Archive for July, 2013

Progressive Liberals, Open-Mindedness And Tolerance: The Great Oxymoron

July 31, 2013

It’s an amazing thing how the word “tolerance” has been perverted by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  A couple of articles point this out (see here and here and here and  here).  It’s not like I’m inventing anything with this charge.  Basically, in classical usage, the word “tolerance” meant the following as recorded in the 1828 Webster’s definition:

The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

And according to Webster in 1828 it also carried the meaning of:

The allowance of that which is not wholly approved; to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition or hinderance; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing; not to restrain; as, to tolerate opinions or practices

In other words, what did you “endure”?  Stuff that you didn’t approve of, such as opinions or practices.  There is absolutely no sense according to this definition that you have to AGREE with the stuff you “tolerate.”  In point of fact, in order to “tolerate” something, you had to NOT approve of it.

But, like pretty much everything else secular humanist progressive liberals have touched, they perverted the notion of tolerance.  They turned the definition on its head and today it has the sense of somehow being open minded to all ideas.

The problem is that liberals are anything BUT that.

An ostensibly humorous definition of “tolerance” from a liberal point of view is this:

 A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward the opinions and practices of others as long as they fit the liberal agenda

But what you find out pretty quickly is that as much of a joke the above might appear to be, it is actually quite true.  Read this piece, for example, from liberal Lauren Jacobs on the liberal Huffington Post:

Many people I’ve spoken to lately seem to be confused about the true meaning of “tolerance” and “liberalism.” I think it is time to set the record straight. Tolerance in its simplest definition is “freedom from bigotry.”

Liberalism in its simplest definition is a belief in tolerance (freedom from bigotry) and in progressive reform in socio-cultural, moral/religious, and political matters.

Neither one is about being required to accept all people’s viewpoints all the time, especially when those viewpoints are themselves the opposite of tolerant and liberal, containing bias, prejudice, hate, or a belief that someone other than the self is less-than the self.

Americans who are poor, female, of color, queer, or not Christian cannot afford to practice the nonchalant type of acceptance-of-any-and-all-opinions when the opinion of many hardline social conservatives is that it would be preferable to exclude these people from the conversation altogether (if not to eliminate their equal/human rights).

Lauren says that “many people … seem to be confused.”  So she volunteers to be the blind leading the blind into further blindness.  I want you to note that she immediately manages to redefine “tolerance” as “freedom from bigotry” rather than what it always used to mean before secular humanist progressive liberals came along to pervert it.  And then she immediately goes on to impose HER OWN bigotry on her already twisted definition.  Note that white male heterosexual Christians such as myself are all but guaranteed to be the bogeyman on her presentation.  I mean, somebody please help me, I’ve been “labeled” by a narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant – and oh, yeah, misandrist – liberal.

As a Christian and a conservative, I am very definitely NOT “open-minded” in the sense that the liberals demand I be.  I’m one of those who believes that the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it.  And I submit that the first being who suggested “open-mindedness” was the devil in the Garden.  God told Adam and Eve some very specific things, and they believed what God said.  But then the devil came along in Genesis chapter 3 and told Eve that she should question God, that she should be open-minded to other possibilities – such that God was lying to her and Adam and that God was lying in order to keep them down.

And in being “open-minded” to God, Adam and Eve committed the first sin.  Which resulted in total human depravity.  Which of course ultimately resulted – after a long string of degeneration and perversion – in secular humanist progressive liberalism.

That being admitted, let’s look at liberals and see just how “open-minded” and “tolerant” they are to opposing ideas and views.

Are liberals more “open-minded” than conservatives?  They sure do have a funny way of showing it:

Today the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held a hearing in DC called “A Conversation on Race and Justice in America”. The three panelists were all far left people who believe America is essentially an unjust country. How exactly is this a “conversation”?

That is a very accurate description, given that:

Pelosi will preside over the hearing, which will include Democrats from the party’s Steering and Policy Committee.

The scheduled panelists are Southern Poverty Law Center founder Morris Dees, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, president of the Center for Social Inclusion.

Hey, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Allen West, did your invitations get “lost in the mail” again?  Darn.  We’re so, so sorry.  Better luck next year.  And of course, if those invitations get lost in the darn mail again, better luck the year after that.  Or maybe the year after that.

Ah, yes, “tolerance” is refusing to allow the side and the people you disagree with to not even have a VOICE.  “Open-mindedness” is only allowing liberals in the door.  Just like that not-so-funny-after-all-definition said above.

Just imagine if the State of Israel were to have “A Conversation on Race and Justice in Jerusalem” and only invited ultra-Zionist Jews to attend it who of course would offer nothing but ultra-Zionist Jewish conversation.  Because who needs Palestinians to have such a “conversation,” am I right???  I’m just guessing that liberals – who hate Israel as much as they hate Christianity – would be outraged at the hypocrisy and the intolerance and the narrow-mindedness.

Not that liberals aren’t über hypocritical and über intolerant and über narrow-minded, but they’d sure hate it if Israel did what THEY do on a daily basis.

Yeah, that’s right.  I’m a conservative and I’ve pretty much made up my mind about the world.  And the liberals who have every scintilla as much made up THEIR minds about the world constantly demonize me for doing what they’ve done because they are hypocrites and liars.

For the record, “making up your mind about the world” is NOT a bad thing to conservatives like me.  Moses demanded, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.” And people like me made up their minds and came over to where Moses stood.  Joshua said, “Choose this day whom you will serve” and people like me made their choice to serve God.  We made up our minds.  And the secular humanist progressive liberals have been demonizing us for it ever since.  Literally dating back to Adam and Eve when the very first open-minded and tolerant liberal started crawling around.

Advertisements

Just In Case You Thought Liberals Gave A Damn About Workers Having Health Care: ObamaCare Call Center Denies Employee Health Benefits

July 29, 2013

What do liberals really want?

If you listen to them, they’ll blather on about how they want workers to have better wages, better health care, blah blah blah.

It’s not that these are bad things: I want workers to have Ferraris and palatial estates and have supermodels for wives.  So there you have it – I’m more caring and compassionate than any liberal, aren’t I?

The question is, when push comes to shove, am I willing to pay for all that crap?  No.  I’m not willing to.  Just like liberals – when it’s actually THEIR money rather than “other peoples’ money” – aren’t willing to pay for any of the crap they blather on about.

Obamacare Call Center Will Not Offer Health-Care Benefits to Employees
By  Eliana Johnson
July 26, 2013 6:27 PM

In order to ensure Americans understand how to access the benefits available to them when many provisions of the Affordable Care Act go online October 1, the Obama administration announced last month that it is setting up a call center that will be accessible to Americans 24 hours a day.

One branch of that call center will be located in California’s Contra Costa County, where, reportedly, 7,000 people applied for the 204 jobs. According to the Contra Costa Times, however, “about half the jobs are part-time, with no health benefits — a stinging disappointment to workers and local politicians who believed the positions would be full-time.” The county supervisor, Karen Mitchoff, called the hiring process “a comedy of errors” and said she “never dreamed [the jobs] would be part-time.”

The Times indicates that a job posting advertised all of the jobs as full-time, and one call center employee, who said no reason for the apparent change was provided, told the paper, ”It reminded me of that George Clooney movie where he goes around the country firing people [Up in the Air]. The woman said, ‘I know you were led to believe you would be full-time, but things have changed. . . . You are actually ‘part-time intermittent.’”

The Contra Costa employees are currently in training, and the call center — one of three based in California — is set to go live on October 1.

In the same way, Obama constantly blathers on and on about wealth inequality and blah blah blah.  But it is UNDER HIS REGIME that the rich (because Obama needs those filthy rich liberals) have gotten more rich than ever before and the poor have become more poor than ever before.  The fact of the matter is that the poor and middle class are earning $2,718 less a year under Obama than they were under Bush.  And Obama acts as if he just descended from heaven and is seeing the affliction of the poor rather than being the rat bastard sonofabitch who cased it.

Liberals are hypocrites.  They are liars without shame, without honor and without virtue.  They couldn’t give less of a damn about the poor.  ALL THEY WANT IS MORE GOVERNMENT POWER AND MORE ABILITY TO CONTROL PEOPLES’ LIVES AND MORE POWER TO DECIDE WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES SO THEY CAN PUNISH THOSE THEY WANT TO PUNISH AND REWARD WHO THEY WANT TO REWARD.

Case in point: Obama is going on the road with his demagoguery about income inequality: right before leaving for another one of his incredibly lavish taxpayer-funded vacations.  He’s no different from his Stalinist-era Marxist buddies who did the same sort of demagogic blathering about capitalists oppressing the poor just before leaving on their caviar-stuffing vacations to their dachas on the Black Sea when their own people had nothing and were never going to have anything under the failed system of socialism.

Hypocrite IRS Union That Wants To Force All OTHER Americans To Purchase ObamaCare Demands Opt-Out FROM ObamaCare

July 26, 2013

The dishonesty, hypocrisy and arrogance of the government elite class stands fully revealed.

What was ObamaCare ever about?  It was all about making massive, all-powerful, all-controlling liberal fascist government even more massive and even more powerful and give it even more control over every detail of the peoples’ lives.  Before the beast of the Book of Revelation comes to finish the government-as-god job Obama started.

Obama wanted one nation, under Government.  And liberals crawled from every corner to help him attain that.  ObamaCare is a mess (even DEMOCRATS know that!) and everybody knows that it is a complete disaster.  But health care was never their goal; control was their goal and they got what they wanted.

So now the union that represents the IRS – and which overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama AND his demonic ObamaCare takeover of our health care system – demands that they not be held accountable to the stinking pile of ObamaCare “train wreck” that they massively grew to impose on all other Americans.

Let’s get this straight: this is an INCREDIBLY partisan union that overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008 and again in 2012:

As the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney and others have pointed out, the agency’s employees are heavily engaged in politics and lean considerably to the left. Records show that IRS employees in 2012 donated more than twice as much to the Obama as to the Romney campaign. Nearly two-thirds of all employee contributions over the last three elections cycles have gone to Democrats.

Sweetness and Light reports the press releases of this heavily partisan and biased union for heavily partisan and biased IRS employees.  This is a group of people who worshiped Obama and took his mark on their right hands or their foreheads.  But they won’t accept the signature achievement of the turd they supported.  Because that’s fecal matter that only LITTLE PEOPLE should have to be forced to eat.

Here’s the story from Forbes:

7/26/2013 @ 10:55AM |76,660 views
IRS Employees Union Is ‘Very Concerned’ About Being Required To Enroll In Obamacare’s Health Insurance Exchanges
Avik Roy Avik Roy, Contributor

In the private sector, many workers are concerned about losing their employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, and being dumped into Obamacare’s subsidized insurance exchanges. Two weeks ago, representatives of three large labor unions fired off a harsh letter to Democratic leaders in Congress, complaining that Obamacare would “shatter…our hard-earned health benefits” and create “nightmare scenarios” for their members. Today, we learn that the National Treasury Employees Union—the union that includes employees of the Internal Revenue Service—is asking its members to write letters to their Congressmen, stating that they are “very concerned” about legislative efforts requiring IRS and Treasury employees to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges.

“I am a federal employee and one of your constituents,” the letter begins. “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).”

Rep. Dave Camp (R., Mich.), the representative referred to in the letter, is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee in the House that is responsible for tax legislation. (Obamacare’s insurance subsidies are technically tax credits.) In April, Camp introduced legislation to put all federal employees on the exchanges, in response to reports that members of Congress and their staff were seeking an exemption from the provision in Obamacare that requires them to enroll in the exchanges.

“If the ObamaCare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress, and federal employees,” said Camp’s spokeswoman in a statement at the time.

There is one legitimate issue regarding members of Congress and their staff enrolling in the exchanges. Today, federal employees are offered subsidies, or vouchers, which they can use to shop for insurance on the popular federal employees’ exchange, called the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. Because Obamacare was drafted so hastily, it’s not clear whether the law allows similar subsidies to flow to federal employees on the Obamacare exchanges.

We’re still awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on that front. For inexplicable reasons, OPM has not clarified whether or not the government will be allowed to funnel subsidies through the Obamacare exchanges.

Nonetheless, it would be a very good thing for some federal employees to eat their own cooking, especially those who work for Congress, the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. They’re the ones who are writing the Obamacare regulations; they’re the ones who, in many cases, wrote the law itself. The IRS enforces Obamacare’s individual mandate and eligibility for the exchange subsidies, among other provisions.

They should be required to enroll in the same Obamacare exchanges that tens of millions of private citizens will have to. They should have to experience the same premium increases and limited flexibility that other Americans will endure there. Maybe then, we’ll start to build a constituency for market-based reform.

Here’s what the NTEU (The National Treasury Employees Union that represents the IRS employees who savagely and fascistically targeted Obama’s political enemies said of their efforts for their messiah Obama:

Press Release
NTEU Leader Applauds Obama Victory; Turns Immediate Focus to Upcoming Lame-Duck Session
Wednesday, November 7 2012

Washington, D.C.—The leader of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) today applauded the re-election of President Barack Obama.

“NTEU supported the re-election of President Obama as being in the best interests of our country and of the dedicated men and women of the federal workforce,” said NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley. “NTEU is also pleased that so many of our candidates for Senate seats and our staunchest supporters in the House won their races.”

NTEU’s efforts on behalf of President Obama and key candidates spanned the country. “Our 2012 election plan has been in place since the beginning of the year,” said President Kelley. “Many chapters and members were actively involved educating and organizing various types of activities around the country including candidate nights and volunteering for campaigns.”

NTEU’s efforts focused on battleground states where races for the presidency, Senate and House seats were competitive and where the union has substantial numbers of NTEU members including Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana.

In the days before the election, NTEU members volunteered for phone-banking and canvassing, with a particular focus on contacting other NTEU members and urging them to vote for candidates who support federal employees and federal employee issues.

“Federal employees heard our message loud and clear that everything about the lives of the federal workforce is determined by those elected to office,” said Kelley.

Unlike his opponent in the presidential election, Kelley said, the president is keenly aware of the risks to the effective delivery of vital government services posed by proposals to sharply reduce the federal workforce and cut the budgets of federal agencies.

“In a very real sense, these are make-or-break issues for our country,” Kelley said. “Federal agencies simply must have the resources and personnel they need to carry out their missions,” she added, noting the effective work of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of the storm that battered the east coast in late October.

Of course, these dishonest government cockroaches who want to impose by raw government power that which they arrogantly and hypocritically refuse for themselves doesn’t mention that part of their electioneering activities for their messiah included targeting Republican candidates, Romney campaign donors, more than 500 conservative and Tea Party groups, Christian organizations, Pro-Israel Jewish organizations, and pretty much anybody who didn’t worship their messiah Obama.  If you don’t believe that Obama sicked the Internal Revenge Service on these groups out of pure partisan hatred, you are pathetically stupid and please don’t waste my time with your idiocy.

They also dishonestly failed to mention that “candidates who support federal employees and federal employee issues” wanted ObamaCare – which they now say is evil.  Nor do they want the government “to carry out their missions” of imposing that evil, demonic ObamaCare on the unions that so ardently worshiped Obama and helped impose his evil agenda on the rest of America.

These people are roaches crawling on the most rancid dung pile.  They are from the government, and they are here to hurt you.

This is the essence of liberal socialism: they use other people’s money to impose other people’s healthcare on other people – as long as they be exempted from what they want to impose on other people.

Pardon my language here, but this is the bottom line: you people who cooked this vile shit up, you need to eat it too.

Obama And Holder Again Attacking Jesus Christ And Any Young People Who Might Believe In Him (Worship The State Instead, Kids!)

July 23, 2013

Poor troubled kids have a problem according to Barack Obama and Eric Holder.  They are worshiping the wrong god.

Here’s how Obama wants these kids to act:

But, sadly, troubled kids in Louisiana who would otherwise turn to crime are being taught to consider the God of the Bible.  Which means Obama and his lawthug Holder must persecute them:

Louisiana Young Marines Program Loses Federal Funding Over ‘Religious Activities’
July 2, 2013 |  Filed under: Law & Government,Life & Society,Top Stories |  By: Garrett Haley

Young MarinesBOSSIER CITY, Lou. – The sheriff of a Louisiana parish is stunned after Department of Justice funds were cut from a local Young Marines chapter, simply because some of the organization’s activities were deemed to be “religious.”

According to reports, the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement (LCLE) stripped $30,000 in allotted DOJ funding from the Bossier Parish’s Young Marines unit, which is a character-building program designed to encourage healthy lifestyles for members. An official for the DOJ told reporters that the cuts were due to voluntary student-led prayers and a mention of “church” in a Young Marine oath.

“[DOJ regulations prohibit] funding on inherently religious activities, such as prayer, religious instruction and proselytization,” he told columnist Todd Starnes. “And any religious activities must be kept separate in time or location from DOJ-funded activities.”

Julian Whittington, sheriff of Bossier Parish and a coordinator of the Young Marines program, is thoroughly disgusted by the DOJ and LCLE’s decision, saying it was “aggression and infringement of our religious freedoms.” After the funds were cut, DOJ officials told Whittington he would have to write a letter, promising not to pray or use the word “God” in Young Marines meetings, or else the money would never be restored.

“I flat said, ‘It’s not going to happen,’” he told reporters. “Enough is enough. This is the United States of America—and the idea that the mere mention of God or voluntary prayer is prohibited is ridiculous.”

Whittington further emphasized that he’s more concerned about the censorship than he is the lost funds.

“The money is not the issue,” he stated. “It’s the principle of the matter. What is going on here? Who is dictating what can or can’t be said in Bossier Parish?”

For over ten years, the Bossier sheriff’s office has facilitated the local Young Marines program, graduating over 1,000 participants since the chapter’s inception. According to the Young Marines’ national website, the organization “promotes the mental, moral, and physical development of its members,” and also “focuses on character building, leadership, and promotes a healthy, drug-free lifestyle.”

Participants in the Young Marines program are asked to recite the following oath:

“From this day forward, I sincerely promise, I will set an example for all other youth to follow and I shall never do anything that would bring disgrace or dishonor upon God, my country and its flag, my parents, myself or the Young Marines. These I will honor and respect in a manner that will reflect credit upon them and myself. Semper Fidelis.”

Government officials took issue with the first sentence’s mention of God, saying any federally-funded institution should not include religious overtones. However, Starnes recently pointed out that both the U.S. military’s commissioning oath and enlistment oath include the phrase, “So help me God.” And Whittington further asserted the inconsistency of the decision when he mentioned to local TV station KTBS that both the Pledge of Allegiance and the dollar bill include references to God.

Despite the funding controversy, Bossier Parrish’s Young Marines unit appears to be going strong, receiving an outpouring of financial support in response to the ordeal, according to the Shreveport Times. Just last week, another 15 young people were graduated from the program. At the ceremony, Whittington stated that the DOJ had overstepped its rightful authority.

“It’s more about the principle of the issue that Department of Justice can come down here in Bossier City, in our building and tell us what these young people just recited—a voluntary prayer,” he explained to reporters. “We don’t believe that’s offensive. We’ve never had a complaint, and we’re going to keep it in our program as long as we’re doing it here at the Bossier Sheriff’s Office.”

Photo: Bossier Sheriff’s Office

Under the “fundamental transformation” of Obama’s God damn America, it’s a crime to worship Jesus.  Unless you worship “Black Jesus” Obama.

In Obama’s God Damn America, America now teaches Palestinian kids that “Jews are wolves.”  Because Judeo-Christianity doesn’t worship Obama.

In Obama’s God Damn America, the Bible (which condemns homosexuality as an “abomination” [Leviticus 18] that will result in the full wrath of God on any culture that embraces it [Romans 1]) is out and homosexual perversion is in.

Obama And The Unions Haven’t Been Very Good To Detroit (Largest Bankruptcy In American History), Have They?

July 19, 2013

How do you kill a major American city – particularly one where three of the biggest manufacturers in the WORLD are located?

Ask a Democrat.  Because they’re the ones who just succeeded in doing it.

Detroit just went belly up.  And I can smell the rotting carcass of a city that had everything until idiotic liberalism killed the golden goose.

Has Obama been good for Detroit?  Not so much.

Detroit is a city that literally did everything – absolutely EVERYTHING – Obama and the radical leftists demoniacs said we need to do everywhere.  And it was the kind of cancer in Detroit that it will be spreading throughout the rest of America.

That said, we can’t lay all this at Obama’s feet.  Because in spite of the fact that it had the big three auto manufacturers located there, the unions and the union mentality have been poisoning the city for going on sixty years.

Detroit files for bankruptcy protection
Nancy Kaffer, Stephen Henderson and Matt Helms, Detroit Free Press 5:22 p.m. EDT July 18, 2013

DETROIT — The city of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in federal court Thursday, laying the groundwork for a historic effort to bail out a city that is sinking under billions of dollars in debt and decades of mismanagement, population flight and loss of tax revenue.

The bankruptcy filing makes Detroit the largest city in U.S. history to do so.

The filing begins a 30- to 90-day period that will determine whether the city is eligible for Chapter 9 protection and define how many claimants might compete for the limited settlement resources that Detroit has to offer. The bankruptcy petition would seek protection from creditors and unions who are renegotiating $18.5 billion in debt and other liabilities.

FULL COVERAGE: Detroit’s financial crisis STORY: Financial manager: Detroit ‘dysfunctional, wasteful’

“The fiscal realities confronting Detroit have been ignored for too long. I’m making this tough decision so the people of Detroit will have the basic services they deserve and so we can start to put Detroit on a solid financial footing that will allow it to grow and prosper in the future,” said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. “This is a difficult step, but the only viable option to address a problem that has been six decades in the making.”

Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr, who in June released a plan to restructure the city’s debt and obligations that would leave many creditors with much less than they are owed, has warned consistently that if negotiations hit an impasse, he would move quickly to seek bankruptcy protection.

Snyder signed off on the filing in a letter attached to court documents filed Thursday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Michigan. A spokeswoman for Snyder did not immediately return telephone calls Thursday.

“It is clear that the financial emergency in Detroit cannot be successfully addressed outside of such a filing, and it is the only reasonable alternative that is available,” Snyder said in the letter granting his state-required approval. “In other words, the City’s financial emergency cannot be satisfactorily rectified in a reasonable period of time absent this filing.”

Snyder continued: “I have reached the conclusion that this step is necessary after a thorough review of all the available alternatives, and I authorize this necessary step as a last resort to return this great City to financial and civic health for its residents and taxpayers. This decision comes in the wake of 60 years of decline for the city, a period in which reality was often ignored.”

Orr’s spokesman Bill Nowling said, “Pension boards, insurers, it’s clear that if you’re suing us, your response is ‘no.’ We still have other creditors we continue to have meetings with, other stakeholders who are trying to find a solution here, because they recognize that, at the end of the day, we have to have a city that can provide basic services to its 700,000 residents.”

This week, the city’s two pension funds (which have claims to $9.2 billion in unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities) filed suit in state court to prevent Orr from slashing retiree benefits as part of a bankruptcy restructuring.

Ambac Assurance Guaranty, which insures some of the city’s general obligation bonds, has also objected to Orr’s plan to treat those bonds as “unsecured,” meaning they’re not tied directly to a revenue stream and would receive pennies on the dollar of their value. Ambac, and other creditors, have threatened to file suit.

Sources agree that Orr’s deal with creditors, widely reported to be Bank of America Corp. and UBS AG, to pay a $344-million swap with a $255-million debtor-in-possession loan, is instrumental in the timing of the bankruptcy filing.

The deal gives the city access to $11 million a month in casino tax revenues that Orr has said is key to maintaining city services while negotiations, in or out of bankruptcy court, take their course with other creditors and unions.

Plunkett Cooney bankruptcy lawyer Doug Bernstein, who is not involved in the bankruptcy and is not representing any parties related to it, said Thursday that the filing was critical for the city, given a growing number of legal challenges.

On Monday, an Ingham County Circuit Court judge was scheduled to hold a hearing on the city workers’ and retirees’ challenge to stop the city from filing for bankruptcy protection. The employee groups, and separately the city’s two pension funds in another lawsuit, argue that the governor — who must and has authorized the bankruptcy filing — cannot do so if the filings include plans to reduce pension benefits, because the state’s constitution explicitly protects public pensions. If the state has such plans, it wasn’t immediately presented in the court filing.

Bernstein said preventing the court hearing Monday is probably a key part of the strategy behind a Chapter 9 petition by the city, because a ruling in favor of the employees could put a halt, at least temporarily, to any moves by Orr and Snyder to proceed with a bankruptcy petition. A bankruptcy filing immediately stays all such court proceedings.

STORY: Detroit manager pitches debt recovery plan to creditors

“The stay kicks in as soon as the filing, whether it’s Friday or Monday,” Bernstein said before Thursday’s filing. “The key is taking advantage of the automatic stay. Because of the lawsuit filed by the pension funds and the hearings coming up Monday, it became a factor, so to the extent that (Orr) wanted to continue negotiations with creditors, now the city is forced to” file a Chapter 9 petition.

The 30- to 90-day eligibility fight could be prolonged beyond that time frame if creditors mount a significant challenge to Detroit’s eligibility for bankruptcy. In other communities that have filed for Chapter 9 protection, such fights have extended the process a year or more, including Jefferson County, Ala., and Stockton, Calif., two of the largest municipal bankruptcy filings so far in the United States.

Detroit’s bankruptcy is by far the largest of its kind in U.S. history, in terms of the city’s population of about 700,000 and the amount of its debts and liabilities, which Orr has said could be as high as $20 billion. Because of the stakes involved, and the impact on residents statewide, as well as 30,000 current and retired city workers and Detroit’s ability to stay in business, the case could be precedent setting in the federal judiciary. It also could set an important trajectory for the way troubled cities nationwide settle their financial difficulties.

Bernstein noted that Orr has said repeatedly his office would “negotiate with creditors until and unless we find that the negotiations won’t bear fruit, with the understanding that the city has a limited amount of time” for those talks.

City Council President Pro Tem Andre Spivey said he understood that negotiations Orr was having with creditors weren’t as fruitful has he’d hoped they be, and that he hopes the bankruptcy process will be relatively quick. But he stressed to residents that they needn’t worry about the impact of the filing immediately.

“City services we provide will not be shut down,” Spivey said. “We’ll still be providing services, but the challenge is where we’re going to get to as we go through the bankruptcy process.”

The city has lost more than half of its population over the last 60 years. In 1950, the city was the fifth-largest city in the country with a population of around 1.8 million. Today its population is estimated at just under 700,000.

Who is to blame for this mega-disaster? Is it the United Auto Workers labor union, which has been completely owned by the Democrat Party machine and which funds that machine? Is it the municipal government labor unions, which have been completely owned by the Democrat Party machine and which have funded that machine? Or is it all the Democrat politicians who have rubber stamped the liberal labor union agenda for decades by giving them money and benefits vastly beyond what they were “entitled” to at the expense of the taxpayers???

Detroit was the FOURTH LARGEST CITY IN AMERICA.  It was a city that had everything.

And Barack Obama is determined to impose the fate of Detroit on the rest of America.  And he is succeeding.

In Passages Like John 1:1 and Colossians 1:15 Jehovah’s Witnesses And Mormons Actually Refute Their Own False Theology

July 18, 2013

I recently had a Jehovah’s Witness try to “witness” to me.  When I told him that I could not be a Jehovah’s Witness because this false religion refused to acknowledge Christ in His rightful deity, he immediately cited Colossians 1:15.

It starts off sounding a little promising for heretics who try to argue that Jesus was merely a created being, rather than the Son of God as the Scriptures, the early Church, the Church Fathers and the Seven Historic Universal Councils of the Church all state to the contrary.

Colossians 1:15 says:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Let’s not ignore the little phrase, “He is the image of the invisible God,” which of course means that Jesus too is likewise “the invisible God.”  If you look in the mirror, is that image of you or is it somehow of a lesser being?  Or an even more literal analogy in terms of what the Greek word “image” means, if you were perfectly cloned, would your identical twin having your identical DNA be human, or would it somehow be less than human?  Hebrews 1:3 allows us to understand this term “image” better: “Christ is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature.”  But probably most informative of all is the exchange between Philip and Jesus in the Gospel of John.  In John 14:8, Philip says, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”  And how does Jesus respond?  He says, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.”

Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father.  How could that in any way be true if Jesus is not Himself God?  What does the Father look like?  Aside from the fact that Christ added to His divine nature a human nature so that He could live a perfect life on earth for us and then die in our place, The Father looks exactly like Jesus.  In His character, in His goodness, in His glory, the Father looks just like Jesus.  When the Father looks in the mirror in this sense, He sees His Son.  And when the Son looks in a mirror, He sees His Father.

But if you simply ignore that first problematic phrase, as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons invariably do in their rush to get to Christ as “firstborn of all creation,” that means Christ must have been a created being, rather than God, right?

Wrong.  Let’s read that passage in its full context.  Let’s read the whole paragraph and trace the argument that St. Paul is making in this passage:

He is the image of jthe invisible God, kthe firstborn of all creation. 16 For by6 him all things were created, lin heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether mthrones or ndominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created othrough him and for him. 17 And phe is before all things, and in him all things qhold together. 18 And rhe is the head of the body, the church. He is sthe beginning, tthe firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For uin him all the vfullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and wthrough him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, xmaking peace yby the blood of his cross.

I left the links – awkward as they make the passage appear – for good reason: they provide the scriptural context in which each phrase is used.  As you click on each link, what you find is, wow, each verse that St. Paul alludes to is a direct reference to GOD.  That is not an accident.

Let me simply say it right at the outset: I can EXPLAIN the “firstborn of all creation” phrase completely logically and rationally in terms of Trinitarian orthodoxy.  However, there is no possible way that Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons or any other pseudo-Christian heretics can explain the rest of the paragraph and make any kind of logical sense.

I argue as ALL true Christians have argued since Thomas first said, “My Lord and my God!” after Jesus revealed that He had just bodily risen from the dead proving all of His claims to be the divine Messiah in complete fulfillment of the Old Testament.

So what does “firstborn of all creation” mean?

Well, part of the answer is revealed as Paul develops his argument in the very next verse.  “For by Him [Jesus Christ] all things were created.”  If Jesus created all things, as Paul categorically states in the very next verse that Jehovah’s Witnesses love to cite as their proof text, then it most certainly means that Jesus was NOT CREATED.

If “all things were created” by Jesus Christ, then how could Jesus Christ have been created???  You have two categories: God and creation.  And since Jesus created all things, Paul is clearly stating that Jesus is God rather than a created thing.  That is simple logic.  There is no escaping that logic.

Even on the Jehovah’s Witnesses incredibly flawed and demonic theology of Christ, Jesus Christ existed prior to when He appeared in Mary’s womb and was “born.”

I cite what they argue:

He was created whenever Jehovah the Almighty God began to create, he was the first to be created, he’s OF CREATION. Jehovah is not OF CREATION, because Jehovah was NOT created and did not have a BEGINNING.

Notice again that this false understanding of Christ is utterly refuted in Colossians 1:16, that “by him [Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.”  If by Christ all things were created – and Paul then produces an exhaustive list of all the things that Christ created – and then we are told that “all things were created through him and for him,” then why are we not to believe that Christ is “of creation” rather than “NOT of creation”????  How is it that Jesus is “before all things”???  How is it that in Jesus ” all things hold together”???

Jesus is literally the force that prevents every single atom from flying apart, according to this passage.  Christ is literally the power holding the universe together.  That sounds like a job for God to me.

But let me get back to the point I was beginning to make, namely, if Jesus existed prior to when He was “born” – as Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves do – then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to take “firstborn” in the sense that they demand it be taken in.  Because Jesus PRE-EXISTED His birth even on their own account!!!

The Person of Christ did not begin to exist in Mary’s womb; He pre-existed His birth by at least thousands of years.  Which means that “firstborn” means something very different from what they want it to mean as heretics who deny the deity of Christ.

So we literally all agree that “firstborn” is NOT to be intended in the literal sense.  Because Jesus was only literally, physically “born” one time – out of Mary’s womb – and even Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge that that birth is very clearly not what is being described.  Which means that “firstborn” is clearly intended to be a figurative statement in St. Paul’s argument.

What we are talking about here is a term used to describe supremacy or priority of rank – and very clearly NOT a statement or description of when or even IF Jesus was ever “born.”  Rather, Paul begins by basically stating in His “firstborn of all creation” metaphor that Jesus is supreme over creation, and then proceeds to describe Christ as Creator of and over all creation.

P.T. O’Brien in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters has a fascinating and conclusive article on this subject of “firstborn.”  I shall summarize his findings in a few paragraphs.

The term “firstborn” is used in the plural in the New Testament twice:

By faith he [Moses] left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them. — Hebrews 11:28

And:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. — Hebrews 12:23

Note first of all that “firstborn” in the plural sense in the only two occasions the term is used in the plural sense is used to apply NOT TO BIRTH OR TO CREATION, but to BELIEVERS.  And then note that Christ is then mentioned separate and distinct from “the firstborn” in Hebrews 12:24.

That stated, the term “firstborn” is used three times in the New Testament – and in each use it applies to Christ who is:

1. Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15)

2. Firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18)

3. Firstborn among many brothers (Romans 8:29)

Now, again, think of this term “firstborn” in terms of supremacy or priority of rank and it very easily fits: who is Jesus?  He is supreme over all creation by virtue of the fact that HE IS THE CREATOR.  He is supreme over the dead by virtue of the fact that HE OVERCAME DEATH by the power of His Resurrection from the dead.  And He is supreme among the many who would believe in Him by virtue of the fact that HE IS THEIR LORD AND SAVIOR.  And everything that these Christian brothers and sisters will share in they will share with Jesus Christ and BECAUSE of Jesus Christ.

You see how easy it is to sensibly understand the term “firstborn” in terms of Trinitarian orthodoxy?  You know, the theology that dominated the early Church, and which was repeatedly and conclusively stated in every single one of the first SEVEN universal councils of the Christian Church as they expressed their understanding of Christ and the one true Faith delivered once and for all to the saints that is in Him???

“Christ is firstborn of all creation” expresses Christ’s relationship to creation.  Because, as Paul IMMEDIATELY proceeds to argue in his very next words, “all things” were created by the very Christ who is “firstborn of all creation.”

Again, I demand that Jehovah’s Witnesses answer their OWN problem with the passage that they often cite: just how can Christ “create all things” and yet Himself have been created???  He would – unless He is truly God and truly pre-existent as God is truly pre-existent – have had to have created Himself.  Which is philosophically and metaphysically utterly absurd.

So what does a good Jehovah’s Witness have to do?  He has to throw down the Bible and start adding stuff.  He has to start adding words that are very definitely NOT in the Bible and therefore change and pervert both the Word of God and the argument from St. Paul that they themselves love to cite.  They have to say that “Christ created all other things after He was Himself created.

But that is very definitely NOT what the Bible teaches.  Which is to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons to understand the “firstborn of all creation” passage without perverting it to fit their deeply flawed theology.

Rather, the Bible, the Word of God, declares that Jesus Christ created ALL things.  And St. Paul goes on to categorically state how exhaustive that is:  Jesus Christ created everything in heaven.  Jesus Christ created everything on earth.  Jesus Christ created everything that is visible.  Jesus Christ created everything that is invisible.  And whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, it was Jesus Christ who created them all.

Also read John 1:1-3 to see the same line of argument:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.    All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Note again: ALL things were created through Jesus, the Word.  And in fact nothing was created that ever WAS created.  Which is to say that John 1:1 plays on Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  Only now we learn that it was God the Second Person, a.k.a. Christ, who was the Creator.

There’s a poem that says, “He came to die on a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood” that beautifully and simply sums up that incredibly powerful truth.  Christ created man in His own image so that one day He could assume that image – and thus sacrificially offer Himself for the sins of a lost world that would have perished without Him.  That is the beauty of Christ that Jehovah’s Witnesses want to pervert.

What do Jehovah’s Witnesses do here to pervert the Gospel of John literally from the very first verse?  They decide that “God” is an anarthrous noun, which means that there is no article preceding the noun.  And so they declare “the Word” – Jesus Christ – to be “a god” rather than “God.”  But their rule here is so idiotic that they break it themselves even before they can get to it in the first verse of John’s Gospel.  Because, you see, “beginning” is also anarthrous, meaning there is no article there, either.  And so if their “rule” had any merit, they would have translated the verse, “In A beginning…”  And of course that is merely one of the numerous times they break the rule they created in order to pervert Jesus from God to merely “a god.”  Because you have this exact same situation 282 times, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses “translators” only follow their own “rule” on sixteen occasions – just SIX PERCENT of the time.

Consider that if the Jehovah’s Witnesses consistently followed their own rule just in the opening verses of the Book of John:

– “beginning” in verses 1 and 2 would have been translated “a beginning.”

– “life” in verse 4 would have been translated as “a life.”

– “from God” in verse 6 would have been translated as “from a god.”

– “John” in verse 6 would have been translated as “a John.”

“God” in verse 18 would have been translated as “a God.”

And yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses break their own “rule” in every single one of these instances.  The “rule” was created for one ideological purpose only: to blaspheme Jesus Christ and deny Him His rightful deity.  Which is why no baptized in good standing Jehovah’s Witness has ever been shown to have been granted a post-graduate degree in biblical Greek.  EVER.

The beauty of these three opening verses in the Book of John is enhanced by a theological understanding of what John succeeded in accomplishing.  In declaring that “The Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John’s use of the anarthrous “God” is exactly correct; because had he written “the Word was [the] God,” he would have been fomenting the heresy of Sabelianism or modalism– which held that Jesus WAS a “mode” of God, or that “God” was one Person wearing three hats: the hat of the Father, the hat of the Son and the hat of the Holy Spirit.  Which is to say that John HAD to translate “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” exactly as he did.

There is absolutely no escaping the logic of the passages that Jehovah’s Witnesses love to cite so they can fundamentally pervert and misrepresent them.

I think of the warning that St. John provides in the Book of Revelation:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. — Revelation 22:18-19

Jehovah’s Witnesses are routinely forced to “add to the words” over and over again as they deny the reality of the deity of Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior and God.  And they are routinely forced to take away from the Book as they repeatedly take away clear ascriptions affirming the deity of Jesus Christ.  And they will one day burn in hell for their sin, just as John warned them.

You might want to view Jehovah’s Witnesses as well-meaning people, good people, decent people.  But they go door-to-door trying to lead lost soul after lost soul to the very same hell that they themselves will surely burn in.  Which makes them terrible agents of demonic wickedness.

Let me ask a question: who purchased the Church with His own Blood?  Acts 20:28 tells you if you didn’t know:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Who purchased the church of God?  God did.  That shouldn’t be all that hard to figure out.

Christ is one Person with two natures: one human, one divine.  He had to be human, and fully human in absolutely every way that it is essential to be human, in order to represent the human race.  He had to be God because as the Scriptures conclusively state:

We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. — Isaiah 64:6

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. — Psalm 51:5

No one is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. — Romans 3:10

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God — Romans 3:23

For the wages of sin is death — Romans 6:23

First of all, Christ had to be completely and fully divine, God in every meaningful way, because all humanity was trapped in sin and sinful man could not save sinful man.

Could Jesus have been an angel?  Not according to the Bible, He couldn’t.

Consider the crystal clear argument of Hebrews chapter one that clearly reveals that Jesus was NOT an angel:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son,     today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

“I will be to him a father,     and he shall be to me a son”?

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,     and his ministers a flame of fire.”

But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,     the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you     with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10 And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,     and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain;     they will all wear out like a garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up,     like a garment they will be changed.[a] But you are the same,     and your years will have no end.”

13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,

“Sit at my right hand     until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

Based on this passage, what heretic, what FOOL would dare to claim that the Bible teaches that Jesus is merely an angel?

Let me also ask the question, where in Scripture does God give man over to any angel?  Where is it that God tells the angels that they – and not God – are Savior to mankind???  Where does the Word of God tell us that the blood of an angel delivers sinful man from his sin?  Where does it teach us that any angel has the power to save us from the wrath of God and from hell?  Nowhere, that’s where.

What in fact does God say?  This:

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he.  Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.  I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior. — Isaiah 43:10-11

And just to add insult to injury, who is declared to BE that “Savior” in the New Testament?

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.  — Luke 2:11

If Jesus is NOT “God,” and every bit God, then Jehovah is refuted.  Because in Isaiah He boasts that there is no other Savior when in fact He was wrong and Jesus would ALSO be Savior.  ONLY if Jesus is God, as orthodox Trinitarian theology upholds, and is literally the fulfillment of this passage, is that not the case.

Well, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons claim that the Father is God (in the case of J.W.s, “Jehovah”) and that Jesus is “a god.”  Could that be (apart from the fact that that has already been refuted above?).  No.  What does God’s Word say?

Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. — Isaiah 45:21

But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.

There is no other God besides the Triune Lord God.  And God’s Word assures us that Jesus is either a member of the Trinity or that He is neither “god” NOR “savior.”  And yet God’s Word assures us that He is in fact both God AND Savior.

… waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ — Titus 2:13

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ — 2 Peter 1:1

In the Person of Christ, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, God purchased the Church with His own blood.  God assumed a human nature so that He could experience death through that human nature.  But being God, He couldn’t remain dead.  And so our God and Savior Jesus Christ saved us.

Let’s keep in mind that both Mormons (who assert Jesus is the “spirit-brother” of Lucifer) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (who assert that Jesus is Michael the archangel) believe that Jesus is a merely an angel.  And with that in mind, read Galatians 1:6-8:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

It’s interesting that Paul refers to people who are turning others to “a different gospel” and who “distort the gospel of Christ.”  And then Paul says, “Even if an angel from heaven should preach such a gospel to you, let him be accursed.”

I ask you, “What if JESUS preached a different gospel?”  Because since Jesus is merely an angel according to both Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness theology, that has to be an obvious logical possibility on their view.  Notice Paul clearly does not say, “an angel from heaven other than Christ.”  Paul doesn’t do that because there is simply no question that JESUS IS NOT AN ANGEL as Hebrews chapter one (quoted above) clearly states.

Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are accursed according to the Word of God.  They are deceived and they seek to deceive as many others as they possibly can.

The Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism is a lie.  And it is a lie that has no power to save.  Because only GOD has the power to save.  And Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons explicitly deny that Jesus has such power.
Furthermore, if Jesus is NOT God, Scripture tells us that He is also not Savior.  And those who do not believe in Jesus Christ as God and Savior are still in their sins.

Please don’t allow these agents of Satan – no matter how polite they are when they come to your door – to lie to you about the true nature of the only Savior of the world.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons are false, blasphemous cults whom St. Paul described by saying “they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach” and ” a different kind of gospel” from the Gospel which saves – the Gospel of the True Jesus Christ, the divine King of kings and the divine Lord of lords.

The doctrine of the Trinity is NOT a “problem.”  It is merely the solution to the clear data provided by Scripture which reveals that while God is ontologically one in being, that there are three distinct divine Persons who are all very clearly called “God”: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The Father, Son and Spirit are not “three gods” because they co-inhabit ONE and THE SAME divine nature or essence.  No human being this side of eternity can fully understand that, because God is ontologically superior to us in every imaginable way.  But suffice it to say that “fellowship” is at the heart of God because it is literally part of the essence of being God: the Father, the Son and the Spirit are and always have been in a state of ultimate and eternal fellowship with one another within the divine nature.

The REAL ‘War On Women’ Party Rears Its Ugly, Mysoginist Head (Um, That’s The Democrat Party, You Know)

July 17, 2013

“War on women.”  That’s what Democrats and liberal feminists said of the Republican Party.  Because the Republican Party didn’t want to pay for liberal activist Sandra Fluke’s birth control.  The fact that Sandra Fluke outright lied about the cost of birth control (she dishonestly and frankly idiotically claimed that it cost $3,000 when in reality it cost $324 to cover the same period) didn’t matter.  Nor did it matter that in fact she easily could have accessed FREE birth control in the form of condoms from numerous sources.  The fact that Sandra Fluke as a Georgetown law school student was willing to pay $23,432.50 PER SEMESTER for her hoity-toity college but felt that birth control for $5 a month at Sam’s Club was too expensive and an outrage for women to have to buy didn’t matter.  The fact that an average Georgetown law school graduate starts out at $165,000 a year and what she was demanding was in fact a subsidy for the wealthy didn’t matter.  And of course it most certainly did not matter that Sandra Fluke literally enrolled in Georgetown – a CATHOLIC university – just so she could be a treacherous fifth column and sue them from within.  All that mattered was that demon-possessed Democrats had a slanderous rhetorical assertion and liberals are the kind of people who would much rather believe slanderous rhetorical accusations than actual reality.

You want to see which party is the real “War on Women” party in terms of the actual reality that every liberal must steadfastly ignore so they can continue to believe all the crap they believe instead?

You guessed it.  The Democrat Party.  It was true last year and it is every bit as true this year.  The Party of Weiner and the Party of Spitzer is the DEMOCRAT Party.  It’s okay to stomp on women.  Just as long as you’re a liberal.

Liberal journalist Nina Burleigh once had this to say about Bill Clinton:

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion  legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential  kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

And of course, Bill Clinton would have happily thrown down the knee pads for Nina so she could serve and service her master.  The only problem was he was too busy receiving just worship from the lips of a young female intern named Monica Lewinsky whose father had donated money to Clinton’s campaign.

Pardon me for editorializing here, but that ugly mindset really encompasses liberalism.  Liberals are people who want the government to step in and do everything for them in exchange for their worship of the state and their vote for the party that seeks more and more and more power for that State.  They want your vote, of course, but a vote and getting down on your knees to give a blowjob is the true manifestation of liberalism’s worship of power and those who hold power.

I think of the utterly warped and frankly demonic and hateful worldview of Nina Burleigh and all the liberal feminists just like her.  I think of how abortion is “pro-woman” any more than it is “pro-child” to murder a child.  Do you know who abortion kills?  Today, there are more than 60 million women “missing” in Asia alone because of sex-selective abortion.   Millions of men in China – more than 24 million – will never have the possibility of having wives because so many women have been murdered via abortion that there is a radical imbalance in the gender populations.  So many girls have been murdered and simply do not exist that it cost ten years’ worth of income to have a wife in that “pro abortion society.”  And no matter what pro-abortion people may tell you, they are very much FOR forced abortions that terrorize and maim hundreds of millions of women.  400 million women have been forced to have abortions against their will in China alone, leaving a bloody path of misery and suicide and suffering OF WOMEN in its wake.  People like Nina Burleigh who want legal abortion are the guarantors of this vile demonic crime against women.  Particularly given the fact that liberal feminists are every bit as “pro-big government” as they are “the right to choose” abortion.  And if a woman should have the right to choose,” then on what basis does the state not have the right to choose?  Particularly in the leftist totalitarian societies where the state has been given the power to “choose” everything else???  And to take that stand because you are “pro-woman” is insane to the point of being demon-possessed.

“Real women” are wives and mothers; they are not single sluts whining about the need for their ultimate Man, their Savior, big government, to provide birth control for them.  And they most certainly aren’t women who murder their babies.  And to drive the point home, “real women” are most definitely NOT women who put down their damn kneepads for Bill Clinton or for any other big government bureaucrat for that matter.

We go back to the father of progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, for the genesis of this perverted party.  Wilson acknowledged in Congressional Government that “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”  And it was his many statements like that prompted historian Walter McDougall to sum up Woodrow Wilson thus: “If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson, it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power.”  Wilson argued as president that he was the right hand of God and that to stand against him was to thwart the divine will.  Whereas conservatives believed that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the father of the progressive movement exalted in power and then more power, and believed that power accrued to whoever was truly on God’s side.

Jonah Goldberg summed it up this way:

“Doctrinaire fascism, much like communism, sold itself as an unstoppable force of divine or historical inevitability.  Those who stood in the way – the bourgeoisie, the “unfit,” the “greedy,” the “individualistic,” the “traitor,” the kulak, the Jew – could be demonized as the “other” because, at the end of the day, they were not merely expendable, nor were they merely reluctant to join the collective, they were by their very existence blocking the will to power that gave the mob and the avant-garde which claimed to speak for it their reason for existence.

Liberal men receive that worship, and liberal women can’t wait to throw down their kneepads and give it to them in one form or another.

That, for the record, is called “women’s liberation” by liberals.  I call it the lowest form of servitude imaginable.

I know that I would rather die than stand in some line with my “presidential kneepads.”  Which is what separates me from liberals.  I demand a government that stays off my damn back, not one that I should slavishly worship.  And I don’t have to thank my government for getting off my back and allowing me my freedom because the Declaration of Independence of MY founding fathers declares that my government OWES that to me.

I know, I know.  That’s just me.

Anyway, end of digression.  Let’s get back to this realization that if you want to look at the party of true “war on women,” look no further than at the Democrat Party.

Consider this editorial from a liberal in the liberal Los Angeles Times:

Women to L.A. City Hall: Remember us?
Deplorably, as of today is not a single elected woman in Los Angeles city government.

Since the LA Times staff butchered the grammar so badly, I’ll quote Lindsay Bubar and yes, our heroine Sandra Fluke:

Now, women must once again ask the city’s leaders to “remember the ladies” because, deplorably, there is not a single elected woman in Los Angeles city government.

Democrats have OWNED Los Angeles for decades.  They have OWNED it.  And just like Obama’s inner circle, no damn chicks are allowed.  Not without the proper knee-attire, anyway.  Democrats in a city that they own don’t have a single woman in office.

And women on the Democrat Party’s actual view of the world frankly ought to throw down their kneepads, get down on their knees, and shut the hell up: because Anthony Weiner says that it is inconsiderate and frankly rude to try to talk when you’re satisfying “The Weiner.”

And, with that, let’s consider the very first Democrat Mayor of San Diego in over 20 years.  And what a misogynist swine he is.  This turd’s own supporters are bringing up these charges.  The young fiance of this old piece of garbage broke up with him citing the fact that Filner “became increasingly abusive toward her and began sending sexually explicit text messages to other women in her presence.”

Frankly, according to the tenants of Bob Filner’s liberalism, I don’t know what Filner did wrong: he was merely demanding what he was entitled to, after all.  You get your welfare check, and he gets his something-something.  And Bob Filner is most certainly pro-abortion and therefore every bit as entitled to the adoration of liberal women like Nina Burleigh as Bill Clinton was.

But again, don’t ask me: ask Bill Clinton and his blowjob servant cum “journalist” Nina Burleigh.  But don’t bother trying to ask the city of Los Angeles or the administration of Barack Obama unless you’re a guy – because they won’t let you in the door.

Don’t tell me that the Republican Party is the party of war on women.  At least not until every single Democrat on earth has been hunted down, anyway.

Update: It turns out that Bob Filner CO-FOUNDED the Democrat Party’s Congressional Progressive Caucus alongside Nancy Pelosi.  This turd is classic, uberliberal through-and-through.

And Democrats knew FULL DAMN WELL about what was going on and the real party of the “war on women” couldn’t have given less of a damn.  Quote:

Former assemblywoman Lori Saldana: San Diego Democrats previously warned about Bob Filner
Past party leaders aware of allegations by women
Posted: 07/13/2013 Last Updated: 3 days ago

SAN DIEGO – Former state assemblywoman Lori Saldana told Team 10 she warned San Diego Democrats about Mayor Bob Filner’s treatment of women.

On Friday, she said she took her concerns directly to the party’s chairman.

I went to the leader, the elected leader of the county party,” Saldana said. “I expressed to him my concerns. Did he take strong enough action to make sure things would improve Apparently not.”

What did the Democrat Party completely not give a flying damn about?  Here’s a partial list:

  • the mayor has a modus operandi, a way of getting women alone and forcibly kissing and touching them
  • Filner grabbed the woman’s breast, putting his hand beneath her bra, and forced his tongue down her throat.
  • Gonzalez described certain moves Filner had that earned names among those who know him, like the “Filner dance” and the “Filner headlock.” The former was the dance they allege Filner did when he kissed a woman who was pulling away; the headlock, an overly friendly way of pulling women close to him so he could isolate them.
  • Gonzales related details from the victim who was in Filner’s employ — he said early on in the mayor’s term, she complimented the mayor, telling him he was doing a good job. The mayor responded that he would do a better job if she gave him a kiss. She laughed it off as a joke, Gonzalez said, but he said she soon became aware that the mayor was serious, continuing to harass her and others both physically and verbally.
  • “There is no circumstance under which it would be appropriate for the mayor to enter into an elevator with my client or any person who he employed and to tell them that they would do a better job on that floor if they worked without their panties on,” but that, Gonzalez said, is precisely what happened.
  • Victim Donna Frye called him “tragically unsafe for any woman to be around.”

Anybody who wants to tell you that the Republican Party has a “war on women” because Republicans believe that FEMALE babies ought to have their right to live are simply evil.  Period.

Update, July 23: I suppose I invoked the demonic little turd by saying his name, didn’t I?  But it turns out that Anthony Weiner is at it again.  Yes, at least a FULL YEAR after getting busted for “sexting” any woman who would lower herself to online sex with a rodent, Weiner got busted again.  This time – under his online name “Carlos Danger” – Weiner promised a young woman a condo and even suggested he could get her a job at liberal “news” source Politico.   The address of the condo is known: 1235 S. Prairie Ave.  Weiner wanted to set her up so he could meet her there for sex.

That is so damn Democrat Weiner – who is staying in the race because he knows that Democrats are moral cockroaches – that he ought to be praised by the Democrat Party.  All Weiner wants is to be able to selfishly exploit a young woman in return for providing her welfare.  THAT IS THE DEMOCRAT WAY.  THAT IS ALL DEMOCRATS STAND FOR.

The fact that it is demonic is entirely besides the point.

Update, July 25: Anthony Weiner says he won’t pull out of the race; like this turd would ever “pull out” of ANYTHING once he’s got his little weiner in it.  This is the story that just keeps showing us the REAL face of the Democrat Party.  We now know the name of ONE (there being about a half a dozen other new women) who came forward: Sydney Leathers.  And we know she’s an uber liberal.  First off, let’s go back and establish the pattern of liberal women showering their liberal government gods with sexual worship.  Remember our “journalist” Nina Burleigh and what she said of her government-as-savior-and-lord god Bill Clinton?

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion  legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential  kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

And I said in this article, published days before the Weiner sexting scandal part TWO broke that was just so damn typical of liberal feminists it wasn’t even funny.  And so we’ve got our case in point example of the day in Sydney Leathers, who said of Anthony Weiner:

“I basically worship the ground you walk on.”

And:

“He’s [Weiner] my hero.”

And, just like Barack Hussein Obama and every OTHER Democrat cockroach who keeps crawling into government life, Leathers now says that Weiner made her “very lofty promises” – and utterly failed to keep them.

I think of our liar-in-chief and all the stinking pile of lies he told just to impose his fascist takeover of the healthcare system: if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor; if you like your health plan, you’ll be able to keep your health plan; my Obamacare will cut the cost of your health care; my Obamacare won’t increase the deficit; my Obamacare will create millions of jobs.  Liberal women LOVE to be lied to; it’s only the truth and those who tell it that they despise.

It must be wonderful to be a Democrat male.  You get to be worshipped by stupid, morally-depraved women.  You get to get all sorts of “weiner benefits” in exchange for making all kinds of promises that you never have to actually keep.  And that gravy train is going to continue until you either die or until the REAL Messiah returns.  At which time you will burn in hell along with all your stupid floozies who kept voting for you.

It Has Already Been Proven: We Cannot Trust Judges To Approve Security Decisions In The Age Of Obama

July 10, 2013

The embarrassing NSA leaks that revealed that pretty much every American is being treated as a terrorist confirm a few things about liberalism and Obama: you can’t trust either one any more than you could trust Stalinism.

Allow me to go back to something I said way, way back in 2010 as we were greeted with the outrage of Obama’s way of administering “security” by refusing to focus on actual terrorists and instead treat EVERYBODY like a terrorist:

Common sense is like rocket science to moral idiots.  And Barry Hussein, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and everyone else he’s brought on board is a genuine moral idiot.

Liberals self-righteously tell us that profiling Muslims by race would be un-American.  Because “American” to them means that we must instead treat EVERYONE like a terrorist.  A flight attendant with a prosthetic breast is as much a security threat as a 23 year-old Muslim male just arriving from Yemen.  To single anyone out for scrutiny would make sense, and we won’t have that as long as Barry Hussein is our emperor.  Because in Obama’s liberal America we stand like sheep in front of porno-scanners that take naked pictures of us, and then we stand like sheep while we’re groped by professional government gropers.

They don’t want to violate anybody’s rights.  Far better to violate EVERYBODY’S rights instead.

Remember the ecstatic Newsweek headline, “We Are All Socialists Now”???  Socialism invariably ends up treating the people like the enemy.  Think Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with their Berlin Wall and all the machine gun emplacements to gun down anyone trying to get out.

If you don’t think it’s bad enough now as it is, the Tits and Ass Agency wants to unionize, which would make them even more intrusive and impervious than they already are.

“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war” — Winston Churchill, commenting on Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” signing of the Munich Agreement with Hitler

That’s what we did when we voted for Obama: we chose dishonor and we chose a war we could not win because we are too stupid to even fight the real enemy.

So, here we are, a few years later.  And what is Obama doing?  He’s treating every single American like a terrorist and eavesdropping on over a billion American conversations every single day.

When I’m right, you can always count on me to be right.

The NSA leaks merely prove that everything I said about Obama’s policy of refusing to profile the people and groups most likely to be terrorists necessitated treating every single American like a terrorist instead.

Don’t be angry.  You voted for it, you dumbass.  You voted for Obama.  You voted to be treated like a terrorist and have all of your calls and internet traffic monitored.  You wouldn’t have it any other way.

Now that we’ve dealt with this NSA crap in general, let’s focus on an important specific that Obama loves to assure us: don’t worry, your rights are being protected, because, after all, judges have to approve every single one of these gross violations of your 4th Amendment rights.

Well, there are a couple of things wrong with that.  First of all, there’s this from a former FISA court judge:

Robertson told a federal oversight board that Congress’ 2008 reform meant that “the court is now approving programmatic surveillance,” offering that “I don’t think that is a judicial function.”

Robertson also questioned whether the NSA’s global surveillance programs court should be given its legal basis by a court that “has turned into something like an administrative agency,” adding that the secret court is flawed because only the government’s side is heard. […]

Robertson said he was ‘‘frankly stunned’’ by a recent Times report that FISA court rulings had created a new body of law broadening the ability of the NSA to use its surveillance programs to target not only terrorists but suspects in cases involving espionage, cyberattacks and weapons of mass destruction.

Liberals LOVE big “government programs,” and they are ALL ABOUT “programmatic” crap.  I mean, if they didn’t we never would have had the unmitigated disaster that ObamaCare has turned out to be (just like we SAID it would be, btw).

But this leaves out something even more fundamental.  It leaves out how treacherous, how blatantly dishonest Barack Obama and his thug administration has turned out to be.

Let’s remember Eric Holder, Obama’s “Injustice Department” lawthug was when he found a way to violate the 1st Amendment and go after a Fox News journalist.

What did Holder do?  He went to a judge to get a warrant to snoop on James Rosen.  The first judge said, “You can’t do that.  That would be fascist and unconstitutional.”  So Holder went to a second judge.  And the second judge said, “You can’t do that.  You’d be a Nazi to do something like that.”  And so Holder went to a third judge.

The third judge approved it.

Let’s say that he refused to.  Do you honestly think Holder would have said, “Well, three strikes and I’m out”???  No way, Jose.  He would have kept on judge-shopping until he found a judge who would sign off for him.

Now, the warrant that that judge signed off on was FILLED with lies that alleged that Rosen was basically a terrorist who was just about to flee the country and there was abundant evidence of his crimes.  None of that was true.  Basically, Holder lied like the rabid weasel that he is to get a warrant approved.  And then he cited the fact that he had lied to the judge as his rationale for why he was not lying to Congress when he said, “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”  He literally cited the fact that he had lied to a federal judge (the warrant Holder signed off on very much indicated that the FBI planned to prosecute James Rosen) as his grounds for arguing that he had not lied to Congress.

Therein lies your problem with the whole “judge” thing.  An awful lot of judges are, to put it politely, turds.  And finding a judge who will do what you want is kind of like walking blindfolded through a small yard inhabited by a dozen Rottweilers.  It won’t take you very long before you miraculously end up “finding” a big giant turd.  Only Eric Holder wasn’t blindfolded: he was actively TRYING to find a turd.

So pardon me for not being very reassured that Obama has to go before a judge (or a second judge, or a third judge) to get his fascism approved.

We now know for a FACT that Obama has recklessly and tyrannically abused government power.  He has used the IRS, the FBI, the EPA and other out-of-control government agencies to punish his political opponents.  And in fact, he’s done it way, WAY beyond the level to which the last president to try that kind of crap (that would be Nixon) ever came CLOSE to trying.

Obama is a power-mad child with a massive bureaucracy to use as toys and an entire nation to punish if he doesn’t get his way.  And this crap is out of control.

Hypocrite liberals would have been hysterically screaming in the streets if it had been revealed that Bush had been pulling a TENTH of this crap.  But Obama is doing it, so it’s okay.

It aint okay.

‘Brain Dead’ Woman Wakes Up As Her Organs Are About To Be Harvested (100s of Millions of Babies Know Exactly How THAT Feels)

July 9, 2013

This was a rather interesting development in “the assured results of medical science”:

‘Dead’ woman wakes up as her organs are about to be harvested
Woman had been pronounced dead by medical staff and parents had agreed to donate her organs
Heather Saul   Tuesday 09 July 2013

A ‘dead’ woman awoke on an operating table in America just as her organs were about to be harvested for donation.

Colleen Burns had been pronounced clinically dead by medical staff following an overdose of Xanax and Benadryl, The Post Standard newspaper reported, and after arriving at the St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Centre in Syracuse was declared a victim of “cardiac death”. Doctors had notified her family and they agreed to switch off her life support machine and donate her organs.

The 41-year-old had in-fact slipped into a deep coma as a result of her drug overdose and her condition had been mis-diagnosed as irreversible brain damage.

When Ms Burns was wheeled into surgery where her organs would be removed for transplants, her eyes opened in response to the bright lights in the operating theatre, causing doctors to immediately call off the procedure. The mother-of-three was discharged from hospital two weeks later.

According to Ms Burns mother Lucille Kuss, not only were medical staff at the hospital unaware that she was alive and demonstrating signs of brain activity, but doctors never explained exactly what had lead them to incorrectly believe her daughter had died. “They were just kind of shocked themselves,” she said. “It came as a surprise to them as well.”

The family did not sue and the hospital was charged just $6,000 by the State Department in September 2012. They were also ordered to hire a consulting neurologist to teach staff how to accurately diagnose brain death, as a nurse had performed a reflex test on her feet before the procedure by scraping a finger across the bottom of her foot. The toes allegedly curled downwards.

According to the paper, Dr Charles Wetli, a New Jersey based forensic pathologist said that Ms Burns reactions should have immediately suggested that she was alive and responsive.  “Dead people don’t curl their toes”, he said. “And they don’t fight against the respirator and want to breathe on their own.”

The case was only investigated by the state in March 2010 when the newspaper requested information under the Freedom of Information Act. A review by the Health Department found that key tests had not been performed to scan for brain activity or assess if her condition was improving.

In a report produced by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, it said: “Intensive objective peer review and root cause analysis of the case was not done by the hospital’s quality assurance program until prompted by the Department of Health.”

The investigation did find, however that St. Joseph’s had acceptable organ procurement policies and procedures.

Kerri Howell, spokeswoman for the hospital, told the newspaper: “St. Joseph’s goal is to provide the highest quality of care to every patient, every time.

”These policies were followed in this case, which was complicated in terms of care and diagnosis.

“We’ve learned from this experience and have modified our policies to include the type of unusual circumstance presented in this case.”

16 months after being wrongly pronounced dead, her daughter committed suicide.

“She was so depressed that it really didn’t make any difference to her,” her mother told the Post Standrad.

Let me be crystal clear: any argument that went, “fetuses don’t have brain waves, so ergo sum they are not living human beings” were just entirely refuted.

For one thing, human beings are NOT our brains.  We are, rather, the kind of creatures that HAVE brains.  We were created in the image of God.  God is a Soul, not a giant Brain.  Whether or not we have “brain waves” is utterly immaterial to our humanity and our dignity and our incommensurable worth.  And on the medical front, in support of this fact, we have had patients who literally had an entire half of their brains removed.  Do you know what happened?  First allow me to tell you what did NOT happen: what did NOT happen was that a patient who had had the “emotional” part of her brain removed did not suddenly become a Vulcan of pure reason.  Rather, what happened is that the half of her brain that remained compensated for the half that had just been removed, such that she was able to be completely normal.  I can literally cite dozens of cases just like this.  Just a few:

http://www.themedguru.com/articles/girl_with_half_brain_removed_returns_home_another_medical_victory-8617385.html

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/Frisco-Girl-Has-Brain-Tumor-Removed-Through-Nose-144467265.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MKNsI5CWoU

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=178637

Furthermore, the idea that “medical science” should get to decide who has a brain or a brain wave pattern and therefore who gets to live and who gets to die has now been proven to be absurd – and the only people who think that ought to be assumed to have no functioning brain waves and get THEIR organs harvested while they sit there staring at you.

Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961.  Just maybe not in America.  If his mother had had an abortion anytime prior to that date, Barack Obama would have been killed.  To try to argue that, no, a “potential” Barack Obama would have been killed is simply idiotic.  The ACTUAL Barack Obama would have been killed.  And if you doubt this, please produce just ONE “Barack Obama” who is out there floating around right now in some woman’s tummy bearing the exact DNA match of “Barack Obama.”  In all of the entirely of human history – and this according to the most assured medical science we’ve got – there has only been ONE “Barack Obama” with “Barack Obama’s DNA” in all of human history and the entire history of planet earth.  Abortion would have killed Barack Obama, just as it in fact HAS murdered hundreds of millions of innocent human beings.  Such that, yes, if you tell me that abortion only results in the death of a “potential” human being, I would be completely correct to assume – you know, by your own damn standards – that you clearly don’t have any functioning brain waves and to harvest your organs while you stand there idiotically staring at me.

It is a fact as amazing as it is tragic that the “Democrat” Party went from justifying slavery with the argument that it was up to the individual slaveholder whether or not he or she chose to have slaves to their modern argument that it was up to the mother whether or not she wanted to have her baby.  The implicit assumption in both cases was/is that the black person or the baby is not a legitimate human being and therefore ought not possess any rights of his or her own.  And thus did Democrats go from evil to evil, using the same identical argument to justify the two most wicked things ever allowed in America.

The Nazis loved abortion, just as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, identified with the Nazis just out of her racism.  The Nazis and everyone just like them love to be able to arbitrarily define whatever group of people they want are “not human” and therefore worthy of death.

Case closed.

Was Muslim Brotherhood Cheated By Democracy? As A California Prop 8 Voter, Join The Club (BTW: I Didn’t Start Rioting)

July 9, 2013

I have a confession to make that always makes me rather ashamed: I subscribe to the LA Times.

The paper is a piece of trash.  They routinely substitute their liberal opinions where the NEWS ought to be.  But BECAUSE it is a complete piece of trash, they have t sell it for virtually nothing.  The last two years, I literally received a larger gift card (this year was for Target stores) than what I paid for the subscription.  And as worthless as the “newspaper” is, there are quite  few valuable coupons.

Anyway, it has been rather interesting to read liberals whining about the Egyptian military and it’s “coup” to remove the Muslim Brotherhood president, Morsi.

I kind of read the Declaration of Independence, you know, the part that says this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And I kind of figure that, yes, you’re damn right they had a right to remove that fascist Islamic terrorist turd, Morsi after he tried to impose sharia law on an Egyptian people who very clearly did not want it.  And thank God for the Egyptian military for helping the Egyptian people alter or abolish their godawful terrorist sharia law Muslim government.

But let’s deal with this line of reasoning that declares that the Muslim Brotherhood put aside its terrorism long enough to become good democrats and won an election among a disorganized and factionalized people.  And that therefore the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi ought to be able to remain in power, you know, because of the popular vote.

I remember thinking that way myself.  After all, I went to the ballot box and I voted for Proposition 8.  And it won with a clear majority of the people.  And so according to “democracy” marriage in California is the union between one man and one woman.

Well, until a homosexual militant judge decided he didn’t like what the people had declared and decided that one man ought to overrule millions of voters.

And then until the Supreme Court – now nothing more than a political body of black robed masters – decided that the California people who had voted for Prop 8 had no legal standing.  Whatsoever.

So don’t tell me that it sucks that democracy gets abrogated.  I know damn well how it feels.  In fact, Proposition 8 was the SECOND attempt by California voters to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman: we’d voted the same damn way for Proposition 22.  It was overturned by the same genre of homosexual militant black robed masters on some incredibly trivial legal grounds, too.

But let me get back to Prop 8 as it relates to Obama.  Obama was elected in November 2008 with 52% of the vote.  He seemed to think it was a mandate.  You know, the way voters like me probably felt that the 61% vote for Prop 22 made that a “mandate.”  But of course it wasn’t, was it?  Obama was re-elected in November 2012 with, again, 52% of the vote.  And this time he declared that it was very clearly a mandate.  But, of course, when Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote, that most definitely was NOT a mandate at all.

What is “democracy”?  It is whatever liberal fascists say it is, that’s what it is.  You have a right to vote the way the Nazi “Democrat” Party wants you to vote or your vote gets thrown into the toilet bowl and flushed.

So I know damn well what it’s like to live in a third world banana republic where you get to vote as long as you vote for your dictator and his dictator regime.

What’s the difference between the people who voted for Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 and the Muslim Brotherhood?  We don’t resort to rioting in the streets and murdering women and children when we don’t get our way, that’s the difference.

I suppose I should point out another difference between people like me and people like the Muslim Brotherhood – and yes, the “Democrat” Party: it is that as a conservative and a Republican and very much a Christian, I worship GOD rather than the state.  Muslims, on the other hand, worship a political system masquerading as a religion, which seeks to impose a totalitarian sharia state on everyone it possibly can.  And “Democrats” pretty much do the same damn fascist thing.  Modern liberalism is MARXISM.  Marxism is an anti-Christian blasphemy that replaces God with the State.  Their Lord and Savior is the State, not Jesus Christ.  They worship big government and the power of the state rather than the God of the Bible.  And they are utterly wicked as a result.  When you worship God, you demand a limited government to make room for a big God; when you worship the State, you demand a massive government to diminish God and usurp His place as Savior and as Lord.

The difference is the peaceful Tea Party versus the violent, out-of-control fascist liberal mob known as “Occupy.”

That, of course, is the real crux of the issue.  It’s how fascist turds like Morsi and our own fascist turd Obama believe that they can win an election with a bare majority and somehow have a “mandate” to abrogate whatever previous law they didn’t like and install dictatorial bullcrap in its place (like DOMA, like immigration law, like NSA mass eavesdropping, like ObamaCare for that matter).  In that last case, the “law” says that ObamaCare “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”  As the article I linked to points out, “the law” very much does NOT say that “the Administration can impose the mandate whenever it feels it is politically convenient.”  In this case, Obama damn well knows that ObamaCare is so disastrous and so profoundly unpopular that if it were to be implemented according to what the “law” says it must, it would be an absolute bloodbath for Democrats in November 2014.  And so Obama once again decided to just ignore the damn law – even though it is his very own damn law.

Allow me to quote a prominent Democrat: “This is the law.  How can they change the law?”  Well, they can change the damn law if and only if they are damn fascists – which is exactly what they are.

That’s on top of the law being very clearly written as a “fee” and NOT a tax, which made it blatantly unconstitutional – until the Supreme Court decided to ignore “the law” and turn the “fee” into a “tax.”  Even though that meant ignoring the “law.”

And even though key swing “Justice” Kennedy (yes, there’s those quotes again) observed that ObamaCare “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”  Because who needs that damn Constitution, anyway?  When it keeps getting in “Democrats'” way?

Obama DID promise to “fundamentally transform America.”  Constitution and all.  So I guess we got what we “voted” for the same way Egypt got what they “voted” for when they elected terrorist turd Morsi.

Just what is “sharia law” anyway?  At its most fundamental level, it is the forced imposition of a worldview upon a culture.  In the case of Obama and his conversion to sodomy from promising the American people that he opposed it when he ran for president in 2008, his version of sharia is homosexual marriage – which had never existed before not only in America but in all of human civilization prior to the year 2001.  Literally, the iPod is older than homosexual marriage!  Liberals try to tell me I’m the one whose all about sharia because I want to preserve the understanding of marriage as it has existed from the time that the very first human being began to walk upright.  They forget the fact that they are the radical ideologues who are out imposing themselves and their warped and depraved worldview onto culture that is already more than warped and depraved enough, thank you very much.

But I’m branded as “intolerant” because I agree with what the “world’s most tolerant man” promised America how he felt about marriage in 2008.

You want another example of the fact that liberals practice their own version of sharia law?  Well, do you know how it is a crime according to sharia law to say something bad about Muhammad?  Try going to any number of liberal-owned countries like the U.K. or Holland and try saying something bad about homosexuality.  People are now being ARRESTED for saying homosexuality is a sin, as the Bible overwhelmingly declares that it is.  A man went to jail for saying a police officer’s HORSE looked gay, for crying out loud.  A student was told by a liberal to remove her cross at a liberal university.  During the presidential campaign, liberal teachers attacked students for wearing Romney t-shirts (but never Obama t-shirts, of course).  And of course liberals love to force us to quit drinking soda or force us to eat the foods they want us to eat.  We just had liberals try to outlaw fires in fire pits on California beaches  because of their global warming crap.  Liberals are now literally trying to outlaw human behavior dating back to freaking CAVE MEN.  Because liberalism equals fascism equals their own weird version of sharia.  And one is as intolerant as the other.

You don’t have ANY examples of conservatives doing crap like this.  Other than the fact that they stood up for the view of marriage that every civilization IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE PLANET HELD.  And of course which Bill Clinton and Barack Obama falsely and dishonestly claimed that THEY supported until they had the chance to impose their fascism on society.

Liberalism is fascism, and fascism imposes itself on society by force of raw government power.

Murdering babies was wrong until it suddenly became “a right.”  Sodomy was wrong until it suddenly became “a right.”  Homosexual marriage was wrong until it suddenly became “a right.”  And murder and rape and child molestation are next on the docket, have no doubt.  Because morality is a constantly evolving thing, a spinning merry-go-round that just like “democracy” means whatever liberals say it means at any given moment.

Maybe decent people should have turned violent and started rioting and murdering people, after all?  Because as our democracy is stolen by liberals one giant chunk at a time, that pretty much seems like our only recourse, doesn’t it?  That was pretty much the condition our founding fathers found themselves in – having to deal with a tyrant king – and that is basically the state of affairs we find ourselves in today in this the age of Pharaoh-god-king Obama and his constant torrent of lies and abuse of his Internal Revenge Service to persecute the people on his enemies list.

In these last days, as “America” is “fundamentally transformed” into “God damn America, we’re going to increasingly begin to race toward Sodom and Gomorrah until we get the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah that we deserve.  And then we’ll worship the beast and take his mark just as Revelation chapter 13 promises that we will.  What will increasingly happen in the last days is that evil will so prevail and so contaminate and encompass everything that there is no “right way” but only various shades of evil.  Violence will become the state of affairs because nothing else will work.  But of course violence only works until the next violent group comes along as violence begets more violence.

I hope you noticed that I kept putting “Democrat” in quotes.  That’s because it is a word that fascist “Democrats” intended to hearken to the term “democracy.”  Only it very clearly doesn’t.  Rather, it is a “homophone” – which refers to a word that sounds the same as another word but means a very different thing.  “Homos” seem to be a recurring theme with the “Democrat” Party.