Saturday, March 14, 2015

DOLCE & GABBANA: Legendary Gay Designers Oppose Gay Marriage, Gay Parenting, Surrogacy

Screen Shot 2015-03-14 at 4.46.44 PM
oped: What can one say? I for one am so tired of trying to debate the looney left 'Progressives'  on the real facts of life...however this little article puts all in true perspective Yes? lol I rest my case... Time for bbq and beer...spring has finally sprung :) Summer is just around the corner! 

Uh-oh. Watch the gaystapo come in and attempt to re-educate them.
Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, founders of the eponymous fashion house, have come out strongly against gay marriage, the notion of gay families, and the use of surrogacy to procreate.
The billionaire pair, who used to be romantically linked, gave an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, in which they said, “The only family is the traditional one. No chemical offspring and rented uterus. Life has a natural flow; there are things that cannot be changed.”

They also said, “Procreation must be an act of love.”
“I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Uteri for rent, semen chosen from a catalogue,” Dolce stated.
Gabanna said, “The family is not a fad. In it there is a supernatural sense of belonging.”
Read more: Breitbart

Homosexuality Should be Rejected Because It's Anti-Science

Washington Insider: Obama Member of Chicago Gay Man’s Club
[Washington Insider: Obama Member of Chicago Gay Man’s Club ]

Liberals love to claim that conservatives, and in particular Christians, are anti-science. In fact, many articles and books have been written on the subject. For example: 
  • “GOP is an anti-science party of nuts.”
  • “The National Circus: Will the Anti-Science Wing Tear the GOP Apart?”
  • “The ‘anti-science party.’”
  • “GOP Senators Parrot Anti-Science Talking Points At Climate Hearing.”
  • “Republicans Against Science.”
  • “'Science Denier’ Ben Carson Denies GOP Is The Anti-Science Party.”
There are Chris Mooney's books The Republican War on Science and The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality.
The argument is, if something does not measure up scientifically, it should be rejected.

Most of the anti-science charge relates to man-made global warming now called “climate change” since the “there-is-no-longer-any-debate-about-global-warming” claim has fizzled. Research on this subject will show that scientists were convinced in the 1970s that global cooling was inevitable, and if you denied it you were – you guessed it – anti-science.
Read more:The Most Trusted Man in America Warned of Global Cooling in 1972.”
By the way, the field of science is not the objective discipline that many people make it out to be as Horace Freeland Judson points out in his book The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science. Also take a look at Climate Confusion (Roy W. Spencer) and Big Fat Liars: How Politicians, Corporations, and the Media Use Science and Statistics to Manipulate the Public (Morris E. Chafetz).

To oppose abortion is not anti-science. Describing an unborn baby as a "blob of tissue" is.
To believe in Intelligent Design is not anti-science. Even atheist and well respected physicist Stephen Hawking admitted while speaking to students at the University of Cambridge that “he believed that ‘some form of intelligence’ was actually behind the creation of the Universe.” He later wrote that “‘Intelligent design’ doesn’t in any way prove that God exists, but only that a ‘God-like force’ played a role in the creation of our Universe, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.”
A “God-like force”? Does he mean a non-corporeal intelligence that “surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together” like in Star Wars? Is Hawking now anti-science?

Now we come to same-sex sexuality and marriage. If a person believes in the scientific fields of biology and anatomy, he knows that same-sex sexuality is biologically and anatomically untenable. No matter how many times two men or two women engage with one another in a sexual way no reproduction is possible. The sexual equipment of homosexuals, while adequate in heterosexual relationships, is never adequate in same-sex relationships.
By the way, the claim that homosexuality is innate does not have science on its side as this article from World Magazine points out:
"Yet there is no conclusive evidence that anyone is 'born gay,' or that sexual orientation is unchangeable. Even if genes did play a role in disposing some people toward same-sex attraction, genes do not dictate behavior or preferences, as biochemist Neil Whitehead has explained. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists in London stated in March [2014], 'It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life.' Surveys show that adolescents who identify as homosexual often end up identifying exclusively as heterosexual later in life."
Evolution is all about perpetuating and advancing the species. Homosexuality does not accomplish this necessary evolutionary requirement, making it anti-evolution and thus anti-science since we are told that evolution is the basis of modern-day science.
Same-sex sexuality offers medical feedback that any scientist can evaluate. Why did Elton John establish the Elton John AIDS Foundation to help fight the disease? What is it about homosexuality that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are disproportionately high when compared to the general population?

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men, with recent increases in syphilis being documented across the country. In 2012, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.”
Homosexuals use condoms to avoid disease not pregnancy. In any other case the medical profession would be telling patients to stop a behavior that brings on disease.
One would think that the medical science of these statistics would lead homosexuals and those who support the mainstreaming of the behavior to conclude that there’s something unscientific about the behavior. What is the science behind cigarette smoking and overeating that leads scientists to disapprove of them? Why not apply it to same-sex sexuality?
If liberals want to be consistent about their anti-science rhetoric then they should oppose same-sex sexuality.

Four Reasons Why Supreme Court Should Not Redefine Marriage


by:Jerry Newcombe
The Supreme Court is slated to rule on the subject of same-sex “marriage” this term. Here are four questions I want to ask same-sex marriage supporters:
  1. If the Supreme Court says that it is okay for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman, then how can they stop there?
Once they open Pandora’s Box, how can they say that polygamy is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court already ruled on that. Utah, a state founded by Mormons, could not be accepted in the Union until there was the promise that they would not practice polygamy, Reynolds v. United States, 1878.
If the Supreme Court rules to “redefine” marriage beyond one man-one woman, then how can they say a man can’t marry his sister, or a mother her son, or a man and his dog, or two men and one woman? How can they legally draw a line? Proponents of same-sex marriage howl at such questions, but three men just “married” in Thailand the other day.

  1. How do you prevent legalizing same-sex marriage from erasing religious liberty?
America began for the most part as various Christian groups fled persecution in their home country. And now in a nation created for religious liberty that has provided religious liberty for all, regardless of creed, shall Christians be persecuted again?
Already where same-sex marriage is being accepted, it is becoming illegal as a florist, a baker, a photographer, etc. to decline providing one’s artistic services (if you perform them for heterosexual weddings) to same-sex weddings. Conscience be damned. What’s next? Ministers, priests, and rabbis to have to perform such “weddings” or risk losing everything?
Read more: "People Fight Back when Judge Rules Against Cake Chef Jack Phillips."

