Saturday, June 29, 2013

Allen West to Obama, Reid, Pelosi: ‘Get the Hell Out of the United States of America’

Allen West to Obama, Reid, Pelosi: Get the Hell Out of the United States of America
oped: It is a shame that Allen West was not our first Black President...he has class and the right stuff to lead ! Hopefully we will have West/Palin 2016...true patriots with the right ideas!


Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) had a strong message Saturday for President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Get the hell out.”
West made the comments during a speech at a Palm Beach County GOP event in West Palm Beach.
“This is a battlefield that we must stand upon. And we need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain’t on the table,” West said.

The audience was booing by the time West got to Pelosi’s name.
“Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else,” he continued. “You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”
As the audience cheered and many rose to their feet, West added, “Yeah I said ‘hell.’”
“This is not about 1 percent or 99 percent. This is about 100 percent. It’s about 100 percent America. And I will not stand back and watch anyone defame, degrade or destroy that which my father fought for, my older brother, my father-in-law, myself, my nephew and all my friend still in uniform,” he said.
“I will not allow President Obama to take the United States of America and destroy it. If that means I’m the No. 1 target for the Democrat Party, all I got to say is one thing: Bring it on, baby.”

Supreme Court petitioned to reimpose California gay marriage ban

By Steve Gorman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Opponents of gay marriage petitioned the Supreme Court on Saturday to immediately reinstate a 5-year-old ban on same-sex matrimony in California, saying a federal appeals court had acted prematurely in removing the prohibition on gay nuptials.
Supporters of the gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, which California voters approved in 2008, asked the high court to overrule a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals order on Friday lifting a stay that had kept same-sex unions outlawed.
Friday's surprise removal of the stay launched a flurry of swiftly arranged weddings by gay and lesbian couples up and down the state following a Supreme Court decision on Wednesday to let stand a 2010 lower-court opinion striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

But opponents said the three-judge panel of the appeals court had jumped the gun in lifting its injunction before a 25-day "reconsideration" period at the Supreme Court had elapsed.
The Arizona-based group Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the 9th Circuit lacked authority to act when it did, and that it violated the terms of its own stay requiring that it remain in place "until final disposition by the Supreme Court."
The alliance asserted that final disposition could not occur before passage of the 25 days the Supreme Court normally gives petitioners to seek a re-hearing, in this case Prop 8 backers who were denied legal standing to appeal the 2010 decision.
But the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the federal court challenge to Prop 8, issued a statement insisting that the 9th Circuit acted under its own "broad discretion" to issue its stay in the first place.
"Now that the Supreme Court has decided that the injunction against Proposition 8 must stand, it was entirely appropriate for the 9th circuit to dissolve its stay of that injunction," the alliance said in a statement.

Foundation attorney Ted Boutrous told reporters on a conference call on Friday that the 9th Circuit's move was hardly unprecedented and that appeals courts have taken similar actions in "much more boring cases than this" without drawing much notice.
Prop 8 supporters, he said, "should hang it up and quit trying to stop people from getting married."
The emergency petition seeking to bring gay marriages to a halt came as dozens of same-sex couples lined up at San Francisco City Hall for a second straight day since the appeals court lifted its stay against the 2010 decision by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker barring further enforcement of Prop 8.
(Writing by Steve Gorman; Additional reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles, Patrick Creaven in San Francisco and Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Editing by Eric Walsh and Eric Beech)

Virginia City Nevada...Season in full swing

Come visit...y'all will have a blast..if ya can't make it the begining or middle summer ...come at the end~September...always good for a laugh:) Like who wouldn't laugh at amateur camel Jockies? Fun for all singles,families or whateva ! *Gun Zone* so ya will be safe from the bad guys...CCW and open carry is our deterrent ..:)

Enjoy a sample of the races:

Congressman Jim Bridenstine OWNS Obama In 1 Minute!

Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-Oklahoma) asks: what would tyranny look like in America? (Look around!) 

Pelosi Distorts July 4 To Celebrate “health Independence”

oped: Nancy Pelosi,Michael Bloomberg and Joe Biden have to be the dumbest of the dumb on the DNC side...unabashed real time morons..IMHO they all need to retire and go away before their kids and grandkids are so shamed they can no longer go out in public!

Pelosi Trust Me SC Pelosi distorts July 4 to celebrate health independence
In a desperate effort to prop up an utterly unpopular law, Democrat hack and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seeks to redefine Independence Day with a shameless Obamacare plug.
While Americans across the nation take time to reflect on the sacrifice made by our founders to grant us the freedom — such as it is — we enjoy today, Pelosi claims “we’ll also be observing health independence.”

She is referring, of course, to the abysmal and falsely labeled Affordable Care Act, which was unfortunately upheld by the Supreme Court about one year prior to her recent comments.
Without cracking a smile, which is admittedly tough given her penchant for cosmetic surgery, she said the law “captures the spirit of our founders.”
There is nothing in our Constitution on which she could possibly base that absurd allegation, but history has proven that Pelosi and her cohorts on the lunatic left care little about backing up their reckless rhetoric.

Obamacare offers the exact opposite of “health independence,” as those subjected to its coverage are completely at the mercy of federal regulators. Pelosi did not stop with the requisite propaganda in support of her party; she also threw in a few jabs aimed at the right.
“If Paul Revere were here today,” she speculated, “we would need someone like him to be running through the streets saying, ‘Sequester is coming!’”
Reckless spending is somehow equated with liberty to the faulty mind of a leftist like Pelosi. In that regard, it is no wonder she will be spending Independence Day expressing gratitude for the most bloated, wasteful, and unnecessary bill in American history.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Geraldo Predicts Zimmerman Acquittal Due To Almost ‘All White Jury’

oped: uuuuh Geraldo that was a racist statement...not to mention potential Juror tampering trying to intimidate the Jury... Shame on you!

Geraldo Rivera refers to the Trayvon Martin murder case as the “opposite of O.J.”

US Student Andrew Pochter Killed During Violent Clashes in Egypt

An American college student was killed in Alexandria, Egypt, during violent clashes between government supporters and opponents, family members and U.S. officials confirmed Saturday.
Andrew Driscoll Pochter, a 21-year-old student from Chevy Chase, Md., was watching a protest as a bystander Friday when he was stabbed by a protester, his family said in a statement.
"He went to Egypt because he cared profoundly about the Middle East, and he planned to live and work there in the pursuit of peace and understanding," Pochter's family said in the statement. "Andrew was a wonderful young man looking for new experiences in the world and finding ways to share his talents while he learned."
Pochter had been working in Egypt as an intern at American educational non-profit AMIDEAST, according to Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio, where he was a rising juror.
Pochter's family said he was spending the summer in Egypt teaching English to 7- and 8-year-old children and was working on improving his Arabic.
At Kenyon College, Pochter had served as a student leader of the campus Jewish organization, Hillel, according to student newspaper The Kenyon Collegian. 

