Because Child Molesters Love Socialism, Too: Can Anyone Sink So Low That Liberals Would Refuse Them Socialism Funded By Other People’s Money?

I found this as laughable as I found it illustrative:

Re “L.A. adds parks to oust sex offenders,” March 1
I am not a sex offender and to my knowledge don’t know any sex offenders. I certainly don’t condone the illegal actions they committed. And under other circumstances, I would think creating more parks is good.

But when I read The Times’ article about L.A. creating a park in order to force sex offenders from their apartments, I was horrified. Sex offenders need homes like everyone else. These people are human beings and need more support from the city, not less. I’m sure most are trying to put their lives back together and to fight their own urges.

If the city wants to help society, it should assist former sex offenders to have decent housing, provide them with social services and help them get jobs, rather than force them onto the streets.

Rebecca Rona Culver City

The Los Angeles Times print version had the title (written by the newspaper) the headline “They’re people, too.”  Which is of course a highly debatable assertion as far as most “people” are concerned – excluding liberals, of course.  It turns out that government liberalism is FAR more compassionate than God – as long as other people’s money is used to pay for their generosity.  God holds people accountable for their actions; God judges SIN.  Liberalism, by contrast, is only capable of wanting to expand bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger to beget more liberalism (and thus more wickedness).

Is there anything some low-life, cockroach, pile-of-slime, morally-diseased predator of innocence can do to be denied free “decent housing,” free “social services” and free government-created “jobs”?  No.  There is not.

Jesus, out of His compassion healed the lepers and forgave the sinners; but that aint NOTHIN’ compared to Obama’s supernatural compassion: he gave the child molesting scum a check paid for by “taxpayers” with only about half of his largesse coming from money we’re borrowing from China but of course promise our children and grandchildren will pay back with plenty of interest.

Because Obama loves those child molesters so much, so big and so loving is his heart, that he will give them the inheritance of our future generations.  Who – if they could vote today – would surely all choose to be aborted, according to liberal theology.

And because liberalism is all about growing the size of government which grows just as well when it’s doling out handouts to a degenerate pervert as it can when it’s doling them out to somebody who isn’t a piece of slime.  Bureaucracies are needed which are as eternal as the God of Heaven.  And the gates of Heaven shall not prevail against these bureaucracies.

The story being alluded to above – “Los Angeles adding parks to force out sex offenders living nearby” is funny because the uberliberal city of Los Angeles that so warmly invited all these pedophiles to come share their bread are now using the contrived government “service” of city parks to drive them out of the houses they gave them in the first place .  It wasn’t like these perverts went flocking to Texas, you know.  It’s also funny because apparently there’s nothing wrong with discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation, after all.  Which is exactly what religious conservatives have been arguing all along.

It’s kind of laugable in its own way that the liberals who run Los Angeles are now trying to force pedophiles out of their homes so they’ll go somewhere else; given the fact that child molesters are now ditching their GPS devices and slipping out of law enforcement’s ability to track with alarming regularity.  How many of these child molesting turds are going to be leaving their GPS bracelets behild when they’re forced out of their residences???

Liberalism is the constant governing by crisis: they create one crisis (incredibly lax treatment toward pedophiles) and then exploit the failure of their own policy to enact yet another immoral policy.  And then exploit that one to enact ANOTHER immoral policy, and so on ad infinitum.

There are idiot liberals who actually have to pay for their morally idiotic bullcrap out of actual budgets and there are the rest of the liberals who think that money can never be considered an object when a pervert is asking for a handout.  And the liberal with the budget who doesn’t have Obama’s Federal Reserve Money-Fabricating Machine has to choose reality no matter how repulsive reality is to him.

Another thing that’s funny is that the article occurred on the front page of the March 1, 2013 Los Angeles Times an article on the White House involving itself in the Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court on behalf of sodomy.

