criminals, prisoners, poor kids and the ill-defined, other defectives.’


Wilson didn’t realize it, but he classified the whole of Washington leadership in both parties!

Margaret Sanger, who saidThe most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” set up the Negro Project to sterilize black mothers and “exterminate” unborn black children.

margaret sanger


Hitler was so taken with America’s euthanasia plan; he used abortion and sterilization to euthanize the unborn children of Jewish women and mentally disabled women. This was Hitler’s way of vaccinating unfit women’s bodies in order to produce a pure Aryan race.


eugenics holocaust

400,000 Germans were sterilized against their will, while 800,000 abortions were performed yearly. Germany literally began losing its population due to euthanasia. The result was the Lebensborn Born Project: impregnate as many German women by SS soldiers to create the master race. Many of those children were killed because they didn’t look Nordic.

Miss California has no idea just how point on her ill-educated answer is. It’s too bad the young woman doesn’t have a clue as to what euthanasia is and what it has done to the world, as well as her own country, or she could have answered by saying: “Euthanasia? You can’t find a better vaccine against humanity and breeding what progressives consider unfit-to-live people than sterilization and abortion.”

Oval Office Hypocrisy

WH_ovaloffice_122912 menWH photoLast month the White House released the photo on the left showing various staff interacting with the president. This week they released a new photo from the Oval Office and the picture at left is hard to find on the White House website.

What’s the difference?

No skirts on the left. . . It’s as simple as that.

During the election campaign Obama and Biden took great effort to mock Romney’s comment of having binder’s filled with qualified women job applicants. But apparently mocking was all it was. As the new administration takes place there has been a noticeable lack of women and minorities nominated. As Charles Krauthammer says, “Obama’s binder of women was very thin.”

How can this be acceptable to minorities and women who backed Obama? Does it say that the administration can only find white men who are qualified for these inner circle positions?

Watch the FNC Special Report video below for more discussion:


The UK’s Daily Mail Blames Guns for United States Low Life Expectancy, Not 54 Million and Counting Abortions

Ban Guns1 pound baby



Leave it to the socialist/collectivist/statist, low-life expectancy, gun-banned UK to blame the United State’s low life expectancy on American gun-ownership and not the fact America has aborted over 54 million children, who, if allowed to live, would be populating this nation’s future.

Never blame abortion for population decline; you might wage war on selfish women’s sexual life-styles, which includes sex, getting pregnant, and aborting that infringement on women’s non-existent constitutional privacy rights.

Infringe the Second Amendment; its guns are decreasing the population!

According to England’s Daily Mail:

The lax gun rules are a major contributor to the low life expectancy rate that Americans have compared to their global counterparts. A new report reveals that of the 17 wealthiest countries, American males have the lowest life expectancy of 75.6 years and their female counterparts are the second lowest in the rankings coming in at 80.7 years.


Those mortality numbers are not caused by guns, thousands die each year in America from Influenza.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says 71,382 Americans died from the flu in 2007. That year, 23,199 Americans died from alcohol related deaths, and by 2011, the CDC says the leading causes of death in America continue to be “heart disease, cancer, and stroke.”

The CDC further says:

[I]n 2006, Last up to date numbers [for gun deaths], 30,896 total, of which, 642 accidental, 16,883 were Suicide, 12,791 were Homicide, 220 were Undetermined and 360 by Legal intervention. Remember that in the same year, 43,664 [people] were killed in Motor vehicle accidents, 37,286 died from poisoning, 20,823 died from unintention falls. In 2005 CDC reported 652,091 people died from heart disease, 559,312 from cancer and 143,579 from stroke.


The University of Utah points out that  “In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms.” The causes of these guns deaths were the combination of “Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.”

Guns did not make the CDC’s 15 leading causes of death in America for 2011.

Never mind facts, leftists are determined to blame America’s population decline on guns, not leading causes such as disease, or heaven forbid, something far more significant annihilating human life daily: Abortion.

The truth is leftists don’t give a flying fart in space when it comes to unborn children. The left only cares about children born and old enough to enter classrooms where they can be indoctrinated into believing government control of every aspect of citizen’s lives improves health.  Guns, however, are evil, but not pedophilia against children’s little bodies, which is just another sexual orientated life-style choice.

Gun deaths compared to mothers who willingly allow doctors to vacuum their unborn children from the womb and toss babies in trash cans is low.

According to the National Right to Life, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Guttmacher Institute (GI):

Using GI figures through 2008, estimating 1,212,400 abortions for 2009 through 2011, and factoring in the possible 3% undercount GI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 54,559,615.


Abortion in black communities is far higher than gun deaths in American black communities.


black baby in gun crosshairs


According to GI:

[B]lack women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.  On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.


 Black says:

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions.


The number is calculated at 36 million black American women, whom BG says:

[R]epresents an enormous loss,” [because had] America’s Black community [not aborted 16 million children, there] would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member.


Alan Guttmacher says:

black women are more than four times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely.


“In the US, every day during 2007, about 266 Americans were shot. Every day, a third of them (82 daily) died.” That overall number is extremely low compared to abortion.

Notice the left refuses to declare abortion what it truly is: Race murder.

For the left, murder is only murder when guns are involved. Gun deaths are treated as the most threatening thing to life in America. Abortion simply keeps the planet’s population (which the left is only concerned about when guns are involved) low.

The United States does not have 1,876  gun murders daily in America’s black communities;  murder-by-abortion doctors is helping decrease America’s population, most specifically black Americans.

Your “Babies Mama’s” don’t need guns to decrease population; Margaret Sanger’s vile plan to decrease America’s black population is succeeding.

The Daily Mail skimmed facts while blaming guns for U.S. population decline: “The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents and none of the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that ratio.” But:

The researchers said there is little evidence that violent acts occur more frequently in the United States than elsewhere. It’s the lethality of those attacks that stands out…‘One behavior that probably explains the excess lethality of violence and unintentional injuries in the United States is the widespread possession of firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home. The statistics are dramatic,’ the report said.


Daily Mail admits:

The U.S. also suffers higher rates of drug-related deaths, infant mortality and AIDS…The nation’s health disadvantages have economic consequences as they lead to higher costs for consumers and taxpayers as well as a workforce that remains less healthy than that of other high-income countries.


Notice the quick mention of disease that shifted to blaming America’s economy  for disease deaths.  That’s the subtle statist insinuation that if America had free, socialized [tax-funded] medicine, we would not have people dying from diseases. Just like Europeans, who die from diseases, because socialism forbids full healthcare until your Cancer reaches stage 4, or you have a fatal gun-shot to the head.

The Mail won’t admit guns are not the problem, guns are not decreasing population, and aside from disease and seasonal viruses; abortion is the epidemic decreasing the United State’s population rate by the thousands each day.

No, abortion was never mentioned in the Mail, nor will abortion be mentioned by Stalin-sympathizing, Gulag thug leftists who believe children are not worth crying over unless they are born, and then shot to death, by psychotic murderers.

The truth is, when guns are used to do what abortion doctors do by the thousands each day—kill, then  leftists consider killing children murder.

Failure of the Matriarch

For generations Americans have blamed guns, laws, schools, circumstances and even traffic laws for the state of their nation – none are more responsible than those most able to turn the tide:  the matriarchs.

Many have blamed psychos, gun laws, schools, local restrictions, etc… but in reality, the failure of the traditional family is the issue.

Having a strong figure at the center of  any family prevents unethical behavior much better than any dumb-ass Senator or Representative ever could, but don’t tell them that.

Congress is useless simply because they never contemplate the future of their families – not just their direct offspring, but their entire familial legacy.

All mothers worry about their children and husband – that’s close. Only real matriarch’s worry about the continuous line that represents all of her familial lines. Most matriarchs deal with 3-7 different family lines and work out how to bring them together into a singular group. They deal with the responsibility of multiple families and they welcome the challenge.

Almost no human can make that happen – save the matriarch. Women everywhere have to ask – am I that strong? Am I that woman the media makes me to  be? Or am I – the leader of my family?

To prevent evil, one has to lead a family away from it. Legislating purity is no more sane than expecting the church to insure it. Believer or not, Atheist or other – only a human connection can prevent human tragedies. The human connection is the matriarch.

Who leads your family?


Why Republicans must change to survive (let alone to win again)

The GOP is in disastrous shape now, even a worse shape than in 1964 or 1974. As of today, it has lost 4 of the last 6 presidential elections by large EC vote margins and has lost the popular vote 5 out of 6 times. The most recent GOP President, George W. Bush, won reelection by the smallest margin of any reelected President in US history, 286-252. Eighteen states that collectively have about 240 EC votes have voted Democratic in each of the last 6 presidential elections, from 1992 to 2012. Three of the nation’s seven mega-states – California, Illinois, and New York – are safely Democratic. Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in each of the last 6 presidential elections; it has not voted Republican since 1988. Ohio and Florida are swing states, and Republicans have not won either of them since 2004.

Only Texas remains secure – for now. But whites are already a minority in Texas. When the Lone Star State is lost, America will be irrevocably lost.

By contrast, the GOP was not in such dire straits in 1964 or 1976.

In 1964, it did suffer a worse defeat, but that one was entirely avoidable if Republicans had not nominated Barry Goldwater. And it had won three of the previous 4 presidential elections, including the 1960 election, which JFK “won” solely due to vote fraud in Cook County and Texas.

In 1974, the GOP was defeated in the Congressional midterms, but its 1976 presidential election loss was by a slight margin. Had a few states where the election was decided by less than 1% of the vote had voted Republican, Jimmy Carter would’ve lost it. And even though he won, he could muster only 51% of the vote in an environment marked by Watergate, defeat in Vietnam, inflation, and a stagnant economy. And the GOP had won 4 of the previous six presidential elections (or 5 if you count that of 1960), all of them except the 1968 election won by a landslide. Indeed, just 4 years before, the GOP had won the presidential election by one of the largest blowouts in American history. Furthermore, in both cases, the electorate was predominantly white.

This year, Republicans badly lost what should’ve been a winnable election. Barack Obama won 7 of the 9 swing states he had won in 2008 (all but North Carolina and Indiana) and won the EC vote 332-206. Republicans won no Senate seats on net, and actually lost two, thanks in part to nominating extremist candidates like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock who beat far more electable Republicans (John Brunner, Sarah Steelman, and Richard Lugar) only to go on to lose the general election by a landslide. The GOP has also lost seats in the House and now retains only a slim minority.

And looking ahead, the Party’s prospects for Senate seat pickups are dim. Only the seats currently held by Jeff Merkley, Jay Rockefeller, and Mark Begich are realistically winnable as of today – and only if Republicans nominate electable candidates (Greg Walden, Shelley Capito, and Mead Treadwell, respectively).

Why have Republicans lost this election so disastrously, and how can the GOP win future elections?

There is no single answer to the first question, because many factors colluded to give Obama a victory: a friendly media, a better GOTV machine, a largely uninformed electorate (a large portion of which is dependent on the government and has an incentive to vote for Big Government politicians), and more.

But the biggest factor was demographics. And demographics is destiny.

Today, whites constitute only 72% of the electorate and 65% of the population. Blacks constitute 13% of the electorate; Latinos, 10%; Asians, 2-3%. In some states, such as California, Texas and New Mexico, whites are already the minority.

Obama got the majority of his votes from minorities, and won these minority groups by huge margins: 90% of the black vote, 71% of the Latino vote, and over 70% of the Asian vote. The GOP received 90% of its votes from whites – a shrinking majority that is on course for minority status by 2050.

It has been said that “Europe will be Islamic by the middle of the century.” The US will be Hispanic by that time.

Obama also received the majority of the female vote and a large majority of the youth’s vote. Old Republicans are dying out and being replaced by young, mostly Democrat, voters.

And why is the GOP not winning these groups’ votes? Contrary to what some fringe groups and activists may tell you, it’s because the GOP advocates, on some issues, policies that repel the vast majorities of these groups. Policies which these groups, and indeed, a vast majority of all Americans, oppose by large margins.

Take Hispanics, for example. Some columnists, such as Mark Krikorian, Ramesh Ponnuru and John O’Sullivan, falsely claim that Hispanics don’t really care about immigration and instead care about the issues that most Americans consider most important – the economy, jobs, healthcare, and the budget deficit.

This is not true. While immigration is not THE single most important issue for Hispanics, it is nonetheless an important issue for them. And on that issue, the vast majority (77%) of Hispanics strongly oppose the GOP’s official policy. Here’s what a post-election Pew Hispanic poll said on the subject:

“Throughout this election cycle, the issue of immigration has been an important issue for Hispanics. In the national exit poll, voters were asked about what should happen to unauthorized immigrants working in the U.S. According to the national exit poll, 77% of Hispanic voters said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 18% said these immigrants should be deported. Among all voters, fewer than two-thirds (65%) said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 28% say they should be deported.”

See? 77% of Hispanics want illegal immigrants to be legalized; only 18% say these people should be deported. But most importantly, 65% of all Americans – a staunch majority – agree with 77% of Hispanics on this, while only 28% support a mass deportation policy.

Things are actually worse for the GOP than that: Hispanics, even those who are US citizens, consider an attack on immigrant an attack on themselves. Thus, it’s not just the GOP’s policies but also its language that repel Hispanics.

And the Latino vote clearly cost, or greatly helped cost, the GOP the crucial swing states of Nevada (6 EC votes), Colorado (9), Florida (29), and Virginia (13), as well as putting New Mexico (6) out of reach for Republicans. Had those five states voted for Romney, he would’ve won 269 EC votes, and get elected President by the Republican-controlled House.

Latinos are hardly the only way the GOP has alienated. Republicans have also offended the ladies by adopting extremist stances on abortion, thus playing nicely into the (false) Democrat narrative of a “Republican war on women”. This started when Virginia legislators, led by single-issue anti-abortion-crusader Delegate Robert G. Marshall passed a bill (signed by Governor Bob McDonnell) requiring every woman wanting to obtain an abortion to undergo a vaginal ultrasound. Then, Missouri Republicans (and Democrat plants in the open MO primary – when will Republicans learn that they need to hold closed primaries?), helped by Mike Huckabee nominated anti-abortion-crusader Todd Akin, whom Democrat incumbent Claire McCaskill correctly considered to be the weakest candidate, instead of nominating a across-the-board conservative like John Brunner or, even better, Sarah Steelman (endorsed by Sarah Palin). Republicans initially denounced him, but he refused to withdraw from the race, and Republicans eventually adopted his (and Marshall’s) policy of seeking to ban abortion in all cases – including rape, incest, and the life of the mother – as their official party policy, inscribed into the GOP platform.