His family said he had planned to study in Jordan in the spring.
Pochter's roommate in Alexandria told ABC News Pochter had been in the city since at least the beginning of June.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, who was traveling with Secretary of State John Kerry, said the State Department was providing consular assistance.
Pochter was one of two people killed in clashes in Egypt's second largest city on Friday, according to the Associated Press.
Eighty-five people were also injured while at least five offices of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood were torched, officials said, The AP reported.
The State Department told the AP that Pochter had been photographing the clashes.
Tensions have been rising in recent weeks across Egypt, as Egyptians prepare for the worst ahead of a major anti-Morsi demonstration planned for Sunday.
Six people, including Friday's deaths in Alexandria, have been killed in clashes this week.
On Friday, the State Department warned Americans to defer non-essential travel to Egypt and authorized the departure of some of its non-emergency employees and family members.

‘Creepy-Ass Crackers’

Is Rachel Jeantel speaking cursive, too? Sorry, Democrats; no post-natal abortion. And: guns’n'hockey! All this — plus: welcome to the MPL, Aaron. Presented in 1080 hi-def, FOR FREE! It’s The Great Eight, from the Personal Liberty Digest™!

The Bill Of Rights: An Updating


Congress of Liberals

Begun and held on board Warren Buffett’s private jet, on a day that is none of your business, peon.
The Conventions of a number of the Democrats, having at the time of their abrogating the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent protection by or use of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public obedience to the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Resolved by the President and his accomplices against the United States of America, in smoky back rooms assembled, two thirds of both Houses ignored, that the following Articles be imposed on the People of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three or four Democrats, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by liberal hate groups, and ratified by the New York Times editorial board, pursuant to the Communist Manifesto and Rules for Radicals.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion other than the worship of its authority, or allowing the free exercise thereof; or promoting the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being a threat to the security of the Democrats, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be permitted.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, unless the house belongs to someone who didn’t vote for the President.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless Harry Reid heard from some guy that they didn’t pay their “fair share.”

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury or the Attorney General, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, or in the event that person has demonstrated resistance to the President and the Democrats; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, unless that offence involves aforementioned resistance; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, unless the National Security Agency catches them reading Personal Liberty Digest™, or watching FOX News, or buying a copy of Atlas Shrugged, or attending a Tea Party rally; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, unless a real estate developer determines it would be a good location for a shopping center or homeless shelter or ACORN office.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed guilty by a partisan jury of the corporate media; unless the accused is a cop-killer, or islamofascist terrorist, or a union thug, or might otherwise be considered really cool by the Democrats, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation via notice broadcast on MSNBC or uploaded to the Huffington Post; to be berated by Code Pink; to be mocked by Bill Maher when he’s not enumerating his “mommy issues,” and to be burned in effigy by the Occupy fleabags.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, as long as the American Trial Lawyers’ Association can make an easy buck off it.

Amendment VIII

The People will pay what the government tells them; and will thank the Government for the privilege.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the President.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the President by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the President, are reserved to the President, or to Hillary Clinton.

What Happens When Benevolent Totalitarianism Ceases To Be Benevolent?

What Happens When Benevolent Totalitarianism Ceases To Be Benevolent?
As I explained last month, benevolent totalitarianism is the concept of government control by and through deception. For more than 100 years, America has operated as a benevolent totalitarianism. But what happens when totalitarianism ceases to be benevolent?
If benevolent totalitarianism is subtle, outright totalitarianism is open warfare on the people. That is what is beginning in America. We now find ourselves in the opening phase of outright attacks on the people as government exerts greater control in order to suppress dissent over the natural transition from benevolent to non-benevolent totalitarianism.
That America is a fascist Nation is no longer deniable. Fascism, as described by Benito Mussolini, is the merger of state and corporate power. All significant legislation passed in recent years has been designed to either increase the power of the state to control the people, to increase the power and wealth of corporations or to strengthen their symbiotic relationship. As legislation that accomplishes these things is detrimental to the best interests of the people, it can be described only as salvos being fired against the people and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

America was designed as a representative republic, with Representatives elected by the people to represent their interests when laws are passed. Senators were to be selected by the States to represent the interests of their States. Neither the Congress nor the President is answerable to the people or the States today. They answer only to their corporate sugar daddies and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that operate behind the scenes. These NGOs, dominated by monied interests, include, but are not limited to, the Federal Reserve, The Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and various and sundry “think tanks” propped up by the same corporate sugar daddies lining the pockets of Congress.
The names of the people running and funding these NGOs are mostly familiar and pop up from time to time in various ways in government and out: appearing in Presidential cabinets, heading alphabet soup government agencies, sitting on the boards of corporations, running the World Bank, etc. Theirs are the corporations that receive the contracts for government business as it makes war on other countries, move in to rape and pillage the natural resources of Third World countries (see The Secret History of American Empire and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, both by John Perkins) or fulfill the mandates of legislation (insurance, Big Pharma, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, etc.).
In 2008, against the wishes of the majority of America, George W. Bush pushed through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion boondoggle of largess to bail out the banksters and their criminal co-conspirators on Wall Street. To sell it, Bush employed classic Orwellian doublethink saying, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

Opposition to this criminal transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy bankster criminals — whose illegal activity combined with Federal Reserve money printing caused the collapse — spawned the Tea Party movement. And Bush’s legacy, such as it was, was swept into the dustbin filled with 20th century progressive/socialist Presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
The tragically misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was likewise passed against the wishes of the American people. Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi mockingly told us we would have to wait until it was passed to find out what’s in it. As bad as the Obamacare deathcare system looked then, it looks even worse now that we’re on the cusp of its implementation.
Obamacare is more doublethink. Passed under the guise of providing healthcare insurance for everyone, it served only to benefit and profit Big Insurance and Big Pharma to the detriment of small business and the American worker. A majority of Americans remain opposed to it, and opposition continues to grow; yet there is no move by unaccountable Congress to remove the blight of Obamacare. Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebilius is strong-arming companies that will benefit from the Obamacare deathcare trap into contributing to the marketing of the byzantine boondoggle.
Now we know that the Internal Revenue Service, which is nothing more than a blunt instrument used to cudgel American workers and small businesses as it transfers wealth and creates dossiers on all “taxpayers,” is targeting Americans based on their opposition to big government. And this monstrosity will have full access to the supposedly private medical records of all Americans.

Revelations of the hyper-Orwellian spying system reveal even more government/business symbiosis. Government and Big Business are sharing the electronic data of Americans so that nothing is private: not phone calls, not text messages, not emails, not associations. But the spying is not limited to the hoi polloi. A warrant, which at least gave the face of legitimacy to this unConstitutional activity, is no longer even needed. Judges are giving wide latitude to the data collectors.
Whistle-blowers now claim the spying extends to judges (including Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges who approve the warrants), Supreme Court justices, the elected class, military brass and high-ranking government functionaries. The data collected is such that the intelligence community could essentially blackmail everyone in government. It’s coup in the making.
The Senate Gang of Thugs is pushing a bill to give amnesty to 11 million or more illegal aliens. This, too, goes against the wishes of a majority of Americans. Yet those elected to “represent” Americans are again ignoring the will of the people. The amnesty bill has nothing to do with helping the illegals gain legal status. It is a bill designed to provide to businesses millions of workers content with slave wages and to provide unions millions of prospective dues-paying slaves. The fact that it will turn America into a Third World backwater, drive up unemployment — particularly among blacks and the poor — and drive down wages across the board is irrelevant to the psychopathic criminal class inhabiting the Nation’s cesspool.
There is a crackdown on what’s left of the free press and anyone who would consider blowing the whistle on government corruption. The Edward Snowden narrative doesn’t pass the smell test, so there is something deeper going on than the story we’re given.

Yet the message to potential whistle-blowers is clear: Reveal anything and your life is over. You will be branded a traitor or worse. Your family will suffer. And, members of the press: You, too, will be called traitors simply because you did your job and reported on government corruption. Your 1st Amendment rights have been stripped away. And get too close to the truth and there are serious consequences, as Michael Hastings learned.
Hastings, the reporter whose stories brought down Gen. Stanley McChrystal, died in a suspicious fiery one-car accident last week. When he died, he was reportedly working on a story about the CIA and had told WikiLeaks that he was being investigated by the FBI.
History shows that as regimes begin to fail they become more onerous, more aggressive and finally more violent toward their own citizens. The American system is in a state of collapse. The signs are obvious to those who are aware. I hope you are prepared.

Desensitizing The Military To Make War On Americans

Desensitizing The Military To Make War On Americans
As President Barack Obama and his warmongering neocon enablers stir civil wars and arm anti-government (al-Qaida and Islamist) fighters in previously stable Mideast and North African countries, they seem to also be surreptitiously working to desensitize the U.S. military in preparation for a war on Americans.
Personal Liberty has obtained documents outlining an upcoming Joint Mass Casualty Training exercise at Grissom Air Reserve Base in Indiana scheduled for Aug. 4. The introduction to the drill scenario lays out the meme that hundreds of innocent Americans have been killed or wounded at the hands of individuals and extremist organizations over the past decade — with some motivated by religious belief, some by animal rights, some by support for Muslim extremist organizations and some by personal reasons. It is rife with propaganda like this:

Although many Americans would believe that the majority of the attacks against Americans are from Muslim organizations, in reality the majority of the attacks were influenced by other motivations. [emphasis mine.]
And this:
One terrible terrorist example involving Americans against Americans is the Fort Hood shooting… The Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies have classified the shootings as an act of workplace violence. [emphasis mine.]

The upcoming exercise is titled Operation Rudy Strong. Under the heading of “Situation, Enemy (Fictitious)” is the following narrative:
Over the last year, the Indianapolis based (sic) FBI counter-terrorism office has reported a Miami County resident as researching improvised explosive devices, anti-war activist organizations, and US (sic) borne militias. His recent email conversations to the Indiana Hoosier haters, and Anti-government militia, were intercepted. The Hoosier Haters have recently built up their supply of weapons and ammunition and according to the Department of Homeland Security have been researching Improvised Explosive Device construction through website resources and with other extremist organizations.
There are approximately 100 Hoosier Haters in operation across Central Indiana with at least 20 operating within Miami County. The Indiana Hoosiers are suspected of possessing Russian and Chinese made weapon systems including AK47’s, AK74’s, PKM’s, RPG’s (sic), and grenades. In addition, they have acquired American Claymore Mines and 60mm mortar rounds.
Intelligence reports indicate the Hoosier haters have trained to operate clandestinely and individually. They are dedicated to their cause and will quickly sacrifice themselves as a Martyr if necessary. Their most likely course of action would be to attack the main gate with a vehicle born (sic) IED. Their most dangerous course of action would be to utilize contacts within the Grissom Air Reserve Base to plan a more extensive attack against a large crowd during normal training period. This attack would probably involve an IED and other types of weapon systems in an effort to discredit the bases and countries (sic) current security posture and militaries (sic) ability to safeguard its personnel and equipment.

The exercise involves a suspected member of the Hoosier Haters attacking the base. The suspect is described as a veteran who is the brother of a Marine recently killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire. The fictional suspect worked as a laborer for the air base and was fired for attempting to spread an anti-war ideology and for stating after a mass casualty exercise that it was” too bad the base wasn’t really attacked.” Following his dismissal, the suspect is described as having participated in anti-war protests and having been recently arrested after he was found to have unregistered firearms and bomb-making materials.
For the exercise, the shooter and several Hoosier Hater accomplices make their way onto the base and attack during a graduation exercise, killing five people and wounding 10. Only one Marine is on the base at the time and he has no access to the armory, so he notifies base security and local law enforcement. After the shooting, the attackers hole up in several buildings and possibly take hostages.
The entire scenario is ludicrous on its face. All militia organizations are infiltrated by the FBI and no attack like this could take place without the FBI’s prior knowledge — and probably assistance — as even The New York Times has admitted that the FBI is behind most of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Undercover agents locate weak-minded patsies, propagandize them to amp up their ideological hatreds, plan the attack for them and provide them with the means and weapons to use. Brave agents then swoop in and save us at the last minute.
Recent successful attacks on military-related installations on U.S. soil — the June 1, 2009, attack on an Arkansas recruiting office and the Nov. 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas — were both done by Muslim Islamists, not “right wing” extremists.

In January, I told you about a report from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point called “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far Right,” that lumps limited government activists into three categories it claims are responsible for 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011: racist/white supremacists, anti-Federalists and fundamentalists.
It’s all part of an ongoing campaign to paint conservatives and gun owners as wild-eyed lunatics planning attacks on America, when, in fact, it’s the psychopathic elected class and government functionaries — which appear to have spread into the military brass — that is making war on Americans every day.
Operation Rudy Strong is just one in a string of similar operations designed to desensitize the military and grease the skids for an operation pitting it against Americans.

Bloomberg on the Job: Ban Sparklers So Terrorists Can’t Use Them to Ignite a Bomb

*Idiot Alert* Michael Bloomberg is a embarrassment to NYC and to the nation at large!
Just when you thought that Mayor Michael Bloomberg could not get any dumber… I promise you that the truth is always stranger than fiction with this man. I find myself embarrassed for the people of New York City as I report this. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is calling for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to veto legislation that would legalize the sale of sparklers outside of New York City. Please understand that fireworks are already banned within the five boroughs under his jurisdiction. He is trying to make law for the rest of the state.
This is so wrong and on so many levels. I simply do not know where to begin. First and foremost it is once again obvious that Mayor Bloomberg is concerned with governing outside of his own constituency. Much as he is trying to rewrite gun laws for our entire nation, he has now taken to try to enforce his fireworks preferences on the whole state of New York. It is important to note this. This man needs to focus on the problems of New York City, which is why he was elected, and leave the rest of us alone. It’s beyond absurd.
Secondly, what the hell is Bloomberg smoking? I’m serious. Independence Day sparklers are a tradition for children all over this great nation. He wants to take away the joy of this tradition just because some nut job might use a sparkler to ignite a bomb?  As if there aren’t hundreds of other ways to ignite that same bomb? Unreal.

The New York Post reports:

Sorry Joe Biden you are so wrong~New White House Study Finds… Guns Save Lives!

Though statistics prove time and again that disarming a free people leads to more violent crime and the potential for mass government democide, it hasn’t stopped President Barrack Obama and his Congressional entourage from doing everything in their power to make it more difficult for Americans to legally own firearms.
Citing the Sandy Hook mass shooting last year, democrats on the hill have claimed that we must restrict gun ownership and strip the Second Amendment for the safety of our children and the general public.
But a new report commissioned by the White House titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence suggests what many self defense gun proponents have been saying for years. The report, ordered under one of President Obama’s 23 Executive Orders signed in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Research Council and other federal agencies to identify the “most pressing problems in firearms violence.”
To the surprise of the authors and those who would no doubt have used the report to further restrict access to personal defense firearms, the study found that gun ownership actually saves lives and those who have a firearm at their disposal improve their chances of survival and reduce their chance of injury in the event they are confronted by a violent criminal:

Full Study available at the National Academy of Sciences   (Via: Blacklisted News / Story Leak)
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…

The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive use of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self protective strategies.
Read More:

Students: Professor forced us to wear 'gay' ribbons

 Linda Brunton
*Child of the Hippy Corn*
via: wnd radio
Several students are demanding a Tennessee community college psychology professor be disciplined for persistently pushing her pro-”gay” views on her students and even forcing students to identify themselves as in favor of the LGBT agenda in a mandatory project.
The Alliance Defense Fund is representing the students who objected to the classroom tactics of Columbia State Community College professor Linda Brunton. The students say any views opposed to Brunton’s were not welcome, and any opposition to the homosexual agenda was considered to be the thinking of “uneducated bigots” who “attack homosexuals with hate.”
But one assignment in particular triggered the protests.
“She assigned the class to wear rainbow coalition ribbons in support of homosexual behavior for at least a day on campus and wherever they went off campus. Students then had to write a reaction paper from wearing those ribbons and how they were allegedly discriminated against while wearing the ribbons,” Alliance Defense Fund attorney David Hacker told WND. “Several students contacted us, just objecting to this. It’s a very clear case of a government official, a state college professor, compelling students to speak in a way they disagree with.”

Hacker said it’s fine for teachers to have students consider ideas from different perspectives, but Brunton clearly crossed the line.
“Colleges and professors can require students to play devil’s advocate in a paper or argue a position in class that they don’t necessarily agree with, as long as it’s an academic exercise,” Hacker said.
“Once the professor here, Ms. Brunton, required the students to advocate a message outside the classroom, that’s compelled speech and it’s clearly unconstitutional.”
Before seeking a legal remedy, the students brought their concerns to Brunton. But Hacker said those efforts went nowhere.
“She, unfortunately, just brushed aside their concerns and basically described their views as ignorant and uneducated, and she said that she hoped the assignment would cause them to change their beliefs,” Hacker said. “Colleges are supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, not an environment where professors are manipulating students into advancing particular political agendas.”

Alliance Defending Freedom is asking Columbia State Community College to investigate the matter, and Hacker said the school has agreed to do so.  He said this sort of compelled speech must be addressed, but he said college campuses nationwide are actively promoting the pro-homosexual movement.
“We’re finding it’s very common,” he said. “A few years ago, we represented a student at Missouri State University. She was in a social work class, and the class was assigned a project to write a joint letter to the Missouri State Legislature advocating in favor of same-sex adoption and fostering. The student objected, said she didn’t want to do that because it went well beyond just an academic exercise. It was advocating a position to a legislature.
“The professor turned around and filed ethics charges against her, in fact the worst ethics charges a student can receive at the school and then required her to sign an agreement saying she won’t allow her her personal religious beliefs to get in the way of doing these sorts of assignments. I mean, just a clear violation of her religious liberty, her rights of conscience and her freedom from being compelled to speak in a way that she disagreed with.”

Texas Democrat Wendy Davis Wore Urinary Catheter During 11-Hour Filibuster Against Pro-Life Bill

Word *Gross*

Liberals go all out to defend murder.
Check it out:

The Democrat at the heart of the successful filibuster of a Texas bill to ban abortion after the 20-week pregnancy mark proved an above and beyond dedication to beating back the measure — she even wore a catheter.

Sen. Wendy Davis, 50, donned running shoes, a back brace and a urinary catheter in the walk up to her Tuesday filibuster that ultimately spanned 11 hours.
“She’s a total fighter,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, in the Daily Mail. “And the thing about Sen. Davis, she says she’s going to do something, she gets it down.”

Continue Reading on ...

Plaintiffs in gay marriage case wed in SF Sandy Stier and Kris Perry

oped: And pray tell how will the newly weds consumate the marriage?...oh wait Kris the metro man will strap on a dildo and make Sandy a happy for the newly wed gay guys I suppose they will use lotsa vaseline/bengay  and giggle with pleasure...*Just SMH* at all this nonsense! 

Sandy Stier, center left, and Kris Perry, at right, exchange wedding vows in front of California Attorney General Kamala Harris, left, at City Hall in San Francisco, Friday, June 28, 2013. Stier and Perry, the lead plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned California's same-sex marriage ban, tied the knot about an hour after a federal appeals court freed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses for the first time in 4 1/2 years. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

Sandy Stier, center left, and Kris Perry, at right, exchange wedding vows in front of California Attorney General Kamala Harris, left, at City Hall in San Francisco, Friday, June 28, 2013. Stier and Perry, the lead plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned California's same-sex marriage ban, tied the knot about an hour after a federal appeals court freed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses for the first time in 4 1/2 years. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

Friday, June 28, 2013

Police confiscate guns from flooded town

oped: I do believe the RCMP have committed a felony breaking and entering and theft of private property..does Canada not have laws requiring a warrant to search and seize? imho this a confiscation of firearms under the guise of safety...did they ask the residents for permission to enter their homes and secure their firearms? Would not most people lock their residence when evacuated?

by: Drew Zahn 

The town flooded, and the police came in, evacuated the population … and then confiscated the residents’ guns out of their empty houses.
The residents of High River, Alberta, population nearly 13,000, are still awaiting authorities’ permission to return to their homes. Dozens have been engaged in a standoff with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at a checkpoint at the edge of town since floodwaters prompted a forced evacuation last week.
Several news sources report tensions are high since news broke police have also been gathering residents’ firearms.
“I find that absolutely incredible that they have the right to go into a person’s belongings out of their home,” resident Brenda Lackey told the Calgary Herald. “When people find out about this, there’s going to be untold hell to pay.”

“This is the reason the U.S. has the right to bear arms,” said Charles Timpano at the checkpoint, where he and others have gathered to demand reentry into High River.