To borrow an argument from my colleague John Rabe: Could you imagine the uproar if the government tried to force an African-American printer to use his artistic skills and shop to produce fliers for a KKK rally, despite his objections because of his conscience?
Legalizing same-sex marriage effectively makes those who hold to traditional values second class citizens, especially when the forces of “tolerance” insist on hauling anyone who disagrees into court.
If the Supreme Court says yes to same-sex marriage, they will be defying the First Amendment to the Constitution, which spells out in writing that we have the right of the “free exercise” of religion, in order to grant rights nowhere found, but manufactured, so that they cater to currently prevailing sexual mores and the bullies who propagate them.
At that point, why even pretend that their decisions are based on the Constitution?

  1. How do you deal with the fact that homosexuality is not immutable?
For the record, there are thousands of Americans alive today who are former homosexuals and former lesbians — freed from their sin by Jesus. There are groups all around the country still active in helping people deal with all this, And there are many ex-gays who have changed through psychological means, unrelated to religion.
Being homosexual is not an immutable trait. Indeed, even those who argue for the alphabet soup of genders we are now expected to recognize often tell us that sexuality is “fluid.” When you involve marriage, you are involving the law — marriage codifies a relationship into law. But what if somebody is gay one day and not the next? Sexual anarchy leads to legal anarchy.

  1. Why are the voters of this country so marginalized?
In a recent interview I did with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he notes that even though same-sex marriage is now legal in some 37 states, only in three of those states was it voted in by the people. In two of them, it was voted by the legislatures, the people’s representatives. With all the rest of the states, it only became legal by judicial fiat.
Even now, 61 percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.
Generally, when the people have had the chance to vote on this issue, they have voted — even in liberal states — overwhelmingly in favor of marriage being defined as between one-man and one-woman. Should we change the Constitution from “We the people” to “We the judges”?
If you say that only bigots reject same-sex marriage — which is the means by which some are losing their jobs today — then was President Obama a bigot through mid-2012, when he said that he thought marriage was between one man and one woman?
Commentator Bob Knight said years ago that if homosexual couples wanted to express their love in public ceremonies, that’s their prerogative. But if you call it “marriage,” then that impacts all of us since marriage involves the law.
In short, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because I am in favor of freedom---freedom guaranteed in the Constitution.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Obama Demands Appeals Court Restart Amnesty, Overturn ‘Wrong’ Federal Judge

oped: Demands??? I don't think so Dictator/King Obama..thats not in the Constitution...but ya really did not pass any courses at Harvard...your whole resume' is a fake as is your sorry ass life! Had MSM and Congress vetted you prior to the 2008 election cycle you would be selling hot dogs/pot on Waiki Beach Hawaii' ! #JustaFactJack

The administration asked a federal appeals court Thursday to let President Obama’s amnesty go into effect immediately, calling a lower judge’s ruling halting the amnesty “unprecedented and wrong,” and saying illegal immigrants will suffer until the policy begins.
Justice Department attorneys said Texas and 25 other states, in suing to halt the amnesty, should never have been granted standing in the first place. At the very least, they said, lower court Judge Andrew S. Hanen should have allowed the administration to approve applications from illegal immigrants in states that haven’t objected.
“In short, the preliminary injunction is a sweeping order that extends beyond the parties before the court and irreparably harms the government and the public interest,” the lawyers said.

But even as the attorneys were asking the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the amnesty to take place, they were apologizing to Judge Hanen for potentially misleading him in the case, saying they never meant to imply they weren’t already approving some applications under the expansion that Mr. Obama announced in November.

ISIS: “We’ll Conquer Paris and Rome, Blow Up the Eiffel Tower and the White House”

The ISIS spokesman does make one important valid point.
“The Islamic State will remain, and it is only getting stronger and achieving more victories,” said Abu Mohammad al-Adnani in the recording. He claimed that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi accepted the oath of allegiance by his Boko Haram counterpart and called on Muslims to immigrate to the area.
“Europe and the US dream of reclaiming Tal Hamis, Mosul, Sinjar, Tikrit, Qaim, Derna, Tell Abyad, and more,” said the ISIS spokesperson.
“On the other hand, we – with Allah’s help – want Paris, before Rome and Islamic Iberia and after we blow up the White House, Big Ben, and the Eiffel Tower before Paris, and Rome,” he warned.

Read More:

Regarding Marriage – One State Has it Right


oped: Gonna be blunt here..there is I repeat no genetic link/DNA code linking homosexuality as being born that way...the only exception would be the very rare case of hermaphrodites...'having both physical sexual parts in one body' #JustaFact Jack, they are the only exception to the rule in nature that is proven! Therefore they are entitled to the choice of  which sex they want to be! #TrueTransgenders So for the remaining 3% of the world population that prefer homosexual relations (sexual fetish) to hetrosexual relations [#Choice] I say to you...have at it I could care less what consenting adults do in private just don't tell me you are entitled to *Special Treatment* and try to force me to accept your choice I will not your thing and I will do mine..leave me the F' alone and I will leave you the F' and let live...get off the marriage coat tails to try to legitimize your personal fetish...marriage is between one man one woman in order to pro-create and establish a foundation to raise children in the normal sense...being that homosexuals cannot pro-create together!

Don't even go to the challenge that hetrosexuals marry without ever having/wanting children...that argument won't fly...after all there are no guarantees that birth control is 100% effective unless there is a medical problem... Leave preachers,bakers and candlestick makers the hell is there choice on who and what they celebrate and who they serve according to their religious/personal is yours...find those who celebrate your fetish within your own community to serve you on your day of joining celebration...but the bottom line is  it still does not qualify as a marriage which has been defined for thousands of years! Thats my story and I'm sticking to it!

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Broaching the topic of same-sex marriage seems to render most on both the right and left apoplectic.
There’s of course the radical LGBT groups who won’t be satisfied until every church and religious institution (save for Islam) bows to their desires and is forced to bless the union of anyone and anything they feel fit to join in unholy matrimony.
There are the religious, steadfast in the belief that God only intended for marriage to between one man and one woman. No matter what the radical groups (or the courts) try to foist upon them, they will not back down, nor surrender their faith.

