Science vs. Darwin's creation myth in the Left's propaganda war against America

God vs. evolution. Science vs. Darwin. Faith founded on fact vs. neopaganism disguised as "science." Liberalism vs. the Republic.

America's God-hating Left is attacking another Conservative-politician-with-a-clue, hoping to make implications of ignorance and superstition stick.

We have the facts on our side. Just articulate them. Not only that, but it's the accidentalists making the truth claim: Make them prove it. What can they point to that actually demonstrates the truth of their fairy tale?

A brief comment on Darwin's pseudoscientific, anti-intellectual, and irrational creation myth:

The foundation of Science is observable fact.

Who's ever observed abiogenesis? Who's ever witnessed random genetic mutations result in newer and more complex program, structure, and function?

We've only ever seen Life arise from Life and Life's programs. We've only ever seen organisms reproduce the same kinds of organisms.

Darwin's creation myth is absurd on its face, even to an atheist.

Support Israel in its defense against jihad

A celebrity who urges her tweeps to pray for Israel in its war of self-defense against Allah gets ridiculed, demonized, and threatened with death.

The savages murdering innocent Israelis? Not so much.

A brief response in defense of Israel to someone making the same, tired Islamo-leftist propaganda points:

That moral equivalence is completely false. Both sides are not equally responsible for the violence.

Israel is acting only in self-defense and only because its Muslim neighbors are required by their religion to hate and murder Jews.

If the jihadists were to stop fighting, what would be the result? Peace.
If Israel were to stop fighting, what would be the result? No more Israel.

In the war between the Civilized Man and the savage, support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.

Bold colors

It's easy to see from the comments below why -- while the rest of the Pyrite State was voting for a muscular fraud -- I voted for McClintock.

He's one of the few people who understand what makes America great and can articulate it.

Don't abandon what is true. Fight for it. From here:

Common Sense After a Close Election
Northern Division Republican Women
Rancho Cordova, California
November 17, 2012

"Now let's pull up our socks, wipe our noses and get back in this fight."

After listening to ten days of hand wringing and doom saying from the usual suspects that Republicans must abandon our principles if we are to survive, we need a little of Mark Twain's common sense. I suggest we all take it to heart.

He said, "We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it -- and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore."

So it is in that spirit that I will begin with three incontrovertible truths about this election.

First, the same election that returned Barack Obama to the White House also returned the second largest House Republican majority since World War II - bigger than anything Newt Gingrich ever had.

Second, according to polls before, during and after this election, the American people agree with us fundamentally on issues involving the economy, Obamacare, government spending, bailouts - you name it.

Third, the American people are about to get a graduate level course in Obamanomics, and at the end of that course, they are going to be a lot sadder and a lot wiser.

That is not to say that there aren't many lessons that we need to learn and to learn well from this election, particularly here in California. But capitulation is not one of them.

Have we forgotten that just two years ago, Republicans campaigned on clear principles of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government? We took strong and united stands to oppose Obamacare, rein in out-of-control spending, roll back the regulatory burdens that are crushing our economy and yes - dare I say it - secure our borders? Have we forgotten that the result was one of the most stunning mid-term elections in American history: a net gain of 63 U.S. House seats, six U.S. Senate seats, 19 state legislatures, six governors and nearly 700 state legislative seats?

Now we're told, just two years later, after a net loss of just eight House seats, two Senate seats and a 2 1/2-percentage point loss of the White House, that we must abandon these principles or consign ourselves to the dustbin of history.

If you want to see a catastrophic election, look at 1976.

We not only lost the Presidency, but as a result of that election the Democrats held 61 U.S. Senate seats (today they have 55); and 292 House seats (today they have just 201).

Then, we heard the same chorus of impending doom that we hear today. We had to moderate our image. We had to broaden our base. In short, that we had to become more like the Democrats.

Here is what Ronald Reagan said to the naysayers of 1976:

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party"-when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents...

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Fortunately, we had the good sense to take that advice, and four years later Ronald Reagan became President, and shortly after that it was morning again in America. That would never have happened if we had listened to the usual suspects of their day and become a pathetic reflection of the Democrats. As Phil Gramm said, "why would anyone want to vote for a fake Democrat when they can have the real thing?"

The first of the cold stove lids we are told not to sit on is illegal immigration. Republicans, they say, must accept the notion that our nation can no longer control its borders and we should declare amnesty for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now in this country. We should do so, we are told, because our position on border security has hopelessly alienated Latino voters who would otherwise share our values.

It is true that Latino voters are a growing part of the American electorate - making up ten percent of the vote in 2012, of which 71 percent voted for Barack Obama, according to the CBS exit poll.

Sean Trende is the senior political analyst for Real Clear Politics. Last May, he published an article addressing this argument directly. He made three points.

First, Latino voters are not a monolithic group on this issue. Citing 2008 exit polling, he noted that a majority of Latino voters "either thought that illegal immigration was fairly unimportant or thought that it was important and voted Republican."

So why are Latinos voting for Democrats? Very simply, he said, once you adjust for socio-economic status, Latinos vote pretty much the same as the general voting population. But because they are disproportionately poor, they tend to vote disproportionately Democratic. However, as they begin to work their way up the socio-economic ladder and assimilate into American society, they become more and more Republican.

Second, citing research from the Pew Institute, he pointed out that the wave of illegal immigration has now crested, and may actually be reversing. He noted that every immigration wave has followed this pattern. Those who stay become more and more assimilated and more and more Republican as the years go by.

As recently as 20 years ago, we used to hear a lot about the Italian vote or the Irish vote. We don't hear about that anymore because they have melted into the general population. The demographic tide, he said, is not running against the Republicans, but running with them.

Third, he points out that a very sizeable part of the Republican base is firmly opposed to illegal immigration, and that abandoning that position could be politically catastrophic. He reminded us, "In a large, diverse country, every move to gain one member of a political coalition usually alienates another member."

Heather MacDonald makes the same point in the aftermath of the election. She notes that 62 percent of Latino voters support Obamacare. They overwhelmingly support higher taxes to pay for a larger government and more public services. These are not voters who will suddenly flock to the Republican banner because we have reversed our position on border security.

That's not to say Republicans should ignore the Latino vote - far from it - and I will get to that in a few minutes. But to suggest that Republicans need to reverse themselves on a fundamental issue of national sovereignty and the rule of law is unprincipled, counterproductive, self-destructive and wrong.

Ironically, the issues where most Latino and African-American voters do agree with us are the social issues, like abortion and marriage -- but of course, we're told by the same naysayers that we should repudiate our position on these messy social issues.

Let's look closer at the polling on the social issues. According to exit polling by Public Opinion Strategies, it is true that five percent of voters last week said that the most important issue in their vote for President was their pro-choice/pro-abortion position. Five percent of the entire electorate is nothing to sneeze at.

But four percent of voters said that the most important issue in casting their vote for President was their pro-life/anti-abortion position. That's a statistical tie.

I have a question for you. How many of those hard-core, single-issue abortion-on-demand Obama voters will suddenly switch their votes to Republicans once we've renounced our position on this issue?

Now, here's a bonus question: how many of that four percent of the electorate who support us solely because of our pro-life position are going to stay with us once we have repudiated them?

It is important in politics to know the difference between addition and subtraction. Addition is what creates majorities and subtraction is what destroys them. In this single exercise, we have just subtracted four percent of the entire American electorate from our vote and added little or nothing.