The police, thus far, insist the gun confiscation is only for the citizens’ safety and that the firearms will be returned.
“We just want to make sure that all of those things are in a spot that we control, simply because of what they are,” Sgt. Brian Topham told the Herald. “People have a significant amount of money invested in firearms … so we put them in a place that we control and that they’re safe.”
Alberta Premier Alison Redford defended the action: “I think what we need to understand is these are exceptional circumstances. … In an emergency situation we need to have our police ensuring there is law and order.”
The RCMP further released a written statement explaining owners wouldn’t want their firearms to “fall into the wrong hands” during the evacuation and pledging to return guns to owners “as soon as practically possible.”
The statement said the guns were found “in plain view” during search and rescue operations, a potential problem, since Canadian law requires gun owners keep firearms in locked vaults or containers.
Yet Solicitor General Jonathan Denis has suggested the owners aren’t likely to face prosecution.

“My personal view is we have to consider the context we’re dealing with,” Denis said in an interview Friday. “I wouldn’t be surprised people took guns out of their lockers so they wouldn’t get flooded.”
He added, “I will work with the RCMP to ensure there’s an orderly return of property.”
Sgt. Topham told the Herald the confiscated guns have been inventoried and are secured at an RCMP detachment. He would not specify how many firearms had been confiscated, only that “a large quantity” had been taken because they were “left by residents in their places.”
The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership, Topham added.
CBC News reports local officials have announced some residents will be allowed to return to their homes on Saturday.

Why Are We Catering To Islam?

Islam Why Are We Catering to Islam?

For too long, the world has catered to Islam; and we have reaped what we have sown for our trouble. Based on the erroneous concept that Islam is a “religion of peace,” various leaders of nations worldwide have succumbed to the oft-touted “victimhood” of Muslims and Islam and have endeavored to give Islam an affirmative action-type leg up. This frequently means granting Islam privileges that Christians do not even receive here in the United States.
Whether we watch as the San Francisco Airport turns part of one of its parking garages into an area specifically dedicated to Muslim prayer at taxpayer expense (complete with foot-washing basins) or something else entirely, Islam continues to receive special access. We can only wonder why this is the case.

While it’s true that not all Muslims are terrorists, it seems clear enough that nearly all terrorists are Muslim. This, in and of itself, should help us seriously rethink our position that Islam is a religion of peace.
A very recent example of how our leaders cater to Islam is in the FBI’s decision to pull the “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad. Why? Simply put, it offended Muslims. Apparently, some Muslims believe that the ad created “stereotypes of Muslims and painting a broad brush against one group.” Unfortunately, nearly 100% of terrorist acts (just shy of 21,000) since the original 9/11 were perpetrated by Muslims or people connected with Islamic groups. This idea that we need to be careful about offending the sensibilities of a particular group seems to only extend to groups that can successfully paint themselves as “victims.” In a politically correct world, this type of determination goes a long way in clouding issues that need to be openly discussed. Instead, the issues are ignored.

The only group within America (or possibly the world) that is not granted protection from offense are white male Christians. Within politically correct circles, white Christian males are said to be the main “oppressor” of all other groups. Because of this, white Christian males do not need protection; but other groups are said to need protection from them.
Muslims coming essentially from third-world countries and continuing to mentally and emotionally live in the time of Muhammad (in spite of the fact that it is 2013) are understood to be victims because they are in a minority class. Because of this, how dare the FBI paint with such a broad brush stroke, implying that “all” Muslims are terrorists.
In actuality, the “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad is simply a giant wanted poster, reflecting the truth that there are specific individuals (shown and named on the billboard) who are known terrorists. Can it be helped that they are all connected to Islam (or because of that, the FBI is supposed to downplay things by possibly not using the word “terrorism” in the ad)? That is an absurd (yet not an unusual) demand for those heavily steeped in political correctness.
Recently, Muslims in the UK clamored against allowing Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller to enter that country. The reason? It is stated that these two individuals breed hatred toward Islam. The real reason has to do with the fact that these two brave souls tell the truth about Islam, and that is something that Muslims do not want out there. We need more people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller to tell the world the truth about Islam. Beyond this, we need leaders who are willing to see and tell that same truth. Where are they?

The world needs to stop accommodating Islam as it has been doing. We need to stop cowering because we are afraid of offending Muslim sensibilities, when in point of fact, the destruction, mayhem, and fear engendered by Islam is all too real (and there appears to be no end in sight.) Giving into Muslims’ demands simply tells them that – in this case – the ad wasn’t telling the truth and simply encourages them to continue their demands to gain yet more privileges.
The global ad on terrorism does tell the truth, and it must continue to tell the truth. Muslims need to learn that they must play by everyone’s rules or not at all. How can they learn that if those in authority cave into Islam’s demands? We continue to cater to Islam to our own detriment.

Court opposes Obama on abortion mandate

by: Bob Unruh 

A federal appeals court in Denver has ruled against the Obamacare abortion mandate that forces religious business owners to violate their beliefs by paying for abortifacients.
The ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case returned to the district court level for swift resolution of the request by the owners of Hobby Lobby for an injunction until the dispute fully is resolved.
The district court previously refused to allow the injunction, and even Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the company owners to start paying for abortifacients for their employees, in direct violation of their faith.
However, the 10th Circuit took the case with the unusual step that the full court would hear the arguments rather than a three-judge panel.
In their decision, the court said Hobby Lobby has “established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm.”
The case is just one of more than five dozen pending in U.S. courts now challenging Obama’s demand that employers pay for abortifacients for their employee regardless of their religious faith and beliefs.
A five-judge majority on the court said the mandate creates a substantial burden, because if the owners do not comply with Obama’s demands, based on their religious beliefs, they would be subjected to millions of dollars in fines annually.

The judges also said the government did not satisfy the requirement to show that any burden on the religious exercise of the plaintiffs was overridden by some “compelling” government interest or that it was imposed in the least intrusive way possible.
The court pointedly noted that Obama’s administration already has exempted “tens of millions of people” from the same mandate, so to do so for Hobby Lobby hardly would create an impact.

The American Center for Law and Justice was one of the dozens of organizations that filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the dispute.
“We are pleased with the outcome of this case, especially because the 10th Circuit majority tracks the arguments we presented,” the group said. ” … These are the same arguments we have presented in the other mandate cases in which we are involved.”
The Green family, owners of the chain of hundreds of stores in 40 states, said, through the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, they are optimistic.
“My family and I believe very strongly in our conviction that life begins at conception, and the emergency contraceptives that we would be forced to provide in our employee health plan under this mandate are contrary to that conviction,” said David Green, founder. “We believe that business owners should not have to be forced to choose between following their faith and following the law.”
Hobby Lobby is the largest business so far to file a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services mandate under Obamacare. But it is just one of many plaintiffs who make up more than 60 lawsuits launched already.

Other plaintiffs include Colorado Christian University, Ave Maria University and Wheaton College of Illinois.
“We hold that Hobby Lobby and Mardel [a related company] are entitled to bring claims under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm.”
The 165-page opinion said Hobby Lobby has standing to sue, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. The opinion also said the majority holds that the district court erred in finding that Hobby Lobby had not demonstrated a likelihood of success.
The judges noted that the company owners established their work on Christian principles and continue to run them that way, refusing to open on Sundays or engage in business activities that promote alcohol use.
The company also buys newspaper ads inviting people to “know Jesus as Lord and Savior.”
The court noted that the law allows exemptions to Obamacare for religious employers, but religious for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby were deliberately targeted for the requirement.

“The plaintiffs assert that because more than 13,000 individuals are insured under the Hobby Lobby plan … [Obamacare fines] would total at least $1.3 million per day, or almost $475 million per year.”
The fines, combined with the fact the government was unable to show it had narrowly tailored the requirement, means the government’s argument must fail, the court said.
“In addition, the Supreme Court has settled that individuals have Free Exercise rights with respect to their for-profit businesses. … In short, individuals may incorporate for religious purposes and keep the Free Exercise rights, and unincorporated individuals may pursue profit while keeping their Free Exercise rights.”
The court said the government has the idea that when individuals incorporate but are not tax-exempt under the IRS code, “Free Exercise rights somehow disappear.”
But the judges said religious expression and religious conduct can be communicated by individuals and for-profit corporations alike.
Several other district judges have ordered that the abortion mandate not be enforced against individual companies until the dispute is resolved, but the government is appealing the decisions.

Supreme Court: Christianity Is False, Immoral, and Socially Destructive

I’ve seen a lot of praise for Antonin Scalia in his dissenting minority opinion against the majority that struck down one part of the defense of marriage act. But I don’t think, as insightful as Scalia was, that he really has drilled down to the essence of what the Kennedy-led majority has done.
Scalia, if you haven’t heard, pointed out that the majority has condemned as evil anyone who would oppose same-sex “marriage.” He wrote that the majority,
“accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice … to disparage and to injure same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to ‘demean,’ to ‘impose inequality,’ to … brand gay people as ‘unworthy,’ and to ‘humiliat[e]’ their children.” 

Scalia presented evidence for his case. I think he supported what he said in good faith. So he starkly presented the anti-DOMA majority as having passed moral judgment on all who supported DOMA.
“In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual... It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”
All of this is good, but I think it leaves out the main point that the majority is striving to deal with. Throughout the history of the United States from its founding, and through much of the Western Tradition, not only was marriage intrinsically heterosexual, but homosexual acts were considered sinful. And the majority of the Supreme Court has dictated otherwise. Homosexual acts are not sinful, they are completely normal and acceptable.

The Supreme Court has ruled:
  1. Christianity is false: it teaches homosexual acts are a perversion of sex; but we know they are healthy and good for those who prefer to do them
  2. Christianity is immoral: it teaches that people who commit homosexual acts are sinning; but we know they are sinning by disparaging homosexual acts and, by extension, those who like to participate in them.
  3. Christianity is socially destructive: it teaches that good people should discourage homosexual acts for the sake of everyone, especially those tempted to them; and we know that such judgments are oppressive of a minority and therefore anti-social.
In all of this the “libertarian” option has proved to be a bait and switch. Keep the government out of the bedroom has now become the demand for punishing businesses, private schools, and soon churches who will not desist “to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’” those who now hold the whip.

Obama Continues Treasonous Support of Egyptian Terrorists

Up-Date: Luxor Governor Adel El-Khayat, a member of ultra-conservative Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiya, has resigned.

1997 Luxor Massacre, where terrorists gunned down 63 tourists.

Three generations of a British family were among those killed by Islamic fundamentalist gunmen outside Temple of Hatshepsut

by: Dave Jolly

A couple weeks ago, I presented my case showing that Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of treason for aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States of America as defined by Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution.
My case for treason was based upon Obama’s continued support of the Egyptian government which is run by the Islamic terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood.  I provided a video that was taken during a meeting of Egyptian leaders where more than one of them stated that the US is an enemy that needs to be fought.  I also presented evidence showing that Obama has been giving billions of dollars to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and provided them fighter jets, much of which was against the will of our Congress.

Now I will add to the evidence to support the charges of treason against Obama.
Secretary of State John Kerry waived the mandatory requirements that Egypt’s government was ‘implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of law’ before receiving any military aid from the US.  Now keep in mind that President Obama justified the US support in the ousting of former Egyptian President Mubarak because of human rights violations.  Now President Obama has exempted Egypt from having to comply with human rights rules in order to receive military aid – fighter jets and other weaponry.  Mubarak’s regime, as harsh and cruel as it was, helped keep peace in the region including with Israel.  The current Morsi regime has vowed to destroy Israel and fight the US.
Instead of honoring human rights, the Egyptian government has been systematically attacking and destroying the nation’s Coptic Christians.  One Christian schoolteacher allegedly, never proven, to have insulted Muhammed in her classroom.  She was fined $14,000.  A lawyer in Egypt was also alleged to have insulted Islam in a private conversation, resulting in his being sentenced to a year in prison.  These are just a few of hundreds of human rights violations that are occurring on a regular basis by Obama’s Muslim brothers.
In case you doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, just take a look at their official motto:
"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

Additionally, the Egyptian government has just named Adel Al Khayat as the governor of the ancient Egyptian city of Luxor.  The ironic thing is that Luxor is one of the top tourist destinations in Egypt.  In 1997, Khayat’s political group massacred a bunch of tourists in Luxor.  Some of the tourists had been disemboweled and notes praising Islam were placed inside their bodies.   Yet, President Obama has said or done nothing concerning the naming of Khayat to the governorship of Luxor.  His silence can only be understood as further support for a known terrorist and terroristic government.
Also earlier this month I wrote about the connections between the Boston bombing brothers to known Islamic terrorists and eventually on to President Obama’s brother Malik.  In that report, I identified Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi as being a former trustee for the Boston mosque where the Tsarnaev brothers attended.  Qaradawi’s support for terrorism was enough to make the US government ban him from ever entering the US again.  He is also considered by many to be the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and has called for the killing of Americans as well as Jews.
Qaradawi is the founder and leader of an organization known as the international Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS).  The vice president of the IUMS is Sheik Abdullah Bin Bayyah, who works closely with Qaradawi.  The IUMS is a long-time supporter of Hamas, another terrorist organization, and like Hamas, the IUMS openly calls of the destruction of Israel.

Did you know that on June 13, 2013, Sheik Abdullah Bin Barrah was welcomed at the White House where he met with senior members of Obama’s administration?  Furthermore, it seems that the White House is responsible for asking for the meeting.
I don’t know how much more evidence is needed to support the charges of treason against Obama.  But sadly, not one of our politicians has the integrity to do anything about it.  In fact, I sent a copy of my article about Obama being guilty of high treason to Sen. Rand Paul and all I got back was a pat answer that had nothing to do with my article or what I said about Obama.  It seems that all of our Washington politicians are nothing but a bunch of spineless pantywaistes that lack any intestinal fortitude or patriotism for our nation to do anything to stop Obama’s acts of treason, treachery and subterfuge.

A Message From Obama to America: I’ll Do What I Want; Deal with it

by Todd Cefaratti
President Obama does not care what you think. Whenever he is confronted with evidence of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior, his answer is most often to shrug it off and hope that Americans just deal with it.
The man who once promised all things positive- hope, change, prosperity, transparency- now promises that he will do whatever he wishes and it is up to us to learn to deal with it.
I am not privileged to the White House meetings. I cannot say that his “America can deal with it” policy is, in fact, an official policy. But whether or not his arrogance is an official policy, the fact remains that Obama has made it entirely clear that he intends to rule as he sees fit and is generally uninterested in how he is viewed by the majority of Americans.
Case in point:
Americans are still trying to figure out what happened in Benghazi. The same government that can monitor our phone usage and collect and store our data to paint a picture of the electronic activities of millions of Americans cannot come to a firm consensus of what the White House as doing during the hours-long attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Though there are glaringly obvious inconsistencies in the ever-changing narrative pushed by the government, the standard response by the Obama Administration has been, “That’s our story and we’re sticking to it.”

Then, as a firm and unfriendly message to America who demands accountability, Obama appointed Susan Rice to a national security adviser position. Rice was instrumental in the cover-up of the Benghazi scandal and pushed a knowingly false narrative about the attack in the aftermath.
The message sent from President Obama to the rest of us peasants was clear: Deal with it.
Now, at a time when Americans everywhere have to tighten their belts and make ends meet, President Obama and his family are off on another fabulous taxpayer-funded vacation to Africa. Though he alleges it’s an official trip, the Obamas are spending $100 million of taxpayer money to tour Africa.
We can’t keep the White House open for field trips because America is so broke, but $100 million can be spent to go to Africa.
After receiving a fair amount of criticism for this outlandish expenditure, Obama doubled-down and told America what they could do with their outrage by bringing along the extended family.
Yes, President Obama is bringing along not only his wife and kids, but his mother-in-law and his niece.
Obama could not care less what Americans have to say about his actions or his policies. Like King Louis XVI before him, he clearly believes he is above the criticisms of the people and he has worked very hard to make sure we know it.

Charles Lindbergh, DOMA, Polygamy, and the Supreme Court


Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the overthrow of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) made a mess of marriage and opened Pandora’s Box of future litigation thta includes polygamy. Polygamists see that they’re next in line for judicial satisfaction. Kennedy and his fellow quartet of moral dilutionists greased the skins for further national decline.
The constitutional flaw in DOMA, Kennedy argued, was that it interfered “with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages.”

In order for same-sex marriage to be dignified, same-sex sex has to be dignified. There is no way morally, biologically, reasonably, or historically that same-sex sex can be dignified. Once the abnormality of same-sex sex is dignified by legal fiat, we can no longer claim that any sexual relationship can be labeled inappropriate.
Using surrogate humans for their electrical charges (as in the Matrix) is as morally acceptable as killing children in the womb or using non-sex organs as orifices for official legal acceptance and calling the “union” marriage.
This brings me to Charles Lindbergh (1902–1974). There probably millions of people today who have never heard of Lindbergh. Lindbergh was a national hero after he made the first solo nonstop flight across the Atlantic Ocean on May 20–21, 1927.
If you don’t know much about Lindberg, I suggest sitting down and watching The Spirit of St. Louis (1956) starring Jimmy Stewart.

The hero Lindbergh had a secret. While married to Anne Morrow, he had two families in Germany.
“[F]rom 1957 until his death in 1974, Lindbergh had a relationship with German hat maker Brigitte Hesshaimer (1926–2003) who lived in a small Bavarian town called Geretsried (35 km south of Munich). On November 23, 2003, DNA tests proved that he fathered her three children. The two managed to keep the love affair secret; even the children did not know the true identity of their father, whom they saw when he came to visit once or twice per year using the alias ‘Careu Kent.’ . . .  At the same time as Lindbergh was involved with Brigitte Hesshaimer, he also had a relationship with her sister, Marietta (born 1924), who bore him two more sons.”
If same-sex marriages are “dignified,” then what can anybody say against Lindbergh’s polygamist marriages?
The Court has turned all moral reasoning on its head. Now everything is up for grabs.
The moral fallout will be devastating. The five unjust judges will go to their grave mumbling, "What have we done?" But by then, it could be too late

Supreme Court Announces America’s Death Sentence

Homosexuals across the land are celebrating in force as the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, thus opening the door to nationwide same-sex marriage.
President Obama had used an executive nullification order when he told Attorney General Eric Holder to no longer enforce the federal law.  More states then took the initiative to enact their own laws to legalize same-sex marriages and like a cancer, the deadly disease of gay marriage has been rapidly spreading across the land.

A lesbian challenged DOMA and laws against same-sex marriage by filing a lawsuit concerning her being taxed on the estate of her lesbian partner.  The suit claimed that married heterosexual partners are not taxed on the inheritance, but since she was not legally allowed to marry, she should not be penalized by being taxed.
In the Court’s ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:
“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their state, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same state. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the state has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.”
Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the ruling and in his dissent wrote:
“We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”
Chief Justice John Roberts also disagreed with the court’s decision and wrote in his dissention:
“I think it … important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the states, in the exercise of their ‘historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,’ … may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.”
Historically, every great nation that endorsed homosexuality and same-sex marriages collapsed from within in a relatively short time.  It happened to Sodom, Gomorrah, Greece and Rome.  We are already witnessing the devastating effects of homosexuality on our own nation with the decay of the family unit and the loss of morals and virtues.
Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of maintaining Christian and biblical morals for the betterment of our country.  Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote a letter to James McHenry in 1800.  In that letter, Carroll stated:
“…without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”[1]
Rev. John Knox Witherspoon, another signer of the Declaration of Independence spoke of the need of the nation to maintain its virtue in order to preserve its liberty in his Thanksgiving Sermon delivered in 1782.  In that sermon, Witherspoon stated:
“So true is this, that civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue…a republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty,…”[2]
George Washington, our nation’s hero and first President spoke of morality in his farewell address delivered Sept. 19, 1796, in which he stated:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.  The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.  A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.  Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”  And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.  It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.  The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government.”[3]
John Adams, another Founding Father said:
“Statesmen, … may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.  The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”[4]
History warns us about rejecting the morals and virtues and so did our Founding Fathers.  The Bible also warns us about turning away from God and approving of homosexuality in Romans 1:18-32.  Verse 32 describes the Supreme Court’s decision best when it says:
“Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
By their ruling on Wednesday, the US Supreme Court pronounced a death sentence for America as a land of liberty.  What grieves me the most is thinking about what kind of country our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to live in.  They are the ones who suffer from this devastating decision.  May God have mercy on them!

[1] Charles Carroll, Letter to James McHenry, Nov. 4, 1800, Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry, the Burrows Brothers Co., Cleveland, 1907, p. 475.

[2] John Witherspoon, Thanksgiving Sermon, 1782, Rev. Dr. John Rodgers, The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon, D.D. L.L.D., William W. Woodward, Philadelphia, 1802, V.3, pp. 80-85.

[3] Washington, George, Farewell Address, Sept, 19, 1796, Avalon Project, Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library.

[4] John Adams, To Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776.  Charles Francis Adams, The Works of John Adams, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1854, V 9, p. 401.

Bert and Ernie's New Yorker Cover Is a Picture Perfect Symbol for Gay Marriage

oped: All I can say is the lunatics have taken over the asylum!
Bert and Ernie's New Yorker Cover Is a Picture Perfect Symbol for Gay Marriage

Even though Bert and Ernie officially aren't gay, next week's cover of The New Yorker features Sesame Street's not-gay gay cultural icons celebrating this week's Supreme Court rulings, which is sweet if you don't overthink it: America's most famous men in love finally have the official acceptance of America. Of course, Sesame Street and the company of founder Jim Henson has insisted many times that the orange and yellow pals are neither straight nor gay nor transgender or anything else: "They remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation," or so goes public television's party line. As in, Muppets can't have sex or aren't supposed to be overtly human, and despite the new legal recognition of it all, these two probably won't be having that big gay TV marriage everyone wants. But it's still very cute to see the icons cuddling in front of their television set.  

RELATED: Obama Sets Goal of Repealing DOMA
The cover comes by way of an unsolicited image submitted to Tumblr by artist Jack Hunter, according to the magazine. "It's amazing to witness how attitudes on gay rights have evolved in my lifetime," he said. Bert and Ernie, if they were gay and wanted to and if Sesame Street was in New York, could have gotten married in the state two years ago, and could now have it recognized by the federal government. But the artist insists that the message isn't specific so much as a symbol to help keep teaching children about gay rights. "This is great for our kids, a moment we can all celebrate." So let's not over-analyze this wonderful cover, but it should be noted that you can't yet watch the justices on TV — though not for lack of trying — and why are Bert and Ernie watching in the dark anyway? Okay, enough. Now let's all have a good cuddle.

WE TOLD YOU SO: Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Court’s Marriage Rulings

Screen Shot 2013-06-27 at 12.11.08 PM
“The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” one polygamist cheers.
The Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the country’s inevitable acceptance of plural marriage.Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving.
“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde. “Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.”
“We’re very happy with it,” said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. “I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us.”

Read more:

‘Gay America’, 2013: Trapped in Redneck Hell


It was almost twenty years ago, but I still remember the moment like it was yesterday. The scene will always be branded onto my brain, like a scar, like a Duck Dynasty tattoo gone awry. I was sitting in the observation room of the local ballet studio, and I’d just come in out of the woods from bowhunting. I was dressed from head to toe in camouflage. Well-dressed, fancified city folk were staring at me as I ground my teeth, sitting in the corner. I looked out into the next room at the prancing young ladies, dressed in bright, happily colored leotards, their bodies flowing musically as they leaped and landed with the grace of gazelles. In any other circumstance I would have been too busy lusting to be upset. But not today.
I looked off to the left and saw my nine-year-old son talking to a teenage boy. Both of them were dressed in black tights. How did I get here? What carnal sin had I committed to be handed this punishment? My oldest son was performing ballet, gaily prancing in leotards with other males.

I had died and gone to redneck hell!
Today the United States Supreme court just ruled that two men can marry each other – two women can form a more perfect union. Forgive my bigotry, but that just makes my redneck hindquarters pucker up in revolt. I don’t get it. What’s the big draw here? Why do so many men want to perform unnatural acts with each other? Excuse me for a moment while I lean over and vomit into my shiny brass cuspidor.
I remember several years ago I was approached by a homosexual male who proceeded to scold me for my unfriendly writings toward the homosexual lifestyle. I recall him saying, “Admit it! You just can’t get over the mechanics of what we do and you never will!” He was right and I readily agreed with him. I’ll never accept it, and I’ll never get used to it.
A few years back I took my family to Portland, Oregon to visit friends. We were walking downtown after taking in the culture when my five-year-old son said to me, “Daddy, why are those two men kissing?” I quickly covered his eyes and turned him away. We haven’t been back to Portland since.
Now, listen folks, call me old fashioned, but I just don’t like watching two men kiss. It gives me that uncontrollable mother-of-all gag reflexes and leaves that nasty bile taste in my mouth. “Excuse me! Hey there! Young man get your tongue out of your friend’s mouth before God strikes you down and fries your dead body in the street like a worm baked on a shovel in the hot sun.”

Sorry. That just slipped out.
Society tells me that I’m an intolerant bigot, because I won’t accept men screwing men and women .. well … can one woman do anything to another woman? Do they even have the right parts?
I get up every morning. I work hard. I pay my taxes. I help little old ladies across the street. I open the door for people. What did I do to deserve this? And, more importantly, what can I do to make it stop?
Unfortunately, the cold, hard answer is – nothing. I can do nothing to stop the homosexual juggernaut from spreading like a virus across the land. Because, you see, this is just the most recent outbreak. Homosexuality, like all other forms of sexual immorality have been with us for most of human history. It’s kind of like playing sexual Whack-a-mole. He pops his head up on the left, so you hit it with a hammer to push it back down. Then it comes up on the right and you hit it again, but there’s no stopping it. Those pesky moles just keep popping up faster and faster and faster until finally, you’re all wore out and you can’t hammer anymore.

Yes, homosexuality has been with us for millennia. It was rampant during the decline of the Roman empire; it was there giving its blessing as Sodom and Gomorrah burned in sulfurous finality; it watches on even now as the once-mighty Roman Catholic church falls into graft and disrepair. Why is it that homosexuality is always the final nail in the coffin of any society who accepts and embraces it?
Yes, I know God loves us, but … is it possible … just a little bit, that God almighty doesn’t see the humor or fashion in two men bonking each other in a city park? Now, bear with me now. Keep an open mind. Is it even remotely possible that God created the earth and set up the family unit as the primary building block of society? And when we mess with the foundation of anything, whether it’s a building or a family; the whole thing comes crashing down around us.
Call me a bigot. Call me melodramatic. Call me old fashioned.
There was a supreme court ruling of similar ramification back in 1973. Since the landmark case of Roe V Wade over fifty-five million babies have been murdered in the security and privacy of their own mother’s womb. And that number will undoubtedly increase with widespread use of the morning after pill.
So, riddle me this Batman. If we increase the killing of unborn babies, if men marry men and woman marry women … Do I really have to spell this out to you? No civilization can survive without population growth. In America there are two groups growing like weeds: Muslims and illegal aliens.
It makes this redneck white boy wish he had a safe country to flee to. Hmmm, that gives me a good idea for my next novel. Twenty years from now, a civil war between the Muslims and the drug cartels for control of America. Is it possible that it could be more fact than fiction?
Sorry folks. If America is apple pie, then the big apple is baked – like a worm on a shovel.
Image: Source: Dante’s Inferno by Dante Alighieri; translated by The Rev. Henry Francis Cary, MA; illustration by Gustave DorĂ© (1832 – 1883); public domain/copyright expired