Then there are those, like me, in the middle who believe that one should be able to marry whomever you wish. If two women want to marry, go ahead – two guys, knock yourself out. I don’t care so long as you don’t infringe on my religious belief that it’s improper. Just as I don’t care if you marry, why should anyone care if I think it’s improper?
So go ahead and get married. Just don’t use the power of government to force someone to marry you, make you a cake or provide flowers. Unfortunately this is the way it is these days. Government, as it does with everything, has wormed its way into the business of marriage and now, as it always does, has wrested control of the whole process.
So what can be done about it? That’s easy – get government out of it. It’s the sure fire remedy for almost everything, so why not marriage. No government – no controversy.
As it turns out the state of Oklahoma is attempting to do just that.

Sam Rolly at Personal Liberty quotes Oklahoma state Rep. Todd Russ saying “the legislation is intended to end controversy over gay marriage in the Oklahomastate. Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second. Under my bill, the state is not allowing or disallowing same-sex marriage. It is simply leaving it up to the clergy.” In other words, the state of Oklahoma will be out of the marriage business.
So, you might think – controversy over – everyone should be happy. We should all know better than that. Homosexual activist group Freedom Oklahoma (FO) is against the bill.
Troy Stevenson of FO said that the legislation “puts all couple who plan to marry in Oklahoma at risk of being denied hundreds of federal legal rights and protections. The federal government and other states will not be required to acknowledge these proposed ‘marriage certificates.’” Notice he doesn’t say “will” lose rights – just that they may be “at risk.” Neat trick.

But that makes no sense. Putting aside his claim of “hundreds of protections,” (he probably just picked a number and threw it out there), the bill statesoklahoma_songbook that these marriage certificates and affidavits of common law marriage, once filed with the county clerk, would be treated as a legal marriage license. The outcome would be no different than if it were issued by the state.
And as correctly points outs, “each state already has its own marriage certificate process anyway.” All 57!
This bill makes perfect sense and renders the lefty activists arguments moot.
And this is what they are really afraid of – that the increasingly conservative state legislatures across the country might pick up on this “get the government out of our business” proposal and run with it, possibly finding other facets of our lives to unshackle. Solving a problem without government is antithetical to the left.

This, like everything liberal and progressive, is about control and nothing else. To the left, progress is supposed to mean ever more government control – not less.

CRINGE WORTHY: Michelle Obama Tries To Dance To ‘Uptown Funk’ On Ellen’s Show


Dear God, this FLOTUS is embarrassing, eh? Sasha and Malia – look away now.  Eye bleach, please. 

Ordered to Remove American Flag from Courthouse Sheriff says "You Mess with My Flag, the Fight is On Baby!"

american flag99

Portsmouth, Virginia Sheriff Bill Watson says he is furious after he was told by a group of judges to remove an American flag from the lobby of a courthouse that was donated by the Portsmouth Fire Department.
WTKR reports:
Sheriff Watson said his agency got the American flag display as a gift from members of the Portsmouth Fire Department a few weeks ago.

It's made of old fire hoses which a sign beneath it that reads, "A Tribute to Public Safety."

Watson said he requested to have it mounted on the wall in the lobby of the courthouse but was shocked by what he was told.

Watson said he was told, "Not only do we not want it on the wall, we don't want it in the courthouse."

"I just can't believe that they don't want to display the American flag in a courthouse, I mean that's the most asinine thing I've ever heard in my life," Watson rightly said.

One of the judges, who wanted to remain unidentified, spoke with NewsChannel 3 and said that the courthouse was not the appropriate place to display the flag.
The judge claimed that if you allowed one type of display, then you have to allow all types and it would set a "wrong precedent."
"They expect my deputies to put their life on the line for a judge," Sheriff Watson said. "If somebody was going to come into a courtroom with a gun, the deputy is supposed to stand in front of the judge and take a bullet, but yet they won't let us have our flag, saluting public safety? To me, that's a slap in the face."
While Sheriff Watson says that he would be willing to mount the flag in the window of his office, he also indicated that he would be willing to go to jail rather than take it down.

Sheriff Watson spoke to Freedom Outpost and told us, "You can quote me on this, 'God bless America. Let the flags fly!'"
Watson said that he hasn't removed the flag. Rather, he actually put it behind a glass, which gave even more exposure to the flag.
"It's actually better because it's behind glass," the sheriff said. "People can't really mess with the flag and get fingerprints all over it and it's only 20 feet from where it was sitting before."
Furthermore, for whatever reason, the judges didn't create a stir about other things posted on the walls of the courthouse.

When asked about other things on the wall of the courthouse, Sheriff Watson said, "There's a Liberty Bell plaque in there even though it says there are no plaques to be posted…. Then there's the Portsmouth Bar Association, with every picture of every judge, every attorney, the whole nine yards up on the wall, which is an organization… and you aren't supposed to post anything from any organizations."
Watson then addressed the fact that judges argued that those judges and attorneys "don't do business here."
"Really?" he asked sarcastically. "Every one of them do business here. It's their bread and butter. I can't believe they would be stupid enough to say something like that."
He also pointed out that the chief judge is married to the circuit court clerk, which is an incredible conflict of interest to say the least. He also said that she had her portrait on the wall, as well as sorority items on the wall.
Though Sheriff Watson does not consider the judges to be liberal, he did point out that there is a lot of politics that go on and as a result said that he believes the three remaining judges just simply followed along behind the chief judge's ruling.

The whole thing seems to have been stirred up because Sheriff Watson had a small sign below the flag that read, "A tribute to public safety."
"They (the judges) said, 'It might intimidate people that's coming into the courthouse that might have lawsuits against a police officer,'" Watson said. "What lawsuit? We haven't had lawsuits. Police officers haven't been sued here in a long time. We aren't Ferguson. Everybody gets along."

When asked why the flag would be offensive, Sheriff Watson responded, "I guess they think that terrorists might walk through the courthouse… we've given them everything else…. We've given our country away,… but you mess with my flag, the fight is on baby!" 

from Freedom Outpost

U.S. Senate Candidate Says ‘Gays’ are ‘Gods,’ Calls for Armed ‘LGBT Squads’

oped: Wake up America...we have been down this road before...1935-1945 And we all know how it turned out! 
Revisiting "The Pink Swastika"

While they always disguise it behind the euphemistic language of “tolerance,” “equality” and “social justice,” on occasion the homofascist left will admit to its designs on fascism. There are some who doubt those of us who have long warned that many homosexualists intend to compel, through any means possible (up to and including physical force), Christians and other dissenters to fully surrender to their radical homosexual activist agenda.
Mark Charles Hardie, a Huffington post columnist and 2016 candidate for the U.S. Senate in California, is helping to make our point. In a February 25 column headlined, “Gay People Are Gods: Protecting LGBT Communities Is a Divine Right,” Hardie goes full Rainbow Shirt. Under the pretext of “minimizing troubling incidents of anti-gay violence,” he shares that he has submitted “an innovative proposal” to the California State Senate to create “LGBT Squads” to enforce the “gay” agenda. 