Now, repeat this process on every other so-called social issue, and tell me if we will be better off or worse off for taking this advice.

With all this said, there is no blinking at the fact that we just lost an election that we should have won, and to pretend there's nothing wrong meets Einstein's definition of insanity. There's a great deal wrong and a great deal that we need to address.

The voters who appeared at the polls agree with us on Obamacare. According to the CBS exit poll, by a plurality of 49 to 44 percent, they want to repeal some or all of Obamacare.

They agree with us on the size of government. By a margin of 51 to 43 percent, they believe that government is "doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."

They agree with us on taxes. By a resounding margin of 63 to 33 percent, they disagreed with the statement that "taxes should be raised to help cut the deficit."

Perhaps most telling of all, 52 percent of voters agreed "things in this country today are seriously off on the wrong track," and yet then voted to continue down that wrong track for another four years.

As Lincoln said, "The voters are everything. If the voters get their backsides too close to the fire, they'll just have to sit on the blisters a while." It is a painful experience; but it is a learning experience. And at the end of that experience, they emerge sadder but wiser and in time for the next election.

We are winning the issues. And that means over time we will be winning the votes -- but only if we stay true to our principles and true to the millions of Americans who are already with us and many more who may not consider themselves Republicans today - but who believe as we believe.

What was the single biggest political movement in 2009 and 2010? It was the much-maligned, politically incorrect Tea Party, which energized fully one third of the American electorate across party lines. Although 60 percent were Republicans, 20 percent were Independents and 20 percent were Democrats. Long before the Tea Party, we had another name for that phenomenon. We used to call it the "Reagan Coalition." But this year, those who tell us we need a bigger tent told the Tea Party to get out. And many did.

Who brought a tidal wave of young people into the party? It was the much maligned and politically incorrect Ron Paul, whose simple message of unadulterated freedom resonated deeply on college campuses. Eight thousand UC Berkeley students turned out last year to hear that message. But this year, those who tell us we need a bigger tent told Ron Paul and his supporters to get out. And they did. In fact, many of their votes went to Obama.

A well-intentioned supporter e-mailed me last week and said, "we've got to kick the religious right out of the party." I reminded him that we did that in 1976, when the religious right voted for Jimmy Carter.

My point is, you cannot build a majority by systematically ejecting the constituent parts of that coalition. You build a majority by adding to that coalition by taking your principles to new constituencies.

Working Americans of every race know instinctively that you cannot borrow and spend your way rich. We need to appeal to them.

Immigrants came to this country to escape the stultifying central planning and corrupt bureaucracies that ravaged their economies. We need to appeal to them.

For the first time in our history, young people face a bleaker future than their parents enjoyed. We need to appeal to them.

The very groups of voters most damaged by Obama's policies are those who voted for Obama - we need to appeal to them.

Not in the closing days of a campaign poisoned with partisanship - but right now.

We need to recognize that a large portion of our population is not familiar with the self-evident truths of the American Founding and has no compass with which to follow back to the prosperity, happiness and fulfillment that is the hallmark of free societies.

Without that clarion call - without a party of freedom willing to paint our positions in bold colors - I am afraid that as the economy suffocates under the avalanche of government burdens, intrusions, restrictions, regulations and edicts, people in their growing despair, will increasingly turn to the false hope that paternalistic government offers.

The only antidote to that is the self-evident truth of the American founding: that freedom works and we need to put it back to work.

Like it or not, we are at this moment the only party equipped to revive and restore those truths and take them to the millions of Americans who are desperately searching for them.

Great parties are built upon great principles, and they are judged by their devotion to those principles. Since its inception, the central principle of the Republican Party can be summarized in a word: freedom. The closer we have hewn to this principle, the better we have done; the farther we have drifted from it, the worse that we - and the country - have done.

Dick Armey put it more simply: "When we act like us, we win, and when we act like them, we lose."

The Republican Women formed originally as the educational arm of the Republican Party. Never has that role been more important than it is today. We will not win the political battle until we win the battle over principles. We need to begin that campaign today. We can be confident that these principles resonate, but only when we are true to them with our existing constituencies while we reach out with them to new constituencies.

That is our challenge. That is our destiny. That is the salvation of our country. Now, fellow Republicans, let's pull up our socks, wipe our noses, and get back in this fight.

Man without God makes men into gods

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." -Ronald Reagan

Recently I was speaking with a coworker about the proper role of government in relation to the Individual. I made what I thought was an unanswerable argument: Who knows better how to spend your money, you or a politician living thousands of miles away? Liberalism is merely Parasites and Tyrants Robbing Free Men.

This coworker seems like a genuinely nice man and of above-average intelligence, so -- despite past experience -- I was caught off-guard by his reply. His answer was: "I'm a humanist. I believe in the goodness of people."

I prefer that tyrants and those who serve them be honest about their lust for power and their contempt for others, but he seems sincere. He might want to believe that he's come to a well-founded position, but I know he hasn't, and here's how:

Nevermind that Thomas Jefferson warned, "Let no more be heard of confidence in Man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" (apparently, power corrupts only Conservatives). If this man really believes that innate human goodness permits sacrificing essential Liberty for a little temporary safety, then why doesn't he give his whole paycheck to the government and trust that they'll take care of him? Or, if he really believes that politicians can be trusted because of their basic decency -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- then why doesn't he believe that every Individual is capable of making equally rational, moral, and wise decisions? Or does he think that politicians are born just a little bit better than you and me?

(Liberal elitism might be a little closer to the truth.)

Reagan understood this, noting that those who reject God worship the state. (Which applies even to Islam, since it is impossible to reject the living God any more fully than does Muhammad's hellish "religion," which fuses mosque and state.)

Man without God makes men into gods:

We've heard in our century far too much of the sounds of anguish from those who live under totalitarian rule. We've seen too many monuments made not out of marble or stone but out of barbed wire and terror. But from these terrible places have come survivors, witnesses to the triumph of the human spirit over the mystique of state power, prisoners whose spiritual values made them the rulers of their guards. With their survival, they brought us "the secret of the camps," a lesson for our time and for any age: Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid.

That's why the Marxist vision of man without God must eventually be seen as an empty and a false faith -- the second oldest in the world -- first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with whispered words of temptation: "Ye shall be as gods." The crisis of the Western world, Whittaker Chambers reminded us, exists to the degree in which it is indifferent to God. "The Western world does not know it," he said about our struggle, "but it already possesses the answer to this problem -- but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism's faith in man."

"Bigotry" workshops for public school teachers promoting ... Islam?

It's not hard to read between the lines. "Bigotry" and "tone of recent debates" are references to the growing fact-based discussion of Islam.

How ironic that these propagandists would use George Washington's Letter to the Hebrew Congregations of Newport to whitewash their mendacity:

-First, it was Washington's Christian faith that informed his affection for his fellow (Jewish) citizens and moved the heirs of Western Civilization from "tolerance" to "Liberty."

-Second, these liars pretend to defend religious freedom by discussing its "limits." They want to move us from "Liberty" back to "tolerance" and eventually to "persecution" and "murder." You know, "Islam."

-Third, there's only one major "religion" on Earth that wants to rape, enslave, and slaughter those who refuse its "invitation" to convert -- Islam -- and that's the one "faith" they're trying to protect from honest examination.

-Fourth, it's not Christians who need an education on tolerance; it's Muslims who need re-education to stop killing Jews (and the rest of us).