If I were an attorney for a child molester – another liberal profession whose status as “people” is highly debatable – here’s what I would do: I would argue that the City of Los Angeles is discriminating against my sexual orientation.  After all, if nobody would choose to be gay, just how many people do you think would choose to be child molesters?  Pedophilia isn’t a “choice” any more than homosexuality is a “choice”; these poor victims were born this way, every bit as much as those beloved homosexuals were.  And it is moralistic and anachronistic to judge “people” for their sexual preferences.

Liberalism cannot withstand the light of individual personal responsibility any more than vampires cannot withstand the light of God’s sun.  They simply must dispense with it all together.

That, for the record, was the original homosexual position.  Oh, yes: NAMBLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association – was a vibrant part of the Rainbow Coalition and even briefly enjoyed United Nations representation.

Pedophiles were just born “queer” in a slightly different way, is all.

And of course while homosexual marriage has NEVER been practiced by ANY nation until this last, most wicked generation, pederasty – a.k.a. pedophilia – sure has.

For the factual record, given that the Catholic Church was scandalized and demonized by the liberal mainstream media for “pedophile priest”, and given that in 81% of the cases, those acts of “pedophilia” involved post-puberescant, sexually-developed teenagers rather than tiny little toddlers, I am further warranted to connect homosexuality and pedophilia together just as the left connected it together to attack the Catholic Church.

We are a nation in decline amidst a culture that has already spilled right out into a toxic sewer.  And Obama is demanding more and more tax hikes to fund more and more of his perversion.

And thanks to liberals, we’re going to be forced to keep paying for it until our complete economic collapse.  And then a desperate, hungry people who have already proven how wicked they are will demand that government save them from the disaster that government created.  And therefore they will choose more socialism to save them from the disaster of socialism.

Liberal Democrats Demand ‘We Should Acknowledge The Existence of Good Pedophiles.’ When There’s Not Even Such A Thing As The Existence Of A Good DEMOCRAT.

You just can’t get any lower than liberalism.  Every whale turd has tried … and failed:

Dan Savage “We Should Acknowledge The Existence of Good Pedophiles”
Posted by F.R Newbrough on April 30, 2012 at 12:30am

There has been considerable controversy over recent comments by Dan Savage, a radical gay rights activist, when he said “we can learn to ignore the bulls–t in the bible..” The YouTube video of the event is below so you can watch it yourself. However this is not the first or the worst or most radical of this man’s hateful outbursts. He is also very outspoken on issues such as pedophilia. 

One of many examples is a column where he wrote that “we need to acknowledge the existence of good pedophiles”.

This link is to an advice column from Feb 2, 2010 where he states his long-standing sympathies for pedophiles.

I’m not going to go any further than that because the man’s ugly vulgar and obscene history is readily available online but of course the msm doesn’t seem to care what this man says or does because they didn’t even notice or rather were not shocked when he and his and his partner Terry Miller were invited to the White House by the Obama administration for a June 29,2011 “Pride Reception”.

Does this mean President Obama’s positions on Pedophilia have also evolved?

UPDATE:

Here are a couple detailed filled links courtesy of Ben Shapiro:

Dan Savage: “I Wish Republicans Were All F***ing Dead.'”

Dan Savage: “Justice Scalia Is A ‘C***sucker.'”

It is important to understand that NAMBLA – the North American Man-Boy Love Association, and the essence of which was PEDOPHILIA – was once a part of the homosexual International Lesbian and Gay Association and once a part of the United Nations until cynical political expediency caused them to be removed.  And liberal Democrats like Dan Savage have been trying to undo that politically convenient albeit cynical and hypocritical disconnect (that according to the left’s own moral “logic”) ever since.

Here are the words of a Democrat – who has been invited to the Obama White House and everything – that all Democrats ought to be as proud of as Obama was of him:

‘Let’s Say I’m A Pedophile’
By Dan Savage |Posted Feb. 2, 2010

Let’s say, theoretically, I’m a pedophile.

I’m not stupid or evil, so I’m not gonna do anything. I’m not even gonna look at porn. I don’t even look at kids in public, and anyone of whatever orientation who’s been to a crowded beach knows how hard that can be.

So what the fuck should I do? Chemical castration? But I haven’t DONE anything and I don’t plan to. Am I obliged to tell anyone? Good way to lose friends and get the shit kicked out of me. Can I keep babysitting my friends’ kids when they need a hand? After all, if I were into adult women, people wouldn’t see anything wrong with leaving me alone with a couple of those.

My sex drive was put together wrong, Dan. What the fuck do I do? Live alone and hope Japan starts producing affordable sexbots before I’m too old to care?

You know, theoretically. If I were a pedophile.

Knows It’s Wrong

“My heart goes out to people to whom nature has given something as powerful and as distracting as a sex drive and no healthy way to express it,” says Dr. James Cantor, a psychologist and the editor in chief of the research journal Sexual Abuse. “Pedophiles are not the only folks in this position, but they are by far the most demonized, regardless of whether they have ever actually caused anyone any kind of harm.”

My heart is going out to you, too, KIW. As I’ve written before, we should acknowledge the existence of “good pedophiles,” who are burdened with a sexual interest in children but who possess the moral sense to resist acting on that interest. It’s a lifelong struggle for “good pedophiles,” and most manage to succeed without any emotional support—to say nothing of credit—whatsoever.

Unfortunately, science doesn’t know much about pedophiles like you, pedophiles who haven’t done anything, because the social stigma is so great that most nonoffending pedophiles never seek treatment. And what research has been done, says Cantor, isn’t very encouraging if you’re looking to free yourself from your attraction to children.

“There is no known way of turning a pedophile into a nonpedophile,” says Cantor. “The best we can do is help a person maximize their self-control and to help them build an otherwise happy and productive life.”

The psychotherapies that are available, says Cantor, “were designed to assist people who have already committed an offense. These therapies have less to provide to people who already have the skills and drive to keep themselves from ‘acting out.’” Your best option, according to Cantor, may be the one you’re clearly not too enthused about: “Castration, both chemical and physical,” says Cantor, “can indeed be used to eliminate or take the edge off one’s sex drive.”

“Nonoffender pedophiles have told me that chemical castration has given them relief,” Cantor adds. “So it’s unfortunate that we use the term ‘chemical castration,’ which evokes all kinds of emotions. When you get right down to it, we are talking only about taking the same medication used by, for example, prostate-cancer patients—some cancers are accelerated by testosterone, so blocking testosterone is part of the treatment.”

And as for babysitting …

“It is true that a regular, heterosexual man is not going to commit an offense against every woman he finds attractive; however, most women are capable of recognizing when an interaction is starting to go south. Most children are not. So although there is every reason to believe that there exist cats that can successfully be in charge of the canary, it’s not a good idea for the cat to be the one making that call.”

So no babysitting for you, KIW—to protect the kids, first and foremost, but yourself as well. If it ever comes out that you are a pedophile and you were in the habit of babysitting-without-touching, your friends are unlikely to take your protestations—you’ve never touched a child—at face value.

“I wish I had better news,” concludes Cantor. “I also wish that more people did good research on this so that one day I could have better news to give.”

One of the reasons given for the nomination of Pope John Paul II for sainthood is that he “whipped himself with a belt, even on vacation,” according to a new book. If that’s what it takes, why isn’t David Carradine a saint? What is the link between Catholicism and sadomasochism? As a former seminarian, perhaps you can explain this.

When Holiness Is Painful

First, I was in the preparatory seminary—a high school for boys considering the priesthood—not a full-blown seminary, WHIP. (I stopped considering the priesthood when it dawned on me that I could still wear dresses, fuck boys, and live in a big house filled with Catholic kitsch without becoming a priest.)

Good for you, Dan Savage: you despise Jesus Christ and Christianity and the Catholic Church as much as your Democrat Party and your war-on-religion president.

You’ve got to start somewhere, so follow the path of societal acceptance for depraved behavior the way the left has ALWAYS done it before: demand that they be viewed as “human just like everyone else” and demand that they be accorded rights and respect.  THEN you later demand that since they’re decent, respectable people their vile behavior can’t be viewed as vile anymore.  It’s been part of their playbook over and over again and it worked which is why America and Western Europe is so astonishingly morally-velocitized with behavior that was utterly unacceptable just a generation ago being openly celebrated now.  So let’s “Play it again, Sam” with pedophiles.

We’re told over and over again that it is a “scientific fact” that homosexuals are born gay and therefore it’s clearly okay to be gay.

Well, if you’re born gay, you’re born pedophile too.  And therefore it’s okay to sodomize your little Johnny while you’re not looking.  And what if little Johnny wants to be sodomized?   And it is not one iota less okay to be a pedophile than it is to be gay.  Because the exact same justification for the one justifies the other.

For the factual record, Barack Obama is publicly on the record supporting the sodomy of children in his czar selections.  The very same Obama who said, ” “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself” surrounded himself with a czar who openly promotes homosexuality in public schools and smiled down at a boy who told him he was being sexually molested by an older man.

Don’t you think for one nano-second that this incredibly vile and blatantly evil idea of promoting pedophilia is not right now at the heart of the Democrat Party today.

But you need to understand something: it’s not just pedophiles who ought to be demanding societal embrace and acceptance on the basis of liberal presuppositions.  Because the same evidence that allegedly justifies that people are “born gay” likewise justifies that people are born violent:

The Violence Gene
Impulsive aggression can be inherited.
by Victor Limjoco
published online April 14, 2006

With swelling prison populations, researchers are trying to understand the biology behind aggressive behavior. National Institute of Mental Health scientist Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg is looking for clues to how genes wire our brains early in life.

“One of the most fascinating things,” Meyer-Lindenberg says, about this field of science called psychiatric genetics, “is how it is possible that genes [can] encode for molecules that affect something as complex as behavior, even psychiatric illness such as depression and social behavior.”

He’s focusing on a specific gene that was previously linked to impulsive violence. A study in 2002 found that subjects with a particular form of a gene had a significantly higher risk of violence, but only in certain populations.

Genes can affect complex behaviors like aggression, because they direct the production of proteins – the building blocks of living systems. Certain types of proteins, called enzymes, break down chemicals in the brain, most notably, serotonin – a chemical messenger in the brain that helps brains cells communicate to each other.

To isolate how a variation in this gene, called the L version of MAO-A, might affect the wiring of the brain, Meyer-Lindenberg took MRI brain scans of more than 100 healthy volunteers. Since this genetic variation is common in our population, some of the volunteers had this variation, and some didn’t.

He showed them pictures of angry and fearful faces and other disturbing images, like those of an angry dog or of a gun pointed towards the screen. 

As he wrote in “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” those with the aggression-related form of the gene responded to the pictures with increased activity in the amygdala – the brain area that detects danger, but less activity in the cingulate cortex – the brain region that is believed to control aggression.

These brain patterns have been linked to impulsive violence, but Meyer-Lindenberg cautions in his paper, ” …because our sample was psychiatrically normal, the variation observed is clearly compatible with normal mental health and does not imply or suggest increased risk for violence in our sample.” 

There are many possible factors at work, he says, and violence is an extremely complex behavior. “Whether or not any given person in any given situation will become violent is known to be almost impossible to predict.”

But the findings are still significant, Meyer-Lindenberg says, because, ” …it gives us a handle for the first time into a genetic risk for violence.” 

To see live video of this story, please visit our partner www.sciencentral.com

And so when I finally lose it and grab my baseball bat and beat every liberal I come across to a violent and gory death, you liberals had damned well better smile tolerantly and say, “I’m so happy that you’re finally free to express your true self.”  And don’t you ever forget that you can’t blame a person for violent behavior any more than you can blame that homosexual.

I’ll bet that the same research proves that babies have a genetic predisposition to be aborted, too.

Unless you possess something called moral common sense – but that would automatically exclude you from being a Democrat, wouldn’t it?

For the record, I don’t doubt that people have genetic predispositions to crappy behaviors BECAUSE I’M A CHRISTIAN WHO READS HIS BIBLE AND READ ABOUT THE FALL OF MAN INTO SIN.  But I also know that the same God who created us created us in His image.  And part of the essence of the Imago Dei is personal freedom and personal responsibility.  Maybe I was born with the deck stacked against me in some way or ways; but I guarantee you that somebody else was born with that same deck stacked even worse against him or her – and that person triumphed over that and a lot of other hereditary obstacles.

Atheists, secular humanists, scientific materialists and liberals cannot comprehend that humans actually have something called free will and can and should be held accountable for their attitudes and actions.  They’re wrong and literally destroy their very own arguments in being wrong:

But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his own presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain. — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 55-56

I simply point out to liberals that MY brain was the product of an intelligent designer and is fearfully and wonderfully made, whereas YOUR brain is the random agglomeration of molecules that happened to come together for no particular reason and I should therefore trust my opinions a lot more than I trust yours.

Liberals – be they political or theological (they’re invariably the same people, for what it’s worth) – have abandoned so many truths that it is becoming increasingly impossible for them to comprehend ANY truth at all.  And that’s why we’re seeing more and more craven jackasses like Dan Savage crawling out of the left.

The Bible describes the progression into total depravity:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. — Romans 1:18-28

And so we have the map of the degeneration of man from the Imago Dei to Democrat.

Why would I say that?

Consider the passage about exchanging the worship of a Creator God for “nature” and read the following quotes from the left:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
 – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
– UN Agenda 21

The essence of their agenda is profoundly anti-God and anti-man:

“The common enemy of humanity is man.  In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.  The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We are on the verge of a global transformation.  All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
– David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?  Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

And as a result of their worship of the creature rather than the Creator, the left despises the capstone of God’s creation – man himself:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”  – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living  would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;  the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.  We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

I believe I have amply established that if you look at the left, you look at the heart of evil and the bottom “whale-crap” level of depravity as set forth by the Word of God in Romans chapter one.

Democrats are 100% responsible for the murder of FIFTY-FOUR MILLION innocent human beings through the abortion mills that they and they alone champion.  The shocking moral crimes of the Democrat Party dwarf even Adolf Hitler’s.  And Democrats who think that they aren’t responsible for that slaughter because they don’t believe developing children in the womb are human beings are going to be every bit as surprised as the Nazis who will be shocked to find out that JEWS are actually human beings.

And in their very own words they are literally out to exterminate at least half and as many as 95% of all the human beings who are living on planet earth right now.

When God said, “all those who hate Me love death” in His Word (Proverbs 8:36), He knew in His divine foreknowledge that the Democrat Party was coming in the last days.

You might be a Democrat saying, “I don’t support any of this crap.”  I point out that you are in fact a liar and a fool: BECAUSE THE DEMOCRAT PARTY LEADERSHIP THAT YOU HAVE KEPT IN POWER DOES.  And when you vote Democrat, you vote for the hellish leadership and the hellish agenda of the Democrat Party.  And you will one day be held to account. 

You read Romans chapter one and you see the complete degeneration of the human race into abject depravity and it reads “one day the Democrat Party will come.”  Because the radical environmentalism and the radical homosexual agenda that God warned about are the heart and soul of the Democrat Party today.  Isaiah 5:20 summed up the Democrat Party’s mindset in the words:

“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!”

Micah 5:2 sets forth a similar warning – “You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones” – in words that ought to remind you of what happens to innocent babies during the horror of abortion.

Don’t think for a second that the words, “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left,” don’t apply to modern liberals.

Let me warn you: the beast is coming.  I’ve warned about that soon-coming day many times on this blog.  The policies of the socialist left – and most certainly the policies of American Democrats – has dramatically increased the pace by which the beast is coming.  Soon the world economies will collapse, and the only question is whether that collapse will be led by socialist Europe imploding first or Obama’s God damn America imploding first.  In Europe, countries that barely even TRIED austerity as the only possible means to deal with their socialist-caused debt crisis are now demanding that they dive further into socialism – in effect saying the answer to solving the problem of crippling debt is to dramatically accelerate the rate of debt-spending.  France is poised to elect open socialists.  That is the way to hell, and the rest of the world will ultimately follow France into hell.  In the ruins that we can already see coming, just as we can already hear the coming hoofbeats of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, there will emerge a man who will come to the rescue to save the world from the collapse that socialism created.  The left believes government is the only solution to the problems of man and society.  Essentially, they see big government as savior.  Worship of the state is their real religion.  And don’t mistake me: the Democrat Party in God damn America will gladly worship him and take his mark.  It won’t take long – only seven years – for every promise and every premise of the “global unity” that the left has been hungrily seeking to turn into total hell on earth.  And then every baby-murdering Antichrist-worshiping Democrat will get the eternity they sowed for themselves.

We live in an OWS/Occupy Movement versus Tea Party world.  And we can see that a growing number of people in America and around the world are getting ready to worship the beast.

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.

Obama’s Demonic Czars: Obama ‘Safe Schools Czar’ Supported Pedophile Molestation Of Student

“No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God damn America!” – Reverend Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama told audiences, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

And he has surrounded himself with demons.

He surrounded himself with Van Jones – a communist; a supporter of cop murderers; a man who took the terrorists’ side on 9/11; a man who signed a “truther” statement demonizing President Bush for secretly attacking the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11; a racist who accused even white liberals of being murderers who deliberately poisoned people of color; etc. etc. etc.

He surrounded himself with men like Cass Sunstein and Ezekiel Emanuel, who have said things like:

– “When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.” – Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s handpicked health policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, and appointed by Obama to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Resarch

– “I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.” – Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar.

And Dr. Mengele couldn’t have put it much better.

Barack Obama has surrounded himself with men like his science czar, John Holdren, who has stated:

– Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

– It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

– Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

And now we are learning that he has surrounded himself with a teacher who refused to protect a child under his counseling from being sodomized by a pedophile.

Kevin Jennings, appointed as the Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, is another Obama buddy out of ultra-corrupt Chicago.

In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future.

“One of our board members” was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools,” Jennings said. “And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, “We’re not promoting homosexuality, that’s not what our program’s about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. ‘

“Being finished might someday mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote.”

The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques.

A state official who spoke to teens at the conference said:

“Fisting (forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap….[It’s] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

You see, I think most parents would rather teachers and public schools teach their kids to be in “exploratory mode” of damn near anything else than their children’s rectums.  Am I wrong?

And then we have Kevin Jennings sharing how he provided advice to a fifteen year-old sophomore:

Another controversy from Jennings’ past concerns an account in his 1994 book, “One Teacher In 10,” about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was “involved” with an “older man”:

“Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

The account led Diane Lenning, head of the National Education Association’s Republican Educators Caucus, to criticize Jennings in 2004 for not alerting school and state authorities about the boy’s situation, calling Jennings’ failure to do so an “unethical practice.”

Jennings threatened to sue Lenning for libel, saying she had no evidence that he knew the student in question was sexually active, or that he failed to report the situation.

But a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, Warren Throckmorton, has produced an audio recording of a speech Jennings gave in 2000 at a GLSEN rally in Iowa, in which Jennings made it clear that he believed the student was sexually active:

“I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’ He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old’ I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’”  [Audio is available here via Youtube, and the professor’s website contains a transcript of Jenning’s account with Brewster].

The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

Kevin Jennings is an advocate for homosexual pedophilia.  He has in his past openly supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) by way of praising Harry Hay.  Jennings wrote the forward to a book entitled, The Queering of American Education.  For what it’s worth, fellow Chicago Obama buddy and terrorist Bill Ayers wrote a note endorsing the book on its cover jacket.

This is the man that Obama “entrusted” with ultimate care over your children.  But he is a demon in masquerade.

The despicable personal conduct, followed by the threat of a lawsuit when it was revealed, reminds me of another organization that Obama chose to surround himself with — ACORN.

Contrary to the left’s dismissal, Obama’s ties with ACORN are deep, and go back more than 20 years.

Two kids who were sick of the lefts’ corruption, hypocrisy, and vileness decided to see if ACORN would fall for the most horrendous scenario they could imagine: a prostitute and her pimp seeking to commit federal income tax fraud so they could purchase a house with the intent of importing child sex slaves from El Salvador so they could start a brothel.

And Obama’s ACORN fell for it – on film – on at least five separate occasions in five separate ACORN offices.

Let us judge Obama by the people with whom he has surrounded himself.  Because he has surrounded himself with the devil – and demons are doing his bidding.

And let us finally begin to think about how God will judge these demons – and the president who surrounded himself with them.  And, yes, the nation that elected that president.

Galatians 6:7 makes it clear, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”  And it is not just individuals who fall under God’s judgment, but nations.  As Psalm 110:6 says, “He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.”

“No, no, no! Not God bless America!  God damn America!”

Of Homosexual Marriage And Teachers Unions

Proposition 8 is a big deal in the State of California.  The only political issue getting more campaign funding than Proposition 8 is the Presidential election itself.  If passed, it would re-impose the view of marriage overwhelmingly passed by California voters with 61% of the vote in 2000.  If it fails, homosexual marriage – which was imposed by judges ignoring the landslide result of Proposition 22 – would pass by a vote of the people.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom started the homosexual marriage ball rolling when – flouting the law he was supposed to uphold – he began to perform homosexual marriages.  Frankly Mayor Newsom should have been arrested and prosecuted.  And he would have been in any society that holds elected officials accountable to laws that other citizens are held accountable to.  Courts finally ordered him to stop, but homosexual couples waved their marriage licenses and sued.  And activist judges made homosexual marriage the law of the land by judicial fiat.

Proposition 8 – although currently slightly ahead in some polls – has faced an uphill battle, primarily because ultra-liberal Attorney General Jerry Brown re-worded the proposition to make it seem as intolerant and unpopular as he possibly could.  Rather than the statement,”only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” Brown imposed the harsher-sounding wording, “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry.”  People are far more in favor of “defining marriage” than they are “eliminating rights.”

One of the key issues is whether schools would begin teaching homosexual marriage to children.  The supporters of Prop 8 say YES; the opponents say it’s a flat lie.

An NPR article title has the right question: “If Gay Marriage Is Allowed, Will Schools Promote It?”

Other than the documented FACT that it has already happened in Massachusetts, where kids ARE indoctrinated into homosexual marriage and the courts have ruled, “public schools are not obliged to shield students from ideas which are potentially offensive to their parents,” there is another little issue to consider that should serve to prove that schools would promote homosexual marriage: namely, the fact that the California Teachers Union is the NUMBER ONE financial supporter against the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

Ask yourself one question: if teachers don’t intend to teach homosexual marriage in California schools, then why in the hell do we have this:

California’s largest teacher’s union has given another $1 million to defeat a Nov. 4 ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.

The contribution recorded Tuesday makes the California Teachers Association the largest institutional donor to the No on 8 campaign. CTA also gave $250,000 in August to Equality for All, a coalition of gay advocacy and civil rights groups opposing Proposition 8.

They can’t WAIT to indoctrinate your little darlings into homosexual marriage.  They have proven complete failures at teaching children how to read, or solve simple math problems, but teaching your little boy that there’s nothing wrong with him being bent over and sodomized is another issue entirely.  They think they’d actually be pretty doggone good at teaching that.

The education “professionals” who say that California schools would not be required to teach homosexual marriage are incredibly deceptive.  In fact, schools wouldn’t have to teach homosexual marriage if and only if schools didn’t teach sex education.  It is technically true that sex education is a curriculum choice for local schools (Cal. Ed. Code 51933).  But the simple fact of the matter is that almost EVERY school teaches sex education.  And IF a local school district teaches sex education, THEN it falls under the rule that “instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” (Cal Ed. Code 51933(a)(7)).  And that would mean teaching homosexual marriages if homosexual marriage is legal.

AND OH MY GAWD, THEY’RE ALREADY DOING IT!!!

If you DON’T think teachers are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of teaching sodomy to your children, then you get to explain why they are so massively funding the political campaign.

The second thing I keep hearing is, this is a human rights issue.  Well, no it isn’t.  Marriage is a privilege, not a right.  If marriage WERE a fundamental human right, then the government – which has the duty of guaranteeing human rights – would have to find me a marriage partner if I couldn’t find one myself.  After all, I have a right to be married! And if I have the right to marry who I choose, then I choose Teri Hatcher (whom I’ve always thought is real pretty).

Getting serious, if a person has a right to marry whoever he or she chooses, then how is a pedophile not having his right deprived if he wants to marry that little boy the schools got hold of and taught that it was okay to bend over and be sodomized?  What about the right of pedophiles to marry who they choose?  Isn’t age as subjective a criteria as gender?  The North American Man/Boy Love Association says they should have that right, and the same ACLU that supports gay marriage has supported NAMBLA.  NAMBLA has resolved to “end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships.”  The Man/Boy Love Association belonged to the International Lesbian and Gay Association until the latter achieved United Nations status and had to dissociate itself from NAMBLA.   But the UN-approved ILGA had itself resolved that “young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect.”  How do you allow homosexual marriage and ban man/boy marriage?  What about that weird woman who wants to marry her German Shepherd that keeps trying to hump peoples’ legs?  What about that religious cult that wants to marry off a whole bunch of young girls to some 50 year old dude? What about that swinging group of 15 men and women who want to marry one another and move next door to you?

Teachers unions and schools have sided firmly with teachers and against children when sexual abuse has been alleged.  Schools routinely protect pedophile teachers by transferring them to other school districts.  The head of the National Education Association presided over the annual Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network conference which sought to push homosexual activism to kindergarten classrooms.

How do you decide to redefine the “one man, one woman” view of marriage that’s been around since Adam and Eve and hold the line at homosexual couples?  Legalizing homosexual marriage is just the tip of the iceberg, and justifying it will provide justification for all the rest.

The fact of the matter is, declaring that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” doesn’t take away homosexual’s right to marriage: a homosexual man can marry any woman who would have him.  Same as me.  Homosexuals’ rights aren’t being “taken away”; rather, they do not wish to have normal sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, rather like the pedophiles who do not wish to have normal sexual relations with an adult of the opposite sex.  That’s hardly my fault.  So don’t force me to sanctify this “Adam and Steve” thing.

I now understand why teachers are so pathetic at actually teaching children how to learn: they are moral idiots.  They don’t understand fundamental human realities.  They are ideologues who don’t even know how to think themselves, and therefore cannot possibly teach children how to think for themselves.  Obviously this frank damnation of teachers doesn’t extend to every individual teacher; but the fact remains that there are enough ideologues in the field of teaching to instill radical union leadership.

Sadly,  I’m really not exaggerating: teachers are being trained as “agents of change” who “question the legitimacy of a flawed social order.”