Post Continues on

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Biden says of Obama Move Against Coal – “A Lot of People are Going to Get Hurt”

by:Onan Coca 

Remember when then candidate Obama and his choice for VP, Joe Biden, travelled coal country telling all those nice people how they weren’t going to hurt their jobs or their futures? Well, they may have misspoken. At least that’s the case if we are to believe what Joe Biden is NOW saying.
“Us moving away from coal because it’s such a polluter, there’s a lot of people going to get hurt, good people who worked their whole life,” Biden told VICE, a documentary series that premiered on HBO last Friday 

“It’s a national responsibility, in our view, to help them make that transition,” Biden said. “We all have an obligation. When fundamental alterations in a generation of energy are up in play, there’s winners and losers.”
Sadly, coal country, while they were lying before… they’re telling the truth now. The Obama administration is looking to end coal-produced energy, forever.

Vice President Joe Biden is at it again, this time telling HBO viewers that federal regulations to move the U.S. away from coal-fired power is going to hurt a lot of Americans.
“Us moving away from coal because it’s such a polluter, there’s a lot of people going to get hurt, good people who worked their whole life,” Biden told VICE, a documentary series that premiered on HBO last Friday.
“It’s a national responsibility, in our view, to help them make that transition,” Biden said. “We all have an obligation. When fundamental alterations in a generation of energy are up in play, there’s winners and losers.”
It turns out Biden’s right. Federal regulations clamping down on coal-fired power plants have cost thousands of jobs across the country as power plants and coal mines shed workers to stay in business.

In the new season of VICE, filmmakers try to link man-made global warming to sea level rises across the world. The film says that the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than ever and are causing flooding in places like Bangladesh.
“Our oceans are rising,” the filmmakers write. “With human use of hydrocarbons skyrocketing, waters around the globe are getting hotter and, now, this warm sub-surface water is washing into Antarctica’s massive western glaciers causing the glaciers to retreat and break off.”

“Antarctica holds 90% of the world’s ice and 70% of its freshwater, so if even a small fraction of the ice sheet in Antarctica melts, the resulting sea level rise will completely remap the world as we know it – and it is already happening,” the filmmakers add. “In the last decade, some of the most significant glaciers here have tripled their melt rate.”
(For the record, Antarctica is not melting as sea ice extent has increased rapidly over the last few decades despite predictions to the contrary. It should also be noted that Greenland’s ice sheet reached its highest levels in four years.)
The film sets up global warming as an irreversible catastrophe in the making. Cue Joe Biden who is featured in an exclusive interview at the end of the first episode of VICE’s latest episode. Biden not only advocated for getting off of coal power — which Obama administration regulations currently in the works aim to accomplish — the vice president also said denying man-made global warming was akin to “denying gravity.”

“It’s almost like denying gravity now,” said Biden. “I mean wait a minute, ‘c’mon … Look what superstorm Sandy did right here in New York.”
VICE asked Biden why he thought the U.S. political system was gridlocked on global warming and so many other issues. Biden said it’s because of the “way in which we fund our elections” allows a small number of critics to gain power and control the political system.
“The public is ahead of their elected officials. We’ve been in this wilderness now for about 7 to 8 years in terms of not able to reach a consensus,” Biden said.
But Biden may be slightly overstating the public’s support for government regulations to combat global warming. A CNN poll from January found that 57 percent of Americans said global warming is not a threat to their lives.

Democrats Push Bill they haven’t Read – Get Mad When they Learn What’s In It!

Onan Coca  

Hopefully, one of these days Senate Democrats will start reading the bills they are voting on. Sadly, that day hasn’t come yet.
Senate Democrats asked the Republican majority to bring an anti-human trafficking bill to the floor for a vote, and were likely pleased when Republicans agreed to do so. The bill was 68-pages long and had 13 Democrat’s cosponsoring, and most Republicans offering their full support. It was expected that the bill would easily pass and the measure would become law… that is, until the Democrats finally read the bill. 

Find yours Now:

Apparently, Senate Democrats had neglected to even read the bill that they were hoping to pass, because at some point on Tuesday they suddenly realized that the bill contained language that would prevent federal funding of abortion. (While abortion is a controversial subject that usually splits Democrats and Republicans, the language included in this bill is quite usual for such measures.)
Democrats are complaining that Republicans got the abortion language into the bill in an underhanded fashion, but Republican Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) says it’s just not true.
 ”This idea that there has been some sort of an ambush is just preposterous,” he said on the floor Tuesday. “It’s just not credible.” 

Free Download:

“Our Democratic friends have voted time, and time, and time, and time again for the exact same language they now say they’re going to filibuster on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act,” he said on the floor Wednesday. “Language they said they weren’t aware of when they voted for it.”
“They didn’t read,” he continued. “Their staff didn’t tell them about it.”
Cornyn also said that the bill has been publicly available online for MONTHS!
Still, Democrats just can’t bring themselves to vote for an anti-human trafficking bill if it won’t let them murder babies. At this point, it’s a bit gratuitous, no? The Democrats desire to murder babies is so strong that they are willing to stand with people who are selling other people into slavery.
Do you still really think that the Democrat Party isn’t evil?

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Why Big Pharma Killed President Eisenhower

by:  Dr. Al Sears
Dear Friend,
On September 24, 1955, President Eisenhower – World War II hero and beloved president – was playing golf at his Denver home, when he suddenly collapsed from what was a rare disease at the time.
He had a heart attack.
Although nobody knew it then... and though you won’t read about it in any history book...
This was a watershed moment that would change the course of modern medicine forever.
One that would make heart disease the #1 killer of Americans – and would establish Big Pharma as America’s #1 most profitable industry.

The story I’m unveiling today has HUGE implications for your personal health, and that of your family.
If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with heart disease, you need to know the exact details of what took place.
Because this story doesn’t just tell you WHO is responsible...
It tells you WHY.
As in...
  • WHY heart disease rates have soared since 1955 – even as consumption of “heart-healthy” foods and cholesterol-lowering drugs has skyrocketed.
  • WHY you could become victim of this drug-induced tragedy – no matter your cholesterol levels or intake of fat.
  • And 100 billion reasons why Big Pharma will NEVER cure heart disease. 
That’s why historian Larry Schweikart calls it “the single most important medical case of the twentieth century.”
Yet the REAL story behind it is virtually unknown. 
Within 24 hours of Ike’s heart attack, special interests seized the opportunity.
They manufactured a crisis, a founding myth, and a “solution.”
They shoved this propaganda down the American public’s throat.
And in doing so, they singlehandedly sent America’s health spiraling downhill for the next six decades.
Over the next few minutes, I’ll expose this near-60-year-old Big Pharma conspiracy. I’ll name the names. I’ll track the money. And at each stage, I’ll answer the BIG question: “Who benefits?”
What’s more, I’ll reveal how you can safeguard yourself from heart disease forever with solutions that are 100 percent natural, affordable, effective, and safe.

There are alternative therapies you can use to prevent and EVEN reverse heart disease – without expensive drugs, procedures, or even doctor visits.
There are safe treatments that could forever rid your body of heart disease. Treatments you can apply from home, for pennies on the dollar.
But they’re natural, so Big Pharma can’t patent them.
That’s why they do NOT want you to hear about them.
In just a moment, I’ll share with you the shocking details of nine censored heart solutions ... where you can find them at your local grocery, health food store, or pharmacy... and how you can begin using them TODAY.
If you’re one of 70 percent of Americans suffering with some form of heart disease, I urge you to read on for the details.
What you’re about to see could save you a fortune on insanely expensive heart procedures.
Conventional therapies like...
  • A $1,500-a-pop statin (cholesterol-lowering) drug prescription...
  • A $40,000 coronary stent...
  • A $200,000 (or more) coronary bypass surgery... 
These so-called “therapies” not only put your life at risk...
They could also deplete or even wipe out your retirement savings – even if you have health insurance or Medicare. (According to CNBC, medical bills are America’s #1 cause of bankruptcy, with 1.7 million Americans going bankrupt every year. And procedures like open heart surgery are some of the most expensive out there.)
And the worst part is, it’s all for nothing.
Did you know, for instance, that 85 percent of heart bypass surgeries are unnecessary?
Yet specialists love them because they can cost $200,000 (or more). Not a bad payday.
And the statin drug guidelines are so broad, almost 95 percent of new users are being prescribed drugs they don’t need.

President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

President Eisenhower warns the American public as he leaves office on January 17, 1961
You’ve likely heard about Eisenhower’s famous farewell address, and his warning of the “undue influence warranted by the military-industrial complex.”
Eisenhower was no stranger to the dangers of monopoly corporations pulling the strings of government to increase their power and influence.
What made the military-industrial complex all the more dangerous was its ability to manufacture enemies and crises – which then stirs the American public into a war frenzy, leading to greater war spending and profits.
Big Pharma – the “medical industrial complex” – is no different. They can as easily manufacture health crises – “epidemics” that call for new drugs and therapies, which the unelected FDA then rubber-stamps.

But you shouldn’t waste another cent of your hard-earned money on deadly surgeries or drugs.
As you’re about to see, there are nine life-saving alternatives that are 100 percent safe, effective, and inexpensive.
Today, I’ll shed light on each of these... the FDA’s efforts to censor them... and the independent studies backing their healing power. All the facts you need to build a disease-proof heart.
But before I do, let me tell you the REAL background story behind Big Pharma’s “mother of all lies”...
And how it ultimately took President Eisenhower’s life.
It’s a story that went unreported until recently.
When I dug deep into the history, I found the scheming and intrigue behind this myth was astonishing.
It implicates prestigious researchers, non-profit associations, and their big donors.
Which is why this story remains censored to this day.
In fact, Eisenhower even warned of this secret plot.
And while everybody knows he warned of a military-industrial complex during his farewell address...
Virtually nobody knows about his other warning – a warning just as ominous for the American public, if not more so.

The very first victory of this new “scientific technological elite” took place on September 24, 1955 – within 24 hours of Ike’s famous heart attack. It was...

The Day Everything Changed...

Even though 950,000 people still die every year as a direct result...
And although these deaths are easily preventable...
I doubt one in 10,000 Americans know about September 24, 1955.
The events on this dark day triggered a six-decade propaganda campaign – one that’s misled doctors and scientists to...
  • Focus on the WRONG causes of heart disease...
  • Ignore hundreds of natural, inexpensive, and safe heart disease treatments...
  • And instead prescribe dangerous drugs that actually make heart problems worse, alongside 300 other deadly side effects. 

After Eisenhower’s heart attack, Big Pharma kicked off their campaign of deception.
Their public relations “experts” immediately appeared on TV and told America a frightening story.
They claimed there was a devastating new “epidemic” of heart disease.
And they blamed excess fat and cholesterol in Americans' diets.
To confront this “crisis,” they declared a new war.
A war on fat.
They labeled ALL fat as evil. Especially saturated fats.
They demonized entire categories of so-called “fatty foods.”

How “The Cholesterol Hoax”
Destroyed the Once-Healthy
American Lifestyle

Twice each day, for six months, the press covered every aspect of Ike’s recovery – every medicine and every dietary guideline.
New York Times, April 17, 1956
They instructed the public on the dangers of coronary disease.
For the first time the word “cholesterol” entered the public vocabulary.
It became a dangerous evil, a monster, a villain.
They portrayed cholesterol as the “new polio.”
Millions of Americans – frightened by the new “epidemic” – quickly embraced any solutions the so-called “experts” handed out.
When the dust settled, Americans had learned to watch the fat and cholesterol in their diets.
New York Times, November 6, 1956
But there was ONE big problem with all of this...
None of it was true.
Not a single word of it.
As the Wall Street Journal recently reported...
“There has never been solid evidence for the idea that [saturated] fats cause heart disease.”
In fact, later research would confirm these fats have plenty of proven health benefits, including preventing and reversing heart disease!
But once “facts” like these are born, they never seem to die. No matter the research or studies that disprove them. Not when so much money is at stake.
You see, this myth not only gave birth to poor dietary guidelines...
It also spawned the most lucrative class of drugs ever invented.
That includes the most lucrative (and deadliest) drug known to mankind.
Sales to date from this drug alone have totaled a whopping $140 billion!
And this #1 cash cow hinges on this one single myth.