Because America "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance," Islam must be exposed, resisted, repelled, and eventually, defeated.

California just keeps on giving:

Facing History and Ourselves, One Nation: Many Faiths TAH Project, San Joaquin COE, CSU San Bernardino-ELC and the California 3Rs Project invite you to participate in Give Bigotry No Sanction – The Meaning of Religious Liberty in America George Washington’s 1790 Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, RI

Join Facing History and Ourselves and the One Nation: Many Faiths TAH project for a look at the letter of George Washington in 1790 to the Hebrew Congregation at the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island. This letter is a landmark in the history of religious freedom in America and part of a founding moment in U.S. history when the country was negotiating how a democracy accommodates the “deepest differences” among its people.

Today this letter can serve as a guide in today’s changing global landscape, where Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, as well as people who belong to no religion, find themselves living alongside neighbors whose beliefs and practices are often quite different than their own. With this new diversity, there is a growing need worldwide to discuss religious freedom—and its limits—in secular, democratic societies.

These are not easy conversations, and the tone of recent debates about religious difference suggests that we need to get better at talking about these issues, or else risk further polarization. Lesson materials and resources are provided for teachers to use Washington’s letters in their classrooms or other discussion forums.

Join us for one of the following 3 programs. There is no fee but registration is required
Select one of the following events and contact people. Email that contact person the date of your workshop, your name, school name, school street address, city, zip code, and phone number.
__________________
November 3, 2012
8:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.
San Joaquin COE – Nelson Education Center
2901 Arch Airport Rd, Stockton CA 95206
To register, contact Veray Wickham vwickham@sjcoe.net 209-468-9021
DEADLINE: October 26, 2012
__________________
December 1, 2012
8:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Best Western Heritage Inn
8179 Spruce Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
To register, contact Margaret Hill mhill@csusb.edu 909-946-9035
DEADLINE: November 26, 2012
_____________________
January 12, 2013
9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Skirball Cultural Center, Los Angeles
To register: http://www2.facinghistory.org/workshops
DEADLINE: January 7, 2013

Here's a link to the source.

Obama bin Lyin': President kept out of decision to eliminate bin Laden because he vetoed three earlier opportunities to do so

President Obama continually hypes UBL's demise, but really, what choice did he have? Who wouldn't have authorized the elimination of the single person most symbolic of 9/11?

It turns out, Obama himself, three times according to this article:

Obama “did not know of the raid in Abbottabad to kill Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011, until after the helicopters with SEAL Team 6 had crossed into Pakistani airspace.”

The source said Obama was notified “at the golf course … which is why he was sitting in the strange sitting position in the picture that documented the White House operations room event.”

The source told Stand Up America that Panetta “was the key player who organized and supported this daring raid.”

“He signed the ‘execute orders’ with only a few people aware: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Adm. Bill Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus.”

The source explained the White House “was closed out of the decision because the president, through Valerie Jarrett, had turned down two or three other earlier proposals.”

Panetta, Vallely’s source reported, “and his covert planning team were extremely frustrated at all the denials, so saw the opportunity slipping away, as implausible as it seems.”

The report said Panetta convinced his other principals to make the decision and received their full-fledged support but the president, according to the official, “remained clueless on the mission.”

“This tremendously serious and sensitive information was relayed by a source who has been very frustrated with the continued dishonesty within the White House,” Vallely reported.

Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, previously has called for “We the People” to stop the nation’s “progressive socialist, treasonous death march.”

He graduated from West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961. He served in theaters in Europe and the Pacific Rim and saw two tours of combat duty in Vietnam.

CBS has reported that “Obama’s decision to send operatives after Osama bin Laden” was described by White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan as “one of the most gutsiest calls of any president.”

However, the Mail Online in London reported a book by Richared Miniter documented that three “kill” missions were canceled by Obama in January, February and March of 2011.

The SEAL mission was in May 2011.

Miniter reported it was Jarrett who kept urging Obama to cancel plans to get bin Laden.

Timothy Marr and Joseph M. Hennessey believe that your "misunderstanding" of Islam is the reason (at least in part) for 9/11 and other Muslim atrocities

But what can you expect from someone who regurgitates Edward Said?

At least we have this to show for it. (Who knew that Captayne John Smith -- yes, Pocahontas' John Smith -- fought against jihad?)

Captayne John Smith, defender of the West against Muhammad's hordes.
Because, unlike Disney's fictionalized American Indians,
Muslims don't paint with all the colors of the wind.

Offered in defense of my comments on The Cultural Roots of American Islamicism:

Joseph,

According to the BOOK DESCRIPTION, Marr argues that "Historical, literary, and imagined encounters with Muslim history and practices provided a backdrop where different Americans oriented the direction of their national project, the morality of the social institutions, and the contours of their romantic imaginations. This history sits as an important background to help understand present conflicts between the Muslim world and the United States," as if we are somehow to blame.

Among the EDITORIAL REVIEWS, we find:

-Melani McAlister saying that our "global cultural imaginings" help explain the conflict between Islam and America.

-Iftikhar Malik claiming that "American mis-images of Islam" and their "reverberations even today" help explain the conflict between Islam and America.

-Anouar Majid asserting that "America's conflicted view of Islam" helps explain the conflict between Islam and America.

And MARR HIMSELF acknowledges that teaching for three years in Pakistan "opened my eyes to Islamic cultures and to the kindness of Muslims . . . That extended time . . . helped me begin to understand cultural distortions in the ways that Islam is represented and interpreted in American situations . . . It is my hope that this book will contribute to a fuller analysis of the impasses between Americans and global Muslims . . . I have been sustained . . . by the vision of Bahá'u'lláh [apparently Marr doesn't realize that the Bahá'í are persecuted by devout Muslims] that the earth is one common homeland consisting of a single human family sharing a diverse world culture."

The fundamental impasse between America and Islam is the difference between Heaven and hell. It's the difference between God-given, inalienable rights on the one hand and "kill the pagans wherever you find them" on the other.

Do you understand now that our present conflict with Islam has nothing to do with OUR perception of the "Muslim world"? That's like claiming that OUR "misunderstanding" of Imperial Japan helps explain the "conflict" in the Pacific. Or that the Holocaust was due to the Jews of Europe "misunderstanding" Hitler.

Stop blaming the victim, Joseph.

Islam is, and has always been, a totalitarian, brutal, genocidal "faith" because that is what Muhammad preached and practiced. Neither our perception nor the perceptions of the other non-Muslim civilizations attacked by Islam over the last one and one-half millennia have ANYTHING to do with why they hate us. Rather, it is Muslims' perception of the genocidal pedophile Muhammad as the apostle of a god that is the root cause of the global jihad.

To demonstrate that I offered John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Ibn Kathir, and Muhammad in their own words. But you call that "ignorant."

So, if you like books that get fundamental historical fact completely upside-down, blame victims for the atrocities committed against them, and aid our enemies during a time of war, then please, buy this book.

Unless rioting Muslims are cinephiles enraged at really poor production values, they have no right to be distressed at a video pointing out what their own texts claim regarding Muhammad

Would the distress Nazis might feel at Hitler's being mocked be "entirely understandable"?

In the same way, the discomfort Muslims (claim to) feel over an internet video is neither acceptable nor excusable. By saying that it is, you're not only legitimizing Islam's prohibitions against any criticism of Muhammad, Islam, and Qur'an (even when truthful), but you're betraying those millions of innocent non-Muslims living under the constant threat of Islamic violence and discrimination.

