The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Barack Obama”

There Is No Room In America For Illegal Immigrants (That Includes The Children)

President Obama has taken the “Won’t someone think of the children” argument to a new extreme low.  Once again Obama has shown his complete contempt for American sovereignty, having  usurped his Constitutional authority and power, side-winded congress and the law, waved his hand in the air and said, “Wallah”, giving (for the moment) the perception to young illegal aliens that they are now free and clear from deportation.  This is of course a canard and a stunt, solely for the purpose of increasing voters among those Hispanics and Latinos that favor amnesty, a pathway to citizenship, or what ever you want to call this insidious, this odious, this demented, nightmarish and outlandish reckless disregard for American law, common sense and common decency.

The problems with allowing teenagers, 16 and under, what is essentially full immunity from prosecution and deportation for being in America illegally are numerous.  The first and biggest problem is that it is a lie, and the multitudes of young illegal aliens who think they are now granted a full pardon, as it were, are in for a very rude awakening in the near future – after the election, and when Obama no longer needs to rely on theirs, or anyone’s vote, whether he remains President or not.  The un-Constitutionality of Obama’s gesture will be a hard slap in the face to these young illegal aliens who think they are now, and always will be, untouchable by law enforcement.  If you are in this country illegally and you are arrested – you will be deported.  You may have a small window of freedom, but only until after the 2012 election.  Then, reality, and law, will set back in.

There are millions of Hispanics and Latinos in America who have come here the responsible way.  That is, legally and through the long and arduous legal process.  How does anyone expect them to react to the news that for all their hard work, all their patience, all their sacrifice and dedication, and all the money they invested in becoming American citizens, a whole class of illegal aliens has “passed go” and gotten the “get out of jail free” card and will not have to pay any fines?  If we are to talk about alienation, we must include how utterly alienated and abandoned by Obama and his Administration, and the Democrat Party as a whole, those Hispanics and Latinos have become who came to America through legal channels rather than through illegal underground tunnels and other avenues and pathways.  Don’t you think they might be just a little bit insulted by Obama’s obvious pandering?

It’s true that some people who come to America illegally are brought by their parents at relatively young ages.  (As babies and very small children.)  It is also true, and a well documented fact, that many more children come to America illegally on their own.  Look here, here, here, here and here for a video called Children in No Man’s Land, which documents the plight of children who try to enter America illegally by themselves, and what ultimately happens to them.  In granting young illegal aliens a short reprieve from deportation, Obama completely overlooks this astounding fact that so many kids, 12 and over, are coming to America illegally by themselves.  Obama’s pandering to the anti-American sovereignty wing, a very small group of radicals, will only encourage more of this dangerous and irresponsible behavior from other kids, under 16, who now will think all they have to do to secure their own visas is to just make is across the border before they are caught.

And what about black Americans?  How well received has their reaction been?  With unemployment still about 8% nationwide, and unemployment among blacks double that, approximately 800,000 (conservatively) illegal aliens will be competing for jobs that are already scarce, making finding work all that more difficult, and compounded even more for blacks.  With a stroke of mighty arrogance, Obama has begun issuing work permits for all illegal aliens who came here as children, 16 and under, and who have not broken any other of America’s laws expect that one law in particular, which neither Obama nor the Democrat Party thinks is an actual crime.  Millions of Americans out of work, Obama’s Recession and Obama’s Economy stagnating still under the heavy weight of taxation and regulation, and yet somehow there is room in America, and the American workplace, for illegal aliens?

Apparently America is a wide open, wild and lawless frontier for illegal aliens, and that is just how Obama and the Democrat Party want it to remain.  At least, until after the election.  No matter how you look at it, Obama is intentionally throwing all Americans under bus to pander to the few radicals and anti-American sovereignty groups he thinks he needs in order to win reelection.

What can be lower than a politician – a United States President – using children as props and tools, and pawns, simply to score political points and secure another term in office?

Planned Parenthood/Cecile Richards; NOW/Terry O’Neill And NARAL/Nancy Keenan Have Committed Devestating War Crimes Against Humanity

We who are pro-life must hold those who support abortion, and those who commit that particular legal killing (morally murder) accountable for their barbaric actions.  Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards; NOW, Terry O’Neill; NARAL, Nancy Keenan and the rest of pro-abortion community blatantly turn a blind eye to their reprehensible activities.  The “choice” to support the killing of an unborn child is not a moral value in any sense of the definition.  A new video has gone viral, exposing the hypocrisy and the evil that is Planned Parenthood, and how they help women with “gendercide”, in particular, killing the unborn child if it is a girl.

We who are pro-life will not tolerate this.  Planned Parenthood is guilty of war crimes against humanity and they, and any of their supporters, must be stopped.  We have an obligation to protect innocent life from unwarranted destruction.  Unless the mother’s life is legitimately at risk, there is no reason for an abortion.  Yet, the usual and most prominent of pro-abortion suspects, Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NARAL and Nancy Keenan, Terry O’Neill and NOW all cackle in delight over their support for the wanton, indiscriminate killing of unborn children at any time during a woman’s pregnancy.

We who are pro-life must continue our verbal and written attacks on Planned Parenthood (no committing murder of our own, or destroying property is acceptable, we understand.  We are not the terrorists – Planned Parenthood is.)  We will not be intimidated by thugs like Cecile Richards, Terry O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, nor will we be silenced.  Take us on, challenge us, try to stop us – just try.  This is our time.  America is vastly more pro-life now than it was thirty years ago.  That trend will only continue, especially the more we expose Planned Parenthood for killing fields they really are.

Women, every day, are being intentionally deceived and defrauded by Planned Parenthood, and aided by NOW and NARAL; emotionally brainwashed and tricked into thinking their unborn child is merely a blob of tissue; psychologically belittled and degraded into thinking their only option is to kill their unborn child.  They have a strong ally in President Barack Obama, who also supports the killing of unborn children.  One more reason why it is so critical to vote him out of office this November.

Abortion is a war crime against humanity and those that contribute to it, encourage it, support and fund it are also guilty of war crimes against humanity.  That means, directly, Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill.  Libel?  Either an unborn child is a human being or it is not.  There is no place, nor any room for, semantics or opinions.  Are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill too stupid to know that an unborn child is a living, breathing human being?  They know.  We need not beat around the bush here.

We who are pro-life must confront Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill head on, challenge them, demand they answer for their war crimes and let them try to squirm their way out of their lies, their hypocrisies, their fraudulence – just try.  We who are pro-life will not abandon the unborn; we will certainly not leave them in the hands of Planned Parenthood.  We will fight for them, for their right to live.  What are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill going to do about it?  Since we do not expect them to come to their senses, dirty and underhanded tricks and some misuse of government comes to mind.  We expect that from them.

The charade that is abortion is coming to an end in America, but that does not mean it is as near its end as we would like it to be.  We have much more work to do.  For example, the House is scheduled to vote to ban sex selective abortion.  It has a very good chance of passing, but the Senate is still questionable.  If it passes the Senate and makes it way to Obama, that will put him in an extremely delicate situation, alienating him with either pro-abortion supporters or women who see sex selection as a war on women, and will hurt his reelection bid regardless of whether he signs it into law or vetoes it.  Obama’s allies in the Senate would naturally do what they could to prevent it from reaching his desk.  However, in their own obstruction, they put themselves and their own political futures in jeopardy.

We must make certain this law first passes the House and moves to the Senate for a vote.  Having  done that, we must push pressure upon and hold each and every single senator accountable who would vote against banning sex selective abortion.  And for those in the House that veto the ban – we must display their names to the entire nation so all Americans can see exactly who supports sex selective abortion.

Our work is not done there.  We also will introduce abortion bans based on color and sexual orientation.  In doing so, these incremental steps we take will go a long way in helping to rid America of abortion.  It will also divide and destroy the pro-abortion movement.  After-all, many gays and lesbians supports abortion, but would they support the killing of an unborn child who might be born gay?  Would blacks who are pro-abortion support the killing of unborn children because they are black?  So, why do Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, Terry O’Neill and NOW, Nancy Keenan and NARAL so smugly believe women who are pro-abortion will so readily accept killing unborn children because they are girls?  Obviously Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill support killing unborn children for any reason, even if they are girls (black and gay included).  Is that the type of American value we want to stand for, or stand up to and ban?

We who are pro-life are not at war with women.  But we are at war with Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill, who happen to be women, and traitors to their own gender.  Let them just try to defend their despicable actions – just try.

Chen Guangcheng: The Pompousness Of China Demands America Be Even More Pompous

With the 2012 Presidential election mere months away, would Barack Obama be daft enough to offer an open apology to China for aiding Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, whose only crime was speaking out about the horrors and inhumanity of forced abortions in China?  Would Obama, by this apology, thereby provide Republicans their own opportunity to attack Obama on what would be his incredible weakness and insensitivity on human rights abuses?  Doesn’t the escape of Chen, and the U.S. involvement in protecting and shielding him from Chinese retribution, box, even intern, Obama into a corner he himself cannot so easily escape?

Either way, Obama is going to piss a lot of people off.  Either the Chinese government, if he doesn’t apologize.  Or – his entire pro-abortion, pro-population control, Democrat/Socialist base if he does apologize.  Will Republicans and conservatives be smart enough to use this issue to excoriate Obama and Democrats, by exposing how insincere and hypocritical Democrats and liberals really are when it comes to human rights abuses – if those abuses are the result of so-called “dissidents” being involved in acts of saving and protecting human life in the womb?

Whatever Obama does (and in all rationality that will not include an apology) there is, and there remains, far too much “ceremony” and “dance” between the United States and China going on in regards to Chen Guangcheng and that apology China demands – and the ridiculousness of that apology.

Indeed, there is, peculiarly and suspiciously, far too much nonsense and shuffling of feet, and of hands in pockets, between America and China on a range of human rights issues.  China has even censored Chen’s escape from its own people.  Obama is feeling the pressure from all sides to do something for Chen; something which will undoubtedly further antagonize China.  But to wash his hands of Chen at this point would further destabilize, demoralize and demonize Obama’s reelection bid.

Chen has since left the U.S. Embassy with the assurance from China both he and his family would not be harmed.  Even that begs the question – what kind of a government engages in psychological terror against its own people by threatening to bring harm to one’s entire family for the crimes of that one family member?  And, what is China’s word really worth?

And – is it moral to allow some Chinese (and with a population over one billion, “some” is meant to represent millions) to be, and to continue to be, abused and to have their rights, their dignity, their humanity stripped away from them because America is afraid of antagonizing China to the point its shuts its country, and its money, off completely from America?

If China is engaged in such horrific practices against its own people (which there is clear evidence it is); if America is aware of it (which America is); if an “aware” America ignores these abuses, whatever reasons America would offer for turning a blind eye, what does that say about the morality of America?  To put it blatantly, America needs to stop sucking up to the Chinese for their money and the money they use to buy American debt.  America needs to abandon any fear it has with regards to the Chinese military and its capability, including its nuclear prowess.  America needs to put aside China’s power as an economic force in this world.  Or, is China’s military, its economy and its money, and the money China uses to buy our debt, worth allowing China to continue, unhindered, abusing its own people?  Is it worth buying time, hoping diplomacy will eventually win out and China will see the senseless cruelty it has heaped upon its own people?  How many more of China’s citizens is America willing to “throw under the bus” in that meantime?

It is China who owes America an apology for bribing U.S officials to look the other way when it commits human rights abuses against is own people.  It is China who owes its own people an apology for the human rights abuses and atrocities it has committed against them.  And it is the U.S. government who owes Americans an apology for accepting billions of dollars in blood money in exchange for being so complacent.

It is a fallacy that America needs China’s money, or that America needs China to bail out America’s debt.  Our debt crisis can be solved through proper fiscal restraint.  It certainly won’t be solved by printing more money, tacking that money onto the national debt and having China continuously buy that debt, in effect buying an even larger piece of America.  The debt owned by China is staggering enough already.  But – what happens if diplomacy between China and the U.S breaks down because of America’s involvement in helping Chen escape further persecution?  America loses an investor?  Is that a big deal?  Or, to put it another way – is keeping China as an investor worth the continued human rights abuses China systematically, intentionally commits upon its own people?

Isn’t about time we did have leaders with the tenacity and gall to stand up to China?  Or do we respect leaders more when they keep theirs mouths shut, their eyes closed, in exchange for all the money China invests in America?  No!  America need leaders who can openly, courageously, frankly and forcefully, address the human rights abuses in China directly, with less pomp and more pompousness of its own.

Wouldn’t Obama be better to dis China, work first on getting reelection – get reelected – then he can have the luxury all second term Presidents have in that he won’t have the worries associated with campaigning or offending anyone because he is a lame-duck President?  At that point he can work to regain Chinese-American relations, whatever that means in the face of continued human rights abuses.  That, assuming Obama wins.  If he loses (presumably to Mitt Romney) then Chen, and Chinese-American relations become someone else’s problem.  But at least Chen, and his family, would have been saved from whatever punishment China might have exacted upon them.  Isn’t that worth the gamble of slighting China for the next nine or ten months?

Whether Or Not Romney Is “Conservative Enough” Ought To Be Irrelevant To Conservatives

Mitt Romney is a conservative.  In light of the fact that Barack Obama is a liberal, just how conservative Romney is pales in comparison to just how liberal Obama is.   Conservatives control the House, they may control the Senate after 2012 as well, or at least gain more seats.  A Romney win, with a conservative House and a conservative Senate, or having gained more seats in the Senate, is far more important to conservatives and conservatism, and to America, than quibbling over just how conservative Romney really is.  Is Romney a liberal?  If not, then he must be a conservative.  He is not a moderate. Why are we wasting time debating Romney’s conservatism when we ought to be uniting behind him because he is the better choice over Obama?

The same people “frightened” over Romney being a Mormon are the same people who are frightened by Obama and the policies he has enacted over the course of his Presidency.  Which is more frightening?  Romney being a Mormon?  Or – Obama’s policies?

The same people who challenge Romney’s conservatism are the same people who challenge Obama’s legitimacy as President and as an American citizen, and his policies.  Which is the better and more pertinent challenge?  Romney’s conservatism?  Or  – Obama’s policies?

The same people who insist Romney is not conservative enough, are the same people who insist Obama is too liberal.  Which is the better alternative?  Romney, who may not be conservative enough for some conservatives?  Or  – Obama, who is too liberal for all conservatives?

The same people who fear Romney will not push for conservative policies with as great a fervor as they believed Rick Santorum, or other Republicans, might have, are the same people who fear Obama would push for more liberal policies in his second term.  Which is the better alternative?  Romney pushing for conservative policies, even if they are not deemed “conservative enough” for some conservatives?  Or – Obama, who would push for more liberal policies deemed too liberal for all conservatives?

The same people who worry Romney, as President, will let them down by not supporting, more vigorously, more courageously, conservative issues, policies and legislation, are the same people who are now worried because of the issues, policies and legislation Obama has supported.  Which is less worrisome?  Romney supporting some conservative issues, policies and legislation, and supporting some more vigorously and courageously than others?  Or  – Obama, who supports zero conservative issues, policies and legislation, nor would he in his second term, and who supports liberal issues, policies and legislation very aggressively, very vigorously?

The same people who oppose Romney as the Republican nominee for President, and as President, because he is a Mormon, are the same people who oppose Obama being President because they either believe he is a Muslim or an atheistic/counterfeit Christian President.  Which is less unsettling?  Romney, who is a Mormon, and someone who upholds the same values as conservative Christians, Catholics and Jews?  Or – Obama, who, regardless of whether or not he is an atheist, a Muslim or a Christian, upholds values diametrically opposed to conservative Christians, Catholics and Jews?

There is no logical reason for conservatives to oppose Romney on the basis that he is not “conservative enough”.  He is more conservative than Obama, and that should be the more, and the most, important criteria than anything else, and Romney as President ought to make all conservatives more comfortable than Obama as President.

Why is it worth it to any conservative to quibble, to squabble, to debate just how conservative Romney is, compared to Obama?

Why is it worth it to any conservative to see Obama reelected to a second term because Romney may not be conservative enough for some conservatives?

Why is it worth it to any conservative to see America taken down an even darker and dangerous path, all conservatives agree Obama would in his second term, than it is in seeing Romney beating Obama in the 2012 election and having that much more of a chance to change that path to a better and more brighter one, simply because Romney may not be “conservative enough” for some conservatives?

Is Romney a RINO – Republican in name only?  Not only is there is no evidence to this, Romney has clearly stated his positions on the issues throughout the debates.  Romney is clearly a Republican, and a conservative Republican, in his politics.  Is Obama a DINO – Democrat in name only?  Not only is there no evidence to this, Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is a Democrat, and a liberal Democrat, and supports, with a passion, Democrat positions and issues that every other liberal supports.  Which makes conservatives less anxious?  Romney, even if he is a RINO?  Or  – Obama, who has 3 1/2 years worth of a track record supporting a very liberal agenda, and who will continue that agenda into a second term?

Which is the better use of time and energy for conservatives?  That time and energy invested quibbling over whether or not Romney is “conservative enough” to be President of America?  Or  – that time and energy invested in standing behind, and with, Romney, for President of America over Barack Obama?

If Obama Bows To Mexico’s “Best Interests”, Will Anyone Be Surprised?

Will Obama, who has bowed to everyone else, bow to the pressure being put on him by Mexico, and The National Human Rights Commission in Mexico, another corrupt organization?  There are over two million people sitting in American prisons.  Of these, a hand full are on death row throughout the remaining states that still enforce the death penalty.  Some death row inmates are not what you would call American citizens.  In fact, some of them are citizens of other countries who have, while in America, committed crimes, been convicted of those crimes, and sentenced to death for those crimes.  Some of these death row inmates are, it turns out, citizens of Mexico.  Is it fair to afford them special rights?  Is it fair to spare the lives of convicted murderers, and criminals who holds citizenship of Mexico, because we have a large population of people, legal and illegal combined, from Mexico?

We have a Presidential election coming up soon.  Obama needs the Hispanic vote.  He needs to court the Hispanic vote.  Is anyone surprised that Obama would support overturning the convictions of 58 duly convicted criminals while turning his back on his own country, his own people, his own judicial system?  (And if there is any error or any inconsistency, or any new evidence to be introduced that might clear any of these Mexican nationals, by all means address it)  Obama has the Presidency to gain, while  58 Mexicans on death row have their lives to gain.  What does anyone else have to gain, and what else is gained by overturning these death sentences?

The National Human Rights Commission has gone screaming and crying all the way to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, (which has absolutely no jurisdiction, no right, legal or otherwise, to intervene, in America and American law) to plead for mercy on behalf of these 58 Mexicans.  What they aren’t doing is denying the guilt of the people they are trying to save from execution.  Their only concern is that they are Mexican citizens, and as such, ought to be tried by a Mexican court, not an American court – and especially an American court in a state where the death penalty still exists.

Obama has tried to intervene before, when a Mexican citizen was to be put to death for committing murder here in America.  He did that almost one year ago, well before the campaign season was in full swing.  Now it is in full swing, and Obama is in a worse position than he was back in July 2011.  He knows he has to bow to anyone who will help him get reelected.  He knows he will have to lower himself, and drag America down with him, in order to win a second term.  He needs that Hispanic vote.  Except for pandering, what other way does Obama know to secure any voting block?

Is it any surprise that Obama sides with Mexico and is empathetic, more so, to convicted murderers than he is to the American victims and their families?  Is it any surprise that Obama would throw the victims of these 58 death row convicts ( and remember, no one is contesting their guilt) under the bus to secure the Hispanic vote?  What is puzzling, and damnably, is why Hispanics, who are  legal American citizens, would sully themselves, would degrade themselves, their heritage, and be in support of overturning the death sentences simply because these 58 death row inmates are Mexicans.  Either Mexicans who legally immigrate to America and become American citizens are proud Americans or they are not.  Either they are loyal Americans, and responsible, law-abiding American citizens, or they are not.  Either they have renounced their loyalties, their ties, their allegiance with Mexico, or they have not.  And if they have not – what they hell are they really doing in America?

The complaint by the Human Rights Commission in Mexico is that the Mexicans tried, convicted and sentenced by an American court were not read their “rights” when they were arrested, and thus either had “no idea why they were being arrested”, or “were not told of their rights when arrested” or even why they were being arrested.  This speculative at least, and irrelevant at best.  First of all, non-American citizens do not have the same Constitutional rights as American citizens, even though American law enforcement does take measures to ensure nationals from other countries are not unduly, unnecessarily, unreasonable treated.  Secondly, is anyone who commits a crime in America so stupid they would actually believe that as a foreign national they have some special and extra rights if they happen to be captured?  Or does that only pertain to Mexicans who commit crimes in America, and feel they do have special privileges because they are Mexican, and they are overly confident their own government will bail them out?

To date, all 58 Mexican nationals on death row remain there, awaiting their death, as it ought to be.  And until new evidence can be introduced to prove the innocence of any of these inmates, there is no other logical reason to overturn any death sentence.  However, should such a move go forward, and should these death sentences be overturned without the addition of new evidence, all this does is embolden foreigners from anywhere, but Mexico especially, who might want to commit crimes in America, to be that much less fearful of legal retribution, and of being convicted and sentenced to death by an American court of law.  How does knowing you are that less safe in America increase safety for American citizens?

If American citizens who commit crimes do so because they do not fear, or care about, their own country’s laws and penalties, why should foreign nationals who commit crimes in America – and especially those foreign nationals who will have a so-called human rights commission going to bat for them – be any less afraid of that same law, and especially knowing they have a better chance of getting away with it, or at least not suffering the same “severe” penalties if they are tried by their own country’s court rather than an American court?

There seems to be a push being made by Mexico, and groups with close ties to Mexico (La Raza, MALDEF, LULAC, etc.) to have two separate sets of laws; one for Americans who commit crimes in America, and one for foreign nationals who commit crimes in America.  Ironically, the set of laws for American citizens has already been made weak by liberal courts who allow emotions to be entered in as evidence in a trial, and who look for external reasons (early traumatic childhood experiences such growing up poor, coming from a broken home, being bullied, etc) as justification enough to not punish criminals to the full extent of the law for the crimes they commit.  This second set of laws, for foreign nationals, which right now is even weaker than the American set, would be made weaker still by special rights groups with ties to Mexico, the Democrat Party and Barack Obama.

That all leads to this question:  will Obama turn his back on America and bow to Mexico?  The answer depends on how badly Obama feels he needs the Hispanic vote in order to win reelection, and how much he believes throwing America, American law and American citizens under the bus in the hopes of gaining Hispanic support will help win his bid.  But it also leads to this disturbing question:  we already know how low Obama is willing to go in order to win reelection, but – how low are Hispanics really willing to go to help Obama win?

URGENT: Barack Obama To Usurp Power, Declare Himself Dictator (At Least It Was “Urgent” When Liberals Thought George Bush Would)

Remember when liberals were all in a tizzy because they thought George Bush was trying to usurp the Presidency and stay on as a third-term President without an election?  Remember when liberals wanted to arrest Bush and Cheney for war crimes?  Remember any of that?  Look here, here, here, here, this one’s interesting – But don’t forget to look at this video, and then reflect on who – Bush or Obama – is really trying to usurp power…

And it was Nancy Pelosi who said Obamacare was Constitutional.

Joe Biden, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, James Clyburn, and every other Democrat agrees with that assertion.  Who is really trying to usurp power?  Who is really abusing the privilege of elected office and of the Presidency?

Barack Obama and Democrats!  If you answered George Bush and Republicans – go back and review history.  If you answered Democrats could never usurp power – go back and review the videos.  What more does it take to convince liberals that Democrats have the greater thirst and the more ravenous and rapacious appetite for power and dictatorship?

Obama Laments Fox News Not Being As Nice To Him As MSM

President Barack Obama, full mental jackass, is out with some very strong words against Fox News, which he accuses of spreading the “Obama is a Muslim” rumors.

President Barack Obama told labor leaders that Fox News had convinced voters he was a Muslim, according to a new book that will be released Tuesday.  “Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party,” by journalist David Corn, recounts a private meeting where Obama reportedly detailed his frustration with the outlet.

Obama, of course, is no more a Muslim than he is a Christian.  Obama is a socialist.  Socialists are irreligious.  And the Arianna Nation, political wing of the Democrat Party, and lap dog for the Obama Administration, is only running this piece to promote Corn’s pro-Obama book in the hopes that it will drive sales up and help regain and restore some of the popularity and support Obama has lost in recent months.

What the Left, and the Arianna Nation don’t get is that virtually no one in America, Republican or Democrat, at this point cares about Obama’s religion.  We care about the economy, jobs, taxes and high gas prices – all of which are extremely out of whack, and the direct fault of Barack Obama, the Democrat Party and the policies they have put in place beginning back in 2006 when they regained power in congress and in 2008 when they had it all – the House, Senate and the White House.

Recessions happen.  In fact, they happen on average every twenty years.  But up until the last recession, they were always self-correcting and the country got back to normal again.  Budgets which incur trillion-dollar deficits do not help an already dire economic situation.  Creating money and putting that money into the economy artificially only creates inflation, which drives up the cost of everything.  If Obama thinks that by injecting trillions of dollars into the system he is helping America out of a recession and more Americans out of poverty – not only does he not understand economics, he does not understand, or care, that his policies and his actions are creating even more poverty in America, not less.

All those trillions of dollars fluctuating, fluttering and flying through cyberspace don’t come without strings attached.  That money needs to be repaid, and the government wants it back – with interest.  Hence, the cost of everything has increased in order to repay it.

Gas prices, for example, are as high as they are now for two reasons:

1.  Because of the inflation caused by Obama injecting trillions of dollars artificially into the economy.

2.  Because Obama has put a halt on drilling for oil, with minor exceptions, and speculators (who do more to set the price of gas than the gas station you buy your gas at) who are bidding on the “futures” of oil prices per barrel don’t see the oil supply opening up any time soon.  In other words, if Obama signed the legislation that opened up the Keystone XL pipeline to be constructed, speculators would see that as an increase in supply, which would bring the future cost of a barrel of oil down.  This would have an immediate effect – not the five to ten year effect liberals are always ranting about – and motorists would see the price of gas come down.  Likewise, if Obama was to allow more drilling for oil now – because that means an increase in supply, the price of gas NOW would be reflected and thus reduced.

But Obama does not want lower gas prices.  He wants gas prices high so more people are forced to ride the government rails and other government provided transportation.  Obama lamenting over being called a Muslim is irrelevant after three and a half years in his Presidency, after which he has managed to rack up more debt in that time than George W. Bush did in his eight years in office.

Obama can be whatever he wants to be, and he can call himself whatever he wants.  But after January 2013, let’s make sure he is not called President of the United States.

But if he is – do we really care, as much as he apparently does, if he is a Muslin, or that some people think he is a Muslim in disguise?  Or are we going to have bigger and more personal concerns of our own to deal with?

Barack Obama’s War On Oil (Yes, It’s Intentional)

We cannot fill up our cars on the empty-headed ideas and the stubbornness of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.  Nor will our cars run on the promises of renewable energy that does not now exist but may (no guaranties though) exist somewhere in the future.  And our cars will certainly not run on the credit and good faith that renewable energy is right around the corner.  We still need the natural gas derived from oil.  We need that physical and literal golden liquid we can see, touch, smell – but don’t taste – that is at our fingertips right now.  Not the smoke and mirrors Barack Obama is trying to sell us.  For most American’s we can barely fill up our cars at all at the current gas prices (over $4/gallon and rising) without feeling it in our wallets.  It’s Obama’s fault directly gas prices are as high as they are now, and rising uncontrollably.

We know it is a lie, and yet we continue to buy into the lie that drilling for oil is too environmentally unsound and risky; that the hazards to our water supply, the air we breath, the soil we use for farming, etc. is in danger of being saturated with contaminates, which we will then consume and ingest, become sick and die.  Isn’t that what liberals are always hoping to have happen to us anyway?  Never mind the fact that we are more aware and more knowledgeable about all the harmful elements in our air, water and soil.  So much so, the air we breath now is cleaner than it has been in decades; the water we drink is less polluted with contaminates than ever; and the soil used for planting crops is healthier than ever as well.  That will continue.  So who is afraid drilling for oil will reverse all the gains we have made?  Nobody!  It’s more smoke and mirrors that force higher gas prices at the pump while politicians pretend to care about it.

We continue to be told by these politicians, who are only looking after their own lucrative interests, their own “behind closed doors and let’s make some deals” with the same businesses they publicly chide and denounce for the benefit of their voters, that it takes years before one of these pipe lines is up and running and fully operational, and because of this length of time it is not even worth it.  As for these worthless, empty-headed politicians who haven’t a molecule of intelligence in their helium filled brains, there is an easy retort and rebuttal to this we can use to shove back down their throats and force them to mercilessly gag on.

Ladies and gentleman – finding a renewable energy for our automobiles is also a long way away, perhaps a longer way off than it actually takes to bring an oil line into full production.  Yet, Democrat and liberal politicians, and anti-oil activists, never talk about that “minor” issue.  They never talk about the fact that billions of dollars have been wasted and misspent (remember Solyndra?) by our government on solar and wind technology – all of which has failed.  We, conservatives, damn well ought to bring that up every time they, liberals, get in the way of new drilling permits and more regulations that make drilling for oil more work and more expensive than it ought to be.

Our independence is at stake and we must ask ourselves – do we want to regain control of our own lives, or do we want to slowly, but surely, sink into the trap Obama and the Democrat Party are setting for us?  It may seem wonderful having someone else take care of us all our lives, but is it worth trading in our freedom and independence.  And does being fully dependent on government really mean we haven’t a care in the world?  Or do you think government dependence doesn’t come with strings attached?

There are literally hundred of billions of gallons worth of oil under our feet, and at low estimates enough oil just in America to last two hundred years or more.  Obama refuses to allow drilling anywhere America lays claim to territory, be it land or water.  At least as dangerous, if not more so, is his call for “dipping” into our oil reserves.  The point of an oil reserve is for that “just in case” scenario we don’t ever want to happen.

Despite the fact that this is an election year, and even some amount of drilling would help him regain some of his lost popularity, Obama is putting us all in a dangerous situation for two reasons.  One:  to appease a small, but very wealthy and influential, section of his base supporters – 1%-er’s by the way.  Two:  because Obama is a socialist at heart, and as such, the ultimate dream of socialism is moving everyone onto government dependence.  Hence, Obama’s, and the Democrat Party’s irrational push for spending billions on high-speed rail which (and Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood lies about it) only a small minority of Americans want, or find necessary.  There is a direct correlation between Obama’s halt on oil drilling and his push for high-speed rail, which is all tied into Obama’s push for renewable energy.

We can continue looking for renewable energy sources all we want.  And we can make it easier on the entrepreneurs and risk takers who venture into this area by greatly reducing the financial risk so that they will be more willing to spend additional money, knowing they will reap more of the profit and benefits that come with their successes, while losing less of their capital in their failures.

We can continue searching for renewable energy sources derived from wind, solar, and even nuclear; we can continue looking into synthetic and man-made energies derived from plants; we can continue talking and debating about it all we want.  We can continue doing a lot of thing with regards to renewable energy that will, it is hoped, lead to a major discovery or innovation that ultimately will replace the need for oil altogether.

What we cannot continue to do is forget the fact that right now we have only one option for the energy that fuels our cars, our homes, our businesses, our schools, our governments, etc.  – oil.  And we cannot forget the fact that Obama and the Democrat Party are doing everything they can within their power to keep the oil industry away from oil; from drilling for it, refining it and selling it to us at a reasonable and affordable price that doesn’t eat too deeply into our pocket books.

We cannot forget the fact that Obama and the Democrat Party, to appease the Left and the socialist dream for America – to see all Americans dependent on government – is keeping the price we pay for gas unnecessarily high by keeping oil drilling off-limits, and using the push for alternative and renewable energy as a distraction for as long as they can get away with.

We also cannot forget the fact that there is an election coming up in November.  Would it not do well to make this an election Barack Obama and the Democrat Party will never forget by throwing them all out of office, and making certain they never forget why they were thrown out of office?

All “Fluked” Up: Who Wants To Silence Women?

Now, if Sandra Fluke (pronounced “fluck”) was a Middle East Muslim woman, and tried to speak up about anything, in any Middle East, Islamic controlled country, she might be stoned to death for her efforts.  However, as an American, Sandra Fluke has a Constitutional right to speak in America, as do all women.  And like all women, Sandra has a Constitutional right to make a jackass of herself in public and flaunt her arrogance.  Conservatives have no desire to take that right away from her, or any woman.  So, why Sandra is all flustered and steamed over Rush Limbaugh and his comments is interesting, because it has been liberal feminists like Sandra Fluke, and all liberals across America, who have been trying to silence the voice conservatives and of conservatism for years.  That includes, by the way, the millions of women who themselves are conservatives.  It is hard not to laugh at Fluke, so don’t hold back.

Sandra has stated that “slurs” will not silence liberal women, hers included.  Well, “slurs” have never silenced conservative women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc.  In fact, “slurs” against conservative women, which are an everyday occurrence in the MSM have not belittled, but rather inspirited, emboldened, encourage, inspired and driven conservative women to new triumphs, while simply driving liberal women into terrible and unstable fits of madness.  Nonetheless, “slurs” against conservative women have not ended, nor will they.

Sandra has had her say with regards to birth control and contraception.  It is Sandra Fluke herself who is trying to silence those of us, including conservative women, who take issue with the idea that it ought to be “free”.  As we all know, nothing is “free”, and the question of who is going to pay for Sandra’s, for all women’s, birth control and contraception if they are not paying for it themselves is still unanswered.  Also unanswered is the question as to whether or not Sandra supports the type of birth control and contraception which is solely intended to allow women to engage in irresponsible sex, and then end a pregnancy should an “accident” result.

Mind you, conservatives are not debating whether or not American law ought to prevent women from being promiscuous, nor are we arguing that birth control and contraception ought to be illegal.  That is just plain ridiculous.  Indeed, women take birth control for the purported health reasons also, and we, as conservatives, do not intend to oppress women and keep them from accessing medication and pills which help relief and offset undesirable side effects of womanhood.  We do have Title X, and for those women who do not qualify to enroll in this government-funded family planning program, that means their income is above the qualification cut-off line.  In other words, they make enough money to afford the cost of birth control and contraception themselves without the further aid of government and the taxpayers, or from their place of business and their health insurance provider.

So just who does Sandra Fluke think is trying to silence her?  Conservatives have not attempted to stifle her speech.  On the contrary, we love it when liberals, men and women, open their mouths in public and make complete buffoons of themselves, showing how conceited, arrogant, shallow and hypocritical they are.  We love it when liberals rant about nonsense, like a “war on women” because we will not accept what it is they are really after – free access to abortion inducing drugs and procedures – with their whole spiel on birth control and contraception.

Sandra has done a lot of explaining as to why women ought to gain free access to birth control and contraception for health reasons.  But she still supports that access so women can engage in irresponsible and promiscuous sex and to be able to kill any child created in womb if the birth control fails.  At least, Sandra has yet to come out and say she opposes free access to birth control and contraception if it is meant to be improperly used, or used to kill a child in the womb.

And whatever the cost of birth control and contraception, it won’t bring down gas prices at the pump; won’t create jobs; won’t put food on the table; won’t lower taxes on the poor and middle class and won’t reduce the federal deficit or the national debt.  But what this whole “war on women” debate has done, to a degree, is deflect from these real issues facing our nation right now, which is probably what it was intended to do all along.  If that was Sandra’s, and the democrat party’s intent, it has backfired.  Conservatives know enough about the issues dogging America, and how to correct and solve the economic issues while at the same time spending time on the social issues.

Liberals, on the contrary, don’t understand economic issues any more than they know how to solve them.  They prove that everyday with calls for higher taxes on the rich and rich corporations; rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline; more government dependence as the solution; less freedom for Americans and less sovereignty for America, etc.  Taxes are, right now, higher on the rich, and all of us, than they would be if a Republican was in the White House; gas is more expensive at the pump because Obama rejected the Keystone pipeline, and because he has put a halt to all new oil exploration and digging on American territory; Americans have less freedoms, and freedom of mobility, than they did before Obama took office; Obama would attempt to revoke as much American sovereignty as he can, and hand it over to the U.N.; and more Americans are dependent on government that before Obama took office.

More of Obama is not the solution to the problems that plague America.  Obama is the problem.  Sandra Fluke has managed to temporarily distract the nation from that.  However, conservatives have not let down their guard as liberals would have wanted.  And they can scream “war on women” all they want, and use Sandra and whatever other puppets they want, whatever non-issues they want to further distract Americans from the real issues in America.

And if Sandra Fluke, if Barack Obama and the Democrat party, if liberals think using the “war on women” mantra is a winning battle cry, we – conservatives – will not try to silence them.  Why should we, when we know we can bury them with it?

Can’t Afford Contraception? Blame Obama And Democrats – And Help Save Sandra Fluke

Republicans and conservatives are not not the enemy when it comes to the high cost of birth control and contraception in America, and Republicans and conservatives are just as happy to make birth control and contraception as cheap and as affordable to all Americans as it can be.  It is Barack Obama and the Democrat Party that is standing in the way of achieving this.  They are the ones that have drastically raised taxes and regulations on all manufacturers, including those manufacturers which make birth control and contraception.

It is Obama and the Democrat Party which is standing in the way of women, like Sandra Fluke, and preventing her from realizing equality and independence through cheap birth control and contraception.  And when Obama called Sandra to console and commiserate with her, she should have taken the opportunity to scold him for his lack of foresight and concern into these deep matters – Obama’s doing – which have seen the cost of birth control and contraception skyrocket in America since he took office.  American women, like Sandra, who are consumed with acts of nymphomania are being forced to slake that lust because of Obama and his draconian and sinister tax policies, which hurts American nymphomaniacs like Sandra Fluke.

Sandra, who supposedly has a mind of her own (the rest of her body she apparently has given away to many different men) ought to have taken the opportunity to chide Obama directly, and inform him that his tax policies on American business has had a devastating effect on woman, like her, all across America who now cannot have as much sex as they had wanted and so desperately need.  Sandra should have made the same type of impassioned plea for lowering taxes and regulations on American business as she made to congress for lowering the overall value, worth and standard of American women.

Sandra ought to have been insistent and firm with Obama that the fault for her having to limit her sexual escapades is his fault directly.  It is Barack Obama who owes Sandra Fluke the apology.  The mental anguish for which he has caused her, for having to reduce and curb her sexual romps has turned Sandra into the quivering, emotional, incoherent, unstable, blithering idiot we have seen over and over again in many different video feeds.

Raising taxes on business has many consequences.  For nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, we are finding out just how dire the results of Obama’s oppressive assault on them has been.  For all nymphomaniacs, like Sandra fluke, for all sex addicts and sex junkies, like Sandra Fluke, there can only be one recourse – that is to vote Republican in the 2012 election.  Obama has already stated he intends to raise taxes even higher on Americans business. This will cause American nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, to go into convulsions, for they will be forced to reduce their sexual appetites ever more, and starve themselves, becoming anorexic in their abstinence.

Their withdrawal will be tough, and may lead many nymphomaniacs to seek spiritual guidance to help them overcome the loss of what is most precious to them.  Nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, may even have to resort to their worst nightmare – monogamy and a monogamous relation with one man, one person with which to share the rest of their lives.

And when the Occupy Wall Street crowd talks about all those “evil” and “greedy one percenters” they have also included, probably unknowingly, all the millionaires who have gotten rich off the manufacturing and sale of birth control and contraception consumed by tens of millions of Americans, including nymphomaniacs like Sandra Fluke, every year; and, according to “The Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, 98% of Catholic women.  For the sake of Sandra Fluke, and all nymphomaniacs, Occupy Wall Street protesters ought to go to the White House and sit upon the lawn and refuse not to budge until Obama lowers taxes on American businesses so that Sandra Fluke, and all nymphomaniacs, can go back to living the only lifestyle they know.

If American nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, cannot afford the cost of birth control and contraception now, how can they afford it after Obama has raised taxes on the manufacturers of birth control and contraception even higher.than it is now?  It’s imperative that the word be spread to all nymphomaniacs, like Sandra Fluke, across America – vote Republican in 2012.  It’s your only option for seeing the cost of birth control and contraception coming back down to more affordable levels.

What will happen, should Obama be reelected, and he raise taxes on American businesses, as he has firmly stated he would?  What becomes of Sandra Fluke, after Obama is reelected?  How can Sandra Fluke lead a normal life as a nymphomaniac if she is being deprived her wanton desires by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party?

We, as Americans, cannot allow this to happen.  Vote Republican.  Will we do that, at least, for Sandra Fluke?

It’s The Econ, Er, Birth Control, Stupid?

At least Democrats, and Barack Obama, are hoping the 2012 election will be more about birth control and contraception, and less about the economy, taxes, higher and higher gas prices, and all the important issues the majority of Americans, men and women, deal with on a daily bases.  Which is why the Left is focusing in on the Right’s “obsession” with matters of life and death – literally.  Indeed, conservatives are very much concerned with life (as in unborn life), and we are very much concerned at how much in peril that unborn life is at every step of its development.  However, are we really trying to ban birth control, and is that our main, our one and only, political issue going into the 2012 election?

Birth control – and it is that particular birth control which is intended to prevent and block a pregnancy from occurring when used correctly, has absolutely never been an issue within conservatism itself.  Perhaps certain circles of religious conservatives, but never, by any stretch of the imagination, a majority of conservatives.  In other words, nobody – and that includes conservatives – is trying to ban and outlaw birth control.  We would support removing the taxpayer obligation for paying the bill on birth control, and any contraception.  Title X is still in effect and that will still remain in effect with either a President Romney or President Santorum.

The reason why the Left continues its barrage of assaults on conservatives with the birth control issue is to deflect the weakness of Barack Obama’s leadership, to distract from his overall disastrous performance as President and his very low popularity numbers with the American people, including those that voted for him in 2008 – many of whom, including black Americans, are very dismayed and feel betrayed by him.  In other words, Democrats are obfuscating reality in the hopes Obama’s supporters will come back to him and his fantasy agenda.

What Romney and Santorum, the clear front-runners, need to do is come out and dismiss these attacks and convey what the real conservative message is with regards to birth control and contraception – without invoking religion, or making it sound like their religion, and their religious beliefs, are the only reasons why they don’t support Barack Obama or the Left’s demands for more access to birth control and contraception.  Something like:

Putting aside my religious beliefs, for a moment, is it right for the government to force any American to pay for someone’s birth control and contraception?  Take religion, and religious constructs, morals and tenets out of the equation.  Is it right for the government to force any institution, religious or otherwise, to provide services which it finds to be against their own beliefs?  Is that the proper role of government?  Is that a proper use of our tax dollars?  Ladies and gentleman – no serious conservative is for banning birth control, and no serious conservative would even make that an issue.  It is Democrats who want taxpayers – you – to pay for birth control and all forms of contraception, including abortion; and they want to force you and I, and all public and private institutions, to provide these services, at our expense.  Billions of dollars, our money.  The real question is – why can’t regular Americans, who engage in activities that require birth control and contraception, pay for it themselves?  Title X is there to provide family planning help for low-income men and women.  That won’t change when I am President.  What will change is the arrogant attitude of Washington style government with regards to the way it sees you and all American citizens – as an ATM machine for its own private use, to plunder at will any time it wants.  Birth control, any form of contraception that prevents a pregnancy from occurring, will not be infringed upon, tampered with or banned when I am president.  Barack Obama’s, and the Democrat party’s, demand for forcing you, the American citizen, and taxpayer, to pay for it, will be. 

Why can’t they say something like that?  Instead, they invoke their religion and their religious beliefs, (and do so in a muddled and incoherent manner which provides more fuel for liberals and Democrats to use to stoke the flames of hatred and mistrust against conservatives and religious Americans) and use religion as the basis for explaining their views on birth control and contraception.  Nobody likes to have religion, and religious beliefs, especially someone else’s, forced on them.  And there are millions of religious Americans who don’t feel comfortable with politicians using religion, even if it is their religion too, as a reason for shaping policy.

Religion absolutely has a right to be infused with politics, and religious politicians absolutely have a right to invoke and talk about their religion and how it has shaped their lives.  However, using religion to shape policy that affects the American people only antagonizes the American people.  The Left has captured that sentiment, albeit they have gone way overboard with it, and they are doing what they do best – disseminating lies and misinformation about religious conservatives and religious conservative politicians, saying they are trying to ban something, the result of which will hurt and harm women and endanger their “health” and their lives.

The lies the Left spreads about the Right are far more extreme than the actual position on birth control and contraception the Right takes.  The problem is that we, as conservatives, have not done as well a job in countering the Left’s nonsense.  And neither have Romney or Santorum.  If either intends to win the Presidency, and deny Obama a second term, they both need to be much clearer in their message and much stronger in the delivery of their message.

Talking about birth control and contraception, even as part of an election cycle, is worth it, because the lives of unborn children are at stake in this issue – and they are worth fighting for.  However, is it worth losing the election to Obama and the Democrat Party, and putting those unborn lives at even greater risk because we could not properly define what is birth control and contraception, and what the government’s, and taxpayers, role is in providing it?

Rick Santorum’s Theology Trumps Barack Obama’s

President Obama does not miss an opportunity to proclaim his “Christianity” and use that as a basis for why taxes ought to be raised.  And while the Left is comfortable with that, they wither into blithering idiots and truly sick and disgusting sycophants, like Obama, when someone with real values, and real Christian values, like Rick Santorum, dares to use that as a basis for his theology and how he would shape policy and legislation in Washington.

The Arianna Nation calls Santorum’s “religious superiority complex” a “new low”.  Santorum, who is pro-life and who opposes the Obama contraception mandate against Catholic hospitals and institutions, uses his Christianity as the explanation for being pro-life and his conservatism for opposing government intrusion on religion.

Said Santorum:

“He [Obama] is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I’m not going to.”

Obama forcing Catholic institutions to provide services that go against their moral and religious conviction; Obama using, and abusing, religion, to further his socialist agenda is, to the Arianna Nation, to all liberals and Leftists, somehow a “progressive” position, but Santorum – extolling his Christian values – has reached a “new low”.  How does that make sense?

Said Obama, in a speech at a the National Prayer Breakfast:

“But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”  It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.”

Phony, counterfeit Christians, like Obama, because he is a liberal and a socialist, always get away with invoking religion and their particular religious values.  And they always get a pass from the MSM.  But when religious frauds, like Obama, invoke religion, it is always done to advance their socialist, and ironically, anti-religious agenda on the American people.  In other words, liberals have no objection with pro-abortion “Christian” politicians – take the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, for example – using religion to justify why contraception ought to be mandated a right by government.  But when Santorum, and others, profess their religion, and their conservative religious values, openly, as the basis for why religious institutions ought to be exempt and protected from government intrusion, they are roundly mocked, viciously satirized and ridiculed, called “ring-wing aggressors” and anti-women.

Of Santorum’s position, The Arianna Nation quotes Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt:

“This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity – a stark contrast with the President who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class.”

Don’t buy into his garbage.  The Left hates, despises and loathes religion with a passion, which is why they ridicule Santorum and anyone with conservative religious values, and why they give a pass to counterfeit Christians, like Obama, who use religion in ways that water it down and make it more salable but less meaningful.

There is nothing Christian, or religious, about being pro-abortion.  There is nothing in the Christian Bible, in any Bible, that supports the killing of unborn life.  Neither is there anything religious, Christian or Biblical based about forcing religious institutions to provide contraception and abortion services to anyone against their moral and religious beliefs – and to do so is also unconstitutional.  Nor is there anything in the Christian Bible that supports taxes, and raising taxes on the rich, at such high levels and percentages as Obama and the “Demon-cratic” Party have fought so hard for.  Other than a 10% tithing, to one’s church, or charity, and certainly no more than that amount to government itself, what Obama is professing is not only a lie, but slander against the Bible and Christianity itself.

Why is it that those liberals who profess themselves to be Christian, who despise anyone else invoking their religious values on the American people – especially in the public square –  routinely forget to follow their own rules and freely talk about their religious values and background?  If the Left is that uncomfortable with religion in the public square, and hearing politicians and their election officials talking about religion, why don’t they do more to dissuade and to persecute Obama, and any of their own ilk, who do freely and openly talk about religion, and their so-called religious values?

Whether the Left supports or rejects religion, Rick Santorum not only has a right to discuss, openly and freely, his Christian values, but to, freely and openly, challenge Obama’s “Christian” values.  If the Left has a problem with that, if Obama himself has a problem with that, they and Obama can meet Santorum head on in open debate where they can both lay out their religious differences and defend their brand of Christianity.

But Santorum has nothing to worry about.  His Christianity does trump Obama’s.  Or – does life, and unborn life, really have no meaning and value?  Is enslaving taxpayers to their government by raising taxes sixty, seventy, eighty percent sound, rational Christian teaching?  Is forcing religious institutions to help in the killing of unborn children, or in aiding and abetting sexual immorality, one of the tenets of Christianity, or any religion?

Is Christianity merely a prop politicians use to sway more religious Americans to elect them?  And even if both Obama and Santorum are using Christianity to further their political careers, regardless of that – whose religious values make more sense?

Rush Limbaugh’s Answer To Why “Contraception Must Be free”

Rush Limbaugh asks the question, on his radio program, “Why must contraception be free”?  Liberals and Democrats, including Barack Obama, under the disguise and masquerade of “women’s health” are demanding women have access to free contraception – paid for by the American taxpayer.  Contraception, they say, saves lives, prevents diseases and unwanted pregnancy.  But that is not the real reason liberals are demanding it.  And we should not be fooled into believing and accepting that liberals and Democrats are anything other than the deviant, perverted, anti-life “culture of death” that they are.  There is absolutely nothing benevolent with their push for free contraception – paid for by the American taxpayer.  Nor does forcing religious hospitals and its staff to provide contraception and abortions have anything to do with “women’s health”, but has everything to do with Barack Obama’s, and the Democrat Party’s, socialist, anti-religious agenda.

So, why must contraception be free?  The answer is obvious.  Free contraception offers every American man and women, girl and boy, who engages, who wants to engage, in pre-marital sex with multiple partners what they really want – the luxury, the freedom and the convenience to continue that practice without consequences and without cost.  Likewise, the more people engaging in sex before marriage, the less likely, and the less incentive, there will be to even get married.  Marriage, pro-family, pro-life are all counter to Democrat ideas and the more people who get married (before having sex), the more likely they are to be and to become conservatives.  Having to pay for contraception always discouraged more people from having sex.  Removing that obstacle will ensure the millions of Americans who now do engage in any unsafe, unmarried sex, including teenagers, and the millions of Americans who otherwise would have held off, a false security, an unsafe safety net which Obama and the Democrat Party have conspicuously placed before the American public.

Free contraception also removes the stigma of unmarried people engaging in sex, thus free contraception invites others, who might have had serious reservations about sex before marriage, and in particular, sex at a very young age, to be more sexually pro-active.  Having someone else pay for your sexual delights also encourages more sex between people because the cost – which is nothing – is no longer a factor in whether or not, say two teenagers, worry about those “awful” consequences of unprotected sex.  Free contraception, it must be noted, is not just about condoms, but also pregnancy preventing pills and pregnancy ending pills, and it includes free abortions.  “Just do it” certainly has taken on a new meaning.

There is absolutely no doubt liberals want people engaging in lots of pre-marital sex.  And that includes teenagers.  Here’s proof to validate that statement.  Free contraception allows the government to control, and to have more control over, one’s behavior.  Abstinence, conversely, which actually does empower women, is impossible for government to control because with abstinence there is nothing going on with which to control.  Since liberals never advocate for abstinence, but “safe” sex education, it must be accepted that their agenda supports teenage sex rather than opposes it.  And since the only “safe” sex is abstinence, which our government opposes teaching to teenagers, we can only consider our government’s motivations to be very sinister with regards to our teenagers.

Providing contraception for free, through the federal government, makes it much easier for the federal government to control people and their behavior than having them go through their doctor, which millions of Americans don’t have, and having to pay even a portion of the bill which is still expensive for millions of Americans.  Free contraception removes the middle man and makes government the only source people can, and will, go to.

There is no difference in what Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are doing than what a drug dealer does.  A drug dealer provides the fix an addict needs.  Often drugs are given away free to new users, the same as the government wants to do with contraception.  But the cost always returns.  The cost, in this case, is submission and enslavement to the Democrat Party and the socialist agenda in exchange for free contraception.

The connection between free contraception and government control over people (in particular the young and impressionable, and those more easy to sway) through providing free contraception is key to Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s socialist agenda.  In order to ensure their control they need only get people into the places which will be dispensing it – like Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, and all the “women’s health” clinics which will pop up all over the country that have nothing really to do with women’s health but rather everything to do with indoctrinating and brainwashing women (and men) into liberal feminism, socialism and the Democrat Party.  Forcing religious hospitals to provide free contraception merely takes away another safe place women and girls can go for their real health needs and education, and is done to further diminish the role of religion and morality in America.

What better way for a deviant government, and political party, to control people than providing them with free contraception (as a hook) to engage in behavior that leads to less of a civilized society?  Uncivilized societies give their governments certain rights and privileges, and excuses, to become more dictatorial, more ruthless, more powerful.  We are seeing that right now with Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

Free contraception is but another way the Democrats have devised in which to hook you, all of us, into their socialist agenda.  They would rather your mind was more on sex than on more important and pressing matters, like the fact that Democrats are doing everything they can to wreck out economy and abolish our Constitution and our constitutional rights.  And all Democrats have to do to make so many of us salivate and bend is to put the word “free” in front of something and we fall head over heels in love.

Having sex has consequences.  Even when free contraception – free, but paid for by American taxpayers – is being provided.  The government never gave anyone anything.  And certainly the government never gave anyone anything for free.  There is a cost involved with free contraception, and the question is not necessarily “why must contraception be free”?  We know why Obama and the Democrat Party demand it be free.  Rather the question is – have we become so enamored and swept away with getting something for “free” we have lost all sense and sensibility and we are willing to trade our morality and civility for a lie that ultimately will cost us what we really most hold dear – our constitutional freedoms?  Is losing that worth the price of a “free” one night stand?

Taliban Wants “Peace”; Obama Bows, Says, “Yes, Master”.

What exactly does the United States get in return for negotiating “peace” with Taliban terrorists?  Considering that the Taliban only wants to negotiate for one provision, and that “peace” apparently will only ensue after their demands are met.

Said Maulavi Qalamuddin, the former minister of vice and virtue for the Taliban:

“The only thing is the negotiations over release of Taliban prisoners from Guantánamo, which is still under discussion between both sides in Qatar.”

The Obama Administration seems to be beating down the door in order to meet the Taliban’s “request”.

So again, after Obama bows down before terrorists, licks their blood stained boots and acquiesces to their demands; after Obama frees some of the worlds most fierce terrorists back into the hands of the Taliban, what does America get in return?  A hearty hand shake and a “thank you”, from the same terrorists who slaughtered 3000 of us on September 11, 2001?  A reassurance that the Taliban will no longer kill American soldiers, so long as those soldiers pull out and leave the Middle East; so long as America does not interfere with the Taliban’s cruelty, its inhumane treatment of its own people, especially women and girls; so long as the Taliban can continue buying weapons for its own use against America’s allies (like Israel) and selling weapons to its allies, to be used against America’s allies (like Israel); so long as America looks the other way as the Taliban regroups, retrains its forces and expands its political and military power and reemerges stronger, and more defiant than ever – and looking for revenge?

Mr. Grossman, [the Obama administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan] at a news conference in Kabul last week, said that real peace talks could begin only after the Taliban renounced international terrorism and agreed to support a peace process to end the armed conflict.

But the Taliban won’t even consider doing that until after its comrades in Gitmo have been released.  And supposing they actually remain “true to their word” and “renounce international terrorism”, what then becomes of the point to their organization?  In other words, the Taliban is a terrorist organization.  That was what it was created to be.  Does the world expect its members to so rashly trade in their assault weapons for flowers and transform themselves into hippies?  Can anyone imagine a Taliban soldier uttering, “Peace, man”, or “Make love, not war”?

If the Taliban ever gave up its terrorist agenda, how well would that sit with Al-Qaeda or any other fanatical, terrorist, Muslim Jihadist cult?  To say the Taliban would become a mere laughing stock within terrorist circles is an understatement.  They would be annihilated by their fellow terrorist comrades, and the Taliban knows it.  They have absolutely no intention to give up, to “renounce international terrorism”, to turn a new page, to “give peace a chance”.  Here’s some evidence to that:

The latest Afghan National Intelligence Estimate warns that the Taliban will grow stronger, using the talks to gain credibility and run out the clock until U.S. troops depart Afghanistan, while continuing to fight for more territory, say U.S. officials who have read the classified document.

Let’s assume Obama has been briefed, and he knows full well the Taliban’s real intentions.  What does that say about Obama himself, his character, his real intentions?  If Obama knows the Taliban is both lying and stalling for time, what does it say about a President, a Commander-in-Chief, who is willing to bow down to the feet of a terrorist group, give them what they want and be humble and grateful when they cover him in a barrage of spit afterwards?

Couldn’t we posit that Obama is more concerned about being reelected than anything else, including the War on Terror and stability, real peace, in the Middle East?  That Obama is using the “peace” negotiations to his advantage, to further his own reelection bid, the same as the Taliban is using it to theirs, to further their own continued terrorist agenda?  That Obama’s motivations for “peace” are driven by his desire to be reelected at any cost, and nothing more?  That Obama is intelligent enough to know the Taliban will never be provoked into “renouncing international terrorism”?  And once Obama is reelected, should that unfortunate mistake be made; and after the Taliban prisoners at Gitmo are released – and after the Taliban reneges in its assurance of “peace”, can we expect the same grotesque smile from Obama he is apt to make after one of his weak jokes, and an even weaker response such as, “The Taliban has acted stupidly”?

Of course, there is the possibility his cabinet is hiding the information from him.  But, how likely is that?  And, which is more likely the real reason Obama is in such a hurry to make “peace” with the Taliban?

The former Taliban officials here described fairly advanced discussions in Qatar about the transfer of prisoners. One former official, Syed Muhammad Akbar Agha, who had been a Taliban military commander, said that five Taliban prisoners were to be transferred in two phases, two or three in one group and then the remainder.

There has also been discussion in Qatar of removing some Taliban members from NATO’s “kill or capture” lists, the former Taliban officials said.

And America gets what, again, in exchange for bowing down before a group of blood-thirsty, Jihadist rabble-rousers whose ideology is rooted in the 7th century A.D.?  What exactly does the United States get in return for negotiating “peace” with Taliban terrorists?  Ah, but of course!  We get Obama reelected to a second term in the White House.

Ladies and gentlemen – Is an Obama second term worth the price of “peace” the Taliban has brought to the table?

Illegal Aliens Not “Innocent Immigrants”; U.S., Dem. Party Wasting Millions Not Deporting Them

UPDATE:  Obama, predictably, to make what to do with illegal aliens, an issue in his reelection bid.  But even he doesn’t want amnesty for them right away, saying he has “five more years to deliver on immigration reform“.  One has to wonder if he really wants amnesty for illegal aliens at all, or, if he is just using them as a tool and a pawn in his scheme to get reelected.

The Arianna Nation, and its puppet writer, Elise Foley, are shocked, shocked to find out that thousands of illegal aliens, which it dubs as “innocent immigrants” have been arrested and remain locked up without having been convicted.  Elise seems oblivious to the fact that these are illegal aliens, and that being an illegal alien in America, like anywhere else in the world, is a crime in of itself.  She is right to be outraged that these individuals have been held “in limbo” as long as they have.  However, they should have been deported long ago.

That they remain locked up is clear proof the Obama Administration is executing its constitutional authority very poorly, which, in turn, is costing American taxpayers – as Elise states – more than two million dollars a day, just to house the 13,000 illegal aliens she is complaining about.  It is also evidence that the Obama Administration is willing to put, and keep, Americans in grave danger simply to pander to the Hispanic and Latino vote.  In other words – if Obama, and his administration, really were concerned about the safety of all Americans, besides doing a much better and more effective job securing the border so illegal aliens could not cross over in the first place, Obama would make certain any illegal alien caught by law enforcement was quickly deported back to their country of origin, thereby saving us, the taxpayers, the hundreds of millions of dollars a year we now are spending to lock up these so-called “innocent immigrants”.

Elise writes:

“On a single day this past fall, the United States government held 13,185 people in immigration detention who had not been convicted of a crime, with no plans to charge them with one, according to information The Huffington Post obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.  Instead, at a cost of roughly 2 million taxpayer dollars per day, the innocent men and women were detained while immigration authorities sorted out their fates.  This case stands in stark contrast to the stated goal of immigration policy under the administration of President Barack Obama: to detain and deport unauthorized immigrants who’ve been convicted of crimes.”

Anyone who enters America “unauthorized” has committed a crime de-facto.  Anyone caught by law enforcement, at any level, in America, and for whom is discovered to be in America illegally ought to be deported ASAP, after a thorough background check has been conducted to ensure they are not wanted for, or suspected in, other reported crimes.  Barack Obama, directly, is responsible for why this course of action is not happening.  And Obama is also directly responsible for why, and when, illegal aliens who are released from custody, and back into the general public are able to commit more violent crimes.

If deportation really is the “stated goal of immigration policy under Barack Obama” (which it is not) since an illegal alien has committed a crime by entering America without permission and without proper documentation, that is plenty enough of a crime to warrant deportation.  There is absolutely no reason to prolong the stay of an illegal alien at taxpayer expense.  Neither the Arianna Nation or Elise would see it that way.  They would advocate simply releasing them back into the general population.  And while these specific illegal aliens may not have committed any further crimes (besides entering America illegally) we know, as it often happens, allowing them to remain in America often leads them to commit more violent crimes against Americans.

Elise says:

“It’s one thing to deport immigrants who are in the United States without authorization. Anyone who enters a country outside of the legal immigration channels, or over stays a visa, knows that such a possibility exists. But it’s quite another to separate that person from his or her family and lock him or her away for an indefinite period, while ICE works through its paperwork.”

So, in other words, Elise is saying that if an illegal aliens enters the country, illegally, “without authorization” they better make damn sure they have, or bring, their family with them?  How incredibly absurd is that?  Oh, woe to the poor illegal alien who hasn’t a family, according to Elise.  Because, as Elise would like to see happen, any illegal alien, with a family, who is arrested and detained, ought not be left in detention “away from their family”.  How ludicrous is this?  Giving preferential treatment to an illegal alien with a family is a pathetic response to ending illegal immigration.  And, we can’t help but feel just a bit of “sympathy” for the illegal alien all alone here in the United States, can we?

The solution to the “family” issue is simple.  For those apprehended illegal aliens with families – either they can return with their illegal family member back to their country of origin, or they can wait until their illegal alien family member goes through the proper legal channels for entering America, and does so by beginning at the back of the line, in back of everyone else who is trying to enter America legally.

Elise continues:

“There are alternatives to locking up people who would not otherwise be imprisoned if not for their immigration status, ones that would leave the person with his or her family, and cost taxpayers far less than the estimated $95 to $141 per day spent to detain them.”

The only real alternative to imprisonment is hasty deportation.  And we need to stop kidding ourselves that there is anything compassionate about allowing illegal aliens to remain in America, even if they haven’t (yet) committed any violent crimes.

Right now our economy is still in the tank, because of past Democrat control, and the anti-business, anti-capitalist policies they were able to enact.  That is the reason why, in number and in percentages, illegal aliens entering the United States have dropped precipitately.  However, once we do get the economy moving again, and as more and more Americans are able to find work, and business begins to improve, and opportunity for employment increases and expands, whether that is under a Democrat President or a Republican President, the rise of illegal aliens, in numbers and percentages, will reemerge and again plague our law enforcement and legal system.

The difference in how we deal with illegal aliens is key.  If Obama wins reelection, not only will the number of illegal aliens rise, but his administration will have direct control in influencing whether or not law enforcement has any authority, any power – any right – to arrest, detain, and deport them.  Obama has already gone out of his way to let law enforcement know he supports illegal immigration, and not only will he do nothing to punish those illegal aliens who are caught, but will do nothing to prevent them from entering the country illegally.

If a Republican wins, and once the economy improves (and this will happen more so under a Republican President, and even more so under a Republican controlled House and Senate) illegal immigration will continue, and it will rise.  However, so too will the number of deportation rise under a Republican President.  And the more illegal aliens we deport, the fewer that remain in lock up eating up millions and millions of tax dollars while they await their “fate”.

If every illegal alien knew, in advance, that should they be caught, they would be deported forthwith, the incentive to attempt the illegal entry in the first place would not be as strong.

Why would we want to reelect a man, Barack Obama, who would give the potential illegal alien that much more incentive to become a criminal illegal alien?  Isn’t it more cost-effective to the American taxpayer to advance a “no illegal alien left behind” policy?

Obama’s Keystone Cop-Out

UPDATE:  How is Robert Redford, Barack Obama and all liberals against the Keystone XL pipeline going to explain this one?

Our dependence on foreign oil, particularly from the Middle East, just dramatically increased thanks in large part to liberals, like Robert Redford and the National Wildlife Foundation, which lobbied hard to push President Barack Obama to prevent the Keystone Pipeline from being built.  Now, when you go to buy gas, and you notice the price going up, up, up – you can thank Redford for that.  But, how is stopping this pipeline from being built going to solve our immediate need for cheaper gas and oil (which right now is abundant) and help solve an energy crisis that has existed since at least the Carter Administration, if not before?

Conservatives are not the evil, disrespecting, anti-Bambi loving, anti-tree hugging, nature hating, slash and burn it all down and kill all the wildlife and native inhabitants type of characters liberals paint us to be.  We love nature as well.  However, conservatives understand the fundamental need for energy.  We also know our dependence on oil from the Middle East, especially at a time when we are at war with an extremely antagonistic cross-section of its people, makes getting that oil more dangerous, more costly, more burdensome than it needs to be.  Why do liberals and Democrats, who know oil is plentiful right here in America and in Canada, find it less of a nuisance for us to trudge all the way over to that part of the world which, right now, is rather hostile towards us, and would love to annihilate us?

Hotheads like Redford seem to want us all to abandon the present, and potential future, and return to the past.  It’s idyllic in some ways, however if it takes you even ten minutes to get to work by car now, see how long it takes you by way of horse.  And for those of us who travel greater distances, forget about it.  We need automobiles, and we are not going back to the days of yore.  If Redford wants to reinvent the car, or invent an engine that runs on renewable, reusable energy – fine.  In the meantime, we don’t have that.  We have the engine that runs on gasoline which has been converted from oil, which we have had to truck into the United States all the way from the Middle East, even though we have plenty of it right here in America for the foreseeable future.

Inevitably there will be an automobile that is built, somewhere in the world, (and preferably here in the U.S. by Americans inventors) run on energy which can be grown and harvested year round.  We all desire that.  Yet, is it not ironic that the same President, Barack Obama, and the same party, Democrat, and the same liberals, Redford, who are all against cutting taxes and regulations on business, lowering and making more competitive the capital gains tax, are the same people who are preventing these new technologies and innovations from being realized within the auto industry?

In other words, it’s Obama’s fault we haven’t reinvented the car because he, and the Democrat Party, are intentionally stifling creativity and investment in that creativity.  The higher the taxes, the more the risk in, and less profit on, the investment.   It’s Obama’s fault we are still dependent on foreign oil because he, directly, has prevented the oil industry from extricating the oil they know exists, and knows where it exists.  Why do we allow liberals to hold hostage our own oil, and put our country’s need for oil in the hands of despicable characters who would like to kill us?  And if it weren’t for the fact that these Middle East nations weren’t reaping huge profits off the United States, how eager would they be in selling us their oil when they could just as easily sell it to Russia and China?

What conservatives need to do is show Americans, liberals in particular, that we can have our cake and eat it too.  In other words, we can take the oil which exists underneath America’s soil and water, and still preserve, conserve, and protect nature, wildlife and the surrounding habitats and ecosystems.   To do this would effectively shut up Redford, Obama and others who contend it’s all about the money.  Either that, or it would prove, in fact, that liberals are not really out to “save” the environment, but to force Americans into more government dependence via public transportation.  Don’t we already know liberals have been trying to do this for decades?

For example – the high-speed rail system they are always touting which costs billions of dollars to build; which virtually nobody uses or would want to use; which is a huge waste of money and extremely unprofitable; which would see a profit once Americans were forced out of their cars, due to higher and higher gas prices, and made to ride in government-run trains, paid for by both the taxpayer and the riders, and where that same government will have an even greater opportunity to gouge us.  This is the Utopia of the Left.  Get all Americans out of their cars (a symbol of independence) and make them ride the rails (a symbol of dependence) owned by government, but built and maintained through taxes (which will always be increased) and by the riders (which will be all of us) who will inevitably see, over time, the fares rise, rise, rise.  How high will gas price need to reach for this liberal nightmare to begin to take hold?

Indeed, what better way for liberals to succeed in their goal to build and expand high-speed rail than to force into being a situation which causes gas prices to dramatically escalate to the point where, except for the super rich, all Americans will have to give up the luxury of driving themselves anywhere they need to go, and have to rely on government to get them there?

Liberals can contend all they want the oil industry and conservatives are merely in it for the profit.  But until we can prove otherwise, the likes of Redford will continue to hold a powerful persuasion over the millions of Americans who do have a deep and abiding respect and love for nature.  Although it is the same respect conservatives have and share, without proving it, and while liberals and Democrats yet hold power in Washington, it may be years before we can drill down into our existing oil deposits.

Capitalist greed?  What about the greed of liberals?  There are tens of thousand of jobs at stake.  We can extract American oil and save the environment, and Bambi, at the same time.  How many hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars more are we willing to give to the Middle East rather than invest right here in America before we realize that?

Obvious Guilt: Pleading The Fifth In Fast & Furious

Pleading the fifth has always been  an “out” someone uses to prevent being implicated in a crime any further than they already are.  It is absolutely right, on the other hand, to be suspicious of anyone who does plead the fifth, especially when it is coming from our own Department of Justice, and when it concerns Fast & Furious and one of our border agent’s death’s, not to mention the deaths of countless others in Mexico who were killed by guns allowed into the country via the U.S , with the knowledge of our government – and, it is presumed, Attorney General, Eric Holder.

All pleading the 5th will do here is to delay the knowledge Americans have a right to – that our government, under Barack Obama, allowed guns into Mexico, to be sold to drug dealers, and they bungled it, causing the deaths of scores, if not hundreds of people.  And with the guns still out there, they continue to kill more people.  If this had happened under George W. Bush – would the Democrats be as little concerned, and apathetic, over this incident as they are now?  Want real answers to this nightmare?  Put Republicans back in charge in 2012.  Or risk this issue being ever further buried by a MSM that will not cover this, or any other issues, no matter how corrupt, so long as Obama is in the White House.

Israel Ought To Tell Barack Obama To Go To Hell

Who the hell is Barack Obama, and what are his real motives in putting up his finger of shame to Israel, yet again?  Barack Obama opposes Israel’s right to expand its settlements, to hold on to its own land, to protect its own people from rocket attacks, and now – Barack Obama opposes Israel’s right to self-defense.  Barack Obama is positioning himself to be as anti-Israel as is Hamas and the PLO, and Iran, which calls for the destruction of Israel more times a day than its people are required to pray – and the destruction of Israel and all of the Jews is one of the things they routinely pray for.

Just what does Barack Obama think happens to Israel once Iran acquires nuclear weapons?  What does he think happens to the United States and its ability to negotiate and to hold rogue nations like Iran in line?

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran is a game changer.  Why?  Put a nuclear weapon in the hands of a hot-headed radical Muslim Jihadist and see what they do with it.  We already know what they do with weapons of lesser mass destruction.  We know, because there is a wealth of documented evidence, that these Muslim terrorists are willing to blow themselves up in the process of killing as many Jews, and other “infidels” as they can.  They do it every day.  Barack Obama appears oblivious to it all.

So, while Iran pursues its deranged ambition of attaining nuclear weapons, and comes insanely closer to reaching its goal every day, Israel must worry about the consequences of a nuclear Iran, and a United States, under President Barack Hussein Obama, which has never been more hostile, more disapproving, more antagonistic and opposed to Israel than in any time in its, or our, history.

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike.

The ‘dire consequences” of a strike are miniscule compared to the real “dire consequences” of a nuclear Iran.  Both the United States and Israel, and all our allies for that matter, ought to be preparing and gearing up for a possible attack/war on Iran.  How can the United States, and its leaders in Washington, ever expect to keep the Middle east from exploding into absolute chaos if all Iran has to do to shut Washington up is remind Washington it, Iran, has the advantage over us because it, Iran, has nuclear weapons?

The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Giving more time to allow sanctions to work only gives Iran more time to obtain the components of a nuclear weapon and to build it.  Does Barack Obama or any of these egg-head politicians and bureaucrats in Washington really think that once sanctions are in place Iran will be fully prevented from bringing in the necessary materials its needs to build a nuclear weapon?  How arrogant and naive is that?

Tehran has warned that it could retaliate to tightened sanctions by blocking oil trade through the Strait of Hormuz.

This would be, and actually is, irrelevant, considering that America has all the oil it needs for decades to come sitting right under its own sovereign soil and water.  But Barack Obama and the Democrat Party continue to block all efforts to bring this oil to the surface.  And for the heedlessness of Obama and Democrats, Iran would not be in a position of using oil as a scare tactic to force us to back off our threat of tightened sanctions.  Of course we will go ahead with the sanctions, regardless.  Just keep in mind that the steep price at the pump reflects Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s desire to keep that oil underground, not because of imposed sanctions.  In other words, we could impose sanctions on Iran and still see gas prices around 2 dollars a gallon.  That is not such a pipe dream.

But what is a pipe dream and far from reality?

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful uses.

If there was any evidence that Iran had any “peaceful” intentions in anything it did, perhaps we could believe their story.  However, as we know, Iran remains in a readied state of Jihadism.  And there is nothing “peaceful” whatsoever about Jihadism.

There must come a time when it is realized that Iran will stop at nothing to make its dream of becoming nuclear a reality.  And there is more at stake here than just a nuclear Iran.  Remember, Iran’s Dictator-President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is allied with another fierce anti-American Dictator-President, Hugo “El Diablo” Chavez of Venezuela.  Once Iran has nuclear capability, how long will it be before Ahmadinejad either sells, or gives away, some of its nuclear weapons to its buddy “El Diablo” Chavez?  What happens then, once two anti-Americans rogue dictators have nuclear weapons in their hands?  What happens to that window of opportunity to strike then?  Didn’t we learn anything from 40 years of Cold War with Russia?  Do we want to go through that all over again with Iran?

The U.S. and Iran, however, have taken steps in recent days apparently designed to ease tensions. Iran has agreed to host a delegation of United Nations nuclear inspectors this month.

This is called stalling for more time.  And while tensions between Iran and the U.S. “ease”, the tensions between Iran and Israel, and Israel and the United States, tighten.  Barack Obama is creating quite a topsy-turvy world indeed.  One in which is seeing Israel’s allies thin.  If Barack Obama wins re-election Israel may very well be on its own in defending itself and its people.  In the meantime:

Covert efforts by Israel’s intelligence service to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons have been credited with slowing the program without the high risk of military conflict that could be sparked by an airstrike.

And yet, we cannot escape the fact that Iran is a nation populated with Muslim Jihadists who denounce Israel and the United States with a religious fervor.  But, what happens if Israel does strike Iran?  The same thing that happens when you throw a rock into shallow water.  The water, dirt and sediment is stirred up into an excited frenzy.  However, it all clears and settles back into place shortly and there is calm and tranquility once again.  If Israel strikes Iran, it will be stirred into an excited frenzy also.  So what?  Iran is always stirred into an excited frenzy because Iran refuses to live peacefully.  It will calm down again, to what it is now, which is still very turbulent, very dangerous, but void of nuclear possibilities.

Will putting nuclear weapons in its hands make Iran any calmer?

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?

Jesus Will Be Voting For Mitt Romney, Part 1

UPDATEJeb Bush likely to vote for Mitt Romney also.

Liberals hate Christianity, don’t believe in Christianity and go out of their way to separate themselves and America from Christianity as distantly as possible under the false and mislabeled pretext of separation of church and state.  Yet, liberals will never miss the chance to pull Jesus over to their side and into their cause.  Liberals, who, remember, mock Christianity and most of whom don’t even believe Jesus actually existed, nonetheless will use him as their poster child, set him upon their leftist pedestal and mold him into an image of their very own savior; a man whose spiritual presence they vehemently renounce, whose existence they adamantly reject and whose mind they desperately covet for their own, all the while they spit on him.  Liberal Christians are an oxymoron and are in actuality counterfeit Christians as is evident by their own positions.

Jesus would have been just as abhorred with the cold and calculated corruption of liberalism we see in America today as he was with the cold and calculated corruption of the money changers he dealt with personally, nearly 2000 years ago.  If Jesus returned now, he would make liberals uncomfortably aware of just how conservative he was then, and remains to this day.  If Jesus returned now, and came to America, would liberals welcome him as they do all illegal immigrants and fight for his right to remain, or would they demand he be deported back to Heaven ASAP?  Would liberals allow him to vote?  Would the ACLU fight to allow him to vote just as they fight to allow illegal aliens to vote?

Jesus, in his time, was vocal about the plight of the poor and of poverty.  But where in his teachings did Jesus ever advocate for higher taxation on the rich, and all citizens, bigger government and more government control of the populace as a means to curb and eliminate poverty?

Liberals, having no conscience, would take conservatives to task for what they see as an indefensible response to poverty in America, as if conservatives have no respect, no pity for the poor.  These liberal parasites have taken the “what would Jesus do” question to new lows in their quest to impose socialism on Americans.

Advocating for the poor and ensuring the poor are treated with respect and dignity is not liberalism, it is in fact conservatism.  What is liberalism is the anti-Jesus response to poverty liberals promote in the name of Jesus.  That is, to have our money confiscated by government which, in turn, would dispense those funds, as it saw fit, into government-run programs that provide food, clothing and shelter to the poor.

What is the conservative response liberals so oppose?  To care for the poor through non-profit, and often religious, charities funded through private donations and unpaid volunteers.  (something similar to “it takes a village” but without the stain of socialism).  It is because liberals cannot control charities they fear and scorn them and look to eliminate them.  It is a government-run monopoly liberals seek, although they pretend to “oppose” monopolies.  Should government have a monopoly on poverty, a hold on the poor in America – which is an anti-Jesus concept – what this creates is a sizable and intimidating voting block ensuring liberals keep power indefinitely.  This is what liberals are really after, not ending poverty in America.  Liberals need poverty, vast swaths of poverty stretching across America.  In other words, the fewer people there are in poverty, the harder it is to control people.

Liberals also insist Jesus would be an OWS supporter.  This is of course complete and absolute nonsense.  Those who engaged in protesting Wall Street and elsewhere throughout America were, and are, themselves as lazy and idle, shiftless and mindless, and worthless to society, as one can be.  The type of counterproductive, anti-societal, anti-work ethic lifestyle the average OWS protester lives is a destroyer of community not a builder of cities.  They protested for more government control and power over people solely on the basis that they, the OWS protesters, are so little enthused with work, so little driven to be productive citizens, they want, and therefore need, to be taken care of by government because they don’t want the responsibility of taking care of themselves – that is too much work!  So, tax the rich, give the money to government to create support programs which funnel money, food, clothing, housing, education grants, etc. to people who have no intention of ever being, of ever doing, anything.  Capitalism forces people to either work for a living or descend into poverty.  Socialism forces everyone into poverty and government dependence.

Why would Jesus oppose capitalism when it is capitalism, and only capitalism, which drives an economy?  How else is money created but through the engine of capitalism and the marketplace which, the freer it is, the faster the money flows, the more money that flows and the more money that flows directly into the hands of the workers?  Stifle capitalism, set up road blocks in the form of crippling and excessive taxation and regulation on businesses and business owners and what happens?  The economy recedes.  Businesses fail and go out of business.  People lose their jobs.  Less money is created.  Less money flows from one hand to another.  Peoples savings diminish and they fall, if not into poverty, then closer to it.

Barack Obama’s ideals, his values and morals – deeply rooted in socialism, epitomizes everything Jesus fought to overturn.  How could anyone expect Jesus would want Obama to be reelected?  or anyone like Obama?  Should Mitt Romney be the Republican nominee, Jesus will be casting his vote for him.

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: