Saturday, June 13, 2015

Has Chief Justice John Roberts Gone Over to the Dark Side?

 [Yes we are Obama's LGBT bitch!]

[Yes hang your head in shame!]

John Glover Roberts Jr. was always considered to be a staunch conservative from the time he served as a law clerk for Judges Henry Friendly and William Rehnquist to his time in the Attorney General’s office, Justice Department and Office of the White House Counsel. In 2003, President George W. Bush appointed Roberts to a judgeship on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit because of his conservative views. In 2005, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement and Bush nominated Roberts to fill her seat on the high court. Prior to his nomination being confirmed, Chief Justice Rehnquist died and Bush changed the nomination of Roberts from filling O’Connor’s seat to that of replacing Rehnquist as Chief Justice. Bush took this action because of Roberts’ strong conservative views. 

From the time of Roberts’ confirmation and swearing in as the highest judge in the land in 2005 through 2011, he consistently voted conservatively of the vast majority of cases. That all seemed to change in 2012 when he shocked the conservative world with his vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act and the individual mandate. The vote was 5-4 with Roberts siding with the 4 liberals and not the 4 conservatives. 

Currently, the Supreme Court consists of 4 very liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor; and four conservative justices – Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. With Roberts’ history of being a conservative, it appeared that conservatives had a narrow 5-4 advantage over the liberals but that may not be true now.
Starting with the infamous 2012 vote on the Affordable Care Act, Roberts has sided more often with the liberal judges than he has with the conservative ones. Adam Winkler points out:
“The 2012 health care case was the first time Roberts had ever voted with the liberal side of the court in a 5–4 decision. Lately, however, we’re seeing a very different Roberts. Last term Roberts surprised many by breaking left on a few major cases. And so far this term, Roberts has voted with Stephen Breyer (90 percent), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (85 percent), and Sonia Sotomayor (83 percent) more often than he has joined Thomas (66 percent), Kennedy (74 percent), and Alito (77 percent). And that isn’t just on minor cases. He’s recently sided with the liberals in cases on issues that typically divide the court along ideological lines, including campaign finance and anti-discrimination law.”
What is it about the liberal left or as often refer to it as the ‘dark side,’ that has drawn Roberts over? I’ve searched and found a few theories but everyone admits that the reason for his shift is obscure at best. He has not given any reason for his change in views so you are free speculate all you want but until he opens up, that’s all it will be, just speculation. 

One thing is clear and that it is no longer safe to think that conservatives still hold that narrow 5-4 edge. On Friday I posted an article that demonstrates the shift in Chief Justice John Roberts. In 2008 Roberts voted in favor of Dick Heller and his lawsuit challenging the guns laws in Washington DC. Roberts upheld Heller’s Second Amendment rights to own a handgun and to keep it accessible in his home for the purpose of self-defense.
However, on Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit challenging a San Francisco ordinance that requires all handguns be kept in a locked case or have a trigger lock in place. The only exception would be to allow anyone living in the home that is 18 years old or older to physically carry the gun on them while in the home.
Several gun owners in the San Francisco filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s ordinance claiming it violated their Second Amendment rights. A key part of their argument was the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in the Heller case which stated such a law clearly violated a gun owner’s Second Amendment rights.

The only justices that voted to hear this lawsuit were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. John Roberts did not vote to hear this case which many are already viewing as another sign of his conversion to the dark side of liberalism. At age 60, it’s quite possible that Roberts may remain Chief Justice for another 10, 20 or more years. Only time will tell just far Roberts has turned to the dark side of liberalism.

Miley Cyrus, Sex With Animals, and Consent


Miley Cyrus has said more outrageous things recently. Here’s the latest as reported by Fox News: 
“[Miley Cyrus] says she is the least judgmental person ever, yet she has some harsh words for Christian fundamentalists and her parents… [She] ‘maintains a particular contempt for fundamentalist lawmakers who rally against this sort of progressive, potentially life-saving changes [for the LGBT] community.’ The pop star told the mag [Paper], ‘Those people [shouldn’t] get to make our laws.’” 
The least judgmental people are usually the most judgmental and dangerous. They would be more than happy to pass laws to restrict the freedoms of people they disagree with.
Do parents still take their daughters to see Miley Cyrus concerts? She’s no Hanna Montana if she ever was. She has turned out to be the poster child for the acceptance of a decadent form of “morality” led to the destruction of entire civilizations and making it fashionable and seemingly inconsequential for her fans to adopt.
It’s a shame to see somebody self-destruct right before your eyes. Cyrus truly believes that her lifestyle choices are freeing. They’re not. The claim that she is “sexually fluid” is a cover for sexual license. She’s a woman whose worldview has been corrupted by the moral relativism of the day. She is the epitome of Theodore Dalrymple’s  “life at the bottom” and Patrick Moynihan’s “defining deviancy down.”

In reality, the super-rich Cyrus is feeding middle and upper class young people a steady diet or moral corruption that in the end will make them lower class in their thinking and lifestyle choices.
Of course, moral relativists are only morally relative on things that benefit them. They have a lot to say about people who don’t buy into the morally relative worldview, a worldview that has far reaching implications once a person is fully consistent with it.
The thing of it is, moral relativists can’t be consistent and live free. They constantly borrow certain fixed moral absolutes from the worldviews they despise. They live off stolen moral capital by bankrupting the worldview from which they stole it.

Cyrus went to say in her interview with Paper magazine:
“‘I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. Yo, I’m down with any adult—anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me,’ she said. ‘I don’t relate to being boy or girl, and I don’t have to have my partner relate to boy or girl.’”  
oped addendum: Oh really now Miley...then why flash your girly ta tas then...after all boys don't grow em' big...well cept' for perverts who go all transexual and get plastic surgery implants!  

On what basis can an atheist or even a modified theist fully claim that consent is the line drawn between right and wrong? Where does the concept of “consent” originate? Theirs is nothing in an atheistic/evolutionary worldview where consent is a moral constraint. “Nature, red in tooth and claw” knows nothing of consent. In the evolutionary worldview, consent to act would have severely hindered the advance of animal evolution. 

Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis makes a very good point:
“Question for her: Why not involve an animal? On what basis does she decide that? Besides, if there’s no God and she’s just a result of evolution, then she is merely an animal anyway. And those she interacts with sexually are just animals—so why not any animals? In other words, she has decided to draw a line for some reason—but what reason?”
Atheist Dan Arel writing for Patheos tries to defend Cyrus:
“Apparently Ken Ham has never heard of the word consent. A word Cyrus uses herself, very clearly. Cyrus is down for anything, apparently, but she would need a consenting partner to make those things happen. An animal, etc. cannot consent to such acts.”
When one animal kills another animal, does the stronger animal ask for consent? When male animals engage in sex with other animals, do they ask for consent? When dogs and cats are spayed and neutered, do humans ask for consent? Does a veterinarian ask dogs and cats about to go under the knife for their consent before performing the procedure?

According to Cyrus, she’s “down with . . . everything that’s legal.” Since it’s legal to kill and eat cows, pigs, and chickens without their consent, then I don’t see within the confines of Cyrus’ worldview why it would be morally wrong to engage sexually with animals without their consent. If you can kill and eat a pig, how is it possible to say that it’s illegal to engage sexually with a pig?
Arel the atheist argues that “as a society, we have decided on ages for consent and when someone is mentally capable of making such decisions.” But as we’ve seen with the societal change about same-sex sexuality, societies change. What argument will Cyrus and Arel give if society changes its views on consent? What if it gives its consent that it’s OK to have sex with animals without the consent of the animals? Or what will happen if a dog or pig gives its consent?
And what if enough people wield enough political power to question that consent is something that’s required before an action takes place. Hitler, Lenin, and Mao didn’t seem to need it.

Friday, June 12, 2015

Transgendered Man Realizes He Made A Mistake And Now Has Found True Happiness!

What If Jihadi Witnesses Tried To Proselytize Door-To-Door?

Jehovah’s witnesses come to my house nearly every saturday. At best, they stay too long trying to convince me of their craziness. At worst, they get offended when I tell them that they’re wrong. Still, let’s put it in context. They’re mildly annoying, but they aren’t trying to kill me. Which is more than I can say for Jihadis. Just what would it be like if Jihadi Witnesses took the same tact?   

Maybe this? >

Nevada GOP spits in conservatives' faces #GovSandoval

No mas el pollo loco de' Sandoval...we the people remember de' Alamo el Senior Rino'

Well Brian ya definetly aren't related to General Sam Huston maybe General Antonio L√≥pez de Santa Anna eh' ?  so sad ya be>

We've been betrayed. Earlier this week, the largest tax hike in Nevada's history became law.

The $1.1 Billion tax hike wasn't signed into law by a Democrat Governor. It wasn't passed by a Democrat-controlled legislature. The idea didn't even come from Democrats. This massive tax hike was conceived by a REPUBLICAN Governor and passed by a REPUBLICAN dominated legislature!

The only reason Nevada even has a Republican legislature today was by riding the wave generated by a massive effort by true conservatives to successfully defeat a billion-dollar tax hike on the ballot last fall. Then those same Republicans propose and pass an identical tax hike to the one they just opposed to get elected? They are spitting in the face of every single grassroots conservative who elected them. 

We expect tax hikes from Democrats. They're like meth addicts. If you hand a meth addict keys to a meth lab, you shouldn't be surprised what happens next. It's why we work so hard to defeat them.

Usually, when Republicans raise taxes, we wait around for the next election cycle and defeat them in the primary. When a RINO spits in conservatives faces, I'm not willing to wait around. True conservatives in Nevada are working right now to launch a legislative recall election immediately. I stand with them.

Last November, the massive effort by true conservatives to oppose a billion-dollar tax hike on the ballot lead to a jaw-dropping, 80/20 landslide victory. Their victory created a huge wave for Republican, flipping the State Assembly from 26 Democrats and 15 Republicans into today's majority of 27 Republicans and 15 Democrats. At the time, it seemed like a phenomenal conservative victory.

But, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

These Republicans who spat in the face of the true conservatives who are the only reason they're in office need to be held accountable. Not in three and a half years. That's far too much time to wreak havoc on their state, destroying the hard work of conservatives. We have to do this now.

I want to do everything I possibly can to help launch this legislative recall election and make sure these guys are held accountable for their betrayal as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I'm not a billionaire and can't personally write the kinds of checks needed. I'm doing what I can from my own pocket, but if we want to recall these guys, I'm going to need help from true conservatives like you. 

Since I relaunched Team America PAC last month, hundreds of true conservatives like you contributed what they could afford to help restore the American Dream, uphold our true conservative principles, support real conservatives running for office, and defeat liberals who want to destroy our country.

This is the first real test of Team America PAC. If we can raise more than $1000 this weekend, I promise to you that I will not rest until Nevada conservatives get the opportunity to recall the RINOs who lied to and betrayed them by passing the state's largest tax increase ever.

I know I can count on you.

For America,
Congressman Tom Tancredo
Chairman, Team America PAC

SCOTUS Opens Door for Home Invasions, Burglaries, Rape and Murder

In 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. A summary of that case is: 
“Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia (D) law. The law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Furthermore all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.”
“Dick Heller (P) is a special police officer in the District of Columbia. The District refused Heller’s application to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed this lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on Second Amendment grounds. Heller sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home.”

“The District Court dismissed Heller’s complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and directed the District Court to enter summary judgment in favor of the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals construed Heller’s complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it in his home only when necessary for self defense, and held that the total ban on handguns violated the individual right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment.”

Heller was concerned for his safety at home because over the years his area had gone from a family friendly one to a drug and crime infested neighborhood. He sought the right to legally have a handgun operational and ready in his home at all times for his own protection. Keeping a gun unloaded with trigger lock or disassembled renders a gun useless for self-defense.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does provide an individual the right to own a firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the home. They also ruled that the DC ban on all handgun possession amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms and in lieu of the fact that handguns are the most favored means of armed self-defense in the home, the ban was unconstitutional. Additionally, the high court stated that the requirement of trigger locks and keeping the handgun disassembled violated the Second Amendment right of owning a gun for self-defense in the home.

However, on Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit challenging a San Francisco ordinance that requires all handguns be kept in a locked case or have a trigger lock in place. The only exception would be to allow anyone living in the home that is 18 years old or older to physically carry the gun on them while in the home.
Several gun owners in the San Francisco filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s ordinance claiming it violated their Second Amendment rights. A key part of their argument was the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in the Heller case which stated such a law clearly violated a gun owner’s Second Amendment rights.

The lower courts all ruled in favor of the city and against the gun owners, so they tried to take their case to the Supreme Court, figuring they would uphold their previous ruling in the Heller case and overturn the city’s ordinance. It takes at least four Supreme Court justices to agree to hear a case, but this case only garnered the support of two of the nine justices, meaning they would not hear arguments and did not have to give a reason for their refusal.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas both voted to hear the case. When the rest of the justices refused to hear the case, Thomas said that lower courts’ decision to uphold the San Francisco ordinance was in ‘serious tension with Heller. He wrote:
“Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it.”
The Supreme Court’s denial to uphold their own ruling now sets a precedent that will prompt many other cities, counties and states to pass unconstitutional anti-gun laws that will make it illegal for anyone to protect themselves in their own homes using a handgun.

The idea that someone can obtain a permit to own a handgun for self-defense in their own home but that handgun has to be unloaded and locked up is asinine and stupid. Do they expect you to tell an intruder to wait while you unlock and load your gun before they assault you or your family? That’s the same as saying that you can own a car for emergency purposes but you have to take the wheels off to insure that no one steals or uses your vehicle for non-emergency purposes. By the time you put all four wheels back on the car, it’s probably too late.
Yes, be warned that the liberals throughout the nation will be jumping on the opportunity to deny you of your constitutional rights to defend yourself and your family in your own home. 


Bill Clinton’s Former Spiritual Advisor Goes Gay

<br /> <b>Warning</b>:  Illegal string offset 'alt' in <b>/home/godfatherpolitic/public_html/wp-content/themes/godfatherpolitics/gp-responsive-email-template.php</b> on line <b>217</b><br /> h

Support for homosexual unions, commitment ceremonies, and marriages are coming from within the church. This should not surprise us since Paul warned the Ephesian elders nearly 2000 years ago:
“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears” (Acts 29-31).
And this was happening while many of the original apostles of Jesus were still alive.

The most notable power couple promoting homosexuality has been Tony and Peggy Campolo. Tony Campolo, a social liberal who has spoken to many conservative groups over the years, at one time said that he was opposed to homosexual relationships while his wife, Peggy, was not. They played the good cop-bad cop game for more than 20 years, and many Christians fell for their act. I never did.
“On June 8, 2015, Tony Campolo released a statement changing his position on the issue of gay relationships, and stating that he now supported full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the Church. He cited several reasons including the institution of marriage primarily being about spiritual growth instead of procreation, what he had learned through his friendships with gay Christian couples, and past examples of exclusionary church traditions.”
Tony Campolo was Bill Clinton’s “spiritual advisor” during the ex-President’s sexual “indiscretion” with Monica Lewinsky. Given Campolo’s “evolved” views on homosexuality, I wonder if he has changed his mind about adultery since adultery and homosexuality are both condemned in Scripture.

Campolo describes himself as a “Red Letter Christian.” RLCs elevate the actual words of Jesus found in the gospels (often printed in red in many translations) as being more important than the rest of Scripture. Here’s some red letters that Campolo and other RLCs seem to have forgotten appear in red in Red Letter edition Bibles:
“And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE [Gen. 1:27], and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? [Gen. 2:24] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 

“Male and female” is the biblical standard going back to creation, not male and male or female and female no matter how people “feel” about their “committed relationship.”
Tony Campolo has been described as “probably the most influential Christian communicator to Baby Boomers and young people in the English language. He writes a book a year, travels widely, is a professor of sociology, and has Italian-American parents.” At 80 years old, I doubt that Campolo has much influence today.

Many have found that Tony Campolo speaks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue of homosexuality. For example, in his book 20 Hot Potatoes Christians are Afraid to Touch regarding Romans 1:26-27, Campolo argues that “there may be some validity to [the] argument” that “this passage refers to heterosexuals who adopt homosexuality as perversion rather than to those who are born with homosexual orientation” (113-114). There is no such argument if the passage is read against passages like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Campolo subscribes to pro-homosexual interpretations of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 2 Timothy 1:10. In his book, he favors a position that says Paul was only condemning pederasty (men who seek to have sex with young boys) and clearly sides with that view when he considers the view that “To compare pederasty to a relationship chosen in love is considered by [some] to be a serious mistake” (115).

Campolo leans on the notion that homosexuality is biological (112-113, 116, 118), a scientifically unsubstantiated claim. He walks such a thin line between condoning homosexuality and calling it sin that no reasonable person could say that he ever condemned homosexual relationships. Campolo endorsed homosexual “covenants” (117) in lieu of homosexual “marriage.” Not anymore.
In a February 1994 Prism article titled “What about Homophobia?” Campolo said, “Those who remained silent about the Jews in Nazi Germany helped sign the death warrants of the Holocaust. Those who did not speak out for Blacks can be accused of allowing slavery to continue. . . . I believe that those who do not speak up for the gay and lesbian community at this crucial time in history may be lending support to oppression.”
Being Jewish or black is not a sexual behavior. Sexual acts in particular situations are being judged as immoral and “against nature.” Same-sex sexuality is in the same category as adultery, incest, bigamy, bestiality, pedophilia, prostitution, and polygamy. Are these also accepted sexual behaviors of the aging Campolo?

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Meet The Spartans...Obama's new military #NowPlaying

It's a funny movie but not so funny in real life! Enjoy when ya have the time to watch:)

Raise your hand & RT if you support Clint Eastwood...

Clint is on a roll...calling out all the PC nonsense...back biting,The Good Bad and Ugly and overall failure on both sides of the political aisle including his own people in the entertainment business...

Time for a showdown: Dirty Harry style

Two Suicide Bombers Get Into a Fight - Blow Themselves Up!

I shouldn't find this story so deliciously ironic. But I do. The loss of life is never something to be cheered but there are times when it becomes difficult to remember that. Like when a person or persons plans to kill as many innocent people as they can, but instead they just end up killing themselves. In cases like that, we can breath a sigh of relief and actually be thankful that more people weren't hurt.
So... i'm very, very thankful that two terrorist bombers in Pakistan got into a bit of a row over the weekend and never had the chance to carry out their nefarious plans. Instead of killing others... they only killed themselves. 

Two suspected terrorist bombers in Pakistan died amusing deaths over the weekend when a fight between them led to a bomb detonation that killed them and nobody else.
The two men, identified by police as Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Sultan, were having a conversation on a park bench in Sargodha that suddenly escalated into a verbal argument and then a physical fight. During the fight, an explosive carried by one of the two men detonated, killing them both.
Accounts differ on the exact nature of the explosion. According to, one or both suicide vests worn by the men blew up in the fight, while The Express Tribune says one of the men was carrying an improved explosive device that detonated.
It’s currently unknown where the explosion was accidental or intentional on the part of one of the men. Nobody else was harmed.

The fight was fortuitously timed, as police say the men were very close to a crowded area where casualties could have been far higher.
Following the explosions, police investigated the mens’ homes and made arrests of suspected collaborators as well.
It’s hardly the first time terrorists have managed to kill themselves in an amusing way. In 1999, Palestinian car bombers killed themselves when confusion over Daylight Savings Time caused their bombs to detonate an hour early. In 2014, a terrorist trainer in northern Iraq accidentally killed his class while giving a demonstration with live explosives. 


Lindsey Graham Welcomes Caitlyn Jenner to "His" Party - Admits He Doesn't Really Care about Abortion or Gay Marriage

Ah, Lindsey Graham, the treasure trove of squishiness.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went to Iowa this past weekend to make an appearance at Senator Joni Ernst’s (R-IA) first annual “Roast and Ride” event in Des Moines, Iowa. He gave a speech, pressed the flesh, waved and smiled and did a few interviews. One of those interviews happened to be with CNN’s Dana Bash, who, during the course of the interview, asked an interesting question and got a very telling answer.

On the face of it, it sounds like Graham has given a perfect political answer (though it’s never smart to disagree with the most popular talk radio host in a state – which Steve Deace is in Iowa). He says a lot of nice things, while reminding everyone just how conservative he is but being conciliatory enough to even say, “I believe in traditional marriage without animosity…” Which means I’m not one of the mean homophobic traditional marriage people.

CNN’s Dana Bash: Caitlyn, formerly Bruce Jenner, a very popular Iowa syndicated radio host, Steve Deace said “If we’re not going to defend as a Party basic principles of male and female, that life is sacred because it comes from God, then you’re going to lose the vast majority of people who’ve joined that party.” 

Lindsey Graham: If Caitlyn Jenner wants to be safe and have a prosperous economy, then vote for me. I’m into addition. I haven’t walked in her shoes. I don’t have all the answers to the mysteries of life. I can only imagine the torment that Bruce Jenner went through. I hope that she has found peace. I am a pro-life, traditional marriage kind of guy, but I’m running to be President of the United States. If Caitlyn Jenner wants to be a Republican she is welcome in my party.
Dana Bash: So the Republicans should reach out to people like her, transgender Americans, and not shun them?
Lindsey Graham and Bruce JennerLindsey Graham: Understanding what you’re getting in Lindsey Graham. I’m pro-life, I believe in traditional marriage without animosity. The Courts are going to rule in June about traditional marriage, I’ll accept the Court’s decision. I’ll proudly defend the unborn, but if we can’t agree on abortion, let’s talk about taxes. We’re literally all in this together, we’re going to rise and fall as a nation as to whether or not we deal with the retirement of the baby boomers. It’s going to wipe out social security and Medicare and take the whole economy down with it. We need to do what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil did when it came to compromise on the entitlement programs. And we need to fight radical Islam together. Here’s what I would say to the talk show host – ‘In the eyes of radical Islam they hate you as much as they hate Caitlyn Jenner, they hate us all because we won’t agree to their view on religions. So America, we’re all in this together.’ 

I had to listen twice before I realized what was really bothering me about this interview. It’s a couple of things, actually.

First, Graham says he is pro-life and pro-traditional marriage before basically giving up both fights. He say’s “I’m pro-life, but if we can’t agree, let’s talk about taxes.” Does that mean that when Democrats push pro-abortion measures, Graham will just give up and ask to talk about taxes? Does that mean when we push pro-life measures and Democrats balk, that Graham would simply kill our pro-life bills? It sounds like exactly that. Looking at his record, Graham has never been a pro-life warrior… perhaps it’s because to him there are more important things than stopping the worst holocaust the world has ever seen? He’s hardly pro-life.
How about pro-traditional marriage? He says, “I’m pro-traditional marriage but I’ll respect whatever the courts decide in June.” What is Graham’s basis for being pro-traditional marriage, then? Apparently, it’s nothing important because he’s willing to toss it aside with one court ruling. Graham is a liar. He is hiding behind a mask of pseudo-conservatism. He pretends to be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, but the truth is that he is only pro-Lindsey Graham, and since he is from South Carolina, he must pretend to be a social conservative.

The second thing that bothered me about this interview is Graham’s canard of attacking Steve Deace as if the radio show host doesn’t understand the threat we face against Islam. Deace has written and said over and over again that Islam is a major threat to our security. Graham pretends this argument is an either/or situation – either we accept transgendered America as a new normal or radical Muslims will kill us all. It’s just not so
What Graham fails to realize is that if we do not stick by our principles, our morals, or strongest most heartfelt beliefs, then the America we knew will no longer be the America we knew.
Does it make sense for conservatives to sell our souls to win an election just to save a godless and perverse America? I think not.
Lindsey Graham may get Bruce Jenner’s vote, but he will NEVER get mine.


Conservative? Donald Trump Wants a 35% Tax on New Cars!

oped: To be blunt I see 'The Donald' as a high powered used car salesman located in the bowls of off main street in the industrial section of most large cities.The Donald is gifted with the used car salesman ability to convince the unsuspecting customer of what a great deal he/she is about to reality what he is selling is a lemon dressed up as the proverbial lemonade...he deals in quantity not quality products and ideas...Just a Fact Jack. My bottom line advice never buy a used car from a used car are going to get screwed everytime...the only exception would be from a 'classic car' 1920-1960's vehicle dealer who certifies the vehicle as being restored from the bottom up! 

However the Donald is not a classic car dealer...he deals in lemons a few years old of which he buys at auction cheap and does a quick clean up raises the price to what he sees as a good buy for unsuspecting the old saying goes: "Buyer Beware" 
Addendum: Actually The Donald is a progressive Dem masquerading as a Republican...he voted for Obama and is currently vetting Oprah for his potential VP pick...The Donald has a history of switching sides at the drop of a dime depending on which way the proverbial political winds are blowing!

Donald Trump wants to run for president. He says he can beat Hillary. Sometimes Donald Trump has something good things to say, and sometimes he makes me shake my head in disbelief.
During a speech in Raleigh, North Carolina, “Trump referred to the constantly growing field of Republican candidates as ‘clowns,’ and said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio have already made major gaffes. . . . Addressing criticism that he lacks the political experience to be president, Trump said he’d be strong on foreign policy. ‘I’ve made a lot of money beating China and other countries,’ he said. ‘I only have experience beating other countries. Is that good experience?’”

Here is one of Trump’s economic solutions. “He said Ford and other companies looking to move manufacturing to Mexico or overseas should face a 35 percent tax when they ship the goods back to the U.S. That would bring the plants back home, he argued. ‘That’s what’s going to happen, and there are hundreds, thousands of those deals,’ he said. ‘I will make this country so rich – if I run on the 16th [of June] – just you watch.’” oped side note: hmmm what he is really saying is he will make himself super rich... put the Clintons to shame [Read between the proverbial lines]

Keep Reading at Godfather Politics...

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

After Obama’s Speech Blaming Pentagon, Military Responds: “What the F*** Was That?”


President Obama, again, did what he does best, blame others for things not getting done that he should have done himself.
After months of going around in circles saying he first had no plan to defeat ‘ISIL’ as he refers to ISIS, to then saying he had a game plan, to then saying he was waiting for options to deal with ISIS from the Pentagon.
This last statement, made while the President was in Germany, was taken with great umbrage by one military official, who responded with:

mil off response

Charles Krauthammer said this was in keeping with the President’s modus operandi, “The fact that he would put the blame on the Pentagon has not offered plans is exactly consistent with Obama’s method which is always to blame others.”
What a leader we have!