(And that's not far-removed from the Obama administration and its propagandists' absurd claim that the video "ignited" Muslim rage, which is as nonsensical as claiming that reporting about the Holocaust caused the Holocaust.)

Have you seen the video/trailer? Though it is poorly made, its claims regarding the genocidal pedophile Muhammad's atrocities are accurate, as they come straight from Islam's own "sacred" texts.

So, unless rioting Muslims are cinephiles enraged at really poor production values, they have no right to be upset at a video pointing out the words and deeds of Muhammad, whom they otherwise exalt as Allah's "beautiful pattern of conduct" and the "Ideal Man."

Democrats rip away the mask; finally admit their contempt for God, Jews, the unborn, your children, and you

Which makes them a natural fit for Islam (and unfit for citizenship, let alone public office). If you are a decent person and a Democrat, you can no longer be both.

One of the great things about the Drudge Report is that often even a quick glance will provide revealing snapshots of national and global trends. The screen capture below shows all that needs to be said about the malice, greed, mendacity, and perverseness of today's Democratic Party.

This is not the party of even Jimmy Carter, who recently expressed his concern at the Democratic Party's becoming the party of abortion. (Speaking of Mr. Carter, he must delight at the Obama presidency in one respect: He's no longer America's Worst President Ever.)

This is the Democrats' creed, their vision for America:

Hostility toward God (but not Allah, I'll bet).

Typical Liberal Jew-hatred (a perfect fit for Islam).

Using your tax dollars to fund the slaughter of our children (an American holocaust).

Sixteen trillion dollars in debt (but give Obama four more years, and this time, he'll do something about. Honestly, he will. For real. What are you, racist?)

Record food stamp usage (because it's hard to vote on an empty stomach. Just remember where that came from).

There was a time when such positions would incur public wrath. Now it's a national political party. Is that what you want America to be?

As if there was any doubt. At least now there's no more pretending.

When decent Americans are classified as potential terrorists and treated like criminals by their own government, but Muslims are shielded from any real scrutiny (even just basic fact-telling) whatsoever -- despite claiming fealty to a god demanding the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert -- then you know that the enemy is not only within the gates, they're in control.

As destructive as Franklin Roosevelt was to the Constitution and American Liberty, even he would be demonized by today's Democrats as a right-wing, religious extremist. And JFK? Clearly, a Nazi. And don't even think about giving any sort of credence to Colonial proto-terrorists like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, or Madison. As for Lincoln? Reagan? Republicans.

This is what happens when citizens allows the ignorant, perverse, and craven to gain control over government, media, and education. You end up with malignant narcissists on parade and in power, on your dime.

Congrats, tyrants, there's a political party just for you, and now, it's official.

Update 2:03 AM, 9/5/12: According to Drudge, a DNC video declares: "The government is the only thing we all belong to."

Of course. Now we're just one or two steps away from Democrats informing us that we exist at their discretion and for their benefit.

Cake, anyone?

Same-gender "marriage" not about human rights, but about using the coercive power of the state to endorse perversion

In response to this:

If all sin were illegal, we'd all be serving life sentences.

Having said that, this manufactured controversy is not about "human rights," but about forcing society to endorse a perverse abuse of the human body. What society in the history of Man has promoted same-gender depravity as legitimate family structure?

The definition of "marriage" is not determined by majority-vote; if it is, what's to keep "We the People" from mis-defining marriage as "one man, three women," "one mother, one son," "one man, one iPod," or "one man, one [insert farm animal here] (pun definitely not intended)? How will anyone be able to stop NAMBLA or Islam from defiling our children (Allah-sanctioned pedophilia, for the uninformed)?

We are not defining marriage, we are merely describing what already exists -- what God created -- and that is a permanent union of one man and one woman (with the glorious possibility of children).

Even the person of no particular religious or moral conviction has to see that homosexuality taken to its ultimate conclusion leads only to the end of civilization and the extinction of the human race.

And it is obvious that the human body was designed with the systems for a man and a woman to reproduce.

Tolerance is not approval. Endorsing sin is not love.

Why isn't Tom Scheck of Minnesota Public Radio telling the whole story about Keith Ellison, a.k.a. Hakim Muhammad?

Mr. Scheck,

In your article at http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/07/20/politics/ellison-denounces-bachmann-accusations/, you write as though Ellison-Muhammad is an innocent victim with legitimate complaints. Are you intentionally deceiving your readers, or are you really so uninformed?

Why aren't you reporting on Ellison-Muhammad's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/keith-ellison-d-muslim-brotherhood-whitewashes-his-own-links-to-brotherhood-and-hamas-linked-cair.html)?

Why aren't you warning your audience of the Brotherhood's stated goal of bringing down Western Civilization from within (with its non-Muslim citizens' help)? In "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America" (http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20), the MB states that Muslims should view their lives in the West as:

a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes . . . ."

Why aren't you reporting on the multitude of MB "friends" in the U.S., including CAIR, MSA, ISNA, MPAC, et al.? Why aren't you reporting that CAIR is tied to Hamas, a Muslim terrorist group which in its charter confesses its goal to wipe Israel from the Earth? Why are you printing CAIR's "description" of itself as if it were merely a special interest group without pointing out that it is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a major terrorist funding case (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/hamas-linked-cair-is-still-an-unindicted-co-conspirator-so-is-isna.html)?

Please do your duty, Mr. Scheck.

Regards,

Santiago Matamoros

What can you expect from someone who thinks that Muslims have a Constitutional right to his own daughters?

Hello, Tony, and welcome to 2003.
This is the earliest e-mail addressed to a public figure containing the revised signature.

Following is a response to the inveterate liar Anthony Sokolow, who advocates Socialism and Shari'a. In other words, an Obamaphile:

Tony,

How sad. You can't defend your nescient agitating for the bankruptcy of the American Republic, so you resort (again) to absurdity.

You are a liar and a masochist.

I did not select my nom de guerre out of pretention. (How stupid! If I were to do something like that, I'd have to be twelve-years-old and harboring intense feelings of insecurity . . . which goes a long way toward explaining why you thought of that first.) I chose the name to make a point regarding the one and one-half millennia-old existential threat posed by Islam. Unsurprisingly, you don't get it.

And where have I called myself a "scholar"? (Thanks for the compliment, by the way.) All one needs to understand Islam's texts, tenets, and timeline is the ability to read, some free time, and a little intellectual honesty. You have the time to participate in these e-mail exchanges (I'd use "debates," but that implies at least two sides contending more-or-less equally), so you do have some free time on your hands, and . . . .

. . . Well, I guess one out of three isn't too bad. (If this were Major League Baseball, you'd be an All-Star.)

With regard to the Henry quote, shall I remind you of how I disgrace you publicly every time you bring it up? You will recall that I demonstrated conclusively that you were several years late in pointing out its origin and that the only reason it showed up in its older form is because of a quirk in Hotmail.

Is anyone really surprised that you can't be honest? After all, you defend on Constitutional grounds the right of Muslims to exercise the freedom in their religion to behead you and rape and enslave your wife and two daughters.

You really ought to spend less time on the computer. After all, you've got bigger things to worry about. Like how to explain to your daughters your giving them up as sex slaves to the Ikhwan.

A.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." -attributed commonly to, but inspired by, Patrick Henry

"I know no Savior apart from the One born by the Virgin, died on the cross, and given out at the altar." -Martin Luther

Treacherous Wikipedia

Wikipedia's editors play Judas to the truth.

Everyone has biases, but as Wikipedia's editors prove, not everyone can deal with the facts honestly.

Absurd ad hominems, specious arguments, over-generalizations, diversion, condescension. So much for intellectual integrity at Wikipedia.

A few notes pointing out Wikipedia's fundamental dishonesty from here:

The fact that the Lutheran Study Bible contains devotional content does not mean that its theological, historical, or textual scholarship is in any way questionable. That's poor logic.

Also, the text notes and essays contained in the LSB are written and/or compiled by professionals with earned Master's degrees and doctorates. Dismissing highly-educated Lutheran theologians and editors because they're Lutheran is fundamentally dishonest.

And the Evangelist made no "erroneous attribution," which is shown clearly by the material that was deleted.

Finally, Augustine and Luther are quoted/noted to imply error; their own words and heirs ought to be able to add to the discussion. That they're not indicates strongly a profound bias.

No wonder Wikipedia has the reputation it does.

Infrastructure does not create Prosperity, Liberty does

Offered in response to Anthony Sokolow's defense of Obama's deception on "infrastructure":

Infrastructure -- Government spending -- does not create Prosperity, Liberty does.

You write as if Government is a god, creating ex nihilo. But it doesn't. All that Government "gives" – including infrastructure – is paid for by its citizens through either taxes, debt, or inflation.

Every dollar spent by a politician – which politician knows better than you what to do with your own wealth, Tony? – is a dollar that the one who earned it no longer has to use for his own purposes.

Having a political "elite" decide how everyone else should live is fine as long as you're part of that elite, but it's not Liberty.

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's fundamental dishonesty regarding "infrastructure" (h/t Tom):

Spoken by a man who never created or ran so much as a candy store.

And it's completely a straw man argument — as if conservatives and Republicans are arguing to disband the fire department and the police department so we can all do it individually on our own. The idea that infrastructure is necessary and good is as old as the republic. It's older than that. The Romans had the Via Appia and that wasn't exactly a new idea. And they had the sewers as well.

The question is: What do you do with the money once you build the infrastructure? You heard Obama talking about the moon shot. … in that speech. He went through a list of the great achievements that the government has done. The moon shot. Well, Obama's the guy who shut down the moon program — manned space program so that today we have to outsource our access into space. For any American astronaut who wants to go to the space station we have to pay the Russians $50 million a shot.

He spoke about the invention of the Internet, which he neglected to say was the work of Al Gore. In fact, it wasn't the government that invented it, in general, it was the Defense Department, a part of the government. And what has Obama done as he sprinkled billions of dollars on all the other departments in government? He shrunk the Defense Department and it's now looking at draconian cuts.

This is a man that spent $1 trillion [stimulus] and left not a residue. He could have, for example, done something about the electric grid. He did nothing on that. Instead he sprinkled the money on cronies, pie in the sky ideological fetishes, like solar panels and electric cars…. Money wasted, it's water on the sand. He did not leave behind residue on all that, and yet he speaks of infrastructure.

All of us want infrastructure — but real infrastructure. And leave the rest of life to the private individual and the entrepreneur.

To liberals, "freedom" and "justice" are merely buzzwords useful only for buying votes from the greedy and stealing them from the gullible

You know, if stimuli are so good for terrorist states, corporations, public employee unions, and other campaign contributors, why don't leftists just give every American citizen – and illegals, too, why discriminate? – a billion dollars?

No leftist will answer that, since then they'd have to address why politicians, corporations, thieves, the lazy, and terrorists are more deserving of American dollars than those who actually earn them.

Liberals don't believe in freedom or justice. To them, those are merely buzzwords useful only for buying votes from the greedy and stealing them from the gullible.

Romney prescribing the same socialized arsenic as has President Kevorkian, only in smaller, state-sized doses

In reply to Anthony Sokolow's defense of Obama's mendacity on the proper attitude of government toward its citizens:

Tony,

Obama's performing some more sleight-of-tongue, making the absurd logical leap from the legitimate functions of government to justifying Leviathan and the final undoing of American Liberty. He's running a bait-and-switch on the American people, implying that what he's trying to do is consistent with what Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington did, people whom he defines as "right-wing extremists" and "potential terrorists."

If you refuse to vote for Romney on the basis of his distance from "everyday Americans" (whatever those are, for income should not disqualify one from holding public office, right?) and his secrecy (alleged by the Left; how ironic!), then you must despise Obama (not to mention many other leftists), who refuses not only to reveal anything meaningful about his own past (forget tax returns; how 'bout a birth certificate?) but to deal plainly with his intentions for the Republic's future.

Seriously, making up girlfriends? I'm sure that even if you did that, Tony, it was only to save face in front of your friends and not to create an electable façade, a mask behind which you could work to undermine the Republic.

You know, anyone reading your eager swallowing whole of whatever propaganda Obama and his media whores put out might conclude that you're incapable of intellectual probity; factual accuracy; or critical thinking.

And that's fine. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And if you chose to have an opinion that is not an informed one, well then you do yourself a disservice by holding it and everyone else a disservice by publishing it.*

A.

P.S.: None of the above is an endorsement of Romney, since he's proven his willingness to say and do whatever he thinks is necessary to win elections, going so far as to prescribe the same socialized arsenic as has President Kevorkian, only in smaller, state-sized doses. Our nation's only hope is that Romney wins and is forced by the American people to keep his promises to reverse the disastrous effects of Obama's only term.

*Tony is a master of Unintentional Irony, the humorous but tragic propensity for tyrants to accuse others of their own perverseness. You'll find the most severe cases in hardcore Leftists and Muslims, as those who hate God the most are least able to recognize truth and most prone to proving His wisdom
. . . and their own folly.

If St. Augustine is going to be used carelessly (or dishonestly) to impugn the integrity of Scripture, then he should be allowed to speak fully

In exploring the possible use of "Iscariot" as an epithet for Judas (the name can mean "man from Kerioth," like Leonardo "da Vinci"), I stumbled upon a discussion of the two apparently-conflicting accounts of Judas' death recorded in the New Testament. But it's not whether he died from hanging or his body fell and burst that is at issue (the Scriptures state that Judas hanged himself and that his body fell and burst; the two are not incompatible)' it's whether or not Matthew erred in citing Jeremiah when quoting Zechariah.

In an article on Judas Iscariot, a contributor notes that no less than Saints Augustine, Jerome, and Luther consider Matthew's citation an "error." Here's the passage in question:

Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood."

They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me" (Matthew 27:3-10).

The best-informed and most rational explanation for this apparent contradiction is offered by the Lutheran Study Bible in a text note on Matthew 27, verses 9-10 (p. 1645) and the subsequent essay on the reliability of Scripture, "God's Reliable Word" (p. 1646). The text note states that the passage:

"Quotes Zechariah 11:12-13, but adds phrases from Jeremiah 19:11 (a potter's field is used for burial) and an allusion to Jeremiah 32:6-11 (Jeremiah's purchase of land)."

So, did the Evangelist err (at least partially)? Was St. Matthew careless? The essay explains further that (emphases mine):

"critics overlook a number of points on this issue. First, at a time when manuscripts were very rare and expensive, readers resorted to a variety of ways for studying and remembering key passages. Scribes often prepared collections of texts on a topic as a means for exploring and learning the teachings of Scripture. In The Harmony of All Sacred Scripture, Michael Walther provided numerous examples of this practice and the writers' habit of merging quotations (Harmonia Totius S. Scripturae [Strasbourg: Eberhard Zetzner, 1626], 416). Below is Walther's list with some additions:

Matthew 21:5 contains Isaiah 62:11, Zechariah 9:9

Matthew 21:13 contains Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 7:11

Mark 1:2-3 contains Malachi 3:1, Isaiah 40:3

Acts 1:20 contains Psalm 69:25, 109:8

Romans 3:10-18 contains Psalms 14:1-3, 53:1-3, 5:9, 140:3; Proverbs 1:16; Isaiah 59:7-8; Psalm 36:1

1 Peter 2:7 contains Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 8:14

The example from Mark 1:2-3 is especially helpful for understanding Matthew 27:9-10. Mark ascribes his quote to Isaiah, but the full quote is actually a mixture of Malachi and Isaiah -- and Malachi gets quoted first. When we carefully consider Matthew 27:9-10, we see that the first words of the text come from Zechariah 11:13. But there is also wording from Jeremiah 32:6-9. It appears that both Matthew and Mark named their lists by the larger prophetic books cited in the lists. (Zechariah and Malachi were perhaps less likely to suggest themselves for the titling, since they stood in the scroll of the minor prophets.)

And if St. Augustine is going to be used carelessly (or dishonestly) to impugn the integrity of Scripture, then he should be allowed to speak fully:

"If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood . . . For the utterances of Scripture, harmonious as if from the mouth of one man, commend themselves to the belief of the most accurate and clear-sighted piety, and demand for their discovery and confirmation the calmest intelligence and the most ingenious research . . . So that, if any one is perplexed by the apparent contradiction, the only conclusion is that he does not understand" (NPNF 1 4:180).

So, it turns out St. Augustine was right after all. Not about the Evangelist erring, but about our lack of understanding and our need for "the calmest intelligence and the most ingenious research" in our study of Scripture.

Muslims stone Christians . . . in Dearborn

And what do those sworn to protect our God-given, unalienable rights do? Not only do they allow Muslims to commit attempted murder against those exercising their freedom of speech, but they also harass, threaten, and act as accessories to the violation of those victims' rights. All this because, of course, men standing with signs are a "danger to public safety," but Muslims literally stoning (and bottling, concreting, milk-cartoning, and urining) peaceful Christians is "understandable" and "expected."

The consequences of this official cowardice are dire. One of the Christians heard on camera near the end of the video has it right: The authorities are rewarding Muslim rage and violence and contempt for American law.

It's too bad the victims in this case weren't homosexuals protesting Islamic intolerance of their behavioral choices or blacks denouncing the racism inherent to Islam; then the police might have done their job. Or, can you imagine what would have happened if the identities of the two groups in this case were reversed, if this had been a mob of Christians hurling projectiles and expletives at Muslims merely holding signs denying the divinity of Christ or somesuch?

Any bets on when Holder and his Department of Inaction and Enabling are going to ensure that the law is upheld? President Obama? No, you're right; they're too busy giving citizenship and automatic weapons to illegal aliens and Mexican drug gangs. At least they're "trying real hard."

If left unchecked, it's no secret how Islamic intimidation and violence will turn out here, because we've seen it over and over again, year after year, in nation after nation. All you have to do is look at any Islamic -- and Islamizing -- state to see what happens to its non-Muslims when they allow Muslims to gain any sort of significant presence.

Once a Muslim population hits critical mass, it explodes.*

This is Islam in America, and it's only going to get worse. Allah must be proud:

*What pun?

For Obama, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is today, while Romney endorses the liberal half of the Supreme Court as the final word on all things Constitutional

Whether it's King George or King Barry, "tyranny" by any other name would smell as rank.*

Officials have already drafted 13,000 pages of new regulations for the new ObamaTax law.

King Barry will be hiring thousands of new tax people to enforce "the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years." And you won't get your refund until you provide proof of insurance.

It's bad enough that when you're pulled over you have to show proof of auto insurance. That's the government punishing you for driving. This is being pulled over for proof of health insurance. That's government punishing you for living.

If the Obamacare "tax" is really a penalty (which it is), then the law is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to force free people to buy a particular product. Misdefining "penalty" as "tax" is how Chief Justice Roberts justified siding with the deranged half of the Court in upholding Obamacare, and its how Obama's liars lawyers argued it before the Court, all of which is an admission not only that Obama knows that the law is unconstitutional, but that he thinks you're stupid.

Why is Obama changing definitions again? Because he knows that the American people are sick of taxes, and we will not tolerate 13,000 pages of new taxation. If we opposed socialized medicine when it carried with it a "penalty," how much more despised will it be now that the "penalty" is a massive tax increase?

And there is Romney's problem: He's right to call it a "penalty" (liberals, like all tyrants, love to punish those who disobey them) and not a "tax," but his handlers want him to call it a "tax" because they think that will make it easier to defeat Obama. They think that We the People are incapable of understanding Obama's shell game. But if it wasn't obvious before, it should be clear now that Obama's the operator, the politicians, media, and Supreme Court justices are the lookouts, muscle, and shills, and the American people are the mark.

Romney would be best off calling the penalty what it is and not endorsing the liberal half of the Supreme Court as the "final word" on all matters constitutional. We the People, judging in accord with our nation's founding principles as stated in our Declaration of Independence and enumerated in our Constitution, are the final word. Mitt should explain Obama and his fellow Socialists' willful, condescending deception and vow to repeal it.

How will the Republic survive when its only alternative to King George is afraid to state plainly that the emperor is wearing Marxist underwear?

Obama silent while spokesman denies mandate is a tax:

Anchor Soledad O’Brien asked LaBolt: “His spokesman…said it’s a penalty. The Supreme Court has said it’s a tax. What does he believe?”

“That it’s a penalty,” LaBolt answered.  “You saw our arguments before the Supreme Court…”

“So then he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision that says it’s now a tax?” O’Brien asked.

“That’s right,” said LaBolt.  “He said that it’s a penalty.  You saw our arguments before the Court.”

At that point, O’Brien pointed out that the Obama administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, argued before the Court that if the justices chose not to find the mandate constitutional under the Commerce Clause, they could still uphold it because it is a tax, and Congress has broad power to levy taxes.

*Apologies to Messrs. Ramirez and Shakespeare

Even Roberts's apologists admit his dishonesty

See, John, it all depends on what the meaning of "tax" is. If anyone asks, use this . . . .

The Marxist-in-Chief and his persons of hench repeatedly denied that the mandate was a tax. Until it was.

Charles Krauthammer, who, along with Hugh Hewitt, is giving credit to the Chief Justice for being a subtle genius, had to admit that Roberts used semantic sleight-of-hand to join the treasonous Left side of the bench in ruling in favor of Obamacare, noting that he was:

"finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law . . . ."

We know what Roberts did, but we don't know why. Perhaps Krauthammer and Hewitt's speculation is correct, but they're not mind-readers, and Roberts isn't talking.

This is a better assessment of the issues at stake:

“It was disturbing that we made the case to Justice Kennedy, who embraced the concept of limited government, only to have it overshadowed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who envisioned the entire issue simply of one over the ability to tax,” Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas . . . .

What's to stop Congress from calling everything it wants a "tax"? Our malfeasant Representatives and Senators have the power to tax, but they don't have the ability to mandate, to force free citizens into commerce. Neither does Congress' power to tax include the power to tax inactivity.

This "law" and the court decision upholding it is Leviathan. It's big government. It's socialized medicine. Therefore un-Constitutional in every sense of the word.

Lou Costello (1906-1959)

A great man. It's rumored he had a sense of humor, too.

Just give me a sign ... Just any kind of sign. I'll keep on the lookout for it. Meanwhile, I'll just put you in the closet.

Sometimes, we choose to ignore the obvious.

It's easy to point out the faults in others, but it's not always easy to be honest about our own.

Lately, I've noticed something unusual. Now, God speaks to all men through His Word, so I don't believe (as some Christians like to claim) that "God is talking to me," but He does work through everything for the good of those who love Him, and so recent, odd circumstances have not gone unnoticed but have impressed upon me important truths I've chosen to ignore.

First, Courageous. Every film I watch, song I listen to, book I read, speech I hear, or game I play becomes a theological exercise (the Apostle John tells us by the Holy Spirit to test everything), but this is a special case because Courageous is an explicitly-religious film. What a wasted opportunity to share God's mercy with those who are hurting and lost (whether Christian or not)!

A father suffers the tragic loss of his beautiful, little daughter, and what is his -- and the filmmakers' -- answer? The (little "e") evangelical's answer to everything theological:

"Try HARDER."

The film's website admits this when it talks about its characters who "miss the mark." Of course, they "miss the mark." We all miss the mark. We are all miserable sinners desperately in need of God's mercy, which He lavishes on all in Christ!

(In other words, our trying does not "draw us closer to God," but God comes to us, giving the forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and salvation to all who trust in Christ.)

I have no doubt that those behind the film are sincere, "good" Christians. And they probably intend the film as encouragement to fathers, but it's not Gospel. It doesn't save souls. It doesn't comfort broken hearts. And it confuses Man's effort for God's mercy, which is hell for those who know they aren't good enough but don't know that Christ has already taken away their sins.

Still, some good stuff about fulfilling your God-given responsibilities as a father and overall, an interesting, emotionally-powerful movie (at least until the last scene, which replaces the work of the Holy Spirit with a pep rally).

Second, for the first time in my life, I'm doing it for Tony. And for Marcus.

And today, this.

One day at a time.

Hope for a change? We'll see, since it's a different dose of the same socialized medicine

Does anyone really believe that the guy who did "for" Massachusetts what Obama's done to the Republic will deliver on this video's implied promise?

What choice do we have? When the patient is hemorrhaging to death, you've got to stop the bleeding. Our chance to do so is this November. Vote out B. Hussein Kevorkian. And if Romney lacks the sense and courage to restore the Rule of Law, vote him out, too, and every other politician who promises to "take care of" the American people, when what they're really doing is coaxing voters into selling their God-given liberties for a bowl of soup.

Politicians' positions exist to protect our rights, we do not exist to provide them position.

Roberts' treasonous plunge left a nail in someone's coffin

Thomas Jefferson warned, "Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Well, we've given our political elites enough chain to hang someone.

Either the Republic will go the way of Greece, or this unconscionable, unconstitutional power-grab by our elected tyrants will motivate citizens to reclaim their Constitutional rights and beat back Cerberus into its proper, specified limits.

Liebau notes Obama's subversive mendacity here:

1. Obama ran against Hillary Clinton saying that he would not support an individual mandate.

2. After he won, he said he would support an individual mandate -- but it wasn't a tax.

3. In the Supreme Court, to make his legislation constitutional, he instructed his Solicitor General to argue that it was a tax, after all -- thereby violating his pledge against a middle class tax increase.

The slaughter of innocents: Our own modern, maternal holocaust

Pharaoh, Molech, Herod, America. It may have been possible to self-deceive when the facts of abortion were hidden, but they're secret no longer.

Tens of millions of babies butchered by their own mothers in the name of convenience, commerce, and the Constitution. This is one small victory for those telling the truth about our own modern, maternal holocaust.

Judge protects videos exposing ‘savage’ abortions:

the screen cuts to a video clip in which it appears that a fetal hand reaches out of the birth canal and gloved fingers – ostensibly those of a doctor – expose more of the hand before using forceps to rip off the appendage.

Obama humiliates Marines as degenerates defile Reagan

Just another fabulous moment in Obama's heartfelt, lifelong middle-fingered "salute" to the American people.

The First Homosexual President never misses an opportunity to violate America's honor. This time, he brought a few of his sexually-deviant supporters into the White House to insult Reagan, with the Marine Corps Band providing the soundtrack to their insolence.

Notice Hart's admission that AIDS was primarily a homosexual affliction (or his own cold indifference toward Straight-Americans).

From here:

This wasn’t Segal’s first trip to the White House, having twice visited during Bill Clinton’s gay-friendly tenure. “One of the things on my bucket list was to dance with my boyfriend at the White House,” remarks Segal.”And this is the second time I got to do it. We come up to the main foyer, and what do they play? Barbra Streisand. ‘The Way We Were.’ And I thought, Are they going to play nothing but Barbra, Bette and Lady Gaga? I was waiting for ‘Over the Rainbow.’ I mean, this is the Marine band!”

Clearly, Segal, a dedicated activist but also an astute political hobnobber, wants to be invited back. But his counterparts couldn’t seem to care less. Hart posted his photo on Facebook with the caption, “F[sic] Reagan.” Strauss simply posted hers without commentary. After all, the murderous facial expression and double-barreled bird-flipping seem to speak for themselves. Comments ranged from “you forgot to add with a chainsaw” on Hart’s “F[sic] Reagan” note, to my personal favorite, “star wars … up yours,” on Strauss’s. ...

“Yeah, f[sic] Reagan,” reiterates Hart one week after the reception. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so."

Someone whose lifestyle and agitation promote depravity and death calling someone who promoted Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness a "murderous fool"?

Now, that's ironic.

And that's all you need to know about the suicidal Left

Another reply to those delighting in the undermining of Western Civilization without realizing that when the American system of government is replaced finally with some sort of faux-secular or pseudo-religious ideology -- Communism, Socialism, Islam, or some other fascism, it doesn't really matter -- their rights will die, too:

Speaking of meds, if the anonymous coward Brainwashed or any of his multiple personalities offer something substantive, I'll respond as time allows. For now, a few points:

1) Unwilling or unable to address my arguments on the facts, and lacking the courage to admit the implications of his irrational self-loathing, Brainwashed turns to absurd ad hominem and name-calling, the (second-to-) last resort of tyrants.

2) For the record, Saudi ownership of a significant portion of Fox is not news to me (punny, but a baseless lie; Brainwashed must be desperate); jihad's agents have embedded themselves throughout all levels of American government, academia, and media. (See the bald-faced, outright lies at the California Science Center in Los Angeles and Obama's hosting the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated purpose is to bring down Western Civilization from within, for examples.)

If our brave friend had been paying attention at all, he would have known that many on the so-called Right are bought-and-sold to Islam (the natural convergence between the Left and Islam renders discussion of their ties superfluous):

-New Jersey governor Chris Christie appointed to public office a jihadist lawyer and mocked those expressing reservations about shari'a;

-Texas governor Rick Perry is in deep with a leading proponent of shari'a, having worked with him to develop Islamic propaganda for Texas schools;

-Texas representative Ron Paul thinks that if we leave Islam alone, it'll leave us alone. That flies in the face of nearly one-and-one-half millennia of the rape, slavery, and slaughter of non-Muslims in Allah's name around the world and our own experience:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"'It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.'"

(Jefferson reported this revelation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who reported it to Congress. America's oldest military monument is dedicated to our first effort against Islamic jihad.)

-apparent Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has spoken publicly about there being nothing inherent to Islam that inspires violence. (Though I have no reason to believe that he's a shill for shari'a, the one person most responsible for our national defense ought to know and speak the truth about the existential threat facing Western Civilization.)

-Grover Norquist, a darling of the Right, belongs to Islam heart-and-soul and has made discussion of our mortal foe verboten (see recent CPACs for examples).

In other words, the Enemy Within is found on both sides of the political divide.

3) How is it possible to "demonize" "Islamists," again? (Would Brainwashed have crowed about "the Nazis you demonize"?)

Muhammad sacralized genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, torture, mutilation, theft, extortion, polygyny, wife-beating, religious and gender apartheid, sedition, treason, and blasphemy, claiming that, "Allah made me do it, and you will too ... or else!"

If claiming that the God of the Bible chose Muhammad to make "holy" the violation of all Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and Christ's Bride, the Church isn't "demonic," then nothing is.

4) I defend our God-given, unalienable rights, and I oppose anti-Semitism, genocide, pedophilia, rape, and slavery on theological grounds, yet our felicitous scholar and pharmacist Brainwashed claims that I should "stick to topics [I] actually know something about."

If there had been any doubt, that tells us all we need to know about Brainwashed.

And it should tell Brainwashed something about himself.

Another domestic skirmish in defense of the West

So, have you heard the one about two guys go to a football 'blog and a political debate breaks out?

No, it's not funny (even so, it's more humorous than John Malkovich's Siri commercial), but neither is the nescient venom with which the suicidal Left attacks anyone who believes in Man's God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

From here:

@Brainwashed, Facts are facts, regardless of "belief system." Since I write in defense of every person's God-given, unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, and -- by your own admission -- you don't share my belief in those, then you are, by definition, "on the other side." Thanks for admitting that.

Now, since you're trying to impugn my character and judgment, let's consider my latest "rant": I noted that someone writing for the Miami Herald misrepresented the status of a bill intended to defend the citizens of Florida against shari'a.

Since that is a statement of fact, then you must support either "news organizations" lying to the public, or the implementation of shari'a, or both. Which is it? Whatever the case, you would clearly be "on the other side." (That's not a "tactic," that's called "logic.")

(To be clear, Brainwashed, I'm not defending Fox. But if I were, I'd have to thank you for admitting that stating facts is one of Fox's "tactics.")

I'd prefer we were on the same side in defense of Liberty.

An obvious case of presidential projection

Look out! Here comes some Hope and Change.

As the linked article points out, allowing massive illegal immigration takes jobs from less-skilled Americans in need of work. That's neither just nor wise as a matter of principle, but it's especially perverse during the "Greatest Economic Crisis Since the Great Depression."

According to The Daily Caller, in ignoring questions about his amnesty-by-executive-fiat, "Obama depicted the immigrants as Americans except for their legal status."

Who can blame him? That's how he got his current job.

Congratulations, Keith Olbermann! Osama hearts you

If firing Keith Olbermann displeases deranged, heartless murderers who worship a god which calls raping prepubescent nine-year-olds "beautiful," then shouldn't everyone be firing Keith Olbermann?

What's that word for giving one's enemies "Aid and Comfort," again?

Don't worry, Keith. You're in good company.

Possible captions:
A trusted resource to genocidal pedophiles everywhere.
Loved by the Worst Person in the World.
Gadahn hates Fox. bin Laden hates Fox. Why doesn't Olbermann like Fox?
How long until we find documents revealing that Adolf Hitler had a man-crush on Anderson Cooper?
Keith Olbermann, poster boy for the natural nexus between jihadists and their Useful Idiot leftists.

From the "Hello, and welcome to last decade" file:

Osama bin Laden pondered the merits of US television news channels as he considered how to extract the best propaganda benefit from the tenth anniversary of 9/11 last year, and concluded that CBS was "close to being unbiased". But an American-born media adviser for al-Qaeda warned Bin Laden to beware of the broadcasters' "cunning methods" as he described Fox News as a channel in the "abyss" that should "die in anger", CNN as too close to the US government and MSNBC as questionable after it fired one of its most prominent presenters, Keith Olbermann.

And that tells you all you need to know about the leftists in media.

The Miami Herald lies to protect shari'a from Florida's citizens

And that's not "news," is it?

The Herald claimed that a bill forbidding the use of foreign law in Florida courts was dead when it wasn't.

A few thoughts from here:

Why would anyone resist shari'a? It's firmly grounded in equality for all, regardless of creed or gender.

Isn't it?

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

And in response to a lying Muslima named "Anisah":

Your mendacity is embarrassingly-transparent.

The Ten Commandments -- along with the rest of the Bible -- are the foundation of Western Civilization, both of which your coreligionists have worked long to destroy.

Instead of demonizing Americans for wanting to defend their YHWH-given rights, you ought to be demonstrating from Qur'an, ahadith, and sira how shari'a is murderously-opposed to Western ideals of morality, Liberty, and equality.

Stop trying to divert attention from the illiterate and demoniacal ravings of an anti-Semitic, seventh-century, genocidal pedophile.

ABC News proves Newt's point about media bias

Of all the many photos they could have chosen to represent the candidates in their banner, look at the expressions ABC selected:

Which person should be our next president? The cheerful guy on the left or the one who has an actual chance at winning? I wonder what ABC thinks?

Don't count on A Biased Corporation -- or any of their co-ideologues -- to tell you the truth.

Ron Paul is not the answer; he thinks the Barbary Wars were George W. Bush's fault

America's oldest military monument, carved of marble from a quarry used by Michelangelo.
Dedicated to those who perished in our Republic's first War of Self-Defense Against Allah, the First Barbary War.

Interesting images on the monument dedicated to defending America against jihad.
Are those Buddhists? After all, why would Religionists of Peace appear on an American war memorial?

In response to some comments on an article regarding Obama's trampling of the Constitution:

I've always admired Ron Paul for his defense of the Constitution.

However, I cannot support him as Commander-in-Chief, since he's stated his belief that if we leave Islam alone, it will leave us alone.

Nothing is further from the truth. Islam exploded out of Arabia nearly one and one-half millennia ago and has since waged war against the non-Muslim world on the basis of universal, open-ended commands like "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Paul's position on jihad is essentially the Left's: When Muslims attack us, it's our fault.

If you really believe that, then how do explain the Barbary pirates attacking American shipping just after the Revolution? (George W. Bush wouldn't be born for another two centuries!) You historians will recall what Adams and Jefferson discovered when they asked our Muslim antagonists why they were attacking us, since we had done nothing to them:

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"'It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once'" ("First Barbary War," Wikipedia; Jefferson reported this revelation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who reported it to Congress. America's oldest military monument is dedicated to our first effort against Islamic jihad).

Obama says, "Respect Islam." Paul says, "It's our fault." Romney says, "There's nothing inherently violent about Islam." That's utter nescience (or worse, treason).

We need to fill the Oval Office -- and the Congress! -- with citizens who understand not only that government exists to protect our rights (and not that we live as a resource for the State to exploit), but that while there may be moderate Muslims (research "taqiyya"), Islam itself is not "moderate."