Government in Exile

Are Liberals anti-Christian?

"Ernie" has some thoughts on liberals and Christians.

 It's pretty obvious that Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism and other long standing religions have been targeted by the left for elimination.  We're all familiar with the seeming endless list of anti-Christian organizations that continuously go to court to "shut down" religious activities.  We can't mention Jesus, Christ, Moses or any other Biblical personalities in school, the workplace, the public square, the Pledge of Allegiance, or any other place that has heretofore been not only acceptable, but expected and applauded.  While this assault on Christianity continues to expand we're ridiculed, insulted, abased and called bigots if we say anything against Islam or the Koran. 

Being politically correct apparently applies only when referring to Muslims.  "Most Muslims are pro-American and moderate, caring people", we're told by the left.  Sorry, but when Muslims say nothing in rebuttal to 9/11, when they sing and dance in the streets at the news, when these loving moderates didn't flee from Islam in response to Islamic terrorism that continues to murder innocent people by the thousands around the world, you can forget trying to convince me that there are "moderate" Muslims.  They all adhere to the tenets of the Koran which includes the order to convert infidels or kill them.

 

     Back to the demise of Christianity.  We're being replaced by a new religion called "liberalism".   Even Obama tells the world that we're not a Christian nation anymore.  It's not hard to realize why the left hates Christianity and wants it forever destroyed.  Our beliefs simply run counter to the beliefs of the Religion of Liberalism.  For example:

 

     a.  Christians are against abortion.  The left promotes it and finances it.

     b.  Christians believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.   The left is in favor of same-sex marriage.

     c.  Christians believe in the constitution.  The left claims it's an evolving document that no longer fits with the "new norm" crowd.

     d.  Jesus taught against slothfulness (laziness for you low-information voters).  The left wants more and more people dependent upon government for their survival.

     e.  Christians believe its a parent's right to discipline their children.  The left thinks kids should be allowed to do whatever they want and parents who discipline them should be arrested for child abuse.

     f.   Christians believe in the Ten Commandments.  There might be 1 or 2 the left will accept, but that's about it.  What's all this baloney about no adultery, stealing, bearing false witness and all those other invasions of human rights?

     g.  Christians teach against excessive drinking.   The left wants to legalize all drugs.

     h.  Jesus said, "have no other Gods before me."  The left has more gods than the Romans had.  For example money, iphones, luxury cars, drugs/booze, the democrat party, Obama, Hollywood, global warming, socialism, the environment,  and on and on.

     I.   Christians teach abstinence to their children.  The left wants them to have a right to abortions, the morning-after pill, and other contraceptives...and paid for by the taxpayer.

 

     In fact you can read through the Bible and especially the teachings of the Gospels and you'll find very few things the left would agree with.  In fact, you'll find more and more members of the Church of Liberalism who reject the Bible as myth, folk lore or terribly out of date in today's "new norm".   Ronald Reagan said, "when we take God out of country, then we'll have no country."

Is American Culture Dying?

"Ernie" has some thoughts of the demise of American culture.

Obama made it very clear in his 2008 campaign that he was going to fundamentally transform America.  He didn't say how, or what he was going to transform it to, but after 5 years of this disastrous administration we have a pretty clear idea. 

 

     As much as he'd like to take full responsibility for what's befallen us as a country and a people, this ideology really started long before his regime took office.  You can go all he way back to that Woodrow Wilson, the nation's first "progressive" statists who preached the growth and power of the government.  But wait, let's not forget Teddy Roosevelt.  For all his admirable qualities, he was the first conservationist president who took millions of acres out of the private sector and gave it to the government to "preserve the natural environment".  

 

     Back to the "how" part of the transformation, that too was designed and implemented back in the FDR days.  It began with the work projects designed to defeat the Great Depression.  What it really did was transfer personal responsibility to various government welfare programs.  Though the media gave him full credit for ending the depression, it was the second world war that put America back on a path for economic growth, primarily by creating a massive industrial revolution.  

 

     It was FDR's charisma that began transforming the media from journalism to the propaganda wing of the democrat party.  That situation has grown out of control and probably irreversible.  In addition the "progressives" gained control of the educational system and eventually the entertainment industry.  The influence of these 3 entities to implement Obama's ideology is insurmountable.

 

     Most recently beginning with Clinton and exploding under the Obama regime, the fuel that runs the "transformation" engine is in these new phrases....Political Correctness (PC) and diversity.  As with integration, affirmative action, Head Start, quotas and numerous other welfare programs, the lower classes (primarily blacks) were going to be freed from their slavery mentality and lifted up to become part of the great American culture.  Such things as learning about personal responsibility, love for country, work ethic, career opportunities, unity with other ethic groups, Christian values, etc.  You know, the culture that made Americans proud and productive for 150 years.  Has it worked?  Absolutely not.  School integration didn't lift the black culture up, it brought their inner city culture into public schools and helped destroy the best educational system in the world.  But we cater to this backsliding into the abyss in the name of diversity and PC.  As a result the number of blacks feeding at the government trough has skyrocketed, new welfare programs keep on coming, and America is on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

    But this destruction of the proud American culture doesn't stop there.  Look at the worlds of music and sports.  Music is nothing more than drug enhanced screaming, and sports arenas have become the Roman coliseums of the new century.  Sportsmanship has been replaced with endzone dances, chest pounding, trash talking, tattoos, body piercing, in-your-face boasting, and other inner city inventions. 

 

     Add to this the influx of hispanics flooding across the border.  Again in the names of PC and diversity, we have to let them bring their cultures with them, and sacrifice our American culture and traditions to accommodate theirs.  Heaven help us as the Islamic influence continues to grow and begins crowding out Christianity, Judaism and American traditions.  Come to think of it, it's already happening.  Are you ready for Shariah law?  You wouldn't want to offend the people who are trying to destroy us, now would you?

 

    Abandoning the tradition of the proud American culturalism that built this country into the worlds most powerful, wealthiest, freest, most compassionate (internationally & domestically) and innovative nation in the history of mankind, we are dooming the country to failure.  Just like Greece, Spain, Italy, and most of the other Euro Zone, only worse.  When the giant falls, the noise is much louder, the destruction more devastating.   

 

     Would the last person left alive please turn out the lights?     

Is the Republican Party Dying?

"Ernie" has some thoughts on the Republican party.

 Accounts of the pending death of the Republican party may not be far from wrong.  It must be comforting to libs knowing all they have to do is stand by and watch as the GOP goes about destroying itself...and without any help from them.

     Rand Paul took a stand regarding Brennan and the use of drones inside the US with a 9-hour filibuster.  It was courageous and necessary, especially after the appointments of Kerry and Hagel.   ( A known liar and a closet anti-semite).  Ironically, the dems didn't have much to say about Paul's action, seeming content to let the progressive republican RINOs attempt to discredit and even destroy him politically.  The first to jump on him was McCain, a 2-time loser for the White House, and someone whose usefulness to the conservative movement is zilch.  When Paul responded, McCain jumped on him again claiming Paul was going against the GOP and trying to appeal to young pro-liberalism college students in their dorms.  These are the same critics who complain that the GOP has lost the youth vote.  Which is it, John?  Is appealing to college students good or bad?

     The next notable critic was Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard.  His comments must have made Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan turn over in their graves.  Anyway, thanks Bill and John for giving the dems plenty of soundbytes to use in the 2014 election.  You may not realize it yet, but Obama's going to come out all guns blazing the win back the House.  God forbid that he and his Marxist pals ever get control of the House, the Senate, the Judiciary and the executive branches. Can you imagine?  Who would be left to stop him from totally destroying the constitution, the economy, the conservatives, the military, and most likely the 22nd amendment?  Please don't tell me our saviors will be McConnell, Boehner, Kristol, McCain and the rest of the progressive republicans.  Or as I like to refer to them...the doormat wing of the Democrat party.

 

     Just because the GOP is devouring itself, don't think that the dems will just fall over laughing and not do anything to help out.  The trashing of Paul, Lee, Cruz and all other TEA Party types is just beginning.  When the libs are so good at destroying their political enemies, can you possibly believe they won't get Hollywood, the state run media and the Oprah Winfrey types geared up for an onslaught against GOP opponents in 2014?  They were all too busy singing the praises of that great statesman, humanitarian multibillionaire, Hugo Chavez. 

 

     Let us not forget, in this next election the prize is the House, not the White House.  The few conservatives left breathing need to stand up and be counted.  The future of the country is at stake.

Women in Combat: Felony Stupid

By Matt Barber   The term “moronic” is defined as “notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.” It is frequently used as an insult. The Obama administration is moronic. This is not an insult. President Obama’s latest “notably stupid” stoke of America’s calculated slow burn is the decision to lift the ban on women in direct combat. Along with the move a few years back to turn the Officers’ Club into the Blue Oyster Bar, this most recent social experiment with national security represents one small step for the “progressive” agenda and one giant prance toward the pansification of the greatest military in world history. It’s a jaw-dropping “lack in good judgment.” In 1991 the late Gen. Robert H. Barrow, former commandant of the Marine Corps, gave compelling testimony on the subject before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee. He stated, “If you want to make a combat unit ineffective, assign some women to it. … In three wars – World War II, Korea and Vietnam – I found no place for women to be down in the ground combat element,” he concluded. In a recent column headlined “Women in Ground Combat,” Bing West, former Marine officer and assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan, notes that, during his testimony, Gen. Barrow “cited the 1950 fighting retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in temperatures of minus 20 degrees, with one Marine division pitted against eight Chinese divisions. Had women comprised 15 percent of his division, Barrow concluded, the Marines would have lost the battle. ‘The very nature of women disqualifies them from doing it (killing so brutally),’ Barrow said. ‘Women give life, sustain life, nurture life; they don’t take it.’” Evidently, Gen. Barrow never met one of today’s abortion-worshiping feminist “Flukes” of nature. Still, they only kill innocent children who can’t fight back. In short, Gen. Barrow observed that opening the front lines to, um, “infantrywomen” would not only cost precious American lives, it would ultimately “destroy the Marine Corps.” Now, I know, who the heck do Barrow and West think they are, right? Did they ever bravely serve God and country as a glorified teacher’s assistant at Harvard Law? I think not. Did they ever do “a little blow,” march with the Black Panthers, “organize their communities” into welfare-dependent hellholes, or drink lattes with “Marxist professors and the structural feminists”? No. Sheesh. Even so, despite an obvious lack of credibility on combat readiness and a meager century or so in combined service, I think we should at least humor them a bit. “To Barrow, a warrior admired by three generations of grunts,” wrote West, “ground combat meant killing under the harshest of circumstances. Barrow opposed the incorporation of women into infantry units characterized by primal instincts: sleeping, defecating, eating, and smelling like wolf packs while hunting down and slaughtering male soldiers.” That’s the problem with political correctness – with liberalism in general. It raises a pseudo-utopian barrier to reality. Often times that barrier is deadly. This is what happens when a gaggle of left-wing civilian politicians who don’t know which end of the gun goes “bang!” are placed in charge of national security. These yahoos couldn’t bust a grape with a sledge hammer, let alone lift a sledge hammer. This is what happens when we allow “progressives” to deconstruct our culture by imposing, through public policy, the fantastical delusion of a “genderless society.” I fully support women learning self-defense and packing heat for protection. I’ve known a number of gals so tough that, for his own safety, a fellow would be better served to break it off via text message should the relationship go south. Still, as a former professional boxer and police officer, and having served 12 years in the armed services myself, I can say this without equivocation: While there may be the extremely rare anecdotal exception, in direct one-on-one military combat, the toughest, baddest, meanest chick out there is going to get stomped by the weakest infantryman. This is life and death stuff. Women are no more made for the front lines than men are made for childbearing. Don’t get me wrong – I love women. I’m married to a woman and am on the hook for two future weddings of future women who, admittedly, have me hopelessly wrapped around pink-polished little fingers. Even so, if I’m on the front lines and Ahmed, Abdul and Hakeem come charging with fixed bayonets, I danged sure want Billy Bob, not Barbara, in my foxhole. This doesn’t even scratch the surface. What of the sensitive dynamics of sex and jealousy? How about the reality that, despite feminist protestations to the contrary, chivalry is not dead? Men are naturally wired to protect the weaker sex, even if it runs counter to combat mission. Honorable men will drop everything to protect a woman, even if it means dying in the process. If the presence of women is not a factor, than neither is sex, jealousy or chivalry (putting aside the whole “gays in the military” debacle). More importantly, if women remain shielded from direct combat, lives are saved and battles are won. Add women, and you add weakness. Both lives and battles are lost. It’s felony stupid. Am I suggesting that the sitting president of the United States is stupid? Not exactly – not in terms of overall intelligence. But, as Momma Gump always said: “Stupid is as stupid does.” I’m sure that Mr. Obama has an average or slightly above average IQ. Still, objectively, measurably – as a point of fact supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence – this man stupidly, perhaps even seditiously, insists upon circumventing Congress to shovel executive order after executive order atop the Mount St. Helens of dictatorial dung heaps. Eventually it has to blow. The question is no longer whether Barack Obama is weakening every noble aspect of American life, including our military. The question now becomes whether the rest of us will be able to put the pieces back together once this radical lefty is finally back in Hawaii for good – Mai Tai in one hand and leather-bound copy of the Communist Manifesto in the other. The question is whether America will survive Barack Obama.

The Growing Apathy Among Supporters of the GOP

"Ernie" has some thoughts on the growing apathy among the GOP.

    Like many of you my enthusiasm for the GOP has dwindled significantly.  In previous articles I've referred to them as the doormat wing of the democrat party, and I haven't seen any reason in the past few months to change my opinion.  Emotionally, I continually go from "fight-fight-fight to "who cares?"   I look around for new leaders to inspire republicans, but other than Rubio and Rand Paul, the pickens are pretty slim.  I've heard them both interviewed recently by the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and Levin, and they both look and sound like the only ones capable of leading us out of the abyss.  But as what?  Libertarians, republicans TEA Party or something entirely new?   Personally I think the GOP is on life support.  And I didn't quit them, they quit me.  Since the media, liberals and Hollywood have totally demonized the TEA Party, I had the brilliant idea of changing the name from the TEA Party to the Heritage Party and naming Jim DeMint as the head of it.  But not all is well and good with former TEA Party supporters.   I have a friend who is blaming the GOP demise on the TEA Party for putting up a few "loser" candidates and subsequently losing those elections.  Well, all I've got to say to that is the core of the conservative movement is in the House, Senate and numerous governor's offices, and by virtue of the TEA Party. 

 

     Saving the liberties and freedoms we've always known is a monumental task, and very possibly an impossible one.  This president  who's insulting the tradition of the oval office is leading us down a fast track to economic ruin.  In the process he's destroying the free enterprise system, individual initiative and responsibility, the constitution and Christianity.  That's quite an agenda he's got laid out in front of him, but I'm convinced he's capable of achieving his goals.  On top of that I heard where the whites will be the minority race in just 20-25 years.  Jesse Shake-down Jackson and Al Charlatan proudly claim that when that happens there'll be no more white presidents nor whites dominating the House and Senate.  Couple that bit of good news with Emir Obama getting a 3rd term (and he will if he can gain control of the House in 2014) and that will for sure be the end of the constitution and all the freedoms and liberties that came with it.   I sadly predict that the United States will find itself in the same situation as the east bloc of Europe following WW2.  The country will be broke and only a few workers will fill vital jobs (at starvation wages) while everyone else will be left to live in filth, chaos and poverty.  That will open the door for foreign governments to swoop in, take control of all private business and take over control of the country.  Just like the Soviet Union did in Poland, Hungary and the rest of the east bloc.

 

     Now the question is at my age should I really care?  After all, the younger generation doesn't care about anything but having the latest version of a smart phone, legalized marijuana, and free contraceptives.  They have no idea what real freedom and liberty is...or was, and they don't really care.  Today is their "new norm".   But I care.  And not just for me but for my grandchildren, that's why I continue to fight the battle and send my little column to our blog site. 

Why I Carry a Gun

"Viet-Vet" recently wrote his congressman with some thoughts on gun control legislation.

"Dear Congressman.....

"What follows here is in response to your acknowledgment of my letter to your regarding the current contemplated legislation having to do with the unfortunate firearms violence recently in the news. I realize that you receive scores of letters daily and that the response from your office that I received was a boiler plate, form response. It is my sincere hope that this message somehow finds its way through your staffers to you, so that you might have the opportunity to take a few minutes out of your busy schedule to actually read it with your own eyes. 

 

  "To begin with, I am not some red neck who over compensates for an inferiority complex by carrying a gun. I am a retired person who worked for many years as a manager in the mainstream semiconductor industry, and my wife is a professional educator who is still working. Please bear with me: maybe I can put (at least) some of my concerns about additional firearms legislation in writing in a way that is more coherent than perhaps some of the letters you receive; because it is important to me and many other people in this country,that you and the rest of Congress understand why it is that I and we feel the way we do. 

   "Human beings have only two ways to deal with each other when it comes to differences of opinion and/or conflict resolution: Persuasive Reason - or Brute Force. If you want me as an individual to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me to do it via persuasive argument - or you can compel me to do your bidding under the threat of force. Every single human conflictual interaction falls into one of these two categories, without exception. Persuasive Reason - or Force - there is no third option.

 

   "In a truly moral and civilized society, people interact exclusively through persuasion. In a perfect world, force has no place as a valid method of conflict resolution or social interaction. As a reasonable person, that this is my philosophy in life, and I'm pretty sure it is yours as well. In fact among people who are civilized, reason is universal choice.

   

   "There is however only one problem with our philosophy; not everybody subscribes to it. Therefore, historically, in human interaction as in nature; the strongest, most aggressive, youngest, and most determined,  prey on those who are weaker, older, more passive, and least able to defend themselves. Now consider this: the only thing capable of removing this fundamental truth about interaction between humans, the only thing capable of removing Force from the human interactional equation, as paradoxical as it may sound;  is the personal firearm. That doesn't make sense you say? Well then please consider this:

  

   "As a concealed carry permit holder, when I carry a gun a criminal (or criminals) cannot deal with me from a position of superior force. If he or they want to rob me, assault me or a member of my family; or if he/they wants anything at all from me - then he/they must persuade me to acquiesce to his/their demands. Why?....because he/they cannot make me do his/their bidding under threat of violence because I have a way to negate that threat.

   

   "The gun - the personal firearm - is the only tool which puts a 110 pound woman on equal footing with a 220 pound mugger; a 75 year old retiree on equal footing with a 20 year old gang-banger, or a 60 year old man walking his dog alone down the street at midnight minding his own business - with a carload of drunk teenagers out looking for someone to mess with for sport on a dark Saturday night. The gun removes the disparity in physical size, strength, age, or numbers between a potential attacker and his weaker prey.

    

  " Because of the idealistic anti-firearm crusade over the last 50 years by enlightened Liberals, there are a great many people today in our society who view the gun as an evil thing; as the primary source of bad force equations. These are the people who believe that if we simply remove the right of individuals to own a firearm, that we as humans will enter a new age of a more civilized society, because a firearm makes it easier for an (armed) mugger or robber to practice his chosen profession. That of course is only true if the mugger's victims are all dis-armed by legislative action. However, that idealistic view has no validity in the real world when a potential victim might also be armed and therefore be capable of defending him or herself by killing his or her attacker.

  

   In essence people who argue for the the removal of personal firearm ownership, specifically hand guns (and we all know that is the ultimate goal of the Liberal Left); are in effect lobbying for a return to automatic rule over the weak by the younger, stronger, and more agressive. The reality is that many less principled people in the world do not possess the same beliefs and moral scruples that you and I possess. And that, sadly, is the exact opposite of the definition of a civilized society.

 

   A mugger/burglar/career criminal, even an armed one, can only make a successful living without fear of bodily harm in a society where The State has granted him a BRUTE FORCE MONOPOLY. Obviously we cannot place a policeman on every street corner. Therefore, if firearms are removed from the hands of the law abiding citizen, then there is no threat to deter a criminal from exercising his chosen profession.  It has been proven in every single nation that has instituted a ban on personal firearms ownership, that violent crimes INCREASE rather than decrease. That fact is indisputable and has been the case in both the United Kingdom and Australia.

 

   What city in the world has the highest murder rate?........Moscow, Russia; where personal firearm ownership has been banned for 100 years. What is the weapon of choice for murder in Moscow?.....the iron frying pan. People so inclined will find a way kill each other and have since the first cave man picked up a rock and threatened the guy in the cave next to his. Guns did not invent violent behavior in humans - humans did. And, Urrg learned early on that if he did not want his neighbor Kleb who was armed with a sharpened stick to steal his meat, then he had better have a sharpened stick too. 

   

   Of course, the Liberal's answer to this argument is that the gun that makes confrontations lethal, when they might otherwise not be so: that at least confrontations that escalate towards violence, would only result in injury and not in death. That argument is fallacious on several different levels. Without guns as part of the equation, then we would necessarily revert back again to a society where confrontations are won by those who are physically superior, younger, or more numerous; inflicting overwhelming injury on the looser who is weaker, older, or otherwise defenseless. Moreover, people who think that fists, bats, knives, sticks, rocks, and iron frying pans don't constitute lethal force, have been watching too much television; where people take beatings and then get up and walk away with just a bloody lip. That is Hollywood Violence - not reality - ask any police officer or Emergency Room nurse. 

 

   The fact that the hand gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender - not the stronger attacker. If both parties are armed, then the playing field is level. And don't ever delude yourself: if firearms were banned tomorrow, the only people who would turn them in are  the law abiding citizens. Criminals will keep theirs - why?........because criminals don't obey laws.

  

   Remember, the handgun is the only single device in the world that is just as deadly in the hands of an 80 year old grandmother, as it is in the hands of a 30 year old weight lifter. And, it simply would not be effective as a force equalizer if it were not both lethal and easily employable by the grandmother.

  

   Finally, let me put it this way: when I carry gun it is not because I am looking for a fight - it is because I am looking to be left alone. The pistol at my side is heavy, expensive, and inconvenient to carry; but it also means that I cannot be assaulted with impunity or forced to do something against my will, ......I can only be persuaded. I don't carry a gun because I'm afraid - I carry it  because it enables me to be un-afraid.

 

   A firearm does not limit the actions of those who would obey the law or interact with me through reason, it is a threat only to those who would not. My firearm only limits the actions of or is a threat to those who would do violence to me or my family through force, because the gun removes overpowering physical force from the equation. A gun is not evil - it is an inanimate object - like a hammer or a screwdriver. Enforce the firearms laws currently on the books; there are plently of them. I believe that violent behavior is a phenomenon born of constant use of violent video games which desensitize children to violence, and a lack of respect for the rights of others by generations of young people who have been taught that their actions, no matter how outragous, carry no consequence - ask any teacher. 

    If we really want to curb this scurge of violent behavior from our society, start teaching moral values in school along with academics - not the fear and demonization of an in animate object."

   

Obama is Sinking America

By Matt Barber   Although it certainly wasn’t Oscar material, I still love the 1989 film “Erik the Viking,” starring, among others, Tim Robbins, Mickey Rooney, Eartha Kitt and John Cleese. It’s a campy British comedy-fantasy about a band of misfit Vikings on a quest to reach Valhalla. In one scene, the motley mob finds its way to the island of Hy-Brasil, a happy, peaceful, sunlit land populated by white-robed, free-loving, uber-pacifist morons. You know, liberals. Through a series of immaterial events, the island begins to sink into the ocean. As it does, Erik and crew evacuate and re-board the ship while Hy-Brasil’s inhabitants blithely remain, singing out of tune and playing harps, horns and other instruments badly. As the crest of the island dips beneath the sea, King Arnulf – a blundering buffoon played by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame – exclaims: “Everyone, stay calm. This is not happening.” It’d be funny if it weren’t true, but America has become Hy-Brasil, Barack Obama King Arnulf and liberals of every stripe his white-robed, mind-numbed, sycophantic subjects. Our enemies, both foreign and domestic – some of whom have “The Honorable” before their names – are laughing themselves silly. Indeed, “progressives” are a caricature of themselves, fully given over to pseudo-utopian, relativist ideals that remain ludicrous – hopelessly unattainable – by any objective standard. Still, our patchouli-wearing, pervert-pride-prancing, “pay-for-my-abortion”-shrieking friends are anything if not determined. They’ll let neither reality nor the U.S. Constitution stop them. Nothing, it seems – especially not those mealy-mouthed puddin’ pops running the GOP – can keep this ship of fools from sinking a once great nation. Problem is, they’re taking us all down with them. How do you stop skyrocketing debt and deficits that even liberal economists admit, if left unchecked, spell America’s doom? You don’t. You print trillions more and spend it like game tokens at Chuck E. Cheese. The party must go on or the kiddos get cranky. Sugar Daddy Barack’s got hungry mouths to feed. How do you stop evil nutjobs pumped full of psychotropic drugs from shooting-up “gun free zones”? Why, by leaving them heavily armed, of course. By unconstitutionally grabbing guns from the very law-abiding citizens positioned to tap two in the body and one in the head whenever these death-culture byproducts start killing. Liberal logic: “Up is down, down is up, we’ll make it so and we won’t give up!” In sum, you spend your way out of debt, tax your way to higher employment, fornicate your way disease-free, abort your way to non-violence and unilaterally disarm your way to national security. Any questions? Now, some of you may say, “But wait, Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s no buffoon.” I both agree and disagree. Yes, the “progressive” dogma that courses through his veins – a mind-altering hallucinogen that gives liberals the munchies for power – is, indeed, inherently sinister. Still, he believes it with every ounce of his nicotine-shriveled heart. By deliberately deconstructing America’s constitutional republic – our free-market form of government – and replacing it with a Euro-socialist, moral relativist amalgam of his liking, this misguided anti-colonialist radical thinks – truly believes – that he’s doing the right thing. Such are the ways of the well-meaning tyrant. People sometimes ask me how it is that I manage to stay so optimistic – to maintain deep joy as we watch our nation’s foundations crumbling around us like the walls of Jericho. They wonder how it is that I’m able to pick up and carry on with a smile as America heads careening toward cliff’s edge. It’s easy. First, I put my full faith and trust in the Sovereign Creator of the universe who is the same yesterday today and forevermore: Christ, God incarnate, who is always faithful to those who have faith in Him. Then, I laugh at them; liberals, that is. I make fun of their dull-witted, self-defeating, abjectly wicked worldview. I follow God’s example. Of those who align themselves against His laws and His nature, Psalm 2:4 says, “He who sits in the heavens laughs. The Lord scoffs at them.” How can you not scoff at the silly twaddle they’re hocking? Ultimately, I’ve read the end of the book. I know what happens. The good guys win. That keeps me smiling no matter what goes down on the culture-war front. It keeps me snickering. Still, once I stop laughing, I get about the business of trying, with every fiber of my being, to defeat them. Not reason with them, not compromise with them, not suck up to them and certainly not trust them. Defeat them. Oh, I’ll love them. I must. I’m commanded to by the Lord I serve. I’ll pray for them, too. Do it all the time. But I’ll never, ever, under any circumstances, trust them. You may be surprised to learn that, in various forms, I get dozens – sometimes hundreds – of pieces of hate mail each week. My recent favorite came from a delightful bloke with the email handle synth84@aol.com. “Someday, someone may just choose to use their second amendment right (sic) to put a bullet in your worthless head. You are a disgusting waste of life you uneducated, non-human, uncivilized, evil, parasitic Nazi maggot. Shame on you.” Right. Shame on me. How do you reason with, compromise with, suck up to or trust that? You don’t. You defeat it. Abraham Lincoln, a man of deep faith, forecast nearly a century-and-a-half ago our current state of the union: “America will never be destroyed from the outside,” he said. “If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” President Obama sits atop the highest perch of a nation fast-sinking. “Everyone, stay calm. This is not happening,” he assures us. But it is happening. We’re destroying ourselves from within. We’re going down, and the only way to stop it is to utterly defeat those responsible. In the meantime, they sure are fun to laugh at.

What Should the Republicans do Now?

"Ernie" has some thoughts on what the Republicans should be doing.

Agenda for the republicans:  Now that the repubs brought the libs to their knees over Bush Tax Cut situation, it's time to start down the long list of things these relentless pitbulls can sink their teeth into for the next 4 years.

1.   The debt limit.  Some people think the repubs will kick the can down the road for another 90 days.  Can anyone honestly believe the GOP would do that?  Especially now that they have the libs shaking in their boots?

2.    Cost cutting.  (The other half of the tax cut situation).   Figures that came out this week show our deficit for 2012 was about $7T, not the $1.2T as advertised by Obama.   Unbelievably some people think the repubs will cave on this one, too.  King Obama must be sweating bullets wondering what the repubs (now known as the doormat wing of the dem party) must be planning to do to him if he doesn't reduce spending by a couple of trillion a year. 

3.     Stop the shipment to Egypt (at tax payer expense of course) of 20 F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks.  Everyone knows these will end up in the hands of people who want to destroy Israel.  Everyone, that is, except the Hussein Obama regime.  I'm sure when it's pointed out to Obama that Morsi is an Israeli hater and says all Jews are descends of pigs and apes, that he'll stop the delivery at once.

4.     Find out the truth about Fast & Furious once and for all.  Obama and Holder haven't got a chance hiding the truth from these bulldogs of justice much longer. 

5.     Find out the truth about Benghazi once and for all.  It's so blatantly obvious that the regime (especially Panetta, Hillary and Obama) is responsible for the death of 4 Americans that even the media may eventually have to admit it.  (Really?).   Not only are they responsible for the initial attack, but they've done absolutely nothing to retaliate for the cowardly act of murder.   Other then sending more money and weapons to the N.African Muslim terrorists of course.

6.     Put an end to Obama bypassing Congress and instead governing by Executive Order.  You just know the Rotwillers in the doormat wing of the Dem Party will nail him to the wall on this one.  After all, I'm willing to bet there's somebody on the GOP side of the aisle who's actually read the Constitution.  Well, maybe not, but at least someone who knows there is a Constitution.....somewhere. 

     I don't know about you, but I'm betting Obama's smelling "impeachment" in the air.  The pressure must be getting so great that he'll probably have to take another vacation.   I'll be our GOP leadership is grinning from ear-to-ear.  They just don't know why.  

A Politically Incorrect Guide to Sexual Orientation

By Matt Barber   It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world … ~ The Kinks Through the secular-”progressive” looking-glass, the term “sexual orientation” has, in a few short years, evolved to accommodate an ever-expanding fruit basket of carnal appetites. First it was “LGB” – liberal shorthand for “lesbian, gay and bisexual.” Then they added a “T” for “transgender.” That’s cross-dressing. You know, fellas like 45-year-old Clay Francis (aka, “Colleen”). Mr. Francis enjoys macramé, long walks on the beach, wearing lady’s knickers and showering fully nude with 6-year-old girls. Because it’s illegal to “discriminate based on the basis of gender identity,” and since it’s the only “tolerant” thing to do, this brave bellwether of the persecuted LGBT victim-class has secured the “civil right” for him and other men to fully expose themselves to your daughter in the locker room at Olympia, Washington’s Evergreen State College. But slow down, Dad. According to the law, if you have a problem with Mr. Francis baring all to your baby girl, then you’re the problem. You’re a “transphobe” (“homophobia’s” evil twin sister, er, brother … whatever). Deck this sicko for terrifying your first-grader and you’re off to jail while “Colleen” is off to the “Human Rights Campaign” for a commendation as the latest victim of an “anti-LGBT hate crime.” Rosa Parks in drag, I guess. But to make sure they didn’t miss anyone, pooh-bahs over at Child Corruption Central added a “Q” to the “sexual orientation” mix. In case some fifth-grader in Ms. Adamsapple’s health class gets the urge to “taste the rainbow” (and I don’t mean Skittles), the catch-all term “questioning” was tacked on. Gotta meet those recruiting quotas. According to the “gay” activist group GLSEN, sexuality is “fluid” and “may change over time.” Unless, of course, you’re already “gay,” and then change is impossible, fixed and immutable. Like that hotel in California, “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.” Nobody said it’s supposed to make sense. Still, because “progressives” aren’t progressive unless they’re progressing toward progress, this nonsensical alphabet soup of sexual deviancy has ballooned to a marvelous “LGBTQQIAAP.” No kidding. The latest word salad in the counter-”heterosexist” war against “heteronormativity” (yes, they consider these real things) is “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, and Pansexual.” In Canada, they’ve added “2S” which means: “Two-spirit. The visionaries and healers of aboriginal (sic) communities, the gay and lesbian shamans.” Well, duh. I just can’t believe these closed-minded bigots left out members of the mistreated “BDSM” community (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism). That’s OK, I guess. Being mistreated is their whole shtick, right? Or maybe they’re covered under “P” for “pansexual.” That means, more or less, that if the mood strikes, you’ll take a roll in the hay with anyone or anything in any way imaginable (or unimaginable). Speaking of rolls in the hay, don’t put away your alphabet soup decoder ring just yet. It looks like we’ll soon be adding another “B” to the mix. The late “gay” activist icon Frank Kameny – a pervert before his time – endorsed the practice of bestiality a few years ago. He called sex with animals “harmless,” saying that “as long as the animal doesn’t mind – and the animal rarely does – I don’t mind, and I don’t see why anyone else should.” So we’ve further lowered the bar from “consenting adults” to “consenting adults and hoofed mammals.” How does that work? Bestiality is OK, but “neigh” means “neigh”? In today’s frenzied struggle for unfettered sexual license cleverly couched as “civil rights,” we shouldn’t be surprised, then, that oppressed peoples representing all form of “sexual orientation” are lining up for their slice of “equality” pie. Yes, even, um, animal lovers. According to a recent report by Florida’s Gainesville Sun, for instance, “Lawyers representing a Marion County man accused of sexual activity with a miniature donkey have filed a motion asking a judge to declare the Florida statute banning sexual activities with animals unconstitutional.” “Carlos R. Romero, 32 … is accused of sexual activities involving animals, a first-degree misdemeanor, after he allegedly was found in a compromising position in August with a female miniature donkey named Doodle.” First of all, I was offended by the article’s insensitive use of the term “miniature donkey.” I believe, if I’m not mistaken, the preferred nomenclature is “little horse.” Still, I was especially struck – though not surprised – by the legal arguments Romero’s lawyers ponied up. They claimed “that the statute infringes upon Romero’s due process rights and violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.” “By making sexual conduct with an animal a crime, the statute demeans individuals like Defendant (Romero) by making his private sexual conduct a crime,” they wrote. Right. The statute demeans Romero. “The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties,” the attorneys wrote. This line of argument is directly from the homosexual activist playbook – the rationale adopted by the majority in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case. In Lawrence, the U.S. Supreme Court manufactured, for the first time in history, a constitutional “right” for men to sodomize each other. So why not Doodle? In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia forecast exactly what’s happened in the decade since: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.” Predictably, polygamists and incestuous siblings are now clamoring for so-called “marriage equality” based on Lawrence. At this rate, there’s little doubt they’ll get it. Once our culture decides, as a matter of course, that all morality is relative, all bets are off. Once we determine, as a matter of law, that people are entitled to special privilege because they subjectively define their identity based upon deviant sexual proclivities and behaviors, moral, legal and cultural anarchy are inevitable. The brave new world is upon us.

Publishing Gun Owners' Names and Addresses in the Newspaper

“Ernie” has some thoughts on the publishing of gun owners’ names and addresses in the newspaper.

There's a big controversy over a newspaper publishing the names and addresses of registered gun owners.  One side is mad because it breaks the right-to-privacy law that isn't really in the constitution.  The other side is happy because it tells the would-be thieves not to come to the listed homes or they might be shot.  I think in the interest of fairness (something Obama's always talking about) the newspapers should also publish the names and addresses of homes that don't have any unregistered weapons.  That would be "fair" to the would-be robbers, rapists and other ne'er-do-wells.

 

     It doesn't make a lot of difference to me if they publish the names of gun owners or not.    The thieves will get a surprise if they come to my house and find a 12-gauge shotgun (unregistered) greeting them.  There are other things that seem more important.  How about the following:

 

1.  The names and addresses of those who voted for Obama.  You want to stay away from these neighborhoods, that's where all the uninformed, ignorant, don't give a damn voters live.

 

2.  The names and addresses of convicted drugs dealers and pot-heads.  Keep your kids away from these idiots.  They're easy to spot.  Just look for excessive tattoos, Obama bumper stickers and body piercings.

 

3.  The names and addresses of Muslims.  Another area to avoid, especially if you're Jewish, Christian, European or American. 

 

4.   If you're a minority race, you might want to know where the Klan members live.  It's for sure they're armed, heavily.

 

5.  The names and addresses of law enforcement personnel.  Not a bad area to live in, or if you like to do home invasions, a good area to stay away from.

 

6.  Names and addresses of registered liberal democrats.  Another group you want to keep away from your kids.  Besides that they're unintelligent, boring, and watch MSNBC.

 

7.  Names and addresses of everyone whose only source of income is welfare and other government free stuff.  Remember, these people reproduce like fruit flies, take drugs, rob convenience stores and specialize in home invasions.  (See items 1, 2 and 6). 

 

8.  Names and addresses of all people who keep their pit bulls chained to a tree in the back yard.  (See items 1,2 and 7 and Michael Vick).

 

9.  Names and addresses of all illegal aliens.  After all, they killed more people this year in traffic accidents and robberies than were killed by rifles.  (Assault weapons to you Code Pink people).

 

And finally, #10.  All Chicago Cubs fans.  These people are obviously masochistic zombies with a death wish.  If they get into your kids' heads it will condemn them to a life of misery, profanity and frustration.  I know because I am one.