That’s why it will NOT go away so easily.
Your own doctor likely still believes it.
But I think you’ll be surprised at just how little research there is to back it.
In a minute, you’ll hear all the details on how Ike was its first victim.
But first, let me expose how they used Eisenhower’s own doctor to administer their poison.

Ike as Big Pharma’s Guinea Pig?

Although top scientists and researchers were rallying behind the new myth...

Ike’s Doctor Debunks the Hoax
On Censored National Broadcast

In 1956, an American Heart Association fund-raiser aired on the three major television networks.
Panelists linked heart disease with cholesterol and fats. They proposed the “Prudent Diet” as a solution – one in which corn oil, margarine, chicken, and cold cereal replaced butter, lard, beef, and eggs.
But Dr. Paul Dudley White dissented. At least at first.
He observed that heart disease was nonexistent in 1900 when egg consumption was three times what it was in 1956, and when corn oil was unavailable.
White nailed it right on the head when he said: “I began my practice as a cardiologist in 1921 and I never saw a heart attack patient until 1928.”
“Back in the heart attack free days before 1920, the fats were butter and lard and I think that we would all benefit from the kind of diet that we had at a time when no one had ever heard the word corn oil.”   

Ike Killed by Rat Poison?

The year before Eisenhower’s heart attack, Bristol-Myers’ new blood-thinner Coumadin received FDA approval. Before then, it was used as rat poison.
The National Poison Center still labels warfarin – the generic name for Coumadin – a dangerous rodenticide.
And guess who was the first one selected to test-drive the drug?
That’s right – Dr. Paul Dudley White prescribed this rat poison to Eisenhower during the president’s recovery. This move was profitable for Big Pharma, but disastrous for Ike’s health.
When the media reported on Eisenhower’s use of Coumadin, it instantly became the popular go-to drug for blood clot prevention.
And now it’s one of the top 10 most prescribed drugs in the world. One that hands Big Pharma $15.3 billion per year. And it’s growing by the day.
But did anyone hear about Eisenhower’s awful symptoms and side effects?
While he was still on the drug, Ike developed chronic inflammation of his intestines. His medical condition was critical, even requiring bowel surgery, so his doctors temporarily suspended his Coumadin therapy.
After he recovered, Ike again started to take Coumadin, which led to a brain hemorrhage in 1957.
Yet the media, and his doctors, failed to make the connection between Ike’s diminishing health and this dangerous blood-thinner.

Continue Reading

This is a must read for those seeking the truth :

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Female News Show Host Shuts Down Muslim Scholar On Air

islam middle east lebanon memri tv rima karaki dailydot •
Rima Karaki
[I think I have a new favorite TV news host.]

Rima Karaki, a news anchor for Lebanon's Al-Jadeed TV network, has chops like a saber-toothed tigress.
In a fiery interview with a dissembling and crusty Muslim legal scholar named Hani al-Sebai, Karaki amply demonstrated that she is not your run-of-the-mill, meek Muslimah.
Wearing a traditional head scarf, Karaki politely asked Sebai a direct question about Christian involvement in Muslim militant groups.

Sebai, in true ivory tower fashion, began dissembling about history and groups from the past.
When Karaki grew tired of his rambling and tried to get him back on track by suggesting he focus on the present, Sebai started giving her lip and acting the role of the offended "big man."
Except Karaki wasn't buying and dished it right back at him, explaining to the irksome scholar that she respected him but he needed to answer more concisely, and that there was only a limited amount of time for their interview.
Sebai kept going, though, and told Karaki to "shut up."
That was just a bridge too far. "How can a respected sheikh like yourself tell a TV host to shut up?" Karaki demanded.

Sebai still didn't get that he had met his match, though, and Karaki dismissed him with the air of royalty: "Enough. Let's wrap this up."
Yet, Sebai -- which must be Arabic for "stubborn donkey" or something similar -- tried once more to assert control: "It's beneath me to be interviewed by you. You are a woman who ..."
That was when Karaki really laid down the law, cutting off his microphone and explaining to the audience how the modern world works: "Just one second. Either there is mutual respect or the conversation is over."
Watch the whole interview here.

So if a Lebanese Muslim woman can get up the nerve to stare down a hateful "scholar," why can't American liberals, who supposedly value women's rights, do the same with Islam?
It's because the American Left has always been anti-woman. Progressives are just skilled at hiding it these days through the use of deceitful doubletalk.
Historically, it was the Left that fought tooth and nail to oppose women's right to vote, and their war on women continues today.
Consider the results of decades of "feminism": the ongoing destruction of the institution of marriage through divorce and homosexual rights; 54 million-plus dead children through government-funded abortion mills; a culture that insists a woman must be like a man, in dress, career, behavior and even in choosing a woman as a sexual partner; and turning our young women into sexual objects weaned on pornography and "slut pride," armed with the "morning after pill."

Feminism has nothing but disdain for femininity. That's the point where it finds common ground with Islam, which treats women as property useful only for sexual purposes.
Rima Karaki stood up to a "scholar" who viewed her as a thing. Wouldn't the world be a better place if American women regained their senses and stood up to Progressivism?


Monday, March 9, 2015

If Muslims Are So Peaceful, Why Are So Many People Afraid to Offend Them?

Just a lil food for thought...ha:  

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 10.41.51 AM

Think about that!

Mike Rowe is Asked by Fan to Weigh in on Anti-Police Protests, His Response was EPIC


The Reason Obama Has It Out For Netanyahu May Be More Terrifying Than You Thought Possible

by: Lowell Ponte

This article is sponsored by one of our valued partners, Swiss America.
Visiting Israel for the first time several decades ago, I was shocked at being told to report any packages left on buses or park benches because these might be terrorist bombs. To Americans, this then seemed almost unimaginable.
In the wake of 9-11, we in the West are all Israelis now.

We need to wake up and smell the danger that threatens us.
This week, a modern Paul Revere arrived in Washington, D.C., to warn us that “The terrorists are coming” to cities we call home.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows this from hard experience as a battle-wounded commando; brother of commando Yonatan killed rescuing skyjacked Israelis in Entebbe, Uganda; and leader of an American ally that faces incessant terrorist attacks.