So, while the GOP was denouncing Todd Akin’s remarks, it was simoultaneously inscribing his policy into the party platform.

Then, Richard Mourdock opened his mouth and said to women, “Don’t worry about that getting pregnant thingy, because if you get pregnant as a result of rape, that is a gift from God!”

This allowed the Dems to slight all Republicans across the country by warning voters that if they vote for this or that Republican, they’ll be voting for the party of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. This hurt Republicans across the country and lost several winnable races – not just those in MO and IN.

The result? Women could not run away from the GOP fast enough.

In every state that Romney lost, he also lost the female vote, in most cases by a large margin. Even in NC, where he won overall, he lost the female vote.

It’s not surprise, because women are the majority of voters in this country. Alienate a majority of them, and you will lose.

And yes, contrary to what radical religious Republicans will tell you, most women support a pro-choice position and consider this issue important. Right or wrong, they do.

Indeed, according to the most recent Gallup poll on the subject, 54% of all Americans consider themselves pro-choice.

And 75% of all Americans support maintaining abortion’s legality in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

The electorate will never support, and no state legislature will ever pass, a law requiring a woman to bear the child of her rapist.

Again, Republicans are advocating a policy that a vast majority of Americans oppose. No wonder why they’ve lost 4 of the last 6 presidential elections.

Finally, there’s American youth. They are less religious and less traditionalist than any previous generation of Americans. While they may be fiscally conservative, they are socially liberal and consider “socially conservative” policies such as banning abortion and gay marriage to be inconsistent with the GOP’s self-proclaimed principle of limited government.

Obama’s presidency has been a disaster for them. The youth unemployment rate is in the double digits, and Obama has accumulated a huge public debt that these young people – not their parents or grandparents – will have to pay back, with interest.

But Republicans have failed to seize the moment. They have alienated young people with their extremist policies and self-righteous pontification about abortion (see above) and gay marriage. The problem is not just the policies Republicans advocate, but also the fact that when Republicans talk about these issues, they sound like pompous, self-righteous prigs.

65% of all Americans, including a solid majority of youngsters, support allowing gays to marry. The public’s attitude towards this issue has changed significantly since 1996. It’s a losing issue for Republicans these days (as is abortion). Hence why it has already been legalized in several states by legislatures and in two by referendum.

The American electorate has changed beyond recognition since 1980, but the GOP hasn’t changed with it.

And so, young Americans, who would’ve otherwise been natural Republican voters (if they are really fiscally conservative – this is not yet clear), couldn’t run away from the GOP fast enough.

Looking ahead, what should the GOP do?

Firstly, it needs to state clearly that it is a party of limited Constitutional government, free market economic policies, fair trade, and a strong national defense. Period.

Secondly, Republicans should drop the gay marriage issue. Now. There is zero evidence that allowing gays to marry somehow harms the institution of marriage. It is divorce (predominantly no-fault divorce, pioneered by California) that really threatens marriage: America has a sky-high divorce rate, the highest in the world. Divorce, breaks up families with disastrous results for everyone.

At minimum, Republicans should adopt a federalist position on gay marriage, i.e. say that it should be decided by the states.

Thirdly, on abortion, Republicans should also adopt a federalist position, i.e. leave it to the states, and at the state level, say that they support an exception for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. This should be written into the GOP platform to make clear that it’s the official GOP policy.

Fourthly, on immigration, Republicans should support the legalization of illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes other than immigrating illegally, coupled with securing the border with a fence, a virtual fence, and making the E-Verify program obligatory. Simoultaneously, immigration laws need to be reformed so as to bring in (indeed, attract) bright, well-educated, productive people to the US while ending the cretinous policy of letting in huge numbers of unskilled relatives of US citizens (extended families). Only spouses, fiance(e)s, and children of US citizens should be let in. Otherwise, the only way to immigrate to the US should be to have at least a Master’s degree and/or some years of experience in an occupation, science, or art in demand in the US.

Currently, if you have a relative in the US, you can immigrate easily, but if you don’t, your chances are slim, even if you have a PhD in computer science and an IT or computer games company wants to hire you. If that company petitions to get you a visa, you’ll have to wait 5 or more years for it. In that time, the company could go out of business, and in the meantime, you need to feed yourself.

The US should stop importing unskilled relatives of US citizens who are a burden on taxpayers, but extend a warm welcome for skilled, self-supporting people.

Fourthly, the GOP needs to diversify its ranks and its leadership. Yes, this is “identity politics”, but it works. One of the reasons  minorities vote for Democrats is because the Dems nominate minorities for high positions. They have nominated a black for President, and in 2000, they nominated a Jew for Vice President.

Republicans, by contrast, have never nominated anyone but a white for President or Vice President, anyone but a white man for the highest office in the land, and only one woman (Sarah Palin) for Vice President. Minorities will not vote for Republicans if the top tiers of the party’s nominee crop and its leadership remain an exclusive club for whites.

And no, Republicans don’t have to adopt an affirmative action policy to change this. There are plenty of qualified Republicans who can lead the party. They include Hispanics Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Brian Sandoval, and Susana Martinez; Indian Americans Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley; and women such as Martinez, Jindal, and Kelly Ayotte. All of whom except arguably Sandoval, are conservatives.

So the good news is that Republicans can still win elections and can still become a majority party. But it’s imperative that they drop losing positions on losing issues and make amends with Hispanics, women, and young voters. Before it’s too late.

Dear Left: Conservatives Will Discuss Gun Control When the Left Agrees to Discuss Abortion Control

ban rifles1 pound baby



How many anti-gun leftists screaming for gun control would have supported the abortions of the 20 Newtown, Connecticut children had their parents chose abortion when those children were in the womb? Millions of leftists, including many screaming for gun bans.  Yet, when children are murdered by-way-of guns, leftists whore out every media camera, grabbing front and center attention to demonstrate tearful horror over the loss of innocent lives. Innocent lives leftists consider a hindrance to women when the innocents are in the womb.

So to leftists demanding more gun control discussions with legislators and citizens, let’s have that gun control discussion when you leftists are willing to talk about abortion control.

The left’s favorite protest next to capitalism and abortion on demand is gun control. Considering how fervently anti-death penalty and anti-Second Amendment the left is, it’s quite an oxymoron on their part to support killing children in the womb while mourning children who have been murdered by a monstrous gunman.

Let’s not forget the majority of these gun-ban pushers, horrified by a lunatic’s mass murder of children, would protest for that gunman’s life had he not killed himself and faced the death penalty.

death penalty makes us all killers



Of course this is a hopeless argument against useless idiots.  If given the choice to save pregnant women or puppies standing before firing squads, the left would throw themselves on top of the doomed puppies. To hell with our nation’s future and our Constitution’s preservation, unborn children and guns hinder our lives!

Conservatives across the spectrum can try to hold abortion control discussions, but we know the left will have none of it: Abortion is necessary to a woman’s sexual liberty, abortion is not murder, guns are, because guns kill! Abortion simply makes life-style problems go away.

Despite gun violence arguments and the Brady Campaign’s  claim that citizen gun mortality is higher than all U.S. wars combined, America has more abortion deaths per year than gun deaths.  But comparing civilian gun deaths to over 300 years of wars involving Americans is a political ploy to outlaw all guns.  Everyone knows wars incurs death; that’s why war is called war. Correlating armed civilians with war insinuates armed citizens are at war with other citizens. That is false. But don’t ever call abortion a war on children; you might offend women crusading for their freedom from that combat known as motherhood!


abortion not legal debate


If the left wants to discuss their hatred of guns, the right is justified in discussing its abhorrence toward taking the lives of unborn, as well as presenting those statistics.

According to National Right To Life, the CDC reports:

After dropping 25% from a high of over 1.6 million [abortions] in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at about 1.2 million a year.


Still, the abortion rate is high.

 The CDC reports: 

In 2009 [alone], 784,507 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2009 was 15.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years and the abortion ratio was 227 abortions per 1,000 live births.


The overall total of abortions in America to date:

Using GI figures through 2008, estimating 1,212,400 abortions for 2009 through 2011, and factoring in the possible 3% undercount GI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 54,559,615.


Abortion rates may have dropped, but the numbers are still astronomical compared to gun deaths.

But leftist will never admit abortion is a war on unborn children.


gun to unborn baby


Gun deaths in 2009—intentional and accidental combined—totaled:“31,347, Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2” CDC tracking has shown that firearm-related deaths—homicide, suicide or accidental—have declined each year.

The University of Pennsylvania Wharton College facilitates the anti-gun beliefs by claiming:

The US remains far behind most other affluent countries in terms of life expectancy…[and] the elimination of all firearm deaths in the US would increase the male life expectancy more than the total eradication of all colon and prostate cancers.


Sorry academics, but had 54,559,615 Americans not been aborted, America would have a higher life expectancy today.

This is not making light of gun deaths. All death is tragic. But leftists view high abortion rates as a woman’s entitlement (unborn children lack rights until born and a gunman puts a gun to their heads) to control her own body and gun ownership the ultimate threat to society. That perspective is two-faced. How is killing unborn children, our nation’s future, just, but guns are deadly? Wouldn’t it be correct to say abortion is deadly because that is the procedure’s intention, and guns are only deadly when used to commit harm or fired accidentally?

Leftists disagree. Preventing abortion is a “War on Women.” Abortion is necessary for population control and freeing women from sexual impediments. Gun control and bans, however, are necessary for government to control citizen’s lives, conduct, religious, social, and political views.

If you cannot defend yourself from tyranny, then you are forced to become its servant.

Still, if Americans are to have gun control debates, leftists must allow conservative views on abortion. If leftists are hell-bent on abolishing the Second Amendment, conservatives have every right to discuss petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade and placing abortion back in individual state hands.

If states have rights to impose stringent laws on guns, individual states should be given back their rights to decide whether or not citizens want abortion legal.

The mere suggestion of that discussion would go over like the Atomic Bomb on Japan.

Never mind the fact radically leftist California, New York and Massachusetts would never outlaw abortion and women seeking sexual freedom could turn their vacuumed sovereignty into a vacation package. Forget it, abortion is not allowed on the control discussion table.

No matter how hard commonsense argues with the left, guns will always be deemed violent weapons and abortion will always be considered a necessary means to end the domination of women’s bodies by unwanted children, those same women show compassion for, if children are murdered by an insane gunman.

There are two sides to life and death issues.  If one side is allowed to have a debate on gun deaths, the other side deserves the right to bring up abortion deaths. After all, it is only “fair” to “share” our individual ideas.

Meet The Left’s New Sandra Fluke

Sandra Fluke became famous by becoming a martyr in the left’s straw man attempt to paint the GOP and all Conservatives as Anti-Women.  She played the sweet (30 year old) college girl who just needed Aunt Pelosi and her Democrats to push for the access of free birth control to all women. She was a truly victimized woman, being forced to live in a first world country going to Georgetown University.

I wish I had the money to go to Georgetown.

Unfortunately, what the right has not grasped yet, is this: ‘The War on Women’ will continue, for forever. That’s how the left rolls and that’s how this situation is going to go down. If we think it was simply a strategy to re-elect Democrats  in 2012, we’re screwed for a generation.

The left is not stopping, anytime soon. Example? Take this new video which is on every Liberal’s timeline and is one which will soon cause the likes of Rachel Maddow to cry on the air.

I would usually never post something of this nature. However, it’s reached a point when people are destined to see it sooner or later, so I might as well expose it while it can still be exposed.

Ladies and gentlemen (caution-adult references) the heroine of modern feminism:

Be Bro-Choice: A Public Service Announcement from Sarah Silverman from Sarah Silverman

I’m not sure where to get started, but I can take a whack at it. Here’s 6 fallacies, ideological holes and exagerations presented in Silverman’s video.

Number 1: Her voice is absolutely hideous, it sounds like cackling hyena that can only scream “free stuff” and “I see chauvinist males.” This isn’t really a problem, it just bugs me. It’s painful.

Number 2: We need to remind ourselves that these are the types of people who the left value as heroes in their movement. While we see our leaders as people with great visionaries, who help their image by helping and promoting others.  The left has a whole new spin.  Who do the left have? Sandra Fluke, Barack Obama, Rachel Maddow and the low life filth otherwise known as Bill Maher. People who boost themselves up by tearing others down, without ever really offering real and logical solutions.

This obviously shows us that they would get behind someone as narrow minded and disrespectful as Sarah Silverman, which they definitely have done.

Number 3: Considering the call for ‘equality’can only be voiced by a 42 year old woman, someone older than my own mom (gross) who’s mind is still obviously still thinking with her body instead of her head only re-affirms my position that I refuse to take her seriously. The whole “bro” thing? Really, who are you trying to talk to? From what she said: “if you ever want to see a vagina again” then it leaves me to stand by the position that she’s trying to reach out to those single  guys in their 20’s, who are more focused on sleeping around than actually settling down, which sounds way more fun to me. Considering she’s double the age of 20 and most women her age have started families, are managing incomes and running households, she’s making promo videos on why guys should be forced to join this feminist movement, “or else.”

Oh, and leave my mother out of it, Sarah. That’s flat out weird.

Number 4: You’re right. We’re all grown ups here, so I can agree with you: the way to a woman’s heart is not through an ultra sound. I always thought the way to a woman’s heart was through her…you know…heart.

Number 5: I feel degraded when you try to force us to support your “contraception equality” movement by comparing it to the alleged “billions of potential Americans we kill in our gym socks.” Seriously? Grow up. Congrats, Sarah. You got me. You presented a point so stupid, I literally could not combat it.

Number 6: I’m offended-really offended with  your gender degrading remarks towards both genders in the ending. First off, the notion that men would support you for the sole reason that we expect sex in return degrades the standards of men. Secondly, it degrades the independent mentality that you encourage women to have when you suggest that women will voluntarily offer sex to men because of support for your “contraception equality” movement.

The sad thing is, this is the type of language and people that the left supports and adore. They breath this type of rhetoric through their mental nostrils faster than a druggie. They love it, breath it, re-tweet it, dream it and speak it everyday. But what do I know? I’m a chauvinist male who doesn’t understand women.


Single Mom in PA? Better to Live on Welfare than Make $69,000

If you are a single mom the entitlement programs offered in Pennsylvania are such that you are better off working for low pay than taking a good medium income position. There is little incentive to work hard and try to get a better position, including managerial, in a company because the government benefits often pay more.

Remember Julia from the Obama campaign? Well, apparently, Julia as a single mom, is best off letting the government take care of both her and her children. You can read more at Senator Rand Paul’s website or at the Washington Times.

Watch this clip and be appalled. It is understandably hard convincing people to work to improve their economic situation when they are already getting so much just by having children, being alive and breathing air.


Sandra Fluke: Too much for even the earth to bear

We are just days away from finding out who the 2012 TIME Person of the Year will be. You may be surprised to know that one of the 2012 “candidates” —  if chosen as Person of the Year — is literally “too much for even the earth to bear.”

The Person of The Year is considered the person who “most influenced the news this year for better or worse.”

Sandra Fluke, the now-infamous disgruntled Georgetown student who is outraged that the Catholic University “does not provide enough access to birth control pills for female students”, is a candidate for the title this year. Ms. Fluke is described by TIME Magazine as “the target of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh’s vicious rants.” The magazine goes on to say, “Conservatives painted Fluke as the epitome of liberal entitlement; to liberals, she was a victim of the right’s war on women.”

Victim? A more accurate description is that she is “the political prop” for “The War On Women’s Brains”.

You may be surprised that the real description of Sandra Fluke was written sometime between the 10th and 6th centuries B.C., when Agur, son of Jakeh wrote Proverbs 30.

“Three things are too much for even the earth to bear,
yes, four things shake its foundations—
when the janitor becomes the boss,
when a fool gets rich,
when a whore is voted “woman of the year,”
when a “girlfriend” replaces a faithful wife.”

Proverbs 30:20-23 (The Message)



When discussing her nomination as TIME Person of The Year, Ms. Fluke stated:

“I would do this again, because these issues are that important to me.”

This is not surprising:

 “A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.”  Proverbs 18:2

On December 14, we will know who this years most influential person is. Sandra Fluke most definitely influenced the news this year- for worse! Will the American people vote for her just as they did Barack Obama? If  Sandra Fluke is indeed voted the 2012 Person of The Year, she is sure to receive another phone call from Jamie Foxx’s “lord and savior” Barack Obama, congratulating her!

Kristen Walker Hatten said it quite eloquently:

“Sandra Fluke totally deserves to be TIME Magazine‘s Person of the Year!”

Sandra Fluke truly represents what America has become: a nation of blind, conceited, wicked fools who are making no attempt to turn from evil.  Sadly, “Sandra Fluke embodies the times’!

“Sin whispers to the wicked, deep within their hearts.
They have no fear of God at all.
In their blind conceit,
they cannot see how wicked they really are.
Everything they say is crooked and deceitful.
They refuse to act wisely or do good.
They lie awake at night, hatching sinful plots.
Their actions are never good.
They make no attempt to turn from evil.”
Psalm 36:1-4

Sandra Fluke As “Time’s Person Of The Year Finalist”~Is She A Whore?

Disgusting.  Deranged.  Denigrated. Disturbing.  I could go on with any letter of the alphabet, to describe “Sandra Fluke as Person of the Year”.   Not only is Fluke a paid shill,  she is represented by SKD Kinckerbocker, as O’Reilly uncovered last March

O’Reilly made his case by first detailing who has been booking Fluke with various media outlets — a mysterious man named “Mike.” Strangely enough, O’Reilly can’t track Mike down, and now, Fluke is being represented by someone from the progressive PR firm SKDKnickerbocker, where Anita Dunn — the former Obama communications director — is a managing director.

So, here is this “activist”who is launched to be a paid “actor” in the fake “War on Women”.  As you all remember, Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University, gave a mediocre “performance” testifying before the Democratic Steering Committee, headed by Nancy Pelosi and Elijah Cummings.  She played the part of a “storyteller” about how women at Georgetown (a Catholic University by the way) could not obtain adequate birth control.  Sounds like a “plot” rife with unreasonable scripting—if it wasn’t “real life” no one would believe it!  Yet, that is how it went down.  Fluke, sometimes on the verge of tears, sometimes with mock “outrage” in her voice, gave an implausible speech, not worthy of even a “B” movie.  Sandy talked about how a friend had ovarian cysts, who couldn’t afford over 100 dollars a month out of pocket expense for Birth Control pills.   Sandy stating she was denied coverage, oh yea and she was gay, so Sandy thought herself the smart vixen, saying “I don’t think pregnancy was her reason for needing the BC pills”.  (Question- you can get it at the Walmart for 30 bucks a month, Sandy.  Was that not an option?) She continued to preach to her handlers, Pelosi and Cummings, in a ridiculous hearing, paid for by you and me.  All this to “launch” this fake “War on Women”, which sadly, did have quite an effect on single female voters.

We all recall their “game plan” then unfold.  This would be a major “talking point” for the Obama re-election Campaign.  Even though Sandy decided on Georgetown (I doubt anyone from the Vatican put a gun to Ms. Fluke’s head to attend Catholic Georgetown)  she must have known the Church isn’t a fan of Birth Control, yet that’s where Sandy decided to place her cap for her education.  Only to “kill two birds with one stone” attacking the Church and attacking insurances.  Brilliant.

She went on to infamy, highlighted by our President making a phone call to Sandy.  Yes, these memories are little nuggets of  gold which helped re-elect Barak Obama.  Obama, placed a much publicized phone call to Sandy, making sure “she was OK” after Rush Limbaugh referred to her as a whore in an on air diatribe.  Perfectly reasonable, for the President to make sure a 30 year old paid shill was “OK” after such a National incident as the Limbaugh diatribe.  Call Brian Terry’s family?  You know, Brian Terry, the Border Patrol agent who was gunned down by our weapons in the Fast & Furious debacle.  NO sir.  Why would he call them?  Sandy being called a whore, now there is a tragedy, worthy of a phone call.

Is Sandy a whore?  You betcha.  A whore for the Left, a paid shill.  A self promoted activist, who was in the right place at the right time. Just like a “working girl” on any urban corner, waiting for the right “John” to drive by.

Real War on Women: Husbands Alerted if Wives Leave Country

There is a real war on women. And it’s not the one contrived by liberals to win voters in the last election. No, this war on women takes place in many countries. It’s hard for people of the U.S. to imagine but there are still places where women are still seen as second class citizens.

The Wahhab religion, is a form of Islamic Fundamentalism and originates from Saudi Arabia. Similar to Sharia, Wahhabi followers do not regard it as simply one school of thought out of many; rather the only path of true Islam.

Followers of this religion believe women must be modest, covering themselves from head to toe by a burqa in public. A woman is treated always as a minor and as a second-class citizen that needs a male guardian. Women need her male guardian to obtain her identity card or passport and women are not allowed to enter government departments.

Saudi Arabia remains the only country in the world where women are still not allowed to drive. While there have been protests against the female driving ban it remains in place.

Recently, it was reported that husbands of Saudi women were being sent text alerts if their wives attempted to leave the country. The new technology of text messages allows husbands to more quickly monitor their wives activities.

In Saudi Arabia, women must have permission from their ‘male guardians’, whether husband, brother or father, to travel outside the country. When women want to travel across the border or at the airport their guardian must sign a permission slip before the women are allowed travel.

Women in Saudi who are caught driving or attempt to leave the country without permission may be beaten by the religious police.

It is hard to imagine in this day and age that women could be subject to such restrictions.

There is a real war on women.

Read more about this at The Telegraph.

Contraceptives are a right after all

Liberals all over the country must be breathing a sigh of relief, because they have been vindicated. Apparently the Sandra Flukes of the world don’t just reside in the US. Well, they sort of do, at least in NYC, because they have taken up residence in the UN.

°Florian (CC)

Yes, that monument to everything that liberals hold dear has come out of the contraceptive closet, and stated that birth control is a right for women worldwide. Their contention is based on the theory that women should be able to control when they have children – in poor nations. Of course, given our current economic problems, one can wonder whether or not the international body thinks the US is included in that number.

Now, before we let the liberals in this country get ready to organize birth control orgies, remember two things. First, this statement is from the UN, and has no effect on national laws whatsoever. Second, it says nothing about giving birth control away free of charge, per se. The UN merely states that there should not be financial barriers for women to obtain birth control. As mentioned before, this is primarily in the context of poor nations, where the $15 or so to buy birth control could feasibly feed a family for months. Contrary to what liberals might want to believe, there is no conservative agenda to stop access to birth control. We simply don’t want to pay for it for every woman in the nation.

Sharia in America: Probation for Honor Beating

Last summer a Wisconsin pastor was sentenced to two years in prison for ‘telling’ his parishioners they should spank their children when they misbehave. The judge was appalled that Pastor Caminiti would tell parents to use a wooden spoon to discipline.

This week in Arizona a Muslim family was sentenced to two years probation for an ‘honor beating’.

There seems to be a discrepancy in the US. A tolerance for the intolerable. A true War on Women.

During the police investigation it was discovered that the family became upset when their teen daughter wanted out of an arranged marriage to a 38 year old man. The mother, father and another daughter beat, bound and burned the girl on her face and chest using a hot spoon. Despite the abuse the daughter defended her family to the judge, explaining it was part of their culture.

It appears that if one is beat following Sharia Law there will be little repercussion other than to slap the wrists pf the perpetrators and explain politely that such things are not done in the United States. BUT, if one tells others of the Biblical principle of ‘spare the rod; spoil the child’ that is is a crime, not defended under freedom of speech but instead punishable with jail time.

Something is wrong here. Our country is changing right before our eyes.

Martha McSally and the Real War on Women

Martha McSally, the Republican candidate for Arizona’s second Congressional District (vacated by Gabby Giffords), explains in stark terms the real war on women on Greta Van Sustern’s show.

As shown in the video, McSally has already gotten her feet wet when it comes to getting legislation through Congress – after battling the Department of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld, she saw to it that our women warriors in the military are not forced to wear traditional Muslim garb when overseas and off-duty.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »