The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Ariannna Nation (HuffPost) Exposes Liberalism’s Harsh Realities, Prejudices Against The Poor

At the Huffington Post (Arianna Nation), there is a story concerning “class conflict awareness.”  This is odd for three reasons.  First, there is no real “class” structure in America.  There is income divides, but America, unlike Europe of old, does not have a system in place where by if you are born into a lower class you remain in a lower class your whole life.  In America, anyone born in poverty has a real opportunity to rise up and out of it and move into the middle and upper echelons.  There are countless, and many told, stories to prove this.  Secondly, the Arianna Nation, in its broad, but failed, attempt to sock it to conservatives once against falls flat on its own butt.  The reason for the income divide in America has everything to do with liberalism and the policies and legislation liberals have been able to pass which have crippled business in America and have resulted in America’s economy tanking, job loss, home foreclosures, the high rate of unemployment, etc.  Thirdly, “class conflict awareness” is simply another term, a euphemism, describing jealousy.  Poor people are jealous of the rich.  What else is new?

Significantly more Americans see “very strong” or “strong” class conflict between the rich and poor, according to a survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center. The results show that Americans think that conflicts between the rich and poor are stronger than immigrant and native born, black and white and young and old.

In other words, poor Americans who have embraced liberalism, have championed liberalism, have gone to bat and cheer-leaded for liberalism, have bought into liberalism all their lives – have been deceived and screwed by liberalism, which was liberalism’s intention all along.  Being poor and liberal is a deadly combination.  How many poor people who follow liberalism religiously ever get out of poverty?

Poor people are inundated with liberal propaganda telling them their poverty is a result of the “rich getting richer” off their backs.  But what liberalism never explains to poor Americans is how they can reverse their poverty status and become, if not wealthy, then wealthier.  That, of course, would be counter productive to liberalism since liberalism can only exist so long as a substantial number and percentage of people remain convinced their poverty is a result of the “evil rich” and conservatives who, purportedly, but not in actuality, don’t care about the poor.

Liberalism is the “Jack the Ripper” of economics.  Does anyone really believe that a business owner who has had their taxes and their tax rate raised by liberal politicians, and is threatened with having those taxes raised higher, is going say, “Well, now that I have less money for my business and myself, and will soon have even less than that, I can pay my employees more,”?  Is that how business works?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you did not already know, (and unfortunately most liberals still refuse to accept this reality) no business can function properly and effectively the higher its taxes are.  Yet, liberals demand more from business owners under the guise and smoke screen of “paying their fair share”.  It’s a canard.  It’s a type of psychological warfare liberal politicians use to keep their base, composed mostly of poor Americans, energized and brainwashed, and to psychologically stun and debilitate business owners, shaming them into thinking one’s poverty is their, the business owner’s, fault.

The ongoing economic recession also may have magnified class differences as income inequality has risen.

The economic crash America has suffered, and continues to endure, was designed by liberal politicians.  We have higher unemployment now, over 8%, than when Obama took office.  The reason for this is because during Obama’s first two years, the Democrat Party held control over both the House and the Senate, which allowed them to pass their liberal, anti-business, anti-capitalist agenda.  Had McCain won the Presidency, and/or had Republicans won the House and Senate, we would not have been in this economic mess because Republicans would have blocked Democrats from instigating destructive legislation, such as TARP, and other socialistic programs, and they would have blocked the Democrats from dramatically raising the debt ceiling.

Had Republicans retained the White House, had they won the House and Senate, this recession would have been over by now and unemployment, which was just over 7% in January 2009, would have steady fallen as conservatives began passing meaningful business tax cuts, cutting meaningless regulations, cutting out unnecessary government programs which only purpose is to keep the poor, poor, and cutting the size and scope of government itself.  We would not be over 15 trillion dollars in debt if Republicans were in control.  Why are the poor not as outraged as they ought to be that Barack Obama has spent so many trillions of dollars and provided them with little to nothing to show for it?  If poverty is getting worse, which liberals contend, and if government is spending more to “fix” poverty, why are their policies making the poor suffer more?  The answer is one in which the poor don’t want to stomach.

Democrats in general — and President Barack Obama in specific — have also spoken out about income inequality. “Now, this kind of inequality — a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression — hurts us all…”

Here is a reality check.  One cannot get their-self out of poverty on a welfare or unemployment check.  Nor can one expect to move into the middle or upper class by levying higher taxes and regulations on the “rich”.  The more businesses are taxed, the less business owners have in which to invest in their businesses – including their employees.  Although this is common sense, there are too many people who still cannot understand the simplest, the most basic of economics.  The “fair share” liberals always whine about is money in which business owners will pass along to both their costumers and their employees.  Their employees will bear the brunt of the “fair share” tax hikes first by either losing benefits, hours, wages, raises, etc., or by being fired as business owners are forced to downsize their business, and their workforce, in order to remain afloat.  In other words, a business owner will sacrifice their employees before their customers, and a business owner will sacrifice their employees before they sacrifice their business.

Here is one more reality check.  Once a person actually does move into the middle class, from poverty, and realizes how much money the government is taking from their paycheck, how much more the government wants to take away, and how the government will turn a blind eye to the middle class, it dawns on them how destructive liberalism really is.  If you want the government to take care of you, remain poor.  But it comes with a heavy price.  You must always remain poor.

That is the destructive hold liberalism has over the poor in America.  And that is “the answer the poor do not want to stomach”.  Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have spent trillions of dollars, racked up more debt in three years than George Bush racked up in his eight years in office – mostly waging an important and necessary War on Terror.  For all that money Obama wasted, which must at some point be paid back, more people are in poverty now than were in poverty when he took office.  Do we see the correlation to liberal policy and poverty, and the rate and increase in poverty as a result of liberal policy?

If you were poor in 2008 and you voted for Obama, and you yet remain in poverty, who is really to blame for your economic situation?  How will voting for Obama, for Obama’s liberal policies, in 2012 make any more of a positive difference for you, your family, than was made then?

In other words – are you better off now than you were four years ago?  And, how will re-electing Obama move you out of poverty if it didn’t do so then?

January 12, 2012 Posted by | politics | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Jesus Will Vote For Mitt Romney (Or The Republican Nominee) Part 2

UPDATEJohn Bolton Supports Mitt Romney also.

Liberals, who are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, have got it in mind that Jesus also is pro-abortion.  Where this scandalous and ridiculous notion came from is anyone’s guess.  Jesus was very much pro-life and never would have condoned abortion as a means of “family planning”.  Nor would Jesus have allowed himself, or his followers, to give up so easily, so readily on women and girls faced with the tough decision of whether or not to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, carry the child all the way through, give birth and then give the child up for adoption, thereby giving the child a chance, an opportunity to live, to exist, to grow up and grow into a productive member of society – or to simply kill the unborn child and discard it as trash or flush it away like human waste.  Jesus never advocated, nor would he ever have, killing unborn children.

Too many Christians have fallen prey to liberalism’s intentionally destructive mantra that the unborn child would be better off dead and whisked off to Heaven forthwith, into the arms of an awaiting and loving Jesus rather than be given the chance to coexist outside the womb in harsher, more unpredictable and unstable environments than we have come to expect Heaven would contain.  How can any intelligent individual, with a straight face, actually believe, accept, be and find comfort in, such malevolent nonsense?  Jesus would have preached courage to a pregnant woman or girl, even faced with hardship.  Of course, in Jesus’ day there was more emphasis on extended family and community than there is today.  That would have given the child a slight edge than we have in today’s society.

Still, there is the alternative of adoption.  There are organizations which can and will take over responsibility for a child which cannot be cared for by its mother.  Why is this the less convenient route for a woman to take?  There is nothing pro-Christian or pro-life about abortion.  Liberals, who have infiltrated and co-opted Christianity have weakened it dramatically by influencing and manipulating its teachings, distorting the words of Jesus and twisting what he said into something that fits snugly into their unholy agenda.

One cannot be a liberal and a Christian.  And yet, millions of liberals profess themselves to be Christians.  It is a facade and a charade, a trap, one in which liberalism itself has found a way to brainwash wandering Christians into falling into, or one for which Christians themselves, of their own free will, have sacrificed themselves.  Obviously there have been many failings and false teachings within Christianity in its past, and many faithful Christians have not been able to resolve those stains.  We can talk of slavery, poverty, class distinction, healthcare, and all the repulsive ways in which the “haves” have mistreated the “have-nots” over the course of human history, and even throughout the history of America.  However, the question still remains – how does giving into another false teaching, such as abortion, rectify and resolve the failings of past Christian teachings?  It doesn’t, and it never will.

What is a Christian’s motivation for being pro-abortion?  What does a Christian gain by promoting, and being tolerant of, apathetic and indifferent to, a practice that kills unborn children?

It is very daring, indeed, for one to be so brazen to call their self a Christian and to support abortion on demand.  What happened to them over the course of their life that they abandoned rationality for insanity?  Obviously Christianity failed them somewhere, or someone was able to get to them, get into their mind and convince them being pro-abortion is Christian.  Either that, or there are millions of people going around professing to be Christian but in actuality are playing a part; millions of people who are in reality liberal atheists, pretending to be Christians in an effort to weaken Christianity.

There is, after-all, a Christian pretender in the White House.  President Obama who, may or may not be a Muslim, who, at least might have once been a Muslim in his past, now is a socialist.  And as someone who supports abortion on demand, he is certainly no Christian.  It is liberalism and socialism which states there is no worth, no value, no humanness in unborn children.  If Obama really were a Christian he would not take this or any pro-abortion position.  If Obama really were a Christian he would have the courage to distance himself from the filth and muck that is Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU and every other pro-abortion organization out there.  If Obama really were a Christian he would have the courage to denounce them, to fight against them, to crush them.  If Obama really were a Christian, he would be a Republican.

That Obama is a Democrat, is pro-abortion, is a socialist, does support abortion on demand, makes him an anti-Christian, a counterfeit Christian and a coward.

All the Republican nominees for President are pro-life.  Jesus is pro-life.  Christianity is pro-life, regardless of the deceit and underhandedness which has manifested and infested itself within Christianity by devilish liberals whose only purpose is to undermine Christianity for their own selfish and arrogant, and very dangerous, purpose.

As Jesus is pro-life, and Obama is pro-abortion, and Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and every other Republican contender for the Presidency is pro-life, whoever the republican nominee is who goes up against Obama, who can we be absolutely certain Jesus will be voting for in this upcoming 2012 election?

January 6, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, abortion, politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 7: Her Christian Deconstructionism Is Poorly Rooted

While Michelle Goldberg sympathizes with Muslim terrorists, Christianity scares the hell out her.  So much so, she has taken to inventing an hysteria surrounding Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Christian Reconstructionism and Christian theocracy, and weaving them all into a single lustful tale of unimaginable things yet to come.  Fear for your lives, so conjures Michelle.

Goldberg is terrified of both Presidential contenders, but Ron Paul more so, as Bachmann’s campaign begins its sunset and her supporters scramble to Paul.  She begins with Michele Bachmann whom she states “frequently warns of the threat of a global caliphate”.   Such unrepentant negativity toward Bachmann, despite the fact that it is Goldberg herself who never misses an opportunity in her articles to “frequently warn” us all of a Christian theocracy coming to America, including her current one.  Bachmann is also critical of Ron Paul, but not for being too Christian, rather for being too soft on foreign policy; in particular, Paul’s anti-war stance and his opposition to any notions of conflict with Iran which Paul states is “American overreaction”.  In one sentence Goldberg quotes from Bachmann her response to Paul saying:

I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul.”

In her very next sentence, however, (which is humanly possible for one with good lungs to read in the same breath) Goldberg strays wildly, unevenly, into a rambling non sequitur, strangely writing:

Bachmann built her career crusading against gay marriage, while Paul voted against a 2006 constitutional amendment limiting marriage to partners of the opposite sex. These are extremely different candidates.

Thus, Michelle Goldberg quantifies Bachmann’s reaction to Paul’s “dangerous answer to American security” by attributing to her what Goldberg emphasizes is Bachmann’s “crusading against gay marriage”.  How in the hell can Goldberg go from writing about foreign policy in one sentence to writing about gay marriage in the very next, virtually in the same breath?  What correlation is there between the two?  Iran wants nuclear arms, and may already have developed one.  Gays and lesbians want the right to get married.  Which is more of a contentious, an explosive, issue?  Unless, of course, Goldberg is eluding to both issues, once they become a reality, having the potential of reigning in Armageddon and the end of the world.  Except, nuclear war can bring about the end of the world, and while gay marriage won’t bring about the end of Christian fundamentalism, it may soften its influence.

In Goldberg’s radical feminist mind, perhaps what she is really saying about Bachmann is “I [Michelle Goldberg] have never known a more dangerous person with insecurities towards homosexuality than I have known in Michele Bachmann”.  In other words, Goldberg is insinuating that as “Bachmann has built a career crusading against gay marriage”, Ron Paul has “built a career” crusading against “American overreaction”, particularly in the Middle East.  Ron Paul is less of a Christian apologist, even less of a Christian, than is Michele Bachmann, and therefore less of a perceived threat to Goldberg.  Paul even supports defunding foreign aid to Israel.  But the supporters of Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann, whom Goldberg describes as Christian Reconstructionists and premillennial dispensationalists, are:

one of the strangest coalitions in American political history, bringing together libertarian hipsters with those who want to subject the sexually impure to Taliban-style public stonings. (Stoning is Reconstructionists’ preferred method of execution because it is both biblical and fiscally responsible, rocks being, in North’s words, “cheap, plentiful, and convenient.”)

Goldberg loathes and despises Christianity, for one, because (and never mind the fact some millions of Christians support gay marriage) Christianity, and a sizable bulk of Christians remain opposed to gay marriage.  Well, so does Islam, which is also opposed to homosexuality itself, and under Sharia law puts to death anyone caught engaged in homosexual activity, however slight.  But it is Christianity, not Islam, which deeply affects Goldberg.

American law does not put to death anyone for being homosexual.  But if Sharia law was ever granted legal status in America, it is possible that an American Muslim, having been “outed” could be executed – probably stoned – in America for being gay.  It is also possible, under Sharia law, for a woman or girl accused of infidelity, even falsely, to be put to death.  Have you heard of Soraya Manutchehri?  But because Islam Hates Christianity, Goldberg tolerates Islam.

Goldberg has wrapped herself in heavy layers of, if you will, anti-Christian swaddling.  Or would you prefer the chain of anti-Christianity she wears in life?  Forged link by link of her own free will to include homosexuality, abortion, women’s rights, birth control for very young minors, gender equality and equal rights, illegal immigration and affirmative action.  All of which Goldberg uses to denounce Christianity.  Aside from abortion, which Christianity, and most Christians oppose, Goldberg has created tons of extra hate for a religion which cannot harm or even touch her under the American Constitution.  No wonder why she comes to Ron Paul’s defense over the criticism of Michele Bachmann, a staunchly conservative Christian, although Goldberg would never support Ron Paul in anything other than when he seems to distance himself from Christian values and influence.

Some words of comfort by Ron Paul which Michelle Goldberg hearkens to:

My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain.”

Says Goldberg:

Paul doesn’t demagogue about a putative war on Christianity being waged by the Obama administration.

This is really the kind of Christian Goldberg admires – someone who keeps their faith to themselves, does not hold their religion and their religious values over another person’s head and can accept someone’s religious faith or non belief, their activism, religious or political, without ever interfering.  Imagine telling Goldberg to shut the hell up and mind her own damn business, and to keep her opinions to herself.  She would go ballistic, batty as a feminist and fly into a furious witch-like rage.  But this is exactly what she demands of Christians.

There is indeed a “putative war” being waged by the Obama administration.  A war against Americanism itself, which is, like it or not, deeply rooted in Christianity.  The values and morals of conservatism, whether religious or secular, are being eroded and toppled by lawmakers and overruled by judges who deem them to be unconstitutional.

Goldberg freely expresses her hatred of Christianity because at one time in its history, long before the advent of America, it was violent and used violence very forcibly to hold on to its power and because she sees in today’s Christianity, among some several millions of Christians, that same zeal.  But never mind that Islam is that way now, and has been for hundreds of years.  The Islam of today, Goldberg empathizes and sympathizes with, while the Christianity of old, which cannot legally, constitutionally, function in America, she condemns.  Goldberg worries a right wing President in the White House will usher in a new Christian Theocracy, but has no problem with the increase of Muslims in America and their push for Sharia law.

However, Goldberg is not so enraptured with Ron Paul that she would get in bed with him.  She notes:

Nevertheless, Paul’s support among the country’s most committed theocrats is deep and longstanding, something that’s poorly understood among those who simply see him as a libertarian.

But so long as Paul hammers Bachmann on matters of religion, Goldberg will remain “friendly” towards him.  And yet when interest and support in Bachmann’s campaign wanes, when those same Christians flock to Paul, Goldberg will quickly abandon her “friendliness” with Paul and excoriate and scourge him as she does Michele Bachmann and all Christians.  Ron Paul, to Goldberg, is nothing more than useful tool, the same as with her infatuation with Islam – she uses both Paul and Islam to tweak and ridicule Christianity, never mind how dangerous are the radical elements within Islam she defends.  Goldberg is a liberal, probably socialist, and like all in her camp they are under the false impression that if they can conquer Christianity, they can also conquer Islam and install socialism as the global model.  But first they must conquer Christianity.  They need like-minded politicians in congress and in the White House to assist them with passing a liberal and socialist agenda.  A Republican win thwarts their efforts to push Christian influence aside.  Hence, Goldberg’s constant attacks on Republicans, conservatives, the religious right and all of Christianity.

Michelle writes:

Should Paul win the Iowa caucuses, it will actually be a triumph for a fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right.

If it is a “fringe” now, it will remain a “fringe” even with an Iowa win for Paul.  Even if Paul somehow wins the nomination and the Presidency.  What likelihood is there that several millions of people in a “fringe” swell into a hundred million converts in time for the 2012 election?

Michelle continues on for paragraphs – and paragraphs – in a schizophrenic and Christi-phobia rant beginning with:

To understand Paul’s religious-right support, it’s necessary to wade a bit into the theological weeds. Most American evangelicals are premillennial dispensationalists. They believe that God has a special plan for the nation of Israel, which will play a key role in the end of days and the return of Christ.

Thankfully, it is not necessary “to wade” any further into Goldberg’s anti-”theological weeds”.  Her intent is clear and self evident, though her writing is incoherent, muddled and mired in an unrealistic fear of Christianity and exposes a nonsensical, deep-seeded loathing of Christians, Christian values and morals for very wrong and selfish reasons.

Goldberg actually helps Christianity, and thus conservatism, with her unfounded ignorance of it.  The more people of little or no faith see Goldberg and others acting irrationally for their liberal cause, the more apparent it becomes just how unstable, unreliable, unrealistic liberalism is.  The more Christians and conservatives see how intentional her misrepresentations of Christianity are, the stronger their resolve, and their agenda, becomes, and the more people abandon liberalism and liberalism’s empty promises for, if not Christianity, then most certainly secular conservatism.

Would Michelle Goldberg ever comprehend how greatly her insatiable Christi-phobia only weakens the cause of liberalism, or is that over her head?

January 3, 2012 Posted by | Michelle Goldberg, politics, religion | , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Because It’s Really All About The Right To Kill The Unborn Child To Feminists

A most gripping and paralyzing drama is apparently unfolding in Iowa, one from which radical feminists like Christine Pelosi (daughter of Nancy) cannot shake free.  It is possible to imagine her, with a group of her feminists from California, huddled together in a room, frightened, cold perspiration dripping down the lengths of their bodies, tears flowing from their eyes down into a deep puddle underneath their feet, their high heels and stocking drenched.  What all this does to the pounds of makeup applied to their persons one may want to force themselves not to envision.  But know this, feminists are locked in psychological and emotional terror as the world they have become accustomed to, the “generations of progress”, rapidly disintegrates and dissolves in front of them, not so unlike the wicked witch of the west.  (The one from The Wizard of Oz, not Christine’s mother.)  Well, perhaps Christine is being a bit over dramatic.

American women face a stark choice in the Iowa caucuses: re-elect feminist President Barack Obama who has advanced equality or caucus for a Republican who pledges to roll back generations of progress.

On the other hand, Christine might be legitimately terrified over nothing.  In other words, would a Republican presidential win mean women would:

  lose the right to vote

•  the right to work

  the right to be independent

  the right to travel freely without male escort

  the right to hold an opinion

•  the right to run for political office

  the right to live on her own, single and unmarried

•  the right to be a radical feminist

What exactly does Christine fear losing should a Republican win the White House in 2012?  Because even if a Republican does win the White House in 2012, there is not a single Constitutional right any woman has now that they will not then still have a tight grasp on.  Christine, the poor girl, has put herself in panic mode and, almost in a religious fanaticism, is making herself suffer for no legitimate purpose.

Feminism — equality without apology — knows no partisan bounds. Women across the philosophical spectrum make our own choices about our families, our careers, and our politics.

Christine is still wrapped in delusions of her own making.  Psychological help is what she needs.  What is she afraid a Republican in the White House will do to her and women across America?  Why then do so many millions of women flock to Republican candidates and endorse and support, and vote for, Republicans, and rejoice when Republicans win?  Why do these same women renounce the feminism of Christine Pelosi?

But in order to keep the freedom to make those choices, women need feminist leaders at the helm with policies that advance our progress. More important than identity politics are the feminist policies that allow women to make progress.

Falling, falling, falling – further into the depths of despair.  Oh, to think Christine is so far gone, her dreams flooded with, and her mind ravaged by, apparitions of fantasies that do not exist in reality.  What “progress” does she invoke?  What “policies” are slated for removal or will stagnate and collect layer upon layer of political dust with a Republican in the White House?  What “choices” will be denuded by a Republican and laid to waste?  What madness has driven her to write such fluff?

On economics…

Barack Obama, Democrat, has been an obstacle to women who want and need to work by keeping taxes and regulations high on business owners who would, with a much lower tax rate, have more opportunity to increase their hiring, including hiring women.  With a Republican in the White House, women have more assurance that our economy will recover, business will rebound and unemployment will drastically fall, all of which benefits women.

On health [care]…

Barack Obama supports the government taking over health care in America and having control over the choices we, including women, make about which doctors and hospitals we use, what treatments we can receive and when and how those treatments can be performed.  Under a government controlled health care system there will be fewer doctors, not more, resulting in a backlog of cases forcing millions of Americans, including women, to hold off on procedures which could prolong their health and save their lives.  Barack Obama supports dramatic increases in taxes, including on women, to pay for a government run health care system which, without competition from the private sector, and as a monopoly, has no real incentive to improve itself.  Under a government controlled health care system, the cost of health care soars while its quality plummets which endangers everyone, including women.

When it comes to our patriots, President Obama has committed to bringing our troops home honorably safely and soon, ordered the withdrawal of our combat troops home from Iraq…

By bringing our troops home without completing the overall mission, which included freeing Iraq from terrorism and terrorists, Barack Obama has put the lives of Iraqi Muslims, including their women and girls, who desired peace and cooperation with America in serious jeopardy and “at stake”.  The attacks on Iraqis, by Muslim terrorists, continues, even though our presence no longer casts a shadow.  Women in America have much to fear from a weak minded President such as Barack Obama.

Feminist leadership includes appointing…

  Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who supports the  call for Israel to stop developing new settlements, a demand made by the Hamas led Palestinians, another Muslim terrorist group which despises women and the concept of women’s rights and condones honor killings.

•  DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who supports TSA agents groping and molesting young children, including girls, and old women, and women in wheelchairs and women with other disabilities at airports to screen them for explosive devices and bomb making materials, but opposes screening people who look Arab because that might be offensive and politically incorrect.

•  Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who supports illegal immigration in America, protecting illegal immigrants in America, providing illegal immigrants in America with jobs, free education and free health care and all the rights American citizens enjoy, all at the expense of American taxpayers, including women who must compete with illegal immigrants for jobs, girls who must compete for class space with illegal aliens, and all women and girls who must wait that much longer for medical attention while doctors attend illegal aliens before American citizens for fear of being sued by the ACLU, MALDEF, La Raza, and the federal government itself.

But what is it that most terrorizes Christine?  What has her nights filled with just as much dread and discomfort as her days, walking as a restless zombie throughout California?  She leaves us with a tantalizing clue, albeit obscure and somewhat hidden deep in subtext.

The Iowa caucuses will tell two very different stories about women in America: either we are capable of controlling our own bodies and planning our own families or we aren’t.

Alas, we may never know her true intentions from this erratic scribble she has provided us with.  And so, we can only hope Christine is able to get the help she needs to overcome her false fears of a Republican in the White House.  Because if she does not receive that help soon, when a Republican does win the White House, she will really lose control of her mind.

What will that look like?

January 2, 2012 Posted by | 2012 election, feminist loons, politics | , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Obama Is A Socialist! Why Are We Afraid To Admit It?

Do we not imperil America more by denying, by repressing Obama’s socialism?  Or is it the fear of drawing increasingly negative attention to ourselves by attacking the politics of Obama that we most fear?  Shouldn’t we most fear the loss of America itself, and use that as our strength and determination, our rallying call, the reason for our vocal dissent?

Obama gave another speech we all ought to fear.   Said Obama:

Remember that in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history, and what did they get us?  The slowest job growth in half a century.  Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class – things like education and infrastructure; science and technology; Medicare and Social Security.

If this is true, if this is not just another Obama lie, how does he, how does any liberal, explain the fact that we had under 5% unemployment in those early years?

How does Obama explain that during those years of  “expensive tax cuts” and despite the aftermath of 9/11, our war in Iraq and our increased involvement in the Middle East, not only were deficits not “massive”, compared to today’s deficits under Obama, the entire national debt was roughly about a third of what it is now and gas was under $2.00 a gallon?

George Bush did make a fundamental mistake with No Child Left Behind and his Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act.  However, the Bush tax cuts helped prevent the massive unemployment we are now living with and the recession we are living in.  If the Democrats had not taken control of congress in 2006 further cuts could have been made, legislation could have been passed to slow the growth of government, millions of jobs would not have been lost and either we would not have had a recession or it would have been a mild one – and we would have recovered from it by now.

Recessions don’t last for years and years, historically.  Yet, this recession has lasted five years, and we are being told it will last for years more, for the “foreseeable future”.  When all is said and done, this recession will have lasted longer than our Great Depression!

We are being told by Obama and the Democrat Party that we have to “spend our way” out of this recession.  We have been doing precisely that since Obama took office, and the more we have “spent our way” out of this recession, the more deeper we have dug ourselves into this recession.  Aren’t we smart enough to see the correlation between “more spending” and how deeper the hole becomes?

Obama says raising taxing on millionaires is the answer to solving our economic crisis; that raising taxes on millionaires will somehow create jobs ( higher paying jobs) and somehow reduce the deficit.  Aren’t we smart enough by now to know that millionaires are the ones with the capital to invest in business and the economy?  Aren’t we smart enough to know by now that millionaires have access to tax shelters to protect their money from being confiscated by the government?  Isn’t Obama smart enough to know that?  Aren’t we smart enough to know by now that once taxes are raised on millionaires, Obama will use those extra funds to further expand government, rather than reduce the deficit?  Aren’t we smart enough to know by now that there is a direct correlation between raising taxes on the rich, and the rising unemployment rate?  Does Obama think we aren’t smart enough by now to know what the real driving force behind our recession is?

Remember, this recession did not occur until after the Democrats took control of congress in 2006.  The recession only got worse, deficits dramatically increased, unemployed imploded, government dependence skyrocketed.  Conservatives won a victory in 2010 by taking back the House.  It was enough to stop Democrats from further destruction, but not enough to reverse the devastation that has laid waste to our economy.

If we continue allowing Obama to trash America, the greatness of America, America’s past greatness which freed hundreds of millions of people from the types of despots and dictators and evil men who held the same socialistic ideals Obama himself praises, and disregard the future greatness that America holds for us, our children and future generations; if we bow to Obama and his agenda of big government, more radical government, more government involvement in our lives; if we bend to Obama’s political will out of some exaggerated fear we will embarrass ourselves, we will discredit ourselves, we will diminish ourselves and our conservative cause – we will ultimately lose that cause.  There is no progress in apathy.

Socialism is defined, in part, by a system of wealth redistribution – collected and controlled by government.  In the end, however, while the people may have an “equal share” of the pie, it is government itself which controls the biggest portion of that pie; it is government, by socialistic design, which holds the deed for all the wealth, including the wealth they redistributed to the people.  It is government, by socialistic design, which has power over the people, because while the people have an “equal share” it is never enough to secure independence.  An “equal share” of the wealth does not mean, nor is it ever intended to mean, the people will ever be wealthy.

Socialism, by design, is an “equal share” in government dependence.  Socialism, by design, is an “equal share” in the perpetual poverty of the whole population.  Socialism, by design, is meant to make government all powerful and to equally disenfranchise the whole population.  Socialism, by design, is monarchy, theocracy, autocracy, disguised as something less frightening, more benevolent.  Socialism, by definition, is really nothing more than absolute government control over the people.  Socialism, by design, is dictatorship!

The people, having been lied to, misled, brainwashed by socialism’s so called “good nature”, it’s “tax the rich, give to the poor”  idealism and “wealth redistribution”, it’s call for revenge and retribution against the “evil” and “greedy” rich, its anti-capitalist ideology that millions of Americans have not had an opportunity to share in is appealing enough to those people who cannot escape the poverty they are living through.

If someone (such as Democrats and liberals do) promises to give them something they never had, they never thought they would have, and all that had to be done to make that happen was to raise taxes on the rich, that is enough to instill loyalty in an ideology that, if one were to examine closely, would understand is no different from any type of previous government dictatorship.

If this is not what Obama is advocating, if this is not what Obama is selling, if this is not what Obama is pursuing, if this is not what Obama and the Democrat Party have become, then, if not socialism, what else do you call it?

December 7, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, Obama's lies, politics | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Of The NAACP And The Art Of Exploiting Black Americans For Their Own Profit

Exploiting black Americans, it has become an art form.  Jesse Jackson is the Andy Warhol of black American exploitation.  Al Sharpton, the Vincent Van Gogh.  (It also works the other way around.)  But the real masters, the Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Rembrandt of black American exploitation goes to the NAACP – The National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People.  But, other than racism and exploitation, they haven’t advanced much else in decades.  They might as well rename themselves The National Association For The Advancement of Colored Racist American People – NAACRAP.

Their museum?  The gallery where the NAACP and other exploiters of black Americans display their “art”?  It’s on full display in every liberal media news outlet; television, cable, radio, internet, and running shows 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all year round.  “The Race Card” has been playing for years.

Now, with less than a year before the 2012 election, and with more and more black Americans abandoning Barack Obama, and more blacks and others abandoning the increasingly irrelevant NAACP, it has unveiled their newest piece of black American exploitation, a petition to the United Nations to look into voter suppression among blacks and Hispanics.  If one were looking at this as art on a canvass they would be looking at a blank and empty space, because there is nothing, no substance, no depth, no character with which to study.

Even though the United Nations has no jurisdiction, no authority, no right to interfere with American elections, the NAACP will nonetheless make their case.  In other words – it’s a publicity stunt the NAACP is coordinating to draw attention to itself and to, it hopes, increase its membership.  Does anyone really believe Americans would sit back idly, apathetically, and allow the UN to come in and take over our American election process?

As more and more states rightfully crack down on voter and identity fraud, passing stronger voter registration laws which include mandating a photo ID to ensure when a voter entering a polling center are who they say they are, they have a legal right to vote, and are eligible to vote at that particular polling center, the NAACP sees this more as an orchestrated effort to intentionally suppress the black and Hispanic vote.  Presumably it is all about the cost of purchasing a photo ID, and too many blacks and Hispanics are much too poor to buy one, thus “disenfranchising” them from the voting process.

But – where do poor whites get the money to purchase a photo ID?  Nobody is complaining about poor whites being disenfranchised.  No one is calling attention to the racism and discrimination against poor whites.  Alas, nobody, not even the NAACP, cares enough about poor whites to include them in their petition to the UN.  What about poor Asian Americans?

Voting is not a universal right.  There are stringent, rigid rules that must be observed.  One must be at least 18 at the time of the election and an American citizen.  One cannot be an illegal alien, a conviction felon, dead, or otherwise nonhuman.  And one cannot vote multiple times.  Elections are important and serious business.  It’s not American Idol!  Nowhere does it say if you are black or Hispanic, or poor, you cannot vote.

Barack Obama is in very big trouble.  His approval rating has dipped lower that Jimmy Carter’s.  A portion of this disapproval comes from liberal black Americans who feel betrayed by him, feeling Obama hasn’t delivered on his promises to lift them out of their poverty, provide them with more jobs, housing, more government assistance, more from his “stash”, etc.

The NAACP is worried black Americans will either stay away from the polls in 2012, or worse, vote against Obama.  They need something, a bandwagon black Americans can jump on, a controversial issue to latch onto, to distract from Obama’s poor approval rating, his abysmal Presidency, his dismal leadership.  In other words, The NAACP needs Obama to be reelected at any cost.  The “race card” is wearing thin and they know it.

Voter suppression is always a hot button issue.  States, as they always do during election cycles, gear up and prepare for the possibility of voter fraud.  The NAACP is getting an early jump with its “petition” to the UN.  Since there is nothing legally the UN can do to stop states from strengthening their own voter registration laws, what other purpose can the NAACP have in crying to the UN?

Every election cycle we hear how black Americans, especially, are being suppressed, are being denied their right to vote, despite the fact that black Americans came out in the largest majority ever, over 90%, in the 2008 election that saw our first black President elected.  The NAACP is perpetuating this lie of black voter suppression to increase its dwindling membership, to increase its membership dues and to intimidate more black Americans, who otherwise would vote Republican, or not at all, into voting for Obama.

Because if Obama loses, the NAACP loses.  It loses members, funding and Presidential support and cover for its ongoing, systematic, illegitimate war on a racism that no longer exists in America but in the literature, and in the mouths, of the NAACP itself.

Isn’t that more reason to vote Republican this November 2012?

December 6, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, blacks and racism, politics, scams | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Eleanor Clift, “The Daily Caller” Confirm Illegal Immigration is Key To Obama’s Reelection

Eleanor Clift, using pollster John Zogby as her puppet, is giddy with the prospect that Republican candidates running for President have given President Obama a “gift” in the form of opposing illegal immigration and gay marriage, which she quotes Zogby as saying is Obama’s “ace in the hole”.  What can possibly be meant by this?  Who in their right mind would not oppose illegal immigration?  Democrats, both naturally and obviously.  Doesn’t that validate the long held notion that Democrats are, in fact, not in their right mind, and thus a danger to America?

Zogby is only relating what the polls are telling him.  Clift, who support’s Obama as much as she supports illegal immigration, is merely picking up on statistics, probably rigged in the first place, to further her pro-Obama agenda.  What the polls don’t relate is the make up of people who actually were involved.  Since virtually all conservatives, and most Republicans, oppose illegal immigration, isn’t is fairly obvious who Zogby interviewed?

And gay marriage?  Republicans, on religious grounds may oppose gay marriage, and that might hurt the chances of some, depending on their political district.  However, what most Republicans oppose is allowing politicians, and especially our courts, to subvert the will of the people.  In other words, when the people directly vote in a referendum to oppose same sex marriage, only to have that vote overturned by political or judicial fiat, that goes against the American grain.  People don’t stand for it.  Some Republicans may not like it when the people directly vote to allow same sex marriage in a state.  Those Republicans that would attempt to overrule the will of the people only act against the best interests of conservatism.

It’s no secret to Eleanor Clift that Democrats and liberals support illegal immigration, including Barack Obama.  Neither is it a secret to her that without illegal immigration Democrats are hard pressed to win elections.  Democrats always find it that much more difficult to win elections without the help of illegal immigrants, the dead, children, imaginary people, etc.  Races are certainly tighter when Democrats plat “fair”.  Look at Bob Dornan.  The same happened to Norm Coleman and others who lost their seats in very tight races.

Who, then, is Obama’s only obstacle to reelection?  Using another pollster as her puppet, Geoff Garin, Clift writes:

Obama has real challenges with working-class voters.”

In other words, working people will tend to vote for Republicans, and the unemployed for Democrats.  So, for Obama to assure his reelection, it is to his advantage to have as many Americans unemployed and on government assistance, by November 2012 as possible.   Obama, and the Democrat Party, have been working feverishly since January 2009 to make that happen.  And just in case, they aren’t forgetting about the illegal immigrants.

Which is why, in “The Daily Caller”, there is a piece about E-Verify, and how Republicans, who favor small government, are purportedly being “hypocritical” when it comes to their support for making sure everyone in America are who they say they are when they apply for a job, and are not using made up names, or worse, stolen identities.

The writers, Mike Flynn and Stuart Anderson, say Republicans are “violating their pledge for smaller government” with legislation that, if enacted, would force all businesses in America to actually check on the information job seekers provide companies when they fill out a job application.  Well, who, other than illegal immigrants, would have a need to use false identification?  Prisoners, perhaps, who, after having served their sentence, have been released and are seeking employment.  Many businesses will not hire criminals, for obvious reasons, and using a fake, or stolen, identity is often the only way they can fool prospective businesses into hiring them.  Democrats, it should come as no shock, support legislation allowing prisoners to vote.  Any wonder why?

Writes Flynn and Anderson:

This questionable bill, which would affect job seekers and job creators alike, is awaiting word from the Republican House leadership on when it will come to the full House for a vote.

E-Verify, in this day and age, is hardly “questionable”.   It is an imperative tool all businesses need, whether they want it or not.  Never mind, for a moment, that illegal immigrants take away jobs from Americans.  E-verify is a safety feature which protects Americans from those people who would seek to harm them.  With regards to illegal immigrants, most just want to work.  However, some come to America specifically to spy and to plot terrorist attacks.  E-Verify is crucial for helping to prevent this.  It also helps cut down on identity theft.  If your social security number was stolen, and your vital, personal information was being used by someone else, wouldn’t you want to know?  And wouldn’t you support a system, like E-Verify, that would help catch the perpetrators?

Writes Flynn and Anderson

“A Pledge to America,” the Republican document released during last year’s congressional campaign, stated quite plainly: “Our plan stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government; economic freedom … ” To be credible, conservatives cannot be about less government during a campaign season and months later support the largest federal intrusion into workplace hiring in recent memory.

The Republican “pledge to America” is indeed simple and straightforward, and remains the same “pledge” it has been for decades – lower taxes, less government, more personal freedom.

No where do Republicans support “no government”.  Republicans favor less, but more responsible, government.  The “intrusion” as these two writers call it, comes from the illegal immigrants themselves, using fake or stolen identification to gain employment.  The “intrusion” comes from liberals and Democrats who block legislation like E-Verify in their undying support of illegal immigration – a voting block Democrats absolutely need to win elections.

If E-Verify actually increases the size of government, and if Flynn and Anderson are worried that this “violation” hurts the reputation of Republicans, this can easily be remedied and off set by abolishing such Federal Departments as Education, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation and Energy – to name a few.  (Maybe that will help Rick Perry.)

To be “credible” Flynn and Anderson wrote a hack piece.  So did Eleanor Clift.  However, the only “hacking” any of them managed to do was to their own credibility and reputations.  In their scurried efforts to slam Republicans, what they inevitably showed was how shallow Democrats are, and need to be, in order to win elections.

Isn’t that pathetic?

November 20, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, government, politics, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Barack Obama’s America: Small vs. Big (More Obama Lies)

In a televised address, pandering to Gay rights groups and touting his support for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Barack Obama has called Republicans visions of America “small“.  Somehow, in the mind of Barack Obama, and liberals, a  “small’ America” encompasses a world view that is anti gays in the military, and where a “big America” encompasses a world view, and a more compassionate one at that, which is anti life in the womb.

Only a liberal like Barack Obama would be more concerned with ending the practice of discrimination in the military than say ending the practice of murder in the womb.  Only a liberal like Barack Obama would conflate military discrimination with a “small America”  (i.e., a small and narrow minded point of view) while bolstering support for other issues like abortion rights in a “big America” (i.e., big and kind-hearted and open minded).  And only a liberal like Barack Obama could not see how wrong-headed he is actually being.

Liberals view a “big America” as one in which an ever expanding government exists to protect us all from ourselves, and any past, present and future mistakes we might make, as well as to “protect” the rights of everyone, regardless of how outlandish – unless you are a Christian, and unless you are still in the womb – but in reality to “protect” the vote and keep liberals and Democrats in office.

But that’s not a “big America”, that’s just big government.  And Barack Obama, as with all liberals, would have you pay tribute for that protection through steeper taxes, more regulations and more government oversight into your personal lives so that you might enjoy living in Barack Obama’s “big America”.

Obviously Obama’s “small America” speech was nothing more than liberal code for his support of big, and bigger, government.  And ironically, for all Obama’s hatred of “small America” it was after all a small group of political figureheads which coerced the military into dropping DADT.  If Obama had gone out to “big America”, the American people themselves, DADT would still be in effect because most Americans supported it.

The question, then, is – how exactly does Barack Obama define a “Republican vision of small America”?  (Keeping in mind that this is merely a code for conservative bashing)

A “small America” from a liberal Obama’s point of view is, to name a few, an America in which:

  Our borders are protected from waves of illegal aliens, arms and terrorists sneaking back and forth into our country

  Our children are protected from a liberal in-school indoctrination including a biased, untrue and unchecked, anti-American point of view

  Our culture and society is protected from an out of control Judiciary system that refuses to adhere to our Constitution and insists on making up laws, throwing out others, which suits their own personal views and liberal agendas.

Conversely, a “big America”, from a liberal Obama’s point of view is, to name a few, an America in which:

  America has no borders, does not seek to repatriate (deport) those who have come to America illegally, and instead allows for a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens, (which, out of fairness, would have to include all future illegal aliens) despite the fact that this is a slap in the face to the millions of immigrants who have, and are trying to, come here through legal channels.  It’s also a slap in the face to common sense as it then becomes ridiculous for anyone who wants to come here to do so legally if, under Obama’s “big America” it becomes that much less of a hassle, and that much easier, to make the trek illegally, enter America and then claim the right of citizenship simply because they “have made it across” the border without being caught.

  Our children are taught (brainwashed) into despising America, its history and its principles, and our founding fathers because slavery was not abolished at our founding; women were not immediately given the right to vote until 1920 (and presumably not given the right to kill their child in the womb until 1973); poverty and homelessness were not wiped out, healthcare was not a “universal right”, the American Indian was uprooted from their ancestral land to make way for white Europeans, despite the fact that they never actually had a legal deed to the land, other than it had been occupied by their ancestors, to show proof of ownership; that all wealth creation in America was a direct result of the back breaking labor of both slaves and the poor, despise the fact that, slavery aside, many of the richest and wealthiest Americans made their money, rather than inherited it; that America, for all its mistakes, is inherently an evil and intolerant construct and therefore must be remolded into a nation which is continually “atoning” for its past mistakes and setting up government run program after program to better assist all those who have been “disenfranchised” throughout all of America’s history.

  Our judges are not held in check; are not held accountable for their actions; are not bound by the United States Constitution, as they are required, but rather are able to redefine and reinterpret law as they see fit – as they did in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion case where the Supreme court cited a protection in our Constitution giving women the right to kill their unborn child in the womb – a right that did not exist then, nor exists now, anywhere in the Constitution.   But a “right” that exists solely within the liberal agenda.

Barack Obama’s “big America” is nothing more than one big lie.  And within that big lie are more Barack Obama lies, one lie after another.  Which makes Barack Obama himself one “big” liar.  And one in which will turn out to be a big mistake for Obama, and all liberals, in the 2012 election.  Big time!

October 2, 2011 Posted by | 2012 election, abortion, attackwatch, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gay and lesbian, government, homosexuality, Obama, Obama's lies, politics, Right To LIfe | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.