Profile Of A Herman Cain Accuser

Let’s take a little look-see at the women who are accusing Herman Cain.

The truly amazing thing about this woman is that she is actually the most credible accuser with the most credible allegation against Herman Cain to date.  Because this is the ONLY woman who has publicly come forward against Herman Cain.  Everyone else is anonymous, with no details available.

Let’s look at this most credible accuser to surface:

From ABC:

Who is Cain accuser Sharon Bialek?
Chuck Goudie
 
November 7, 2011 (MUNDELEIN, Ill.) (WLS) — Sharon Bialek, who lives in suburban Mundelein, said Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain reached under her skirt 14 years ago when she was asked him about a job.

In this Intelligence Report: Who is Sharon Bialek? The Chicago-area woman has an extensive corporate and personal history in the area going back to the early 1990s.

It was her hope for a new job that Bialek says brought her to Herman Cain that day in 1997. Bialek’s resume and a trail of public records indicates that changing jobs has been a regular occurrence for the Chicagoan. She has worked for at least nine different employers over the past 17 years and appears to have struggled financially.

The public record on Bialek begins in 1991 when she filed personal bankruptcy for the first time while living in Des Plaines.

Between 1993 and 1996 Bialek worked for four different companies in promotion and marketing positions.

In 1996, and part of 1997, Bialek was at the National Restaurant Association. After being let go from that job in mid-1997, she says that she went to Washington, D.C., to meet with Cain, president of the association, because she needed a job.

In 1999, Bialek’s son Nicholas was born and a paternity lawsuit was filed by the father, a media executive.

In 2001 came Bialek’s second personal bankruptcy, filed after sizable legal bills. That year she was hired by WGN radio where she worked until 2004 when she took a marketing job and then a job at WCKG radio.

Along the way, according to her attorney, Bialek also held positions with Revlon and Easter Seals.

Bialek currently lives in Mundelein with fiance Mark Harwood.

“She’s of the same political persuasion as Herman Cain,” Harwood said. “There was no money on the table to go and have an interview. This is truly about an American girl who’s got a big heart and wants to do the right thing.”

Yeah, right.  And I’m of the same political persuasion as Barack Obama.  And I’ve got a big heart and want to do the liberal thing.  So please give me money and a bunch of attention.

According to public records, Bialek has NEVER donated to a SINGLE Republican candidate or organization.  Unlike Herman Cain, for what facts are worth.  Furthermore, her claim of having been to Tea Party events is simply a lie.

The AP pointed out that:

“Court records indicate Bialek had financial difficulties a decade ago when she filed for bankruptcy protection and reported $4,500 in unpaid rent and $13,000 in outstanding credit card bills.”

Oh, and for the official record, ABC left out the fact that  Sharon Bialek had a summary judgment issued against her with a court order to seize her assets for debts she never bothered to pay for just a couple of months ago.

But what the hell, she’s attacking a black conservative man, so let’s just believe her, anyway.

Note that her attorney is Gloria Alred, lifelong despiser of conservatives and Republicans (the last time she crawled out of her cockroach den she helped secure the election of Democrat Jerry Brown with a similar hatchet job of Republican candidate Meg Whitman):

Clarence Thomas – the LAST conservative black man to be viciously attacked by liberals – said this:

“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

Yep.  It will sure happen to you if you have the courage to be a conservative black man and try to escape the white liberal plantation and try to gain any kind of power or influence.  You become a threat to the plantation, and the plantation will come after you with the nastiest tactics they can muster.

Jesus, The Glorious Conqueror Of Death, Also Conquered Circular Reasoning And Pseudo-History

I wrote an article on “liberal religion,” and how said religion was utterly empty of any meaning.  And pointed out that the total lack of liberalism to stand for anything outside of itself was the reason it is going the way of the Dodo bird.  And why militant Islam is growing in the void created by the emptiness of Western secular humanism.

Somone responded to that article by sneering:

“The only true religion is the Napkin Religion. It says so right here on this napkin.”

Sound like anyone you know?

Obviously this is a rather pathetic way of accusing me of circular reasoning.  The claim is being made, however poorly, that I believe the Bible because the Bible tells me to believe the Bible.

Aside from St Peter’s words –

“Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”  For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.  But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:3-7)

– Here was my response:

Actually it doesn’t.

We know more about Jesus’ death than virtually anyone else in humany history. And history has had this record to contemplate  for 2,000 years.

As a result of something amazing that happened, Jesus’ disciples went from cowardly men who only wanted to hide to bold proclaimers that they had seen Him alive even at the direct risk to their own lives. These one-time cowards then proceeded to go all over the known world, with all but one dying as martyrs testifying that Jesus was the glorious living Savior just as Jesus Himself had proclaimed Himself to be.

Look into the “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” argument. Was Jesus a cynical liar from hell? Or was Jesus mentally deranged? Or was He whom He said He was? Lord and God? It is a FACT that Jesus gave the most sublime moral teaching the world has evern heard. Even Gandhi would testify to this truth about Christ:

In the cross of Christ, Gandhi found the supreme example of satyagraha: Christ was the ‘Prince of satyagrahis’. “It was the New Testament”, wrote Gandhi [on page 92 of his autobiography], which really awakened me to the value of passive resistance. When I read in the Sermon on the Mount such passages such as, ‘Resist not him that is evil: he who smiteth thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also, and love your enemies, pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father which is in heaven’, I was overjoyed.”

Do you believe that the greatest moral teaching ever heard in this world came from a demonic liar or a deranged lunatic? I don’t.

Another question: given that the disciples of Jesus were in a unique position to KNOW FOR CERTAIN that Jesus was who He claimed, and that He truly rose from the dead; and given that they basically all died testifying to His Resurrection, let me ask you this: how many people do you know who would WILLINGLY DIE FOR SOMETHING YOU KNEW FOR CERTAIN WAS A COMPLETE LIE???

Muslim terrorists die for lies that they sincerely believe to be true. But the disciples were uniquely able to know for certain whether Jesus was standing before them or not, whether He could speak to them or not, whether they could touch Him or not. And they went out and proclaimed the Resurrection until they were killed for proclaiming it.

History also records that Christians in the hundreds of thousands or even in the millions died during the persecutions of the Roman emperors. History clearly records as reported by the BBC (when again, these first Christians were in a unique position of being able to verify the truth, to actually talk to actual witnesses of the Resurrection):

Christians were first, and horribly, targeted for persecution as a group by the emperor Nero in 64 AD. A colossal fire broke out at Rome, and destroyed much of the city. Rumours abounded that Nero himself was responsible. He certainly took advantage of the resulting devastation of the city, building a lavish private palace on part of the site of the fire.

Perhaps to divert attention from the rumours, Nero ordered that Christians should be rounded up and killed. Some were torn apart by dogs, others burnt alive as human torches.

Over the next hundred years or so, Christians were sporadically persecuted. It was not until the mid-third century that emperors initiated intensive persecutions.

Which means the persecutions against Christianity actually went from terrible to even worse. And while Islam grew by the spread of violence and threat of death, Christianity flourished under the reality of some of the worst and most murderous persecutions in human history.

The book of Hebrews recites some of the great past martyrs of God’s Word, and says that which we also proclaim of these martyrs soon to come:

“They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated, men of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground” (Hebrews 11:37-38).

And yet, because of the ROCK of Jesus’ testimony to the truth, Christianity flourished in spite of the worst efforts of the devil to stop it. It triumphed over the Roman Empire. It has triumphed over the world, with 2.3 billion followers today, according to the statistics that I show in my article above.

And with all that said, all I have to do is look at my calender. When I see it is “2011,” I know that it is 2011 Anno Domini, “In the year of our Lord 2011.” Because the very calender that you look at every single day testifies to the power of Jesus. And while some peoples maintain separate calenders, they have to know the one that testifies to Jesus Christ.

None of this is stuff I have to depend on my Bible to know: they are all documented facts of history. I put the record of history together, and then I read my Bible, and I see that the Bible teaches the Truth that Jesus came to testify to (see John 18:37).

Good luck with your worship of napkins. I’ll stick with my Jesus who confirmed who He was in human history by rising from the dead, just as He told His disciples He would do, just as His disciples proclaimed, and just as the Word of God teaches.

The bottom line is that 1) virtually all of the basic claims of Christianity are testified to in the works of ancient historians and 2) the Bible itself has been proven over and over again to be reliable history.  And while a devout  Jew has other reasons for affirming the reliability of Scripture, I myself begin with the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and the transformed lives of the witnesses of His Resurrection from the dead, and then proceed to believe the testimony of the risen Christ about just Whose Word the Bible is.

The fellow proceeds to post back, saying:

“documented facts of history” Ludicrous…actually, just plain silly. It’s sad really, as you seem so lucid but for these self-corroborating delusions. Not a crumb of proof. Not a scintilla of documentation.

The holy napkins are just as likely to be true as your ancient books and prehistoric god-man.

I’m happy for you that you have found something that works for you, but the venom and vitriol you direct at others compelled me to respond.

If you really want to come off as erudite, you might want to spend a few minutes with a sixth-grade science book. Study the part about the scientific method, and someday you might come to understand why reality has such a strong “liberal” bias.

Or just ignore my advice and continue to scream obscenities in your empirical darkness. Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.

I’m left wondering just which of my “documented facts of history” aren’t documented facts of history.  It’s not 2011 AD?  Or what evidence there possibly is to make such an assertion that what I say in that response above isn’t true.  “Not a scintilla of documentation”???  The life and the teaching of Christ.  The record of the very well historically attested lives and martydoms of Jesus’ disciples.  The history of the early Christian church and the intense persecution it not only survived but thrived under – until Rome itself embraced the faith it had tried and failed to destroy for three centuries.  The calender that has dominated both Western Civilization and the entire world that was the result of this demonstrable triumph of Christianity.  Nope; not a scintilla of documentation.  One begins to wonder about the point of offering substantial arguments to someone who refuses to even acknowledge that you offered any argument at all.

And yet this sneering liberal who merely dismissively waves his hand in contempt at the clear record of history thinks he is the “objective” one.

This liberal (both secular and theological) doesn’t seem to need to acknowledge arguments.  He doesn’t need to present any facts.  His opinions are all he needs for his self-contained bubble.  But this particular liberal proceeds to offer an assertion that the “scientific method” somehow proves his secular humanist liberal worldview to be the correct one.

That assertion runs into one small problem: it entirely lacks the virtue of having any truth whatsoever to justify it.  He depends on a pure myth that somehow science erupted entirely free of Christianity, and that science somehow proceeded to replace, correct and refute Christianity.

So what is there to say about the assertion that if I just knew anything at all about the “scientific method” I would see the light?  I respond to this drive-by claim as follows:

I wish you yourself would study the “scientific method” without the bias that consumes you.

I write an article titled, “The Intolerance Of Academia Creating Modern-Day “Galileos” I end that article pointing out:

106 of the first 108 colleges in America were founded as religious Christian institutions. It was these colleges that shaped the minds of our founding fathers, who in turn produced the foundational principles and values that enabled this country to become the greatest nation in the history of the world. And in a similar but even earlier vein, the first universities in Western Europe were founded under the aegis of the Church, and emerged from the monasteries. The scientific method itself emerged from the mind of a publicly-confessed Christian: Roger Bacon joined the Franciscan Order in 1247, and argued that a more accurate experimental knowledge of nature would be of great value in confirming the Christian faith. Sir Isaac Newton – almost universally regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived – actually wrote more on Christian theology than he did on science. And the founders of every single major branch of science were confessing Christians.

The fact is that science arose only once in human history – and it arose in Europe under the civilization then called “Christendom.” Christianity provided the essential worldview foundations necessary and essential for the birth of science: The earth was not the illusion of Eastern religion and philosophy, but a physical, tangible place. And the material world was not the corrupt and lower realm of Greek religion and philosophy, but God created it and called it “good.” And God endowed the capstone of His creation, man – as the bearer of His divine image – with the reason, the curiosity, and the desire to know the truth. And God – who made the universe and the earth for man – made man the caretaker of His creation. And thus the great astronomer Johannes Kepler described his project as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

And yet today, amazingly, against all history and against all truth, we are assured that science must be officially and completely atheist in order to have any legitimacy, and that God – or even the possibility of God (or even a far more intellectually neutral “Intelligent Designer” – must be purged from every element and aspect of “science.”

Tragically, genuine science has been perverted and undermined by ideologues who are attempting to impose their atheistic worldviews upon society and remake the scientific enterprise in their own image. And in their efforts, they are using the very worst and most oppressive of tactics to destroy, intimidate, and silence their opposition. Such academics cite Galileo (another confessing Christian, by the way) and the largely propagandized tale of his persecution by the Church as an example of religion being hostile to science. But how is their own behavior any different from the worst intellectual intolerance exhibited by the Church? In their overarching zeal to persecute and expunge any meaningful sign of God from the ranks of academia, they have themselves become even worse than their caricature of religion which they so despise.

The facts are that the universities from which the scientific method came themselves came from Christianity. The facts are that the “scientific method” that you point to actually came from Christians who were thinking and reasoning out of a uniquely Christian world view. We wouldn’t HAVE a scientific method if it weren’t for Christianity; nor would we have virtually any significant branch of science had it not been all those Christians who laid the foundation. Versus you, who have as your foundation your feet planted firmly in midair.

I have written before why this is: science is limited. It must necessarily depend on something greater than itself to have any foundation or offer any valid conclusion.

It’s actually funny that you speak the way you do. I offer fact after fact. You express your useless opinions, and like a fool ignore the facts.

Then you speak of “my venom and vitriol,” but again, the record of academia today – with the above article being merely one of many I can cite (here’s just one example) – is one of people who think like me being rabidly attacked and persecuted and fired by people who think just like you.

Now begone. I won’t continue to argue with someone who spews worthless opinions in a drive-by attack. Two such comments were enough.

Why do I block him?  Am I disinterested in having debate?  Well, when someone doesn’t even bother to respond to your argument, and proceeds to offer assertions in place of facts, there is little point to a “debate.”

I point out:

Mark Twain said, “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can put it’s boots on.”

One of the problems with lies versus the truth is that any fool with an opinion can tell a lie. And tell it very quickly. But it takes knowledge and careful argument to present the truth and refute the lies.

I don’t have any intention of spending all my time on my blog. But if I allowed liberals to post these 3-4 sentence fact-free dismissals, and then worked on refuting them, I would end up spending ALL my time on my blog.

The book of Proverbs chapter 26 verses 4-5 teaches that one needs to respond to a fool, lest the fool become wise in his own esteem. In the same breath, it teaches that if one spends too much time arguing with a fool, others won’t be able to tell the difference between the fool and the one trying to correct the fool.

I try to strike a balance.

And I do.

The fellow posts back to my spam file to inform me that boy did he ever wipe the floor with me, and that just as my hobby is whatever he wants to imagine it, his hobby is “destroying Christians” or somesuch.  I’ll let you be the judge as to whose arguments prevail, and whose are rather trivial assertions with no basis in fact.  I don’t doubt for a second that unbelievers will see whatever they want to see.  The question is, as Jesus Himself asked, is what do YOU think about Jesus?  Who do YOU say He is?

I thought the above discussion was illustrative due to a) the facts I present and b) the galling absence of facts or truth or even the perception of the need for them by my attacker.  It’s interesting that secular humanists only see the Christian’s need to win the argument, but never feel that their worldview should ever be questioned or need to be defended.

There is an interesting story that illustrates how the world thinks when it comes to Jesus and the Bible that I heard in a sermon on John 15:18-16:4:

 When missionaries were first going to inland Africa, the wife of an African chief visited a missionary station.  Hanging outside the missionary’s cabin, on a tree, was a little mirror.  The chief’s wife had never seen her hardened features and hideous paintings on her face.  (She was want we would call “one ugly momma!)” She gazed at her own terrifying countenance and then jumped back in horror, exclaiming, “who is that horrible person inside the tree?” 

“Oh,” the missionary explained, “it is not the tree.  The glass is reflecting your own face.” 

She wouldn’t believe it until she was holding the mirror in her hand.  When she understood, she said to the missionary, “I must have the glass.  How much will you sell it for?”  The missionary really didn’t want to sell his only mirror, but the African insisted so strongly that the missionary didn’t want to cause trouble, and so finally capitulated and sold the mirror. 

The chief’s wife took the mirror, exclaiming, “I will never have it making faces at me again!”  And with that she threw it down, breaking it to pieces.

And the fact of the matter is that people hate to see what they really are and hate God’s Word because it reveals their true selves.  The mirror never changes.  Every human being must choose how he or she will react when we take a good look at Jesus as revealed in God’s Word.  Either we will repent of our sin and turn to him, or we will reject and hate him.

Given that communism is state atheism, and given that state atheism has been documented to be responsible for more than 100 million murders during the 20th century alone and during peacetime alone, one would think that secular humanists and atheists should also have to give an account for why what they believe should be accepted as true.  But in our elite mainstream media culture, that challenge is never given.  Meanwhile, the Bible and the historic resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead stand like twin anvils no matter who pounds on it or for how many centuries successive generations of unbelievers continue pounding.

Jesus conquered death.  We know more about that death (in which Jesus gave His life to take the blame for our sins) than any other death in antiquity.  And people have had two millennia to examine that perfect life and the details and results produced by that death.

We also know that more people celebrate that death than have ever celebrated the life of any other human being who ever lived.  Because of the testimonies of the witnesses to that death – and the glorious Resurrection that followed – which was sealed in the blood of these martyrs – Christianity stands confirmed by history.  The tomb of every other great religious leader is venerated by the followers of those religions.

We have stories like this one that fittingly came out on the day that Christians celebrate the Ressurection of Jesus Christ from the dead:

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – Indian spiritual guru Sri Sathya Sai Baba, revered by millions of followers as a living god, died Sunday in a hospital in southern India. He was 86.

Sai Baba, who was admitted to hospital in his hometown of Puttaparti a month ago, died of multiple organ failure, media said.

His followers, estimated to number six million, included top Indian politicians, business tycoons and Bollywoods stars.

Soon we will be able to visit Sri Sathya Sai Baba’s tomb, just as we can go and see the tomb of the prophet Muhammad.  The same is true of Buddha, and Confucious, and everyone else.  The tomb of Jesus alone is empty.

And because of Jesus’ life, and death, and glorious Resurrection to resurrection life as the firstfruits of all who call upon His name, the world changed.  And, myths and lies aside, the very science that secular humanists point to as a replacement for the ultimate Truth of the Christian Life is itself  a powerful testimony to the incredible change that Christianity brought to the world.

A sermon by John Piper points out that ultimately – and I believe one day very soon – the scoffers will receive all the proof that they have always demanded.  But by the time they receive the evidence their refusal to believe demands, it will already be too late.  And their eternal destiny will already be decided.

I pray you don’t share their fate.

Maranatha, my glorious King of kings.

Liberal Elitists Believe American People Need Their Wisdom; But THEY’RE The Stupid Ones

What is modern liberalism, a.k.a. progressivism?

It is the mindset that the unwashed masses are too stupid to govern themselves, and therefore need a nanny state to take care of them.

Given that understanding, it turns out that there is a nexus between Democrat Party liberals, liberal intellectuals and mainstream media liberals.  It is the idea that “They need us.  They need our superior understanding.  They need us to tell them what to think.”

That attitude has one serious flaw, however.

These people are even dumber in their own way than the very unwashed ignorant masses they seek to manipulate.  And whenever the culture becomes ignorant enough, or uncertain enough, that it begins to follow liberals, watch out; because the disaster of “dumb and dumber” is right around the corner.

Ronald Reagan put it best when he said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Progressives are people who “know” all sorts of things about American history that simply aren’t true.  They “know” all sorts of things about our Constitution that simply aren’t true. They “know” all sorts of things about our economy that simply aren’t true.

From Flopping Aces:

Allegedly unintelligent Republicans make fools of Democrats
Posted by: DrJohn @ 11:35 am

It’s been quite the 24 hours.

Liberals just love trying to beat up on Sarah Palin. They repeatedly question her intelligence. And she just wipes the poop off the floor with them.

Mark Hemingway had a glorious article at the Washington Examiner and I am posting the whole thing:

So the Los Angeles Times reported on a recent Sarah Palin event:

Seeking to channel the sign-bearing, flag-waving enthusiasm of the “tea party” movement into ballot-box victories, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told hundreds of supporters Monday they couldn’t “party like it’s 1773″ until Washington was flooded with like-minded conservatives.

Immediately, Palin’s critics leapt into action. Here’s The Daily Kos himself on Twitter:

Sarah Palin to supporters: “Don’t party like it’s 1773 yet”. is.gd/g7rRb…. She’s so smart.

And here’s PBS’s Gwen Ifill, moderator of presidential debates, also on Twitter:

Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,

Blogger Cuffy Meigs rounds up all kinds of similar “HAHAHAHAHA! She’s so stupid!” reactions to Palin’s reference to 1773. So what did happen in 1773? Oh, right.

That, ummm, would be the Boston Tea Party.

Moulitsas and Ifill were in such an orgasm to insult Palin they stuck their feet not only into their mouths but up where the Sun doesn’t shine as well. Idiots.

Nicely done, Sarah.

Then there’s Christine O’Donnell and her debate with Chris Coons:

WILMINGTON, Del.—Republican Christine O’Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.

“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.

Coons responded that O’Donnell’s question “reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. … The First Amendment establishes a separation.”

But O’Donnell probed again.

She interrupted to say, “The First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ’separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”

That’s pretty clear. And as any Constitutional scholar should know, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. O’Donnell was right, yet Ben Evans, the author of the piece, characterized the exchange as another controversy to “befall” O’Donnell.

Why is being right something that “befalls” someone? Because she’s a Republican?

Point, O’Donnell.

Then Coons tried again to school O’Donnell.

“He noted again the First Amendment’s ban on establishment of religion” reported Evans.

(There is no ban on the establishment of religion in the Constitution.)

O’DONNELL: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

COONS: “‘Government shall make no establishment of religion’”

O’DONNELL: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

It’s not.

For the record, the First Amendment says:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Point, O’Donnell.

Then a local law school professor chimed in:

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, “She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise.”

This is something I despise about both academicians and reporters. Liberal bias.

It’s pretty obvious that O’Donnell was being literal and it’s painfully clear that she was right on both counts. O’Donnell was surprised that Coons, Daly, Evans and the rest of the smug twits in the audience could actually believe that the phrase “separation of church and state” resides in the Constitution and that the Constitution bans the establishment of religion.

Entirely unreported by Evans was O’Donnell’s challenge to Coons:

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

Game, set, match- O’Donnell.

Another report of the debate went this way:

Ms. O’Donnell likened Mr. Coons’s position on evolution to those of “our so-called leaders in Washington” who have rejected the “indispensible principles of our founding.”

When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The audience exploded in laughter

One would have to say that an awful lot of law students overpaid for their education and that some law professors are overpaid.

George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.  And Thomas Sowell has pointed out that the record of 20th century intellectuals – precisely the period when liberals began to decide that only they properly qualified as “intellectuals” – was especially appalling in this regard.

Whenever a liberal talks – and frankly most of all when that liberal is an “intellectual” – you should listen very closely to whatever he or she says, and then believe the exact opposite.

The foolishness of liberals is literally biblical:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools — Romans 1:22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth — Romans 1:18

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths — 2 Tim 4:3-4

.

 

 

Prop 8: Contemptuous Judge Overturns Will Of Both God And The People

Here’s the latest story of judicial abuse:

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights. Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That’s because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.

“Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge ruled.

This is now the third time that a judge substituted his will for the clear will of the people in the state of California.  There’s a phrase in the Declaration of Independence that no longer matters: “deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”  Of course, there are other phrases that liberals despise in the Declaration of Independence as well, such as “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

For the official record, Thomas Jefferson – who wrote the Declaration of Independence – would have led the revolt against these evil, malicious, degenerate judges and supervised their tarring and feathering.

Just one of Jefferson’s comments about such “judges” as Vaughn Walker:

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

Thus this isn’t judicial activism; it’s judicial DESPOTISM.

The people no longer have any real power in this country.  Some unelected judge overturned the will of the people in Arizona by substituting her own ridiculous reasoning for the law.  Now this.  And soon states like Missouri – which issued a 71%-to-29% smackdown to ObamaCare – will likewise fall prey to judicial despotism.  Why even bother to vote when your will is continually overturned by despotism?  Of course, that’s exactly how liberal fascists want you to think.  They want you to give up.  Because socialism is only accepted by an apathetic, defeated people.

Let me address the specific objections to traditional marriage:

“Equal protection”? How is that violated by a law that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman?

A gay man has the right to marry any adult woman who will have him – the same as me.  There’s your “equal protection.”  On a platter.

If a gay man doesn’t want to take advantage of that, then that’s his loss.  But radically redefining marriage into something it has never been in the history of this nation – or for that matter the history of Western Civilization, or for that matter any civilization period – is not a response that any morally intelligent individual would descend into.

How about the concept of “due process”? How does redefining marriage from an institution to a convention that can be radically transformed by judicial fiat encourage due process?  All it does is create undue process.  How will this judge now prevent three men from marrying?  If you can redefine the “one man and one woman thing,” why can’t you redefine the “two people” thing?  And by what objective standard that can never be overturned?  And if three people can marry, why can’t fifteen or more?  Just who are you to impose your narrow-minded morality on thirty people who want to get married to each other?

The same thing goes to inter-species marriage: just who the hell are you to say that that weird woman next door can’t marry her Great Dane?  Or her Clydesdale Stallion, for that matter?  Why can’t I marry my canary?

And you’d better have a damn good reason for restricting each of these, or they’ll probably be legal next month.

Gays want the right to marry.  The North American Man/Boy Love Association wants the right to have men marry boys.  Unlike homosexuals, pedophiles actually have something approaching a historic case: the Roman world had something called pederasty, in which men gave boys mentoring and help with their futures in exchange for the boys giving up their virginal backsides.

The liberal culture says a twelve year old girl has the right to an abortion on demand without her parents’ consent.  That’s a very adult decision, not unlike a very similar adult decision to have a relationship with the adult who impregnated her in the first place.  Why not give NAMBLA what it wants?  It’s not fair to allow two people who love each other not to marry, after all, right?  That’s the argument we keep hearing, so let’s be consistent.  Why are we denying the right of men and boys to marry whomever they choose?

NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the “legitimate” International Lesbian and Gay Association.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency.  Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the “gay community” and “reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability.” The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.

And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the “Safe Schools Czar,” so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don’t we?  We’re talking mainstream stuff here, these days.

Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own “morality” as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road.  Secular humanism  simply doesn’t have the moral resources to prevent it.

Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old “lover,” you intolerant pig?

People who defend traditional marriage have an easy and powerful defeater for these objections.  Gay marriage proponents have none.  If I’m wrong, then just finish this thought: “A marriage of three people will never be allowed by a court to happen because…”.  And don’t say that it won’t ever happen because marriage is a particular type of thing, because that was our argument, and you ran roughshod over it.

The last idea is this commonly-heard challenge: “How does allowing gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?”

That one really isn’t very hard to answer.

For one thing, it cheapens marriage to the point of meaninglessness, which is why marriage has declined markedly in every single country in which gay marriage was imposed.  I mean, given how marriage becomes a mere convention, why even bother getting married?

Gay activists look at the gay-marriage countries and argue that divorces have leveled off.  But the problem with that line of reasoning is that divorce only becomes a factor if people actually bother to get married in the first place.  And the fact of the matter is that they AREN’T bothering to get married.  Because marriage is being destroyed.

When a young man today says “I do” in a marriage to his wife, he is continuing an institution that his parents, his parents’ parents, and his parents’ parents’ parents – going all the way back to Adam and Eve (i.e., and NOT Adam and Steve).

We go back to the very beginning when GOD instituted marriage.  And God said:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

“Shall cleave to his WIFE” – not to whoever or whatever the hell happens to turn his fancy.

Gay marriage does to marriage what cancer does to the cells of a body – it alters it, it corrupts it, and ultimately it destroys it.

Marriage is no longer a holy union between a man and a woman under God that the state recognizes; it becomes a convention BY the state APART from God that can be changed at will by powerful elites who have determined that they know better than God.

So yeah, gay marriage hurts legitimate marriage.  Because it destroys the very concept of marriage.

66% of Independents Say Obama A Leftist – And What That Means

By a two-to-one margin, independents are saying that Obama is a leftist.  And only 14% of unaffiliated voters say they are more liberal than Obama.  And for those independents who have strongly made up their mind one way or the other, the margin dramatically increases to a six-to-one margin believing that Obama is a leftist.

For a story like this, we need to go back a little further, when we found out that Barry Hussein was THE most polarizing president in history:

In his first two months in office, President Barack Obama has succeeded in widening the political gulf among Americans more than any other president in modern history, according to a new poll. The “partisan gap” between Republicans and Democrats is 10 points larger than it was under George W. Bush.

The gulf – between Democrats and Republicans who say President Obama is succeeding – is also showing signs of further widening, according to a new Pew Research poll.

And widen it did.  It’s not just Republicans who overwhelmingly disapprove of Obama; it’s independents.  It’s the unaffiliated voters who now understand that Barack Obama misrepresented himself when he claimed he was a centrist who wanted what they wanted.

66% Of Independents Say Obama Is To Their Left
By Ed Carson
Tue., March 09, ’10

Supporters like to portray President Obama and his agenda as centrist. But those actually in the political center beg to differ. In fact, 66% of independents say their ideology is to the right of Obama, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll. Just 14% say they’re more liberal.

Independents:

• Oppose Obama’s handling of the economy by 2-to-1. Among those with strong opinions, disapproval soars to 6-to-1 — 30% vs. 5%.
• On health care, 53% disapprove vs. 23% who approve. 35% say Obama’s doing an unacceptable job vs. just 9% who give him an A.
• 55% have a dim view of Obama on the budget. Just 17% who like his work. They strongly disapprove 34%-6%.

(Among all respondents, results were generally slightly less negative due to strong Democratic support for the president.)

These issues feed off each other. Obama and the Democratic Congress have spent vast sums on bailouts and a mammoth stimulus that are driving deficits to truly unsustainable levels. Ordinary Americans haven’t seen much benefit because job losses continue and unemployment remains near 10%.

But Democrats still haven’t made the economy their top issue. Instead, they spend their time and political capital on health care, even though voters have signaled they don’t like Democrats’ health plans.

That’s inspired and fueled the fast-growing Tea Party movement. A February IBD/TIPP poll showed 75% of independents favor that movement.

41% of Americans say they are more likely to oppose a candidate that supports the current health care bill, according to the IBD/TIPP poll. Just 27% say they would be more apt to vote for that person. Among independents, the ratio is 2-to-1 against.

These are all chilling results for Democrats facing re-election. How many from moderate districts will lash themselves to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s mast?

As for Obama’s overall approval rating, the IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index dipped 0.2 point in March to 50, split between approval and disapproval. That’s down from 71 in February 2009, just after he took office.

Meanwhile, the IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index fell 3% in March to 45.4, the lowest in a year.

IBD/TIPP conducted the national telephone poll of 903 adults from March 1 to March 7.

And what’s the result of all of this?

A substantial majority of Americans now believe that the massive government this leftist president is trying to create represents a threat to their rights:

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens’ rights
Posted: February 26th, 2010 09:00 AM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken – though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what’s broken can be fixed.

So we find that 66% of independents believe that Obama is to their left, and 63% of independents believe that the government Obama is presiding over is a threat to their rights.  See the near perfect dovetailing?

What we are seeing is one of the most cynical and disingenuous presidents in American history attempt to establish himself as transcending political divides while simultaneously demagoguing and demonizing his opposition in a manner this generation has never seen.  And the mainstream media have broadcast his political narrative in a way very reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels broadcasting the narrative of his party.

Fortunately, this fascist technique hasn’t worked.  Mainstream media news outlets such as ABC, NBC and CBS are imploding:

The American mainstream media has been on a collision course with reality for several years.  It appears the day of reckoning has arrived as both ABC News and CBS News make announcements today that indicate deep financial woes.  In short, the mainstream media is going down as the big news giants begin to implode.

For quite some time now it has been widely known that NBC News and its sister networks MSNBC and CNBC are in dire financial straits.  That news was confirmed with the sale of the entity a few months ago.

Today, however, ABC News announced that it is cutting its news correspondent staff by half and that it will close all of its ‘brick and mortar’ news bureaus, except for its Washington hub.

In addition, CBS News is reportedly talking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper concerning an anchor position with the network. CBS has already been forced to cut Katie Couric’s salary, and Couric’s contract is set to expire in a little over a year.

The crash of big mainstream media is not confined to television, however.  Liberal, mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times, continue to operate under heavy financial pressure as subscriptions tank and advertising revenues fall to historic lows.

Meanwhile Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh are thriving.  After a year of unrelenting Obama demagoguing, Fox News is now THE most trusted name in news.

Shockingly (and I actually say that without irony), Americans still don’t want to be indoctrinated when they have a choice.

Obama has gone way, WAAAAYYYY downhill from the days when journalists and other passionate Obama supporters literally breathlessly compared him favorably to the divine Son of God.  I think of the Newsweek editor saying, “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”  I think of Chris Matthews saying he felt this thrill going up his leg as Obama spoke.  Here’s where “the One” stands after a year of gracing an undeserving wolrd with his exalted magnificence, according to Rasmussen:

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 22% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President.  Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19 (see trends). […]

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

And Democrats are swirling the drain for a massive defeat that might not only reach 1994-levels, but even make 1994 look like a good year for Democrats.  From Rasmussen:

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Republican candidates lead Democrats by seven points in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Voter support for GOP congressional candidates held steady from last week, while support for Democrats is up a point.

Voters not affiliated with either major party continue to favor the GOP by a 42% to 22% margin, showing little change for several months now. In February, the number of unaffiliated voters increased by half a percentage point as both Republicans and Democrats lost further ground.

Republicans started 2010 ahead by nine points — their largest lead in several years — while support for Democrats fell to its lowest level over the same period. Towards the end of 2009, GOP candidates enjoyed a more modest lead over Democrats, with the gap between the two down to four points in early December. Since the beginning of the year, however, the Republican lead hasn’t dipped below seven points.

The latest numbers continue to highlight a remarkable change in the political environment over the past year. This time last year, Democrats led Republicans 42% to 38%.

On January 18, 2009, Democrats led Republicans 42% to 35%.  How the tables have turned.  That’s a 14-point swing since Obama started ruining the country.  And the trend has been going steadily down-the-drain-ward for Democrats.

Even Democrat polling shows Democrats are in big, big trouble:

The national mood continues to sour, with the share who see the country headed in the wrong direction moving up 4 points since mid-January, up to 62 percent, the highest mark in a year

The also left-leaning Washington Post, reporting on the Democrat organization’s polling, wrote in an article entitled, “Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground,” that:

“The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin,” the pollsters said in their findings.

That’s really bad, considering that women have always been primary voters for Democrats, and it was independents’ votes that brought both Obama and Democrat over the top in 2008.

And what are Barry Hussein and Democrats going to do?  Prove every nasty thing that people now believe right.  Thus Democrats are pursuing a strategy that they themselves have said is immoral and unAmerican to pass a bill that Americans overwhelmingly do not want.

Why should Americans trust Democrats, given that they are now doing the very thing they themselves said was a terrible thing to do, and given all the Louisiana Purchases, all the Cornhusker Kickbacks, all the Gator-aids, and all the other illegitimate and even illegal acts of political sleazy backroom deals?

These same people promised us that unemployment would stay under 8% if we supported their now $862 billion stimulus.  And that was so false that only 6% of Americans believe it has created any jobs at all, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS.

Why should we want that kind of massively expensive failure with our health care system?

Look at the numbers demonstrating how Americans think about health care:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters say the health care reform plan now working its way through Congress will hurt the U.S. economy.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% think the plan will help the economy. But only seven percent (7%) say it will have no impact. Twelve percent (12%) aren’t sure.

Two-out-of-three voters (66%) also believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is likely to increase the federal deficit. That’s up six points from late November and comparable to findings just after the contentious August congressional recess. Ten percent (10%) say the plan is more likely to reduce the deficit and 14% say it will have no impact on the deficit.

Underlying this concern is a lack of trust in the government numbers. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform plan will cost more than official estimates. That number includes 66% who say it is very likely that the official projections understate the true cost of the plan.

Just 10% have confidence in the official estimates and say the actual costs are unlikely to be higher.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) also believe it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform. This includes 65% who say middle-class tax hikes are very likely, a six-point increase from late November.

Do you really believe that the government will reduce the cost of anything?  This is something that can very quickly begin to explode out of control.  And by the time it does, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Obama keeps assuring us that his plan will lower the deficit, but we can’t even trust him on his own budget figures: the CBO recently reported that the Obama budget deficit will be a massive $1.2 trillion more than Obama said it would.

You can’t trust Obama on keeping his promises, and you certainly can’t trust him on bringing down costs.  On energy prices, Obama said the following:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

He doesn’t care about keeping his word, and he certainly doesn’t care about making vital services cost less.  The man is an ideologue – and he only cares about imposing his statist ideology.

The American people, including independents, don’t want statism, but they know they’ve got exactly that in Barack Obama.  They clearly don’t want a big government takeover of their health care, but the Democrats are apparently determined to impose it anyway.

China has had enough of the Democrats and their reckless spending: they are now preparing to sever the historic tie between their currency and that of the U.S. dollar.

Democrats are counting on the fact that the American people are simply too stupid to remember what Democrats did eight months before the election.  The question is, is that true?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi thinks the American people are dumb enough to buy anything, saying:

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Let’s make a deal: give me trillions of dollars, and I’ll show you what’s in the bag I’m holding.

And pretty soon America is going to open their door in surprise to see a flaming bag filled with dog crap.  Try to stomp out the flames at your peril.

The United States of America is more vulnerable than it has ever been, due to deficits and spending that are simply out of control.

You independents – who are now beginning to at least understand the risk the president and party you voted for in 2008 presents to this country – had now better get off your butts and join Republicans in screaming this ObamaCare boondoggle down.  Because this incredibly partisan health care bill will very likely be the anvil that breaks this nation’s back if it is passed.

Harry Reid Invokes Slavery To Attack Republicans: The Real Story

Another day, another profoundly dishonest and immoral Democrat lie.

The Democrat Senate Majority Leader had this to say about the Democrats’ health care agenda and its relationship with wanting to own slaves:

“All Republicans can come up with is this: Slow down, stop everything and start over. If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right,” Reid said on the Senate floor Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it is too early, let’s wait. Things are not bad enough.’ “

As Republicans erupted into outrage at the ugly and utterly despicable tactic – and presumably after Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called on Reid to apologize for his “disgraceful statement” – Harry Reid spake again through his spokesman:

“Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy to distract from the fact they have no plan to lower the cost of health care, stop insurance company abuses or protect Medicare.”

Harry Reid conveniently forgets that his Democrat party is trying to strip Medicare of $460 billion in funding at a time when it needs those funds the most, against unanimous Republican objection.  But facts don’t really amount to much with hard-core liars.

Let me try Harry Reid’s trick:

“All Democrats can come up with is this: tell lies, make stuff up and use deception to make the cost of their bills look different than it really is. If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right.  When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of child molestation, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, buggering little boys is fine, it’s discrimination to go after them. Things are not bad enough.’ “

And if Democrats become outraged at being compared to being a bunch of child molesters over their takeover of the health care system, I’ll just trot back out and say:

“Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy.”

Because, after all, when I slander you with the most hateful demagoguery, how DARE you respond in outrage?

I tell you what: Joseph Goebbels is just so freaking happy listening to Harry Reid from his special place in hell.  Every demagogue in history has got to be dancing.

If I really wanted to continue with the Democrat tactics, I would make sure that everyone knew that this was hate speech that would incite black people to begin murdering Republicans.  And the moment I found any registered Republican killed by a black guy, I would immediately cite the event and decry Harry Reid as a blood-faced murderer.

Harry Reid wants to talk about slavery.  So let’s talk about slavery.  Democrats fought the bloodiest war in American history to keep blacks in bondage; Republicans under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln won the emancipation of black slaves at the cost of their own lives and limbs.

During the 1860 presidential election, Democrat candidate Stephen Douglas supported the doctrine of popular sovereignty: allowing settlers in each territory to decide for themselves whether abortion – oops, I mean slavery – would be allowed.

On October 13, 1858, During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) stated: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever.”

An article entitled “The African Civil War” has a very simple entry as to how the Civil War began:

Abraham Lincoln was against slavery. When he was elected President in 1860, seven Southern states left, or seceded, from the United States. They formed the Confederate States of America

The Democrat Party: the Party of slavery.

A little history lesson:

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

The above-cited article entitled, “The Democrat Race Lie,” goes on with numerous entries detailing well over a century of Democrat opposition to racial equality, to match their support of the institution of slavery.

So in other words, Harry Reid is accusing Republicans of being so vile, so hateful, so ugly, so despicable, so depraved, so morally evil, that they have become like Democrats.

And those are fighting words.  Because as bad as Republicans are, there’s no way they are THAT loathsome.

After the Civil War, the Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan as a violent terrorist organization which

resisted Reconstruction by assaulting, murdering and intimidating freedmen and white Republicans.

So you can understand why I would be deeply offended and appalled that Harry Reid would say that I’m such a nasty piece of work as a Republican that I’m somehow like a Democrat in wanting to continue slavery.

Let’s move ahead to 1924, to see how the Ku Klux Klan still owned the Democrat Party:

The 1924 Democratic National Convention, also called the Klanbake,^[1] held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate. It was the longest continuously running convention in United States political history. It was the first national convention in which a major party had a woman, Lena Springs, placed in nomination for the office of Vice President. It was also known for the strong influence of the Ku Klux Klan.

That’s why Martin Luther King, Sr., a major civil rights figure before his son took his mantle, “had been a lifelong registered Republican, and had endorsed Republican Richard Nixon.”  And that’s why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., registered as a Republican in 1956.

The section entitled, “The Modern Civil Rights Era,” from an article, “Republicans for Civil Rights,” is worth reading:

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, it was the Democrats who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protestors were fighting. Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham let loose dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. In 1963, Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse chanting, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”. In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools (using the 101st airborne), and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education (which ended school segregation). Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960.

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Conveniently forgotten today are significant facts about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law guaranteed equal access to public facilities and banned discrimination by any establishment receiving federal government funding. The law was an update of Republican Charles Sumner’s 1875 Civil Rights Act which had been stuck down by the Democrat-controlled US Supreme Court in 1883.

In-fact, Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright (credited as Bill Clinton’s political mentor) and Robert Byrd (a former Kleagle for the Ku Klux Klan), filibustered against the bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote. Former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for the bill. When the bill finally came to a vote, the House of Reps passed the bill 289 to 124. 80% of Republicans voted for the bill VS only 63% by Democrats. The Senate vote was 73 to 27 (21 Democrats voting no VS only 6 Republicans voting against). Simply put: Republicans are responsible for the bill being passed, not Democrats as they’d lead you to believe.

Equally important was the 1965 Voting Rights Act that abolished literacy tests and other tests used to prevent blacks from voting (a right granted by the 15th Amendment). With images of violence against civil rights protestors led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shaping the national debate, Democrats in Congress finally decided not to filibuster the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When the bill came up for a vote, both houses of Congress passed the bill. In the House of Representatives, 85% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats voted for the bill. In the Senate, 17 Democrats voted no, and only one Republican voted no.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is championed as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act as a senator along side Democrat Senator Al Gore Sr. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was also a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.

In a historic apology, issued unanimously on January 20, 2007 by the North Carolina Democratic Executive Committee, composed of over 700 party leaders and activists from 100 counties, resulted from the1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission Report of May 31, 2006. The report concluded that the Democrat Party was solely responsible for that 1898 murderous rampage against blacks.

“The Democrat Party was soley responsible” become the overarching theme.

The Democrats’ record regarding slavery is a record of abject shame and moral evil.

Democrats might point out that Strom Thurmond filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act signed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.  But they should also recognize that he was a member of the Democrat Party when he did it.  And then they should account for the fact that their very own Robert Byrd – who continues to serve as a Democrat Senator today – not only filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but actively served the Ku Klux Klan in the leadership positions of “Kleagle” and “Exalted Cyclops.” And this now revered Democrat wrote a letter to Senator Theodore Bilbo that said:

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

— Sen. Robert C. Byrd, honored Democrat in good standing.

And for Harry Reid to lecture Republicans, using slavery as an example, is an insult to history, in addition to generation after generation of Republicans trying to win first emancipation and then individual liberties for blacks against the bitter and steadfast opposition of the Democrat Party.

How dare he?  How DARE he?

Harry Reid should not only apologize, he should frankly resign in disgrace.  He won’t, only because the Democrat Party wallows in disgrace like pigs wallow in mud.

Why Obama’s Tax Plan Is So Wrong

Barack Obama, if elected, promises to enact a tax plan that he claims will “cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.”

The statement is patently false, and it is beyond easy to prove it’s patently false.

The 5% of Americans that Barack Obama will attack with tax increases already pay more than 50% of the total income tax burden.  It is simply a naked act of class warfare to demand that people who are already overtaxed pay still more taxes.

To underscore the point above, it is also a fact that 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.

How can Obama reduce federal taxes for 95% of Americans when 40% of Americans don’t pay federal taxes?  He can’t.  It is logically impossible.

What Obama will do is seize more from the wealthy, and – in an act of sheer pandering – give it to people who have not earned it.  He will use the IRS as a welfare agency.  You do all the work; I reap well over half of the benefit.

During his interview with Barack Obama, Bill O’Reilly called Obama’s plan “class warfare,” and Obama replied, “It’s not. Ninety-five percent is not class warfare.”  Sure it is.  Whenever one class of any size votes to take from another economic class, it’s class warfare.

Someone managed to stop Benjamin Franklin’s rolling in his grave long enough to ask him what he thought about Barack Obama’s tax plan.  Founding father Benjamin Franklin responded:

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Wow.  That’s pretty tough.  All Barack Obama is doing is saying, “If you vote for me, I will seize other people’s money and give it to people who did not earn it in a direct transfer payment.”  But Benjamin Franklin understood with razor sharpness how profoundly wrong Barack Obama’s socialism was nearly two hundred years before Obama was even born.

The reason Benjamin Franklin was so diametrically opposed to Barack Obama’s socialist, class-warfare, welfare payment tax plan is because he understood the thought of another man who condemned Barack Obama nearly two centuries before Obama was born.

The 17th Century Scottish historian Alexander Tytler studied the rise and fall of nations and presented his findings in what we now call Tytler’s Cycle. According to Tytler, all nations go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to freedom, from freedom to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, and from dependence back to bondage. Tytler said the absolutely critical thing that leads a nation to decline from abundance to selfishness and on down the vicious cycle, is when they vote themselves benefits from the national treasury. And Benjamin Franklin understood this basic fact of history.

Barack Obama doesn’t.

This election may come down to whether we want Benjamin Franklin’s independent America or Barack Obama’s socialist America.  It may come down to whether we want to heed Alexander Tytler’s warning to cultures from history, or disregard it.