What prompts Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is that Iran –whose theocratic Islamist rulers believe they could trigger an apocalyptic war that brings the cosmic world triumph of Islam – may be within months of producing its first atomic bomb.
Iran’s rulers are building missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads onto the cities of Israel, Europe, and the United States. For Iran, the biggest supporter of terrorism, atom-armed terrorists may also become the delivery system of choice.
The next 9-11-like terrorist attack could vaporize Washington and New York City beneath mushroom-shaped clouds – killing millions, replacing our freedom with garrison states, and crashing our economy.
“When leaders play down a major crisis for fear of creating a crisis, isn’t that an even bigger crisis?” asked Fox News Neil Cavuto of Swiss America Chairman Craig R. Smith.

Mr. Smith told Fox News back in 2014: “Obama simply does not have the executive experience to respond properly. Americans have watched this pattern of blaming others or wishy-washy leadership which belittles the real crises our nation faces.”
Our President, Barack Hussein Obama, has different concerns. He is obsessed with confiscating the guns of law-abiding Americans, yet seems unwilling to lift a finger to prevent Iran’s fanatical rulers from obtaining A-bombs. He reneged on America’s agreement with Poland to establish an anti-missile system there to reduce Iran’s ICBM threat to Europe and the U.S.
Mr. Obama was eager to give F-15 jets to the Islamist Egyptian Brotherhood government that toppled our and Israel’s long-time ally Hosni Mubarak in Cairo, but withdrew this offer the instant pro-American, anti-Islamist Egyptian military leaders toppled ruling Brotherhood Islamist radicals.
Mr. Obama has called Iranian nuclear weapons unacceptable, but he has never pledged to use “assertive disarmament” if Iran acquires such weapons. If he is serious, why is this not the declared, unchangeable American position in any negotiation with an Iran that claims to have no A-bomb ambitions?

Mr. Obama, however, reportedly in 2014 quietly threatened the Netanyahu government, warning that our Persian Gulf fleet would destroy any Israeli aircraft that attempted to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
President Obama has made little secret of his hatred for Mr. Netanyahu. Obama apparently fears that a strong, persuasive leader like Netanyahu might undermine his weak-kneed, submissive negotiations with Tehran.
Did Mr. Obama’s Muslim father or Indonesian Muslim step-father teach him the Islamic religious doctrines of al-Taqiyya, idtirar, kitman, or hiyal – all of which hold that lying is moral if done to protect Muslims or advance Islam? Surely he recognizes, therefore, that no treaty with Iran’s doomsday Islamists can be trusted.
Or perhaps, given all his deceptions, President Obama secretly embraces al-Taqiyya far more than we know.

ATTN: Nevada residents Constitutional Carry, SB-143, introduced to Committiee

Dear Nevada Residents,

I need your help.

I know it's short notice, but these things move fast.

Constitutional Carry, SB-143, is being heard this Wednesday at 1:00 PM in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The National Association for Gun Rights will be there to testify on the bill, but the Committee needs to hear from you as well. 

If you can make it, the hearing will be held at the Legislative building at:

Room 2134
401 S. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 

If you're closer to Las Vegas, you can still testify by videoconference

Room 4412E
Grant Sawyer State Office Building
555 E. Washington Ave
Las Vegas, NV  

Urge the Senators to vote for SB-143, Constitutional Carry.

If the Judiciary Committee doesn't pass the bill, we're done.

Remember, Constitutional Carry is the simple idea that if you're legally able to possess a firearm, you should be able to carry it, concealed, for self-defense without having to beg for government permission.

That's the way it's done in Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and even Vermont.

The Judiciary Committee only has 7 members, and 3 of those are democrats.

That means that if a single Republican stabs you in the back, Constitutional Carry will be off the table for years. 

We need every vote we can get on Constitutional Carry out of Committee and onto the Senate Floor.

Most bills don't make it past their first committee hearing because the anti-gunners only need to peel off one or two votes to kill a bill.

Once a bill gets to the floor, the numbers are larger, so votes are harder for the antis to buy influence.

Help me make sure Constitutional Carry gets a chance for an up or down vote on the Senate floor by clicking the link above to find the members of the Judiciary Committee.

After you've contacted the committee members, please include your most generous contribution TODAY!  


Dudley Brown

P.S. Constitutional Carry, SB-143 is being heard in the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday at 1:00 PM.

If you can't make it to the committee hearing, please click below to email the Senators on the committee:  

Example of e-mail I sent

Senate Bill 143

Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Being a Veteran of the US Army 1964-1968 Cav and a former retired member of both local as well as federal Law Enforcement...I support this bill 100%
As a member and supporter of the National Association for Gun Rights and the NRA, I'd like to ask that you hold a hearing, and vote in favor of Senate Bill 143, "Constitutional Carry," without any amendments to weaken the bill.
Being that the Nevada Constitution already has a open carry law it is a tad redundant to withold concealed carry !...when one purchases a legal firearm one must submit to a background check which cost $25.00 and one must pass ...this is all that should be required...maybe include a provision that this info be placed into the Nevada Law enforcement NLETS system so it can be checked by any officer in the field!

Thank you,

After you've contacted the committee members, please include your most generous contribution TODAY!

Senator Greg Brower 775-684-1419
Senator Becky Harris702-324-0404
Senator Michael Roberson702-612-6929
Senator Scott Hammond702-523-9055
Senator Ruben Kihuen702-274-1707
Senator Tick Segerblom702-388-9600
Senator Aaron Ford702-772-5544  

Obama Loves the Sound of His Own Voice More than America

... See Nancy. I told you his farts don't stink." *Sniff* *Sniff* AHHHH
[ See Nancy. I told you his farts don't stink." *Sniff* *Sniff* AHHHH ]



Obama uses the ridiculous phrase workplace violence or excessive terrorism to avoid saying Islamic terrorism because he wants to divert our attention from the actual decapitations to a linguistic exercise in labeling insane violence.

He doesn’t really care what we call terrorism but he wants to create a false debate that distracts us from the flamboyant beheadings displayed by the Muslim fanatics.
He fools no one. He is the great distractor. He plays word games to keep from actualities.  He is hiding in the linguistic distractions of his speech writers.

He is like a high school kid who moons in his car window to get a giggle out of the girls.  He is laughing back at his supporters.  He is obfuscating the truth through word play.

Obama has always made a big brouhaha about closing Gitmo.  Why would he try to stop something so obviously useful? He has turned it into an abstraction rather than a necessity.  It would be like the United States letting German and Japanese killers of civilians go during WWII.
Obama America Smug
Obama makes up the lie that Gitmo is a recruiting tool when there is no evidence that this is so and his letting out prisoners usually ends in the prisoners rejoining groups like al-Qaeda, killing innocent civilians and being free to recruit new terrorists.

Obama’s whole reason for releasing Gitmo prisoners is to show off his floral humanity.  He is more concerned with showing the country that he is a good guy than in limiting and detaining terrorists.

While Gitmo becomes a talking point, Obama slips five dangerous terrorists out in exchange for a deserter—Bowe Bergdahl.  Six soldiers died looking for a traitor, Bergdahl.

Bergdahl becomes an item for debate when he should never have even been considered for retrieval.
Bergdahl is a negative; the Taliban five are negatives; the whole swap is negative.

Obama says that the Muslim religion is a peaceful religion.  He says this despite the fact that there are beheading, rapes, shootings and crucifixions every day of women and children.

He knows that most American citizens know this, but he says it to confuse us and make us argue with his linguistic folly rather than to jockey towards war which he would embarrassingly be responsible for as Commander-in-Chief.

Obama is allergic towards aggression.  He would rather sit passively encouraging terrorists to attack us.  How many detached legs is he responsible for at the Boston marathon? What is left of their sneakers? How many heads are rolling around the desert because he portrayed America as a mouse rather than a lion?

Obama’s mouse didn’t even roar.  It squeals and complains. It smiles “cheese” at selfies.

I miss the days when Gadhafi gave up his nuclear weapons because he was scared by Bush’s killing Sadam Hussein.  That was before Obama supported our enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt.  And Hillary Clinton walks around holding hands with a family member of the Muslim Brotherhood—Huma Abedin.

Obama retreats from enemy countries where we have made significant progress so he can impress us with his anti-war posture.  He doesn’t care that his retreat in Iraq led to the horrors of Isis and his pulling back in Afghanistan led to the resurgence of the Taliban.  He would rather have us worry about the hypothetical question of whether to be hawkish or dovish than to force him to stand up for freedom and democracy. He is not interested in action.  He likes to play scrabble with our lives.

Basically, what Obama is doing is discouraging his citizens from standing up for American exceptionalism and encouraging them to examine the language that is removed from the actuality of deeds and action.  He is basically passive and would rather see our country burn like the Middle East than to assume the role of a warrior king and have to take responsibility for that posture.

Of course he doesn’t have to worry about being a warrior king. He is merely the king of executive orders, bureaucratic demands and the march to government centered folly.

Actually, Obama is the opposite of a warrior.  When he paints a red line he recedes from it and leaves a wake of decapitations in his retreat.

Obama has diverted the country’s attention from his deeds to his language.  And yet it’s not even his language.  He reads his speech writers’ words from the teleprompter.

His actions don’t relate to his speech.  He must feel a little schizophrenic.  I know that I do when I see the heads of his useful idiots bobbing up and down and applauding his lies.

Remember Obama’s famous lies that you can keep your doctor and health plan.  Such lies ruined people’s lives.  That alone is worse than Watergate.  How did he escape impeachment?

Illegal Obama
And let’s not forget that he turned down amnesty for illegals before he changed his mind.  The same way that he changed his mind about same sex marriage.  He has the consistency of a traitor.  He is all pro American and tradition until he becomes a wrecking ball for our country.  He doesn’t realize that his national masochism will catch up with him and he will rapidly become the worst president in our history.

The results of his failure to face Islamic terrorism aren’t in yet.  The heads that have rolled are looking at cages where their compatriots will be set on fire. Who will listen to Obama when our bodies can’t find our heads?

Is Obama intentionally trying to destroy America with ear plugs of language or is he just naïve?  It doesn’t matter.  The result is the same.

The King of Jordan flies a fighter plan.  Obama kicks his golf ball in the rough. He swings his iron and yells, “Four.”  He likes words like “Four.”  But no one has to worry.  He will not hit anyone.  The only thing that flies is a divot.

Obama tried to deflect the people’s attention from the IRS undermining conservative groups by announcing that there wasn’t even a “smidgen of corruption.”  He tried to focus on whether there was or wasn’t a smidgen. Conservative groups went from being thrown under the bus to less than a smidgeon of IRS ire. “Smidgeon”—a distracting word.

The Obamacare website scandal became a costly failure by tech nerds rather than the poorly thought out and ill-conceived project by Obama. Obama cost us billions of dollars to set up a failed application for a self-destructive program.  He bit off more than he could chew.  He was a community organizer handling a few misfits and now he was in charge of healthcare (with no medical experience) for millions of people.

Obama’s ambition exceeds his skills.  He hides all his failures under the rug of his language.

The Fast and Furious investigation has dragged along while Mexican drug cartels continue to kill people with our weapons.  Guilt gets lost in conceptual definitions and bodies become awkward like split infinitives.

The VA scandal becomes an excuse for more studies while our nation’s finest die in the hospitals rather than the battle grounds.

Obama spun Benghazi to be caused by a video not an attack by al-Qaeda. After all, didn’t Obama tell us that al-Qaeda had been decimated?  Oops, he recently told us that Isis will be decimated and degraded.  Watch out, whatever he says is a clue that the opposite will happen.

Obama is out of touch with the world.  He pronounces predictions and descriptions. Who knows if he actually means them?  They all come out wrong.  We come out wrong.  We come out of his political womb headfirst.  We choke, caught in the umbilical cord of the ambitious Democrat Party.

Obama came to power on the boast of transparency.  But he didn’t mean it the way it turned out.  We see through his lies and know that his transparency is failed deception. He might have been better off being less transparent about his fabrications.

He is a product of his words which are the failed mask of his deeds.  Giuliani was right in saying that Obama doesn’t love America.  A man who rises to President doesn’t necessarily love his country.  He loves himself.  He wants to be the most powerful man in the world.

Giuliani’s accusation is truer than anything Obama has ever said about America.

Remember when Michelle Obama said, "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback." 
But hope had never disappeared until Michelle’s Pinocchio husband tried to do grandiose things, failed, and left America exceptional in that we became the laughing stock of the world.

Words, words, words. While Michelle gained respect for America, I lost it.  I can’t believe that I share a country with Stalin’s useful idiots—liberals—who still believe that our President is anything but an empty suit, a pocket